The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by mbk734, Aug 21, 2018.

  1. mbk734

    mbk734 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    437
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett reveals the real story behind Hillary Clinton’s deep state collaborators in government and exposes their nefarious actions during and after the 2016 election.

    The Russia Hoax reveals how persons within the FBI and Barack Obama’s Justice Department worked improperly to help elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

    When this suspected effort failed, those same people appear to have pursued a contrived investigation of President Trump in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.

    The evidence suggests that partisans within the FBI and the Department of Justice, driven by personal animus and a misplaced sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously acted to subvert electoral democracy in our country.

    The book will examine:

    • How did Hillary Clinton manage to escape prosecution despite compelling evidence she violated the law?
    • Did Peter Strzok, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, and others obstruct justice by protecting Clinton?
    • Why was there never a legitimate criminal investigation of Clinton in the Uranium One case?
    • Are the text messages exchanged between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page evidence of a concerted effort to undermine the electoral process?
    • Was there ever any real evidence of "collusion" between Trump and the Russians?
    • Did Trump obstruct justice in the firing of Comey or was he legally exercising his constitutional authority?
    • Did the FBI and DOJ improperly use a discredited "dossier" about Trump to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump associates?
    • Should Muller have disqualified himself under the special counsel law based on glaring conflicts of interest?
    • Was fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn unfairly charged with making a false statement?

    Very interesting book on Amazon rated 5 stars #10 book of the week:
    https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton-ebook/dp/B079RCNM99

    Left wingers are of course in denial
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  2. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because trump's justice department couldn't find any?
    No

    There was. Uranium One was yet another bogus conspiracy theory with substance. And Trump's justice department knows it.
    No, considering no corroborating evidence has been found.
    Yes, quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, certainly enough to warrant a counter intell investigation.
    Yes, considering he admitted it on national television.
    Yes they used the steele memos, in a FISA warrant renewal, said dossier clearly noted as a result of paid partisan opint.
    Nope.
    You mean the charge he plead guilty to?



    Classic projection. the noose is getting tighter.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Golem likes this.
  3. AZ.

    AZ. Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    2,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only one thing comes to mind....................BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!...lol

    Talk about the blind leading the ****ing blind!....freaken priceless!
     
  4. Soggy in NOLA

    Soggy in NOLA Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2018
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yes, any day now, any day now.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know... I read this post with an open mind. I'm not a particularly "big" Clinton fan, and would not be too surprised if it turned out that there were some basis to any of this. I found there were questions here that might have been interesting. At least so we could understand the right-wing position on all of this, even if we disagreed. IF the questions were addressed objectively. But this question completely exposes the propaganda. It has been established that Hillary played absolutely no role in in the Uranium One case. So any hopes that these matters would be addressed objectively are all for naught.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018

Share This Page