Lawsuit Claims Mueller Blocked Probes Into Saudi Arabia’s Complicity in 9/11 Attacks


Mueller is crook! He committed crimes gotten away with due to his FBI affiliation and I’m certain the Dems knew this when Mueller set him as the figure head of the Trump Witch Hunt! Prosecute him!

JRH 9/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

MyLegalHelpUSA

Lawsuit Claims Mueller Blocked Probes Into Saudi Arabia’s Complicity in 9/11 Attacks

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Robert Mueller (shown) was hailed by the mainstream media for his lengthy investigation into allegations that Russia had interfered in the United States’ electoral process. But when Mueller, as FBI director, had the opportunity to investigate Saudi Arabia’s multiple connections to the 9/11 attacks, he impeded his own agents’ investigations, covered up evidence, and even helped Saudi suspects leave the country, reported the New York Post’s Paul Sperry.

Mueller “was the master when it came to covering up the kingdom’s role in 9/11,” Sharon Premoli, who was rescued from the rubble of the World Trade Center in 2001, told Sperry.

“In October of 2001, Mueller shut down the government’s investigation after only three weeks, and then took part in the Bush [administration’s] campaign to block, obfuscate and generally stop anything about Saudi Arabia from being released,” Premoli maintained.

A…

View original post 575 more words

My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done


John R. Houk

© July 25, 2019

 

I watched Mueller’s entire testimony before two House Committees Chaired by reprehensible Dems. The Dems pushed an Obstruction of Justice theme committed by President Trump with Mueller – often cryptically – agreeing Dem assertions. BUT as much as President Trump wanted to interfere in Mueller’s witch hunt, the relevant Aids involved essentially did their jobs in protecting the President from bad judgment calls but not doing the errors. Which means as much as the President wanted to meddle in Mueller’s investigation NOTHING obstructive HAPPENED relating to Trump’s righteous indignation of being falsely accused of working with Russians to win the 2016 Election.

 

The Dems persisted though. As far as the Dems on the Committees were concerned, thinking about interfering when you know you are innocent is an obstruction crime. Going after the President for thought crimes smacks of Orwell/Huxley inventing crimes to fulfill the agenda of an all-powerful State. A Big Brother scenario updated to today’s DEEP STATE.

 

The Republicans on both Committees kept asking questions essentially pointing to Russian interference BUT with the Dems and Crooked Hillary paying a foreigner getting disinformation from Russia as if it were facts. In ALL cases Mueller’s answer was not his purview or not getting into that. Hmm… The Mueller Mandate from Rod Rosenstein ORDER NO. 3915-2017 dated 5/17/17:

 

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE

2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

 

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.

  • § 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my 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, I hereby order as follows:

 

  • Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

 

  • The Special Counsel 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:

 

  1. any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

 

  1. 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).

 

  • If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

 

  • Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

 

Once Mueller determined that President Trump did not conspire with Russians to win the 2016 election, Mueller should have moved on to (b) ii. Which states “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.

 

It is evident Mueller chose to pursue any crime by people who has any association with Donald Trump before the President’s election even if the crime had NOTHING TO DO with Russian interference in the 2016 Election. If Mueller was actually investigating Russian interference HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED into the Dem Campaign managed by Crooked Hillary Clinton paying money to a foreign agent in Christopher Steele acquiring Russian disinformation for the purpose of insuring Crooked Hillary’s election as President.

 

Instead Mueller utilized false Russian information to remove a duly elected President Donald J. Trump from Office. NOW THAT HAS TO BE A CRIME of conspiracy committed by Robert Mueller and his team of Clinton Donors/Supporters angry Democrat prosecutors.

 

Now below are some observations from Conservative sources (Dems are unreliable) on the Robert Mueller House testimony. All of the GOP Committee members did a great job demonstrating Mueller bias and witch hunt agenda, but I begin with Rep. Jim Jordan pointing out the obvious. Then I follow the Jordan/Mueller interchange with a quite humorous The United West parody of the same interchange.

 

Then after the video fun, read further criticism of Mueller’s from Fred Lucas and Ann Coulter.

 

JRH 7/25/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

VIDEO: WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony

 

Posted by PBS NewsHour

Published on Jul 24, 2019

 

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his July 24 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about how the investigation began. Mueller said in his opening statement that he could not address those questions. Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign, agreed to appear before Congress, but warned he would not go beyond what was already documented in his final report.

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++

VIDEO: TUW Exclusive: Robert Mueller Testimony with Congressman Jim Jordan

 

Posted by theunitedwest

Published on Jul 24, 2019

 

Humorous post please!

 

Could this be the real Judiciary Committee testimony???? Sure looks like this was pretty darn close to what actually happened!

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++++

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

 

By Fred Lucas

July 24, 2019

The Daily Signal

 

Mueller Testifying to House Committee 7/24/19

 

Former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia before two House committees.

 

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

 

He was referring to his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored report released in May to the public.

 

But many of Mueller’s responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”

 

He also asked constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.

 

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.

 

Democrats on the intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping Trump.

 

But neither of these points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.

 

Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”

 

“True,” Mueller said.

 

Trump repeatedly has called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow “a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.

 

Here are eight key takeaways from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.

 

  1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ on Exoneration

 

With regard to obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”

 

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI  director, when the Department of Justice ever had had the role of “exonerating” an individual.

 

“Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”

 

Mueller appeared not to be clear about the question.

 

“Let me make it easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”

 

Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

 

Ratcliffe followed up by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until proven guilty.

 

“You can’t find it because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:

 

The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.

 

It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.

 

Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

 

“Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.

 

“You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached,” Ratcliffe said, referring to the second volume of the Mueller report, devoted to evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pushed the point in his opening question after Mueller was sworn in, saying the report specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

 

“Did you actually ‘totally exonerate’ the president?” Nadler asked at the beginning of the hearing, quoting Trump.

 

“No,” Mueller responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”

 

Regarding obstruction, ranking Judiciary member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked: “At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”

 

Mueller responded: “No.”

 

Later, to drive the point of a lack of obstruction further, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked: “Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?”

 

Mueller began by saying, “Not that I … ” then answered more directly: “No.”

 

Later that afternoon during the intelligence committee hearing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked about exoneration.

 

Mueller initially said, “I’m going to pass on that.”

 

When pressed on the question, Mueller said, “Because it embroils us in a legal discussion and I’m not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.”

 

Turner noted that the headline from Mueller’s morning testimony was that he did not exonerate Trump.

 

“You have no more power to declare Trump exonerated than you do to declare him Anderson Cooper,” Turner said, referring to the CNN personality.

 

  1. Indicting a President

 

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, asserted: “Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the law.”

 

Other Democrats said much the same during the day.

 

At first, during the morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee,  it appeared that Mueller was contradicting Attorney General William Barr.

 

That impression was left hanging for well over an hour before he clarified the issue at the outset of the Intelligence hearing.

