INTRODUCTION:

 

The Special Counsel appointment, if viewed strictly from an operational perspective, offered multiple levels of strategic effectiveness that could and would be exploited:

• • It moved all Russia related investigations under the control of the Special Counsel.
  • If the FBI needed a place to hide the Carter Page FISA warrants, they got it.
  • If the FBI and DOJ needed a place to hide the Clinton/DNC paid for Steele Dossier, or get rid of any other Russian related activities, they got it.
  • If the Conspiracy Crew wanted to set up shop and continue the media leaks and confusion in the court of public opinion for the next two years, they got that too.

 

Let’s take a look at the Office of the Special Counsel that was formed to be the trusted, transparent, non-bias solution, and the remedy that the American people demanded. Their charge, find the evidence that the American people were repeatedly told existed by the media, politicians, and the highly respected previous Intelligence Directors, who all proclaimed, was there in plain sight. Even though the U.S. Intel agencies – before and after the election – couldn’t find the evidence, and The House and Senate Intel Committee investigations, couldn’t find any evidence either.

Mueller’s Special Counsel team will find it, it's in plain sight. Right?  Hmmm ...

Before we begin, I want to include just one finding from the 2019 Inspector General's report on the FBI's Russia Investigation and Electronic Surveillance FISA abuse, which should tie everything together.

"We found the FBl's failure, noted in the eighth listed item above, to advise 01 or the court of the inconsistencies between Steele and his Primary Sub-source to be among the most serious omissions of information. As described in Chapter Four, Steele himself was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting; Steele instead relied on his Primary Sub-source for information, who used his/her network of sub-sources to gather information that was then passed to Steele. As described in Chapters Six and Eight, during his/her January 2017 interview with the FBI, the Primary Sub-source made statements that were inconsistent with multiple sections of the Steele reports, including the allegations relied upon in the FISA applications. These inconsistencies should have resulted in serious discussions about the reliability of Steele's reporting-particularly to support a probable cause showing in a court filing-but did not."

 

Translated: That means the FBI had hard proof that the allegations supporting Russia Collusion in the 2016 election alleged in the Steele Dossier, which the FBI used as the basis to spy on the Trump campaign, were false, not corroborated, and the FBI knew it. This was before the President was inaugurated, and five months before Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate Russia Collusion. Knowing that fact makes everything else you are about to read make total sense.  

 

If you don't know all about the FBI's Fake Russia Investigation, illegal spying, and that there never was any evidence to support the collusion theory, ever, you can read all about it here on the Office of the Inspector General page.

Mueller’s "Special" Picked Team

THE MUELLER INVESTIGATORS:

Now, let’s look at some of the key players that joined the Special Counsel Investigation and Prosecution teams. What were their backgrounds and qualifications to be selected to join the only trusted, non-bias, transparent, Russia Collusion solution for the betterment, health, and well-being of the nation?

 

Some interesting alternative information:

• Robert Mueller – Special Counsel

Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein met with the President shortly after FBI Director James Comey was fired. According to statements made by the President, the vacant FBI Director position and details associated with Comey’s departure were discussed in that meeting. Less than two days later, Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller Special Counsel. Might there have been a conflict of interest since Mueller had prior knowledge of the circumstances around Comey’s firing that he and the President – the one under investigation – discussed before he was appointed Special Counsel?

Mueller flip-flopped multiple times on the repeated question about the OLC Opinion not to indict a sitting president. During his nine-minute televised public press conference, he declared – or should I say he read from a sheet of paper – “if not for the OLC Opinion the Office would have indicted the President,” which lit the media on fire. Thirty minutes later, however, the Office of the Special Counsel (his office) and the DOJ released a joint statement declaring that “it was not because of the OLC Opinion that they did not indict the President” with any crimes. The media failed to report the follow-up statement by the DOJ and the Special Counsel’s office, but instead ran the headline, “President not charged with crimes only because of the OLC Opinion.”

During Robert Mueller’s public congressional testimony, it appeared that Mueller was not an active investigator. When asked how many of the approximate 500 witness interviews had he attended, Mueller stated, “2 or 3.” When asked about certain specifics in the report, Mueller didn’t seem to have command of the report that bears his name, which the public waited 22 months to see. When asked about the “Opposition Research Firm” only being referenced twice in the entire 400+ page report, Mueller didn’t seem to know that the “Opposition Research Firm” was Fusion GPS.

