I don’t know what it is about the federal government and their blatant disregard for the law when it comes to exculpatory evidence, or even acknowledging it, but it seems the feds rely heavily on withholding certain evidence that exonerates their targets. The latest details of such corruption allegedly comes from a 9-page report in which he charges Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, by failing to include that Cohen had no direct contacts at the Kremlin in Russia and thereby then-candidate Trump didn’t have a “backchannel” to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations writes:
Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.
Why does Sperry say this?
On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.
Additionally, in another part of the document, charging Cohen, there is also a letter written by Cohen to the Senate intelligence committee that stated clearly that Donald Trump “was never in contact with anyone about this [Moscow Project] proposal other than me.”
What’s ironic about that statement is that Mueller is not charging Cohen with lying there. He’s charging him with lying about a time frame.
However, it goes further than that. Mueller also didn’t question Cohen’s claim that he “ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to make a trip to Russia.”
At least one investigator picked up on this.
“Though Cohen may have lied to Congress about the dates,” one Hill investigator said, “it’s clear from personal messages he sent in 2015 and 2016 that the Trump Organization did not have formal lines of communication set up with Putin’s office or the Kremlin during the campaign. There was no secret ‘back channel.’”
“So as far as collusion goes,” the source added, “the project is actually more exculpatory than incriminating for Trump and his campaign.”
Going further, Tyler Durden reminds us of the Trump Tower Moscow meeting. He writes:
The Trump Tower Moscow meeting – spearheaded by New York real estate developer and longtime FBI and CIA asset, Felix Sater, bears a passing resemblance to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between members of the Trump campaign and a Russian attorney (who hated Trump), and which was set up by a British concert promotor tied to Fusion GPS – the firm Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid to write the salacious and unverified “Trump-Russia Dossier.”
In both the Trump Tower meeting and the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations, it is clear that nobody in the Trump campaign had any sort of special access to the Kremlin, while Cohen’s emails and text messages reveal that he failed to establish contact with Putin’s spokesman. He did, however, reach a desk secretary in the spokesman’s office.
What’s more, it was Sater – a Russian immigrant with a dubious past who was representing the Bayrock Group (and not the Trump Organization), who cooked up the Moscow Trump Tower project in 2015 – suggesting that Trump would license his name to the project and share in the profits, but not actually commit capital or build the project.
Durden went on to point out how the project bombed because, in his words, Sater “had a third-hand connection to Putin which never panned out.”
Sources say Sater, whom Cohen described as a “salesman,” testified to the House intelligence panel in late 2017 thathis communications with Cohen about putting Trump and Putin on a stage for a “ribbon-cutting” for a Trump Tower in Moscow were “mere puffery” to try to promote the project and get it off the ground.
Also according to his still-undisclosed testimony, Sater swore none of those communications involved taking any action to influence the 2016 presidential election. None of the emails and texts between Sater and Cohen mention Russian plans or efforts to hack Democrats’ campaign emails or influence the election.
Clearly, this was a legitimate business dealing that simply failed, but Mueller is attempting to present it as “Russian collusion” without a shred of evidence and without any serious charges of such collusion. The mainstream media and Democrats are jumping on board and pointing fingers at it too, but they are pointing to thin air.
While people like Adam Schiff, who is probably one of the most dangerous lying politicians in DC and incoming Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, claims that Trump was in direct communication with Putin for these business dealings, there isn’t a shred of evidence of his claim. He is merely engaging in open slander of the president.
Sperry shoots Schiff down though as he claims, “former federal prosecutors said Mueller’s filing does not remotely incriminate the president in purported Russia collusion. It doesn’t even imply he directed Cohen to lie to Congress.”
“It doesn’t implicate President Trump in any way,” said former independent counsel Solomon L. Wisenberg. “The reality is, this is a nothing-burger.”
However, when it comes to those who truly colluded with the Russians and had those direct channels to the Kremlin, namely Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, Hillary Clinton and Robert Mueller, there is strange silence on their treason against the united States with regard to Uranium One and Clinton’s order to Mueller to deliver uranium to the Russians in a secret tarmac meeting in 2009.
Nope, not going to hear a peep from Dems or the media about that, are we? Where there is no crime they point and shout, but where the crime actually exists, they literally put up a wall around it. Anyone see the irony in that metaphor?
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty MediaDon't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.