 

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued two legal opinions, most recently in 2000, stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The second one reaffirmed a 1973 opinion at the height of the Watergate scandal.

 

Barr has stated on multiple occasions that those official opinions were not the sole reason that Mueller decided against seeking a grand jury indictment of Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein later decided the evidence was insufficient to make a case.

 

During the Judiciary hearing, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”

 

Mueller: “Yes.”

 

Buck: “You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”

 

Mueller: “Yes.”

 

Later in the hearing, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., followed up, citing the Office of Legal Counsel opinions to determine whether Trump’s being president is the only reason he wasn’t indicted.

 

“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [an] OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?”

 

Mueller: “That is correct.”

 

It wasn’t clear whether Mueller was talking about indicting Trump, or speaking about legal theory behind indicting any president under existing Justice Department policy.

 

Mueller tried to clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing, referring to what he had told Lieu.

“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

 

  1. ‘Collusion’ and ‘Conspiracy’

 

The first part of the Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

“Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is,” Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said. “In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?”

 

Mueller’s initial answer was “No.”

 

Collins then referred to page 180 in Volume 1 of the Mueller report, which states the two words are “largely synonymous.”

 

“Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?” Collins asked.

 

“Not when I read it,” Mueller responded.

 

“So, you would change your answer to yes, then?” Collins asked.

 

“No,” Mueller said, seeming somewhat unclear.

 

“I’m reading your report, sir,” Collins said. “It is a yes or no answer. Page 180, Volume 1. This is from your report.”

 

Mueller: “Correct. And I leave it with the report.”

 

During the Intelligence hearing in the afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked about evidence of collusion with Russia.

 

Mueller, criticized on social media and by cable news pundits for seeming a little off his game, had some trouble answering.

 

“We don’t use the word collusion. We use one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used,” he said haltingly.

 

Welch jumped in: “The term is conspiracy?”

 

Mueller: “That’s exactly right.”

 

“You help me, I’ll help you,” Welch said, prompting laughter in the chamber.

 

  1. Allusions to Impeachment 

 

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, made what seemed like a vague reference to impeachment during his opening remarks.

 

“We will follow your example, Director Mueller,” Nadler said. “We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

 

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who noted he was also a member of the Judiciary Committee during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, asked why Mueller didn’t specify in his report whether there was impeachable conduct–as then-independent counsel Ken Starr had in his report.

 

“We have studiously kept in the center of the investigation our mandate, and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct,” Mueller said. “Our mandate goes to developing the report and turning the report in to the attorney general.”

 

Mueller, given many openings by Democrats, refused to state that impeachment was what the report means in referring to other venues to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said Congress must do it’s duty to ensure Trump isn’t above the law. Other Democrats made similar vague comments, but most did not outright call for impeachment.

 

Later, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., asked, “Mr. Chairman, was the point of this hearing to get Mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment?”

 

Nadler responded: “That is not a fair point of inquiry.

 

  1. On When He Put Conspiracy to Rest 

 

Mueller asserted early on that he would not talk about the origins of the Russia investigation–currently under review by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.

 

“It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited,” Mueller said.

 

“These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department,” he said, referring to the contested origins of the investigation.

 

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a Judiciary member, asked when the special counsel’s team determined there was no conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.

 

Many Republicans argue that Mueller could have issued that conclusion before the midterm elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House.

 

“As you understand, when developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information as you make your case,” Mueller said. “When you make a decision on that particular case depends on the factors. I cannot say specifically we reached a particular decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time.”

 

“We were ongoing for two years.”

 

Biggs pressed: “That’s my point, there are various aspects that happen. But somewhere along the pike, you come to the conclusion there is no there there for this defendant.”

 

Mueller finally said: “I can’t say when.”

 

The former special counsel said he did not have knowledge of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who compiled the so-called Steele dossier, an unverified, salacious collection of information about Trump, including during a visit to Moscow. Both the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign paid for that work.

 

Although President Barack Obama’s Justice Department and FBI used the Steele dossier as the basis for spying on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and the dossier is mentioned in the Mueller report, the investigation apparently did not look into its origins.

 

  1. What Else He Didn’t Answer

 

Mueller declined multiple times before both House committees to answer why his team did not prosecute Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic who Republican lawmakers said had lied to investigators. Mifsud in spring 2016 told Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Moscow had some of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

 

Mueller also declined to answer questions about whether he interviewed Steele or Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson.  During the Intelligence hearing, he refused to answer whether he even read the Steele dossier.

 

Mueller repeatedly answered that such questions were “outside of my purview.”

 

Among Democrats’ questions Mueller didn’t answer: whether the Trump campaign had turned its back on the country, whether Trump told associates his 2016 campaign was an “infomercial” for the Trump businesses, what would happen if Trump wins a second term and serves beyond the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice, and whether Trump had potential illegal ties to foreign banks.

 

He also declined to speculate whether Russian meddling swayed the outcome of the presidential election.

 

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., asked Mueller whether he agreed with an open letter in May signed by about 1,000 former federal prosecutors that said Trump would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he were anyone else.

 

Mueller responded:  “They have a different case.”

 

Swalwell seemed a bit surprised, and asked whether Mueller would sign the letter.

 

Mueller again responded: “They have a different case.”

 

  1. Defending Alleged Conflicts

 

Mueller responded to questions about the number of Democratic lawyers, many of whom donated to Democratic candidates, who worked on his staff.

 

“I’ve been in the business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask someone about their political affiliation,” Mueller said at one point. “What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job.”

 

Trump has said several times that after he fired James Comey as FBI director, he met with Mueller, who wanted the job back.

 

Mueller testified that he talked to Trump, but “not as a candidate” for the job, in response to a question from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.

 

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., later asked: “Did you interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as special counsel?”

 

Mueller said he was only advising Trump.

 

“My understanding, I was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job,” Mueller said.

 

He also defended Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer on his team and one of the hires Trump and other Republicans criticize Mueller for.

 

“Let me say that Andrew Weissmann is one of the more talented attorneys we had on board,” Mueller said.

 

  1. Trump’s Responsibility and ‘New Normal’

 

Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., brought up Trump’s tweeted support of WikiLeaks and its hacking of Clinton campaign staff emails. He quoted Trump as a candidate saying, “I love WikiLeaks” and tweeting similar sentiments, then asked Mueller for his response.

 

WikiLeaks is an online operation that made its name on releasing confidential and secret government information

After hesitating, Mueller said: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

 

The Mueller report said the Trump campaign was aware of Russian election meddling and expected to benefit from it.

 

Welch, the Vermont Democrat and member of the intelligence panel, said he was concerned that Trump may get away with not reporting Russian interference in the future.

 

“If we establish the new normal for this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns, so that if any one of us, running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States are aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report that to the FBI or other authorities …, ” Welch began to ask, before Mueller interrupted.

 

“I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is,” Mueller said.

 

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report. 

 

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred.