The crafty congressman, Ted Lieu, teed up Mr. Mueller and questioned him about the OLC Opinion using leading questions, and got Mueller to say (repeat) that it was because of the OLC Opinion that they did not indict the President with a crime. The headline was back up on CNN and the other media outlets, “President not indicted only because of the OLC Opinion.”

Then, after lunch, in the second session of public congressional testimony, Mueller’s opening statement included a correction and declaration stating that the OLC Opinion was not a factor in deciding not to indict the President with any crimes. Additionally, during questioning, a congressman had Mueller restate his correction to the media.

One would think, if Mueller were an active member of the investigation and participant in the drafting of the report, he wouldn’t appear to be so confused about the OLC Opinion.

One member of the House Intel Committee asked Mueller if he wrote his nine-minute public press conference speech, he answered, “I’m not going to get into that.”  The Congressman replied, “That’s what I thought, you didn’t write it.”

Based on the evidence, it appears the FBI and DOJ used Mueller’s previous service to the country and upstanding reputation as the “Good House Keeping Seal of Public Approval.” They portrayed the image of “him” and his “reputation“ out there leading a transparent, non-bias investigation in search of the truth. Which it may have been, if it was him. That doesn’t seem to be the reality. Reverse phycology perpetrated against the American people again to make us think we were getting what we wanted, only for them to get what they needed.

 

• Peter Strzok – Lead FBI Special Agent

Lead FBI investigator in Clinton's Mishandling of Classified Information Email Investigation. The lead investigator in the initial Russia Probe Investigation during the 2016 election. Christopher Steele, Russian dossier primary contact at the FBI. Participated in the dossier media leak campaign. Involved in the Carter Page FISA warrant. FBI agent assigned to help write the ICA Intel Assessment. Strzok is now working for the Mueller team as lead FBI investigator. Winking at his secret bae, FBI Lawyer Lisa Page. We have learned a lot about FBI agent Peter Strzok, and there is more to come.

 

• Lisa Page – Lead FBI Lawyer

Lead FBI lawyer in Clinton's e-mail Mishandling of Classified Information Investigation. Leading FBI lawyer in the initial Russia Probe Investigation during the 2016 election. Participated in the dossier media leak campaign. Involved in the Carter Page FISA warrant. Page is now working for the Mueller team as lead FBI Lawyer. Flirting with her secret boo, FBI Agent Peter Strzok. We learned a lot about her Russian fur hat, and there is more to come.

 

• Andrew Weissmann – Lead Prosecutor

Andrew Weissmann was formerly a top Justice Department official under the previous President. Weissmann donated to the Clinton presidential campaign and also attended her election-night party in New York City.

During the 2016 election, Weissmann was briefed by Bruce Ohr on the Steele Dossier and Ohr’s communications with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson. In early 2017, Weissmann and his advisers helped play a role in advancing the Russian collusion narrative by personally sharing Steele's dossier with Washington reporters. Weissmann was involved in spreading the dossier’s Russian collusion confusion; he knows what is in it, where it came from, how it got into the FBI, and who paid for it. Weissmann is now the lead prosecutor for the Mueller Special Counsel.

Weismann praised Acting Attorney General Sally Yates at the DOJ for breaking her oath of office, by refusing to carry out the President’s immigration order. He emailed Yates on the day she publicly defied the president, saying, “I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.”

In April of 2017, Weissmann arranged a meeting in his office, in attendance were four Associated Press reporters who were investigating and reporting on Paul Manafort, according to internal FBI documents.

Weissmann moved from spreading the dossier to now prosecuting people with it.

 

• Jeannie Rhee – Special Counsel Attorney

Jeannie Rhee was at one time the personal attorney for Ben Rhodes, the previous administration’s Deputy National Security Advisor. Rhee also provided legal counsel to the Clinton Global Foundation and was a generous donor to the candidate’s presidential campaign.

 

• Aaron Zebley – Special Counsel Attorney

Aaron Zebley, in late 2015, represented one Justin Cooper, the IT staffer who first set up Clinton's likely illegal and unsecured email server at her home, and who purportedly smashed Clinton's various BlackBerries with a hammer in fear they would get subpoenaed.

