Last Friday afternoon, the Justice Department announced the indictment of 13 Russian people and 3 Russian companies. Why Friday afternoon? Usually, later Friday releases are document dumps.
Why indict 13 Russian people and 3 Russian companies. Russia will never extradite their citizens.. There will never be a trial. And no trial means evidence will notbe seen by the American people.
Speaking of evidence, remember the very first unclassified document released by Dennis Clapper, John Brennan and James Comey. There was not one shred of evidence in that report; it contained assessments and opinions.
So why indict the Russians? It keeps the collusion story alive for the irresponsible mainstream media, the purveyors of fake news. Only the mainstream media would believe that 13 Russians were capable of throwing the election. The fact that Mueller never intended to try the Russians, because he knew they were not extraditable, is at the center of the “keep the collusion story alive at whatever cost.”
Plain and simple, there is no evidence supporting the claim of Russian meddling in our election. This Russian story is still a hoax. Yet the Democrats and John Brennan, Dennis Clapper, Jim Comey and, now, Bob Mueller continue to promote this ruse.
Or, possibly, the Russian indictments were meant to cover up another breaking story: Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe altered the investigative notes that Agent Peter Strzok recorded when he questioned General Michael Flynn. Then McCabe destroyed all evidence of the revision.
Remember when FBI Director James Comey stated Flynn did not lie to FBI investigators while under oath. Then, months later, Mueller indicted Flynn for lying in that original interview. What changed during the interim? McCabe’s alteration of Flynn testimony.
So now the questions become: Why isn’t Mueller investigating Andrew McCabe? Why isn’t Mueller investigating Hillary Clinton since everyone knows she violated the law. Why isn’t Mueller investigating James Comey for releasing classified information to the public?
The Washinton Times headline (1/31/2018) asked, “Why was Judge recused from Mueller/Flynn case?” What strange language. Judges usually recuse themselves from a case. The Washington Times article makes it sound like someone in power removed Judge Rudolph Contreras for cause. The statement from the US District Court was succinct:
“The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokesman said on Thursday.”
Joe DiGenova, former US Attorney for the District of Columbia, claimed that Judge Contreras was removed for cause: “I learned over the weekend that he (Contreras) did not recuse himself. He was removed from the case. Now the question for any good reporter at the Washington Post – the alternative universe in DC – is ‘why was Judge Contreras removed from the case by either the Chief Judge or the DC Circuit?’ Have you seen a story written about that? Isn’t interesting how people in the press are not interested why the one judge who has taken a guilty plea in this case was removed from the case?”
Was Judge Contreras the judge who approved the FISA warrant based on the phony Christopher Steele dossier? Apparently, the answer is yes. Then, why isn’t Mueller investigating Judge Rudolph Contreras?
One final comment about the indictments of the 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies: There is not one allegation of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign or administration. Oops!