+++++++++++++++++++++

MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

Ann Coulter mocks bureau whose attitude is never having to say you’re sorry

 

By ANN COULTER

July 24, 2019

WND

 

It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)

 

If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.

 

Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing. Here are a few from Chabot’s list:

 

  • Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

 

  • Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.

 

  • Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

 

  • Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign – and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.

 

  • Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.

 

None had donated to the Trump campaign.

 

The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”

 

Obviously, no one believes this – otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.

 

In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”

 

No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.

 

An independent counsel investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors. You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.

 

But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.

 

As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens might beg to differ.

 

After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed – until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.

 

Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.

 

During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators, that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”

 

The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case.

 

Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”

 

Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.

 

Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.

 

Months later – too late for Stevens’ political career – Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.

 

Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t – which is worse.

 

In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.”

 

[Blog Editor: Help keep WND an independent Internet source BY DONATING.]

__________________

My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done

John R. Houk

© July 25, 2019

___________________

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

 

The Daily Signal HOMEPAGE

_______________________

MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

 

© Copyright 1997-2019. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

 

General Flynn Hires Firebrand Attorney Sidney Powell


I’ve been aware for some time that Defense Attorney Sidney Powell has taken on the case General Michael Flynn’s conviction at the hands of the Mueller persecution team.

 

Kelleigh Nelson has written a great news piece about Powell’s and her background in winning Appeals cases. Nelson emphasizes how Powell managed to have ALL the Enron convictions tossed due to Prosecutorial misconduct. Unfortunately for Enron Execs and employees, the damage of the eradicated convictions destroyed the energy business so badly there was never a recovery. AND the Prosecutors chastised for misconduct NEVER faced any consequences.

 

Mueller was the head of the FBI at the time and Andrew Weissmann was the lead Prosecutor of the Enron Task Force. Mueller and Weissmann undoubtedly used the same misconduct tactics against Flynn and other Defendants who pled guilty or face economic ruin and avoid legal threat to their families.

 

Nelson provides some info on Mueller/Weissmann tactics against Flynn with the surprising implication that Vice President Pence might have had a hand wittingly or unwittingly helping probable Prosecutorial conduct along.

 

JRH 6/20/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

General Flynn Hires Firebrand Attorney Sidney Powell

 

By Kelleigh Nelson

June 20th, 2019

News With Views

 

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. —Frederic Bastiat

 

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice. —Montesquieu

 

The fight for justice against corruption is never easy. It never has been and never will be. It exacts a toll on our self, our families, our friends, and especially our children. In the end, I believe, as in my case, the price we pay is well worth holding on to our dignity. —Frank Serpico

 

A huge hallelujah and a big sigh of relief went up across the country when those who love justice and the “rule of law” heard who General Michael T. Flynn had hired to represent him.  My phone rang off the hook for two days…the General’s supporters are thrilled!

 

Attorney Sidney Powell

 

General Flynn has hired a brilliant powerhouse attorney who knows and understands the corruption in DC.  Sidney Powell served in the Department of Justice (DOJ) for ten years in both Texas and Virginia and for the past twenty years has devoted her private practice to federal appeals where she was lead counsel in more than 500 appellate cases.

 

Ms. Powell has been an outspoken critic of the Enron Task Force prosecutions and accused prosecutor Andrew Weissmann in particular of overreach.  Weissmann was a prominent member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating the bogus Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election and any obstruction of the probe by President Donald Trump. Here is the full transcript of Powell’s interview with Mark Levin, but watch the following twelve minutes on Weissmann.

 

VIDEO: Sidney Powell tells Mark Levin of DOJ corruption 

 

[Bud Meyers

Published on Jan 28, 2019

 

Author of “Licensed to Lie” exposes a group of corrupt prosecutors who rose to powerful positions, including Mueller’s hit squad investigating President Trump. Obama had promoted them, and they corrupted the DOJ and FBI — while his judges turned a blind eye to the corruption.

 

“Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice” — by Sidney Powell

https://www.amazon.com/Licensed-Lie-Exposing-Corruption-Department-ebook/dp/B00KQ5EDA2]

 

In Powell’s book, Licensed to Lie, William Hodes, Professor of Law Emeritus, Indiana University stated, “that a coterie of vicious and unethical prosecutors who are unfit to practice law has been harbored within and enabled by the now ironically named Department of Justice.”  Ms. Powell had to self-publish her first edition because houses feared the content. The second edition is stunning and frightening.

 

Powell documents the prosecutorial misconduct of the U.S. Attorneys in the Enron trials. All of the convictions except for three were overturned.  Unfortunately, none of the attorneys mentioned in Ms. Powell’s amazing tome were ever disbarred, and they went on to continue their nefarious activities.

 

Many innocent people were ruined because the justice department lawyers apparently valued their own upward career mobility over the very reason for their existence in their positions…Justice.

 

Sidney Powell twitter screen capture

 

Some of the same lawyers involved in the Enron miscarriage of justice were on the Mueller team going after President Trump and his supporters. Do Americans want anyone being targeted by attorneys so unethical their convictions are overturned because of their blatant disregard for the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution?  Well, it happened, and General Michael T. Flynn is a prime example.

 

In a recent interview with The Epoch Times Sidney Powell blasted the appalling two-tiered judicial system in America today where General Michael Flynn can get set up and prosecuted by deep state operatives while Peter Strzok can leak and lie and get off scot free.

 

In December 2018 Powell accused the Mueller team of destroying evidence and obstructing justice in the Flynn case. Mueller’s team wiped all of the data off of Peter Strzok’s and Lisa Page’s iPhones after determining “they contained no substantive text messages.”  Powell said until the Mueller investigation is probed, no one can have faith or trust in the Department of Justice or the FBI.

 

As for the bogus Russia investigation, what Mueller pulled in his eight-minute press conference was subterfuge.  Powell commented that if Mueller couldn’t decide whether or not President Trump obstructed justice in a two-year investigation, then it is evident there is no violation. She said, “the entire Russia collusion narrative was made up by anti-Trump political partisans in the FBI and DOJ.”

 

“It couldn’t have been more divisive,” Powell said of Mueller’s press conference. “What we’ve witnessed in the last, I don’t know, 15, 20 years, is an extraordinary rise of double standards where people who are Democrats are given passes on clear offenses, and Republicans are literally targeted and prosecuted and their lives destroyed on things that are even made up.”  Powell said Mueller knew there was no conspiracy even before he started to investigate.

 

Please help General Flynn and Sidney Powell by donating to the Michael Flynn Legal Defense Fund.  Attorney Powell asked for 90 days to review the massive Flynn case, and Judge Emmet Sullivan gave her 60 days.

 

General Michael T. Flynn

 

President Donald Trump told Fox News that Vice President Mike Pence doesn’t automatically have his backing should he mount his own run for the White House in 2024.  Perhaps the President has gleaned some awareness of the real Mike Pence.