 

• Andrew Goldstein – Special Counsel Prosecutor

Andrew Goldstein was a donor to the previous President. Goldstein was leading a team of prosecutors under Preet Bharara, then the United States attorney in Manhattan, who were investigating whether Mr. Bill de Blasio had committed a series of corruption crimes: bribery, pay-to-play and campaign fraud. The office made a highly unusual decision to release a public statement explaining why Mr. Bill de Blasio would not be charged, citing “the high burden of proof” and the “difficulty in proving criminal intent in corruption schemes where there is no evidence of personal profit.”  (Can someone take this bin full of shredded paper to the dumpster, please?)

 

• Rush Atkinson – Special Counsel Prosecutor

Rush Atkinson worked with Weismann as a trial attorney in the Criminal Fraud Section at the Justice Department. Records show, Atkinson donated money to the Clinton presidential campaign in 2016 and is a registered member of the Democrat Party.

 

• Greg Andres – Special Counsel Attorney

Greg Andres was a previous DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney. Records show he donated money to the Democrat National Committee and is a registered Democrat Party member. His wife, Ronnie Abrams, a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan, was nominated to the bench in 2011 by the previous President.

 

• Kyle Freeny – Special Counsel Prosecutor

Kyle Freeny was from the Money Laundering Section at the Department of Justice. Records show, Freeny donated money to the Clinton presidential campaign in 2016.

 

It had been reported that 12 of Mueller’s 14 prosecutors and investigators were registered members of the Democrat National Committee. Hence the many “12 angry Democrats” tweets and commentary from the President that we had to endure for 22 months.

Would any of these Special Counsel member’s backgrounds and previous histories raise any concerns?

Mueller’s Extra Special Counsel

THE SOURCE:

It is essential to understand the source before we can ultimately assume to understand the conclusion. Faith in our fellow man to always believe their motives are pure will lead to big disappointments. That assumption is partially the reason we got into this mess in the first place. Source and motivation are two necessary inputs in any calculation in the pursuit of the truth.

After the release of the Mueller Report, everyone should have a basic understanding that we all can agree was proven, no U.S. Person’s coordinated or conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 election. And that includes the President and his campaign crew too. Sounds great, case closed right? … Not exactly.

 

If no one colluded or coordinated, then what else was Mueller appointed to do concerning Russian interference in the 2016 election? What about the indictments against Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, and his business associates? They were all indicted for something, some convicted, and some went to jail. Were they conspiring with the Russians?

What about the things that we know Mueller omitted from the Report: Why are so many of the alleged campaign associate interactions, described merely as being with persons that have “connections to Russia.” What does that even mean? 

Joseph Mifsud was described simply as a person with “ties to Russia,” who met with George Papadopoulos. Well, we now know Mifsud had ties to British and Western intelligence, and also worked with the FBI in the past. Why is Alexander Downer, an Austrian Diplomat with known ties to Joseph Mifsud, labeled simply as a “representative of a foreign government?” Could it be, that if the Mueller Report stated that the two “foreign assets” had a previous known relationship and ties to Western Intelligence, that the meeting with Papadopoulos might have looked – just maybe – like the interactions were “coordinated?”

Why did Mueller not disclose that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the supposed Russian agent in the Trump Tower meeting, and Glenn Simpson, owner of Fusion GPS who funded Christopher Steele, knew each other, worked together in the past and met before and after the Tower meeting? Could it be, if Mueller disclosed that fact, while also using Veselnitskaya as Russian coordination evidence that it may have looked – just maybe – like Simpson could be a “Russian agent,” working with Veselnitskaya? And, why does Mueller describe Fusion GPS – Simpson's company – simply as an “Opposition Research Firm” and not disclose its actual name or that Simpson was being paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC? Could it have looked – just maybe – like if Simpson had “known ties to agent Veselnitskaya,” that his business could be a secret Russian front?

 

You see the point. You can’t take everything as it appears without first understanding from which it came. The conclusions may only be as good as the underlining source evidence. While it was good Mueller determined that no one conspired with the Russians, the fact that critical information was omitted from the report leaves certain conclusions slanted, with a one-sided view. How are we supposed to believe or assume that everything else in the report isn’t slanted with a biased view?

Mueller’s DOJ Statute - Find the Russians Right?

 

THE MUELLER PURPOSE:

Let’s break all of this down, so we can better understand the motivations and conclusions behind the upstanding, experienced, non-partisan, transparent, Special Counsel, and the Robert Mueller Report that bears his name. What was the actual statute that the DOJ appointed Mueller to carry out?

The central authorities given to the Special Counsel are highlighted if you want to skip the legalese.

 

The Mueller Statute states:

1. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION

“On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein-then serving as Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation following the recusal of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions on March 2, 2016-appointed the Special Counsel "to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters." Office of the Deputy Att' y Gen., Order No. 3915-2017, Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters, May 17, 2017) ("Appointment Order"). Relying on "the authority vested" in the Acting Attorney General, "including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515," the Acting Attorney General ordered the appointment of a Special Counsel "in order to discharge [the Acting Attorney General's] responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election." Appointment Order (introduction). "The Special Counsel," the Order stated, "is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017," including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of the opposition-candidate; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

 

Ok, that seems pretty straight forward, but one question. Did you catch the “and related matters” tacked onto the end of the first highlighted sentence? And what’s the deal with, “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and “any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).” supposed to mean? But overall, that makes sense, find those that interfered with the Russians.

 

Well, there’s more. Let’s dig a little deeper into the DOJ statue and find out. Again, the central authorities given to the Special Counsel are highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

It Says:

“Appointment Order (b). Section 600.4 affords the Special Counsel "the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel' s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses." 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). The authority to investigate "any matters that arose ... directly from the investigation," Appointment Order ,r (b)(ii), covers similar crimes that may have occurred during the course of the FBI's confirmed investigation before the Special Counsel's appointment. "If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate," the Order further provided, "the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters." Id. ,r (c). Finally, the Acting Attorney General made applicable "Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations." Id. ,r (d).”

 

Ok, wait. Wait. WAIT. What does, “The authority to investigate ‘any’ matters that arose ... directly from the investigation," and "the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters" supposed to mean?

So, “any matters that arose from the investigation,” that means, if during the investigation the Special Counsel finds anything unrelated to Russian Interference in the 2016 Election, that’s fair game too. Could that be abused by an aggressive, potentially “biased” investigation team – to go hunting – and unearth whatever they can and charge it as a crime? Even from five years ago? Yes, yes, it does. Ok, got it.

The second one says, “is authorized to prosecute the crimes arising from the investigation.” That means if the investigators find anything and declare it a crime, the Special Counsel prosecutors have the authority to prosecute it, as opposed to using any established federal agency prosecutors. For example, Federal Tax Prosecutors prosecuting Federal Tax Crimes.

So, in short, the Special Counsel has the right to issue a 5 a.m. raid on your home and business – under suspicion of Russian Collusion – and confiscate anything you have. Take it all back to the FBI and search through it. Find anything sketchy un-related to Russia, investigate it, find other crimes from different times, and prosecute you with them all at the same time. Even though you have never talked to Russians. Then, it is authorized to use the Special Counsel Prosecutors and the unlimited federal tax-payer dollars to prosecute you.

That seems fair. … That will definitely find the Russian agents and campaign associates that colluded and outsmarted every U.S. Intelligence agency. … And, the public needed the Special Counsel because no one else could be trusted to run a transparent, non-bias, investigation, to once and for all, resolve the burning questions that had besieged the country so we could move on in harmony.

 

But wait, there’s more! Just in case they couldn’t find what they want, and maybe already knew of some other “non-Russian crimes” to investigate and prosecute, they simply added them into the Russian Interference in the 2016 Election DOJ statute. Now, they don’t even have to go rooting around to find the “other crimes” unrelated to Russia.

Section two in the statute:

“It then confirmed that the Special Counsel had been authorized since his appointment to investigate allegations that three Trump campaign officials-Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and George Papadopoulos-"committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." The memorandum also confirmed the Special Counsel's authority to investigate certain other matters, including two additional sets of allegations involving Manafort (crimes arising from payments he received from the Ukrainian government and crimes arising from his receipt of loans”)

 

They are just making it quite clear; they want to investigate Manafort for the “certain other matters,” including two additional allegations involving payments from Ukraine and his receipt of loans. How does that factor into investigating allegations of colluding with the Russian government Mueller was appointed to do?