 

By now, many of General Flynn’s supporters understand that VP Pence was involved in his removal as National Security Adviser.  Allegedly, the February meeting between Pence and McCabe about General Flynn was set up by Peter Strzok using an unofficial backchannel, a Pence staffer’s wife who worked for Strzok.  VP Pence’s Chief of Staff, Joshua Pitcock’s wife, was working as an analyst for Peter Strzok on the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server.

Deep State Players

 

There are many more Deep State players, all of whom were not only terror-stricken but were absolutely frantic to be rid of the man they feared knew too much about them.

 

To this day, many of their ilk are still in charge, including the new Trump appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray who was most likely suggested by former Governor and transition head, Chris Christie who many called Abu Christie because he had appointed a Muslim to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Wray was Christie’s lawyer during Bridgegate. Wray’s corrupt FBI actually lost the notes from the meeting where crooked cop, Peter Strzok was told that China was hacking Hillary’s email in real time.

 

Back in December of 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team released key documents relating to the FBI’s questioning of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, confirming agents did not believe at the time Flynn intentionally lied to them — though he was later charged with making false statements in that interview.  These were the heavily redacted FD-302 reports of FBI Agents, Strzok and Pientka who interviewed the General.  The documents also included disgraced and fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s notes after talking with Flynn to arrange his interview with the FBI.  Many sources believe McCabe edited the FD-302s to target the General.

 

Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein refused to allow Agent Pientka to testify despite his reported willingness to defend Michael Flynn.  Mueller redacted Joe Pientka’s name in the 302 reports.

 

Judge Emmet Sullivan

 

In May 2019, Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the release of the transcripts of General Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak along with the transcript of a voicemail recording by Trump’s personal attorney, John Dowd, left with Robert Kelner, defense lawyer for Flynn.

The Feds did release the transcript of a voice mail left in November 2017 by John Dowd to Kelner, but the DOJ refused to comply with the court order to release the transcript of the General’s conversation with Ambassador Kislyak. Sources close to the General tell me that he wanted these documents released to the public.

 

Judge Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, in a two-sentence order said he’d decided not to require the public release of transcripts after considering prosecutors’ response.  Prosecutors claimed they were not relying on that conversation to establish his guilt or to determine his sentence.  Then why not release it?  Perhaps they haven’t had time to properly edit it for weaponization against the General, when we know those transcripts would prove General Flynn’s complete innocence.

 

Flynn’s phone calls with Ambassador Kislyak during the Trump Transition were perfectly legal and only portions of his calls have been selectively leaked to the media.  One has to wonder how many of those leaked portions were edited.   Every time there’s a leak, AG Barr needs to release the truth to the public.

 

The Joint Defense Agreement

 

Republicans allege that a separate court-ordered transcript release in the case showed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s report contained a conspicuously — and allegedly deceptive — edited version of the voicemail message from former Trump lawyer John Dowd to Flynn’s lawyer, Rob Kelner.

 

Here is the edited version of Dowd’s phone call:

 

I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms. . . [I]t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with … the government. … [I]f… there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can …. Remember what we’ve always said about the ‘President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains ….

 

And here is the full text of the message, which Mueller’s gang did not want seen:

 

Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I‘m-I’m sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t … state it in … starker terms. If you have … and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh … I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that … implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know … some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So … uh … you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of … protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information. So, uhm, and if it’s the former, then, you know, remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.

 

Do you see?  If you look at the full transcript, Dowd is very specific about not wanting any information he should not have, not wanting any “confidential information.”  Mueller left out that one very important exculpatory evidence in his edited transcript… “without you having to give up any … confidential information.”  There was only one reason for Mueller to remove it…to further his attempt to frame Trump via manufactured evidence or by hiding exculpatory evidence.

 

Mr. Dowd left the voice mail not long after Mr. Flynn left the joint defense agreement with Mr. Trump to cooperate with the Special Counsel.  (Remember Mueller’s 30-year modus operandi.  Link and Link) Of course, the Mueller report cites the voice mail as scrutiny into possible obstruction by the President even though Mr. Kelner had already told Dowd “that Flynn could no longer have confidential communications with the White House or the President.”

 

Dowd told Sean Hannity, “Well, I had an obligation as counsel to the president to find out what was going on. And I’m so glad Judge Sullivan ordered the transcript because they now know the truth. And we also know that this entire report by Mueller is a fraud, and we’re going to find more of these things.  Isn’t it ironic that this man who kept indicting and prosecuting people for process crimes committed a false statement in his own report? By taking out half my words, they changed the tenor and the contents of that conversation with Robert Kelner. And it’s an outrage. And there’s probably more of it.”

 

Conclusion

 

George Washington said, “Truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains to bring it to light.”  Sidney Powell, knows all about the lies and the pervasive decay in our intelligence community, and she is the finest legal mind General Flynn could have chosen, and yes, she will bring the truth to light.

 

Please help this great patriot, General Michael T. Flynn and Sidney Powell by donating to the Michael Flynn Legal Defense Fund.  Truth is our cause!

______________________

P.S. NewsWithViews needs your help. Tech tyrants Google and Twitter is censoring this website. Tirelessly, our CEO works to bring up-to-date news to our readers. He assumes the costs not covered by donations, and believe me, running a website like this is certainly not cheap.  We’ve lost both advertising and twitter because of censorship by the enemies of freedom. It’s up to those who love freedom and the truth to help us survive. Tell your friends to sign up for daily emails, and please consider monthly donations to keep us in the black. The writers at NWVs are not paid, we do this to save our beloved country for our children, grandchildren and descendants, just as our publisher does.  Please help.  Donations can be sent here. If possible, please use PayPal.

 

About the Author: Kelleigh Nelson

 

Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Kelleigh is presently the secretary for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign, a strong freedom advocate group. Email:Proverbs133@bellsouth.net Website: http://www.rockytopfreedom.com

 

Copyright 2019 NEWSWITHVIEWS.COM | All Rights Reserved

 

A Look at FBI-Intelligence Community Corruption


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Posted 6/4/19

 

Sara Carter reports on a Judicial Watch FOIA disclosure on FBI corruption in giving Crooked Hillary a pass on her felonious actions with her unsecured email server and her coverup. Then I have a Kelleigh Nelson article that chronicles Mueller-FBI-American Intelligence corruption.

 

JRH 6/4/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

FBI Failed to Document Four Clinton Witness Interviews. Barr Should Reopen Clinton Probe

 

By Sara Carter

June 3, 2019

SaraACarter/com

 

William Barr

 

The FBI failed to document at least four interviews of witnesses in the bureau’s investigation into former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified emails, according to documents obtained by the government watchdog Judicial Watch.

 

Judicial Watch also discovered among the 218 pages of emails between former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and his paramour former FBI Attorney Lisa Page that then FBI General Counsel James Baker had instructed “FBI officials to expedite the release of FBI investigative material to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall in August 2016. Kendall and the FBI’s top lawyer discussed specifically quickly obtaining the “302” report of the FBI/DOJ interview of Mrs. Clinton.”