But wait, there’s even more!!

Section three in the statute:

“Second, with respect to Michael Cohen, the memorandum recognized the Special Counsel's authority to investigate” leads relate[d] to Cohen's establishment and use of Essential Consultants LLC to, inter alia, receive funds from Russian-backed entities. “Third, the memorandum memorialized the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate individuals and entities who were possibly engaged in "jointly undertaken activity" with existing subjects of the investigation, including Paul Manafort. Finally, the memorandum described an FBI investigation opened before the Special Counsel's appointment into "allegations that [then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions] made false statements to the United States Senate[,]" and confirmed the Special Counsel's authority to investigate that matter.”

 

So, in the course of investigating the clearly defined Manafort “non-Russian matters,” using the Special Counsel, it states, if they find anyone else involved in such “matters,” they have the authority to prosecute them too. Even if they were not a member of the campaign crew and didn’t collude, you think they already know “who and what” they want to investigate?

Michael Cohen and Jeff Sessions are now targets in the investigation too. What did they have to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election? Sessions recused himself from everything, and Cohen, what’s he in there for? He was the personal attorney to the President. Huh. … I wonder why they want to go after the personal attorney to the President and the establishment of his Essential Consultants LLC. Interesting…

That sounds like a totally legit statute for a trusted, transparent, non-bias, search for the truth, needed to quell a nation in turmoil. Or, could it be, they already knew who they wanted to go after and were using the Special Counsel’s Russia Investigation as a tool to create more turmoil? They wouldn’t do that, would they?

 

Now. Compare that to the FBI’s electronic search warrant agreements made between Clinton's lawyers burning the email investigation, which heavily restricted the FBI’s ability to search for electronic evidence. Along with the immunity deals that the FBI gave every person under Clinton. Fair or double-standard?

 

Before you say it, no, the TLD is not defending anyone that got caught up in this mess. If they did shady things, then they should be prosecuted. However, what we are presenting, is the methods and motivations in the Mueller DOJ statute as anything but a non-bias and transparent search for the truth of Russian contacts with campaign associates that influenced the election.

It appears like a legal switch-blade that they slipped into the statute, masked by the hysteria of Putin’s White House invasion. The motive of the Special Counsel to target and potentially violate someone’s civil rights “to go after them” in this way, can be questioned.

Did you know the Special Counsel was given those authorities? Do they seem fair to you? Or, did you assume they were just looking for the Russians?

No one questioned the legal authorities when the Special Counsel started indicting people with multiple crimes, from different times, all at the same time, which had nothing to do with Russia collusion. They just wanted to see people close to the President indicted. It’s easy to hate what you already hate, isn’t it?

 

Mueller’s DOJ Statute - Compared to Real Life

 

THE MUELLER SWITCHBLADE:

Let’s change the context and add a bit of color to the Mueller statute, which seems to have been entirely overlooked by the American people during the quest to find the non-bias “truth” and punish the Kremlin sleeper-cell wrong-doers that stole the election.

Maybe this will help:

You’re driving down the road, heading home from work, with the windows down, jamming to some tunes, minding your own business. Then, out of nowhere, you hear a loud screech. You grip tight the steering wheel, hold your breath, and within a matter of seconds, you are sideswiped by a car crossing through the intersection from the opposite direction.

Everyone is okay, but there’s a lot of property damage with multiple cars involved. The driver of the other car claims you hit him; you say no, he hit me. The police can’t determine who is actually at fault, so they launch an investigation to figure out who is responsible for the damages.

During the investigation, they pull up the intersection camera, review DMV records, and also review driver traffic violations for everyone involved. While reviewing all of the data, they discover that you have a moving violation from a year ago that resulted in a warning.

So they continue to investigate. While reviewing the intersection camera database to figure out who-hit-who, they decide to pull up the intersection camera associated with the moving violation “warning” on your record. They believe the violation was more severe than reported, and feel that warning should have resulted in a conviction of fault.

Digging even further, they decide to run your license plate number through the intersection camera database for every intersection in your town that you may have crossed, going back five years. The results found several Red Light violations, many Yellow Light in the intersection, which could possibly be a Red Light violation, and a ton of, No Turn on Red violations.

The investigation into the property damage is complete. Good news! They determined that based on the evidence, you are not responsible for any of the costs. Great.

However, the investigators continue and say that during the property damage investigation, they discovered that you have Red Light violations and posted, No Turn on Red violations, going back the past five years. And, they charge you with all of those violations, at the same time.

You get convicted of running 7 Red Lights, and 11 failing to obey a posted, No Turn on Red sign, all on the same day. You get fined $3000, the judge orders you to driving school, suspends your license for five days, and you get 10 points added to your driving record – which causes your car insurance rates to double. All because it just so happened to be you driving through that intersection and got hit by someone else. Yeah. … That seems fair right?

 

So honestly, is that fair? Might there potentially be a case that the five-year intersection camera database search was illegal and outside the bounds of the original investigation? Possibly a violation of your due process and civil rights of unauthorized search and seizure and prosecution overreach?

The answer is IT IS a violation of your civil rights and due process. That is why the DOJ explicitly stated that the Special Counsel was given the authority to investigate and prosecute “anything” and “everything” that arose beyond any Russian meddling. Without those authorities added, there would have been no case, no indictments, no media spectacles, no anything. You think maybe they knew there was no Russia collusion going on, and that’s the reason why they added the “and anything” clause?

The “anything and everything clause” was applied to everyone that the Special Counsel went after, Russian coordination or not. Of course, how many Americans even cared that those authorities were included in the Special Counsel statute anyway. It’s easy to accept things against something you hate.

We wanted it, we needed it, and we got what we asked for, The Special Counsel was the only way to a transparent, non-bias, fair, solution for Russian collusion.

 

Again, the TLD is not defending anyone’s bad past or present behavior, just examining the circumstances and the logic around our civil rights and due process, guaranteed to everyone. No one was charged with anything connected to Russian interference or coordination. Mueller was appointed to investigate and find the campaign collusion. He investigated and reported back that no U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the Russians. So technically, should anybody have been indicted for anything using the Special Counsel?

This doesn’t happen in regular courts. You don’t see people in court being charged with five completely different crimes, from different times, outside the original charge that they were investigating. It would never be allowed; it’s a breach of civil rights and due process.

Although, when campaign associates were getting charged with different crimes, from different times, all at the same time, it sure made for some good headlines … of colluding with Russians!?...? 

The United States citizen’s civil liberties and due process affects every one of us – no matter political persuasion. Bending the law against someone you don’t like is not OK, because it will eventually bend the other way. The law is supposed to be applied equally, and lady justice is supposed to be blind.

The Special Counsel's Real Purpose - It Wasn't About Russia

 

THE 2018 MIDTERM ELECTION:

Robert Mueller and the Special Counsel closed out the Russian Interference with Campaign Associates to Influence the 2016 Election investigation. The efforts extended to just under two years, through the 2018 midterm elections, and then ended shortly after. Mueller’s twenty-two-month investigation, along with the previous House and Senate Investigations in early 2017, all came to the same conclusion, and no one was ever indicted with any Russian Collusion.

Even though the media and all of its “sources” and “special guests,” Congresspeople and congressional committee leaders, and previous Intelligence Directors, who all repeatedly told the American people that the evidence was there, in plain sight, and that indictments were coming against the President. Filling the hearts and minds of American citizens with unrest, just to keep the conspiracy alive and further divide the country. Was it at least finally over so we could come back together?

 

Let’s take a moment, step back, and look at the big picture that has been painted—with hindsight being 20-20, reinforced by the fact that we know the outcome of the Mueller Report. We know the findings in the Inspector General's Report show that the FBI had no evidence of collusion in January of 2017. We know the FBI had hard proof that the primary source of the Steele Dossier could not be corroborated. So, does the actual evidence supporting the allegations, compared to the public response to the collusion accusations that were breathlessly reported in the media, feeding the public with false claims, confusion, and anger, logically line up?

The data can be considered non-existent by anyone capable of putting their feelings aside. Even with the, it’s easy to hate what you already hate rational justification.