 

These findings are significant, as they come at a crucial time when the Department of Justice under Attorney General William Barr is investigating the bureau’s handling of both the Clinton probe and the investigation into the origination of the bureau’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign alleged – now debunked – ties to Russia.

 

“These incredible documents show the leadership of the FBI rushed to give Hillary Clinton her FBI interview report shortly before the election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And the documents also show the FBI failed to timely document interviews in the Clinton email ‘matter’ – further confirming the whole investigation was a joke. AG Barr can’t reopen the Clinton email investigation soon enough.”

 

The information obtained by Judicial Watch coincides with documents obtained by Congressional investigations. For example, Rep. John Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox New’s Maria Bartiromo Sunday that Strzok’s involvement in the Trump campaign’s defensive briefing mired in conflict.

 

First, Ratcliffe noted that it was Strzok who opened the official investigation into Trump’s campaign on July 31, 2016 dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane.” Ratcliffe warned that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who has been appointed by Barr to investigate the bureau, was essentially acting as a ‘special counsel’ in the DOJ’s investigation.

 

“It’s interesting that 18 days later on August 17, of 2016 that the FBI and CIA conducted a counterintelligence briefing for the purpose of protecting and warning Donald Trump would put in charge for coordinating that briefing Peter Strzok – the same agent who was already investigating the Trump campaign,” Ratcliffe told Bartiromo. “The same agent who eight days before that defensive briefing to protect and warn Donald Trump sent a text message saying he was going to ‘stop him.’ Then two days before that defensive briefing sent a text message saying ‘we need an insurance policy’ against the Trump presidency.”

 

“So little wonder on that day of August 17, 2016 Donald Trump isn’t warned about Russian interference in his campaign and he wasn’t briefed about the Steele Dossier, wasn’t briefed about Carter Page,” Ratcliffe added.

 

Currently, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is putting together his report on the FBI’s handling of the FBI’s probe into the Trump campaign. According to numerous congressional sources the investigation is expected to include the FBI’s defensive briefing to Trump and the lack of information provided to the Trump campaign. Strzok, who was vehemently anti-Trump in his text messages to Page, is also expected to be a significant part of the Horowitz investigation.

 

VIDEO: Rep. John Ratcliffe Reveals Peter Strzok’s Role in Spying on Trump Campaign

 

[Posted by james hoft

Published on Jun 2, 2019

 

Rep. John Ratcliffe Reveals Peter Strzok’s Role in Spying on Trump Campaign]

 

Judicial Watch FOIA:

 

The documents were obtained in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to a December 4, 2017, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)) for:

 

  • All records of communications, including but not limited to, emails, text messages and instant chats, between FBI official Peter Strozk and FBI attorney Lisa Page;

 

  • All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Peter Strozk;

 

  • All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Lisa Page.

 

Revelation: Below Is an ‘Exact Excerpt’ From Judicial Watch’s Findings

 

On August 16, 2016, at 10:02 p.m. Baker emails then-Associate Deputy Director David Bowdich; Michael Steinbach, former executive assistant director for national security; former Acting Assistant Director Jason V. Herring; former FBI lawyer Lisa Page; former Principal Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson; Michael Kortan, FBI assistant director for public affairs, now retired; James Rybicki, former chief of staff to Comey; and others to inform them that he “just spoke” with Clinton’s lawyer Kendall, who requested documents from the FBI. Baker says he told Kendall he would “need to submit a request.” Baker tells them, “I said we would process it expeditiously.”

 

I just spoke with David Kendall … I conveyed our view that in order to obtain the documents [FBI investigative material] they are seeking they need to submit a request pursuant to the Privacy Act and FOIA. I said they could submit a letter to me covering both statutes. They will send it in the morning. I said that we would process it expeditiously. David asked us to focus first on the Secretary’s 302 [FBI interview report]. I said OK. [Redacted] We will have to focus on this issue tomorrow and get the 302 out the door as soon as possible and then focus on the rest of the stuff.

 

The following day, August 17, 2016, Kendall sent a FOIA/Privacy Act request on “behalf of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton” to the FBI’s top lawyer with a request for “expeditious processing.” Baker passes this request to Bowdich, Steinbach, Herring, Page, Anderson:

 

 

“In my view, we need to move as quickly as possible on this, but pursuant to David’s oral request last night, we should focus first on Secretary Clinton’s 302…. Is the end of this week out of the question for her 302?”

 

In a follow-up email exchange, the same day, Anderson arranged for Herring, Page, former FBI Assistant Director and head of the Office of Congressional Affairs Gregory Brower, Strzok and others to “coordinate a plan for processing and releasing” Clinton’s 302, though one official reminds others that they should process the request “consistent” with other requests.

 

Then, in an August 21, 2016, email exchange Baker tells his people that he would “alert” Kendall shortly before Clinton’s 302 was to be posted on the FBI’s FOIA Vault webpage. On September 2, 2016, the FBI announced the release of Clinton’s interview documents.

 

Finally, on August 24, 2016, the acting FBI FOIA unit chief said he sees “no problem” with giving Hillary’s attorney a heads up before her records were posted to the Vault.

 

Other documents show that on August 5, 2016, Page, Strzok and FBI intelligence analyst Jonathan Moffa are notified by a FBI assistant general counsel from the national security law branch that additional 302’s were in need of processing:

 

Today [Redacted] brought over additional 302s from the WFO [Washington Field Office]. Are those supposed to go through the redaction process for production to DOJ on Monday? We’re trying to figure out what needs to be completed this weekend.

 

Page responds by writing to Strzok, Moffa and others that four FBI 302 report of interviews related to the Clinton “Midyear Exam” investigation had never even been written:

 

[Redacted] to the best of my knowledge, yes they will when Pete identified for [redacted] the DOJ edits that needed to be made to the 302s [redacted] discovered that there were four (I think) 302s that had never been written. What I don’t know is whose 302s they are but unless Pete or Jon are able to respond in short order, I would throw them on the pile for redactions. Thanks so much.

 

On August 24, 2016, Daily Beast reporter Shane Harris sent an inquiry to the FBI asking if Comey’s admission to Congress was accurate that Hillary’s lawyers at William & Connolly did not possess the security clearances needed to see and possess highly classified Hillary emails being stored at their law offices. Harris’s question set off a scramble at the top of the FBI all the way up to Comey over the next 28 hours, producing a seven-page (mostly redacted) email discussion, with Lisa Page concluding, “Could we say something more equivocal?”

 

In a September 1, 2016, email exchange, Page, Strzok, Office of Public Affairs official Michael Kortan and Special Agent Richard Quinn discuss an email from The Hill’s John Solomon, wherein Solomon forwarded them his draft article for Circa.com citing “government sources” detailing extensive evidence the FBI had collected, which showed Hillary Clinton “violated federal record-keeping laws” through her use of a private BlackBerry and server, despite the security and legal risks she was told they posed.  Solomon asked for any final “guidance” from the FBI before publishing. Page writes to Moffa, Strzok and a redacted FBI official, it was “pretty inaccurate,” but provided nothing to support her charge of its inaccuracy. Judicial Watch’s work on the Hillary Clinton email scandal is cited extensively in the column, and former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker was quoted as well, saying a special prosecutor was needed to look into Hillary’s use of the personal server.