The logical evidence appears to support that the Russian Collusion hysteria was manufactured entirely, a hoax, perpetrated to “interfere” with an election, the opposite of how it was portrayed. The crazy part is, it was done without any facts, ZERO, NONE. Fabrications delivered with just enough manufactured credibility, exclusively presented to the only court that matters, the court of public opinion.

 

The TLD contends, the Mueller investigation was not about finding the truth but was actually designed to continue the cloud of “Russian Collusion” suspicions over the President. It protected prying eyes from finding the abuse of power and actual corruption perpetrated. It also gave license to destroy people’s lives with unrelated charges, under espouse of finding and convicting those that committed coordination. And, it also provided a way to continue influencing people’s minds and opinions with distractions for an additional two more years, casting doubt on the President and the administration, all the way up to the 2018 midterm elections.

So, are you suggesting, Mueller’s Special Counsel was used to continue the Russian Collusion cloud to directly influence people’s votes (again) in the 2018 election? That is exactly what the TLD is suggesting. The 2018 midterm election was the second chance. The Mueller investigation was a political weapon, not a righteous, non-bias, transparent, search for the truth, for the American people. Look at the members of the team. Look at the authorities added to their DOJ statute. Look at the findings in the OIG report. And once again, they relied on the distractions and the court of public opinion, so the American people would not even realize it.

 

One of the many blades inside the Special Counsel’s weapon was designed to flip the House and Senate to Democrat control. Then, bury the president in false and political influencing public investigations. Just like Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff in the House, are still trying to do to this day. Imagine if the same thing was going on in the Senate. With both Chambers, the plan was to continue the public influence campaign and clear the way to formal impeachment and removal of the President.

Remember, articles of impeachment were filed against the President just three weeks into the administration, with ZERO evidence, NONE, only accusations. Those efforts are still active to this day.

The Special Counsel delivered effective political punishment, because a vast majority of Americans still questioned, or had just enough doubt to keep the collusion cloud over the Administration for more than two years – and it is still going on to this day. Some American citizens still believe the President colluded with the Russians to steal the election, and they will remain convinced forever, regardless of any evidence exposing that it was all a farce.

The hoax was on the American people, and all of us as citizens absorbed the fallout and became the ultimate victims. No, they do not want the Nation to come back together; the plan is to keep it this way because this is how they control so many people.

 

But, there is still one unanswered question that Mueller never addressed. Where did it all begin?

TLD Privacy Policy

Welcome to https://technologylogicdivision.com (the "Site"). We understand that privacy online is important to users of our Site, especially when conducting business. This statement governs our privacy policies with respect to those users of the Site ("Visitors") who visit without creating an account, posting, commenting or transacting business,  and Visitors who register to post, comment, and transact business on the Site and make use of the various services offered by Technology Logic Division (collectively, "Services") ("Authorized Users").

"Personally Identifiable Information"

Refers to any information that identifies or can be used to identify, contact, or locate the person to whom such information pertains, including, but not limited to, name, address, phone number, fax number, email address, financial profiles, social security number, and credit card information. Personally Identifiable Information does not include information that is collected anonymously (that is, without identification of the individual user) or demographic information not connected to an identified individual.

What Personally Identifiable Information is collected?

We may collect basic user profile information from all of our Visitors. We collect the following additional information from our Authorized Users: the names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of Authorized Users, for the purpose of creating and identifying unique user login profiles used to interact withing the Site.

What organizations are collecting the information?

In addition to our direct collection of information, the Site is not affiliated with any third party service vendors (such as credit card companies, clearinghouses and banks) who may provide such services as credit, insurance, and escrow services. We do not control how these third parties use such information. Some of these third parties may be intermediaries that act solely as links in the distribution chain, and do not store, retain, or use any information given to them.

How does the Site use Personally Identifiable Information?

We use Personally Identifiable Information to customize the Site, to make appropriate interaction service offerings, and to fulfill requests on the Site. We may email Visitors and Authorized Users about research or updates on the Site or information related to the subject matter of the Site. We may also use Personally Identifiable Information to contact Visitors and Authorized Users in response to specific inquiries, or to provide requested information.

With whom may the information may be shared?

Personally Identifiable Information about Authorized Users may be shared with other Authorized Users who wish to interact with other Authorized Users. We do not share aggregated information about our Visitors, including the demographics of our Visitors and Authorized Users, with any affiliated agencies or third party vendors. We also offer the opportunity to "opt out" of receiving information or being contacted by us.

How is Personally Identifiable Information stored?

Personally Identifiable Information collected by Technology Logic Division is securely stored and is not accessible to third parties or employees of Technology Logic Division except for use as indicated above.

What choices are available to Visitors regarding collection, use and distribution of the information?

Visitors and Authorized Users may opt out of receiving unsolicited information from or being contacted by us by responding to emails as instructed, or by contacting us at [email protected].

Cookies

A cookie is a string of information that a website stores on a visitor’s computer, and that the visitor’s browser provides to the website each time the visitor returns.

Are Cookies Used on the Site?

Cookies are used for a variety of reasons. We use Site only Cookies to obtain information about the preferences of our Visitors and the services they select. We also use Cookies for security purposes to protect our Authorized Users. For example, if an Authorized User is logged on and the site is unused for more than 10 minutes, we will automatically log the Authorized Customer off. Visitors who do not wish to have cookies placed on their computers should set their browsers to refuse cookies before using https://technologylogicdivision.com, with the drawback that certain features of website may not function properly without the aid of cookies.

Cookies used by our service providers

Our service providers use cookies and those cookies may be stored on your computer when you visit our website. You can find more details about which cookies are used in our cookies info page.

How does Technology Logic Division use login information?

Technology Logic Division uses login information, including, but not limited to, IP addresses, ISPs, and browser types, to analyze trends, administer the Site, track a user's movement and use, and gather broad demographic information.

What partners or service providers have access to Personally Identifiable Information from Visitors and/or Authorized Customers on the Site?

Technology Logic Division has not entered into any partnerships, affiliations or vendors. Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information to comply with the law. We will disclose Personally Identifiable Information in order to comply with a court order or subpoena or a request from a law enforcement agency to release information. We will also disclose Personally Identifiable Information when reasonably necessary to protect the safety of our Visitors and Authorized Users.

How does the Site keep Personally Identifiable Information secure?

All of our employees are familiar with our security policy and practices. The Personally Identifiable Information of our Visitors and Authorized Users is only accessible to a limited number of qualified employees who are given a password in order to gain access to the information. We audit our security systems and processes on a regular basis. While we take commercially reasonable measures to maintain a secure site, electronic communications and databases are subject to errors, tampering, and break-ins, and we cannot guarantee or warrant that such events will not take place and we will not be liable to Visitors or Authorized Users any such occurrences.

How can Visitors correct any inaccuracies in Personally Identifiable Information?

Visitors and Authorized Customers may contact us to update Personally Identifiable Information about them or to correct any inaccuracies by emailing us at [email protected]

Can a Visitor delete or deactivate Personally Identifiable Information collected by the Site?

We provide Visitors and Authorized Users with a mechanism to delete/deactivate Personally Identifiable Information from the Site's database by contacting. However, because of backups and records of deletions, it may be impossible to delete a Visitor's entry without retaining some residual information. An individual who requests to have Personally Identifiable Information deactivated will have this information functionally deleted, and we will not sell, transfer, or use Personally Identifiable Information relating to that individual in any way moving forward.

Your rights

These are summarized rights that you have under data protection law

• The right to access
• The right to rectification
• The right to erasure
• The right to restrict processing
• The right to object to processing
• The right to data portability
• The right to complain to a supervisory authority
• The right to withdraw consent

What happens if the Privacy Policy Changes?

We will let our Visitors and Authorized Users know about changes to our privacy policy by posting such changes on the Site. However, if we are changing our privacy policy in a manner that might cause disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information that a Visitor or Authorized User has previously requested not be disclosed, we will contact such Visitor or Authorized User to allow such Visitor or Authorized User to prevent such disclosure.

Links:

https://technologylogicdivision.com contains links to other websites. Please note that when you click on one of these links, you are moving to another website. We encourage you to read the privacy statements of these linked sites as their privacy policies may differ from ours.

Have a comment or a question? Drop us a line.