 

On August 16, 2016, after Congress requested that the FBI supply additional copies of the binders of Clinton server-investigation materials, an unidentified FBI official complained to his colleagues of being understaffed and under supplied:

 

We literally do not have the office supplies to do this. Nor do I have the IAs [Investigative Assistants/Analysts] for assistance…. These binders are huge and each one took hours to compile.

 

+++

I am not trying to throw shade…. I just wish decisions could get made by considering resources.

 

I need people in [room] 7947 ready to go in the early AM and a charge card for Staples.”

 

++++++++++++++++

Judicial Watch: New Strzok-Page Emails Reveal FBI Gave Special Treatment to Hillary Clinton’s Demands for Email Investigation Information Just Before Election

 

Press Room

JUNE 03, 2019

Judicial Watch

 

[Sara Carter (above) placed this Judicial Watch press release in her post less this last paragraph from the end:]

 

“These incredible documents show the leadership of the FBI rushed to give Hillary Clinton her FBI interview report shortly before the election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And the documents also show the FBI failed to timely document interviews in the Clinton email ‘matter’ – further confirming the whole investigation was a joke. AG Barr can’t reopen the Clinton email investigation soon enough.”

 

+++++++++++++++++

Robert Mueller, The FBI And Obama’s Culture Of Corruption

 

By Kelleigh Nelson

June 4th, 2019

News With Views

 

Sometimes duplicity and treason are markers of the enemy, and sometimes, the failed intention of a masterful ally. But, nevertheless, as they burden you with a vexing brand of love, they become nothing more than the kiss of Judas, pressing a crown of thorns into your flesh.  —Addison Webster Moore

 

Americans cannot comprehend how their fellow countrymen could not love their country. But the left’s anti-Americanism is intrinsic to their entire worldview. Liberals promote the right of Islamic fanatics for the same reason they promote the rights of adulterers, pornographers, abortionists, criminals, and Communists. They instinctively root for anarchy against civilization. The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason. —Ann Coulter

 

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever. —Thomas Jefferson

 

Incrimination through innuendo is the rule today as I listened to the liar of truth, Robert Mueller.  Truth is treason in the empire of lies and truth has now become the new hate speech.  Mueller’s final words stood the “rule of law” and presumption of innocence on their heads.

 

Apparently, Mueller wanted President Trump to appoint him FBI director again and he was rejected. The very next day, Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to investigate the bogus Russian collusion.  Undoubtedly, President Trump knew that after 9/11, FBI Director Mueller purged the FBI training documents on Islamist terrorists and he acquiesced to the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

 

Robert Mueller had joined Trump’s National Golf Club in Virginia and seventeen years later, Mueller claimed the family was not making full use of the membership, and he wanted a portion of his $15K back. The Club justifiably refused. Unbelievably, this is included in footnote 529 on page 80-81 of the Mueller report.  No doubt Mueller had negative feelings for Donald Trump.

 

Deep State Revenge

 

After Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions recused himself from overseeing the Russian collusion debacle, Rod Rosenstein became the AG in charge of the investigation.  He disregarded the criminal conduct requirement and authorized a broad and vague counterintelligence probe, directing the special counsel to investigate “any links” between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

 

Mueller passes Witch Hunt Torch to Nadler. Branco toon

 

This was unprecedented and gave a blank check to Mueller and his gang of Hillary supporting democrat attorneys the right to go after anyone or anything related to President Trump.

 

After the nearly two-year investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Republican Deep State insider and hardcore Never Trumper, again put a knife in our President’s back.

 

Mueller’s actions made it clear he wanted to nail President Trump, he wanted him out of office, but there was no damning evidence.

 

Mueller’s eight-minute speech regarding the 448 page Two-Volume Special Counsel report contained these incriminating words, “And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” (Volume II of the Mueller report was the obstruction-of-justice investigation regarding President Trump’s actions and conduct during the entire spurious Russian collusion inquiry.)

 

AG Barr had specifically asked Mueller, “Is your reason for not charging Trump anything to do with the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines?” Barr said that Mueller told him three times, “No, that has nothing to do with it.” Barr is on record on two occasions saying that Mueller told him three times the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines have nothing to do with his decision not to indict the president or not to link the president to crimes.

 

Democrat Alan Dershowitz spelled it out in his recent Hill article. “Mueller went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Congressional democrats who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings.”

 

Mueller failed to investigate the bogus dossier, FISA abuse, Obama’s spying on the Trump campaign, or the players involved. The intelligence community has proven themselves to be a venomous nest of traitorous vipers.

 

Spying and FISA Abuse

 

John Solomon reported over a year ago that spying on the Trump campaign occurred earlier than the summer of 2016.  “It originated earlier, 1,700 miles away in London, when foreign figures contacted Trump campaign advisers and provided the FBI with hearsay allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, bureau documents and interviews of government insiders. These contacts in spring 2016, some from trusted intelligence sources, others from Hillary Clinton supporters, occurred well before FBI headquarters authorized an official counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.”

 

Rep. Mark Meadows, (R-NC) said, “This new information begs the questions: Who were the informants working for, who were they reporting to and why has the DOJ and FBI gone to such great lengths to hide these contacts?”

 

Former Deputy Assistant AG Victoria Toensing and her husband, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Joe diGenova, were on Hannity on May 31st, along with a full panel of guests. Toensing said that there is evidence the Obama administration FISA abuse started as early as 2012, and the abuse goes all the way to the top.

 

Obama’s Illegal Surveillance

 

The Obama White House used the most sensitive intrusive surveillance systems of the NSA to spy on Americans.  A ruling by FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer finds that 85 percent of NSA database requests under FISA section 702 authority at the DOJ were illegal or noncompliant. Surveillance systems, including PRISM, were spying on thousands of Americans, including Donald Trump and those around him. (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Amicus Brief)  Moreover, Collyer finds that the DOJ showed an appalling “lack of institutional candor.”

 

In April 2017, Judge Collyer found that unwarranted and illegal surveillance of American citizens was done by the highest reaches of the Obama Administration for at least 4 years, starting in 2012. (Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens – MAY 26, 2017).  Moreover, James Comey authorized and allowed for limitless, continuous, unlawful, and warrantless access by three Federal contractors. (Institutional Lack of Candor – FISA Violations January 24, 2018).  Link

 

Judge Collyer found that its targets were American citizens and prominent Republicans and the abuse was continuous, frequently entering the same person’s name over a protracted period of time.

 

Collyer ruled that this information was shared and disseminated unlawfully to John Brennan and James Clapper. Brennan admitted that the CIA had hacked into the Senate Intelligence Committee’s computers. (Brennan, Clapper, and Comey were instrumental in infecting the DOJ and FBI with the Steele Dossier.)

 

Furthermore, information was disseminated within the Obama administration in violation of the 4th amendment, all under the authorization of James Comey. He knew it was illegal and he should be indicted for these and other crimes.

 

When they got caught, they fought back with treason by continuing to usurp the Constitution. Undermining the incoming President with the Russia hoax, trying to cover up their litany of crimes, and staging an attempted coup against Donald Trump.

They didn’t get away with it.

 

Admiral Mike Rogers

 

In the spring of 2016, the Director of the NSA, Admiral, discovered that the NSA’s comprehensive database collecting all electronic communications in the United States was being searched by unauthorized FBI “contractors” and he moved to “cut off that access.” Link

 

If Admiral Mike Rogers hadn’t put a stop to the misuse of the NSA, none of this would have come to light. Former assistant Attorney General, John Carlin, tried to have Rogers fired for fear that the skullduggery would be exposed further, but he failed. Rogers visited candidate Trump shortly after his discovery to warn him that Trump Tower was “wiretapped.”

 

Wray-FBI, Haspel-CIA & Coats-Dir. 0f National Intelligence

 

Stonewalling Classified Documents

 

In a Memorial Day radio interview, Joe diGenova told that FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats have been stonewalling the release of classified documents to AG Barr prior to the President’s declassification. Take note that Dan Coats is a former Senator from Indiana and a close friend of VP Mike Pence who was in charge of the Trump transition team and recommended Coats.

 

AG Barr was fed up trying to get classified documents, so he went to the President and told him he could not get the answers the President requested.  Twenty-four hours later, the President declassified the documents.  The White House also instructed several agencies to cooperate with Barr’s inquiry, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Department, the State Department, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

 

The intelligence community is in full resistance to disclosing what they did during the campaign.  There’s a full-scale war between AG Barr and another FBI director who thinks he’s James Comey.  DiGenova said that Christopher Wray is an “unmitigated disaster,” and we are “watching the quintessential Washington power battle.”  Devvy Kidd’s latest article on Wray fully agrees with diGenova.

 

DiGenova believes the Obama administration spying, exposed by Judge Rosemary Collyer, is a bigger scandal than the FBI’s Russian collusion coup.  Shortly after the 2012 election, the Obama administration began their illegal accessing of the National Security Agency (NSA) database via 702 queries.  And now, the FBI and CIA fear that since these disclosures have become publicly known, their powers may be cut back, FISA may be restricted and some additional people may go to prison.

 

AG Barr’s Investigators

 

Talk about the foxes in the hen house!  CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and FBI Director Chris Wray are all participating in the investigation, which Barr first announced publicly during a congressional hearing last month.

 

Dan Coats is a long-time establishment creature having served as an Indiana Congressman and Senator for a total of sixteen years.

 

FBI Director Chris Wray said that he does not consider court-approved FBI surveillance to be “spying” and said he has no evidence the FBI illegally monitored Trump’s campaign.  This alone should worry AG William Barr.

 

According to Sam Faddis, former CIA Ops officer, and author of Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA, Trump’s CIA director, Gina Haspel, is a protégée of John Brennan. She was at his right hand during all the critical junctures. Haspel was the CIA’s London Section Chief during the time the Deep State was working with former MI6 agent, Christopher Steele, and couldn’t possibly have been in the dark about the attempt to subvert the election/presidency of Donald Trump.  Although Trump called for the revocation of John Brennan’s secret security clearance, the Deep State has made sure that this has NOT happened as yet.  Most likely, they’re waiting out his presidency to return to “business as usual.”  Link

 

Remember John Huber, the missing appointee by Jeff Sessions?  Fourteen months ago AG Sessions had asked Huber to look into issues related to the sale of Uranium One and allegations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been improperly involved in the process, as well as broader claims of corruption at the Clinton Foundation.  In a recent interview on CBS, Mr. Barr seemed to suggest that what evidence Huber found, if any, may soon be revealed.  Barr also revealed that Inspector General Horowitz and John Durham have taken over most of Huber’s responsibilities.

 

One wonders with this cast of characters if we’ll ever see true justice.

 

Conclusion

 

As Gregg Jarrett stated on Fox News, Mueller’s actions were not only noxious, but patently unfair to Trump.  The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior and turned our justice system on its head.

 

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence.  It is the bedrock on which justice is built.  Throughout his career, there is proof this has never registered with Robert Mueller. Link and Link

 

Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena Robert Mueller.  He should have staff lawyers ready to question him, just like the House committee wanted to do with Attorney General William Barr.

++++++++

SEE ALSO:

 

FBI ‘WORKED TO PROTECT HILLARY’ IN EMAIL SCANDAL; WND Exclusive; 6/3/19

___________________________

FBI Failed to Document Four Clinton Witness Interviews. Barr Should Reopen Clinton Probe

 

Sara A. Carter is a national and international award winning investigative reporter whose stories have ranged from national security, terrorism, immigration and front line coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

© 2019 Sara A. Carter | All Rights Reserved.

_____________________

Judicial Watch: New Strzok-Page Emails Reveal FBI Gave Special Treatment to Hillary Clinton’s Demands for Email Investigation Information Just Before Election

 

© 2019 Judicial Watch, Inc.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

________________________

Robert Mueller, The FBI And Obama’s Culture Of Corruption

 

Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Kelleigh is presently the secretary for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign, a strong freedom advocate group. Email:Proverbs133@bellsouth.net Website: http://www.rockytopfreedom.com [Blog Editor: link did not work in my browser.]

 

© 2019 NWV – All Rights Reserved

 

Mueller and Obstruction of Justice


When Robert Mueller tried to create a crime when none existed should be a crime worthy of investigation. When Mueller tried to Europeanize the American legal system by insisting President Trump prove he is not guilty rather than innocent until proven guilty, is worthy of an investigation.

 

Investigate Mueller and his 13 angry Democrat Prosecutors.

 

JRH 6/2/19 (Hat Tip: CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT WING NEWS)

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

************************

Mueller and Obstruction of Justice

 

By Daniel John Sobieski

June 1, 2019

American Thinker

 

The irony was that Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was charged with and plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI.

 

By his own standards Robert Mueller was guilty of making “false statements” in his parting gift to Democrat impeachment seekers. He was not, however,  under legal oath, which is maybe why Democrats did not want him to be questioned by Congress in a hearing beforehand.

 

Mueller has had to walk back his lie about Office of Legal Counsel policy keeping him from indicting a sitting president. In his alleged “farewell” address, former Special Counsel Mueller managed to channel former FBI Director James Comey. Where is it written that former FBI directors get to recite a litany of possible charges against someone they are not going to charge? If, as Mueller had said, you could indict a sitting President,  and that is why he was not indicted, then why did he spend some $40 million the past two years pursuing an indictment? Just what happened to the presumption of innocence?

 

Mueller told AG Barr that it was not DOJ policy on not indicting sitting presidents that guided his decisions. Then, knowing the lamestream media would run with his lie, said the opposite. Elizabeth Vaughan noted at Red State:

 

In his statement this morning, Robert Mueller said “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” He also said that, because of Office of Legal Counsel guidance, his team did not have the option of charging a sitting president with a crime.

 

This is the opposite of what he told Attorney General William Barr and several other DOJ officials at a meeting which took place on March 5th.

 

Barr was asked about why Mueller had failed to come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1st. He said, “We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

 

Barr made a similar remark at the press conference he held prior to the public release of the redacted Mueller Report. He told reporters, “We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

 

Robert Mueller

 

It is not his or any prosecutor’s job to “exonerate” anyone. They are presumed innocent, are they not? It was not a matter of whether you can indict a sitting president. The fact is that no president can be indicted for doing what he is constitutionally empowered and entitled to do. That is not obstruction of justice. Trump could have fired Mueller just as he did Comey and closed his entire investigation at any time and it would not have been obstruction of justice.  So noted legal scholar Alan Dershowitz in an interview with Leandra Bernstein of the Sinclair Broadcast Group on ABC7/WJLA Thursday:

 

Constitutional lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said the special counsel had a legally flawed approach to investigating alleged obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

 

What jumps out at me is that the Mueller people got the law all wrong on obstruction of justice,” Dershowitz told Sinclair Broadcast Group in a Thursday interview. “They came to the conclusion that a president could obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2.”…

 

According to Dershowitz, the president was within his authority to fire the FBI director and would have been justified, under the unified executive theory, to shut down the investigation.

 

“The position I’ve taken from day one is for the president to obstruct justice, he has to go beyond his own permissible constitutional authority and engage in conduct that would be a crime for anyone else, like tampering with witnesses, obstructing a witness, paying witnesses, telling them to lie. None of that is charged against President Trump,” Dershowitz said.

 

Trump also could have fired Mueller and closed the Office of Special Counsel at any time. If he couldn’t, Democrats and some Republicans wouldn’t have tried to pass laws preventing just that event.  They are creatures of the executive. Trump can fire any of his executive branch employees at any time for any reason. Agreeing with that assessment, Andrew C. McCarthy writes at National Review:

 

In our system, we have a unitary executive. All executive power is vested in a single official, the president of the United States. That means subordinate executive officers do not have their own power; they are delegated to exercise the president’s power. When they act, they are, in effect, the president acting. …

 

Prosecutorial power is executive in nature. Federal prosecutors therefore exercise the president’s power. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have no power of their own; they exercise President Trump’s prosecutorial power for as long as that arrangement suits President Trump. The president does not need cause to fire them. He does not need to explain any dismissal to Congress — “Gee, it’s Thursday and I feel like firing someone” is good enough….

 

If lawmakers believe the president is abusing his power by firing good public servants arbitrarily, they can impeach the president. Or they can try to bend the president into better behavior by cutting off funding, refusing to confirm nominees, or holding oversight hearings that embarrass the administration. Congress has these powerful political tools. But it does not have legal means to usurp the president’s constitutional power.

 

But exercising presidential powers is not a crime. Of course, Robert Mueller didn’t need a crime. In the best traditions of Josef Stalin, Mueller with Flynn and others needed only the man. He would find the crime, As Dershowitz writes in the Washington Examiner:

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller was commissioned to investigate not only crime but the entire Russian “matter.” That is an ominous development that endangers the civil liberties of all Americans.

 

Federal prosecutors generally begin by identifying specific crimes that may have been committed — in this case, violation of federal statutes. But no one has yet identified the specific statute or statutes that constrain Mueller’s investigation of the Russian matter. It is not a violation of any federal law for a campaign to have collaborated with a foreign government to help elect their candidate…

 

One does not have to go back to the Soviet Union and Lavrentiy Beria’s infamous boast to Stalin, “Show me the man and I will show you the crime,” in order to be concerned about the expansion of elastic criminal statutes. There are enough examples of abuse in our own history.

 

From McCarthyism to the failed prosecutions of Sen. Ted Stevens, Rep. Thomas DeLay, Gov. Rick Perry and others, we have seen vague criminal statutes stretched in an effort to criminalize political differences.

 

Obstruction of what? An investigation fraudulently spawned by James Comey’s felonious leaking of a private conversation with President Trump and a fake dossier put together by a British spy from Russian sources and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC? Funny, but Mueller never said his investigation was obstructed or impeded in any way. Nor was anything else.

 

How can you obstruct justice on social media in front of 300 million people anyway? Mueller is now free to run and hide from testifying before Congress and answering embarrassing questions like when did he know there was no collusion and why did he keep going anyway, why he hired a team of Democratic lawyers, including one from the Clinton Foundation, and had as his chief deputy someone who was at Hillary’s victory party?

 

By refusing to go after the real colluders with Russia who committed real crimes, it is Robert Mueller who was obstructing justice.

________________________

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business DailyHuman EventsReason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

 

© American Thinker 2019

 

About American Thinker

 

American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

 

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions — strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military — is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.

 

Staff … READ THE REST

 

Mueller/Dem Horse-Pucky


John R. Houk

© May 30, 2019

 

I was not surprised Dems – especially in the House – reacted to Robert Mueller’s news conference with “impeach Trump”. The Dems and their propaganda MSM wing have twisted, misrepresented facts and downright lied about President Trump before, after and right up to the very present.

 

Mueller was forced to admit there was no crime of Donald Trump working with the Russians to insure a 2016 election victory. Mueller did inform what everyone has known for a long time – the Russians made an evil effort to influence the 2016 election cycle. MUELLER’S EPIC FAILURE of what is probably closer to the truth: The Russians gave aid to the Clinton campaign to influence the election and aid to the Dems to make the effort to impeach President Trump after the election.

 

Trump committed NO election crime but because the President wouldn’t fall for the perjury trap set for others involved in the 2016 campaign with a personal interview, Mueller implied Trump made an effort to obstruct an investigation where no crime existed.

 

AND THAT MY FRIENDS is why Mueller, Mueller’s 13 angry Dem/Hillary donating Prosecutors AND the Dems are full of horse-pucky.

 

Since it is doubtful most news sources – spoken or written – will let you know about Mueller/Dem horse-pucky, here are a series of commentaries on the Mueller news conference.

 

JRH 5/30/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Special Counsel Mueller Gives Final Back Stabbing To Trump In Press Briefing To Help Democrats

 

By Jim Kouri

May 30th, 2019

News With Views

 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller held a special news conference on Wednesday saying he couldn’t reach a conclusion on whether Donald Trump obstructed justice, as he stopped short of delivering a full exoneration of the president. Mueller, using the craftiness of a career lawyer and political operative chose his words to allow Democrats in Congress to continue their deranged pursuit of destroying the President using the criminal justice system and the impeachment process.

 

“If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so,” Mueller said. His briefing — which denied questions from reporters — on the investigation showed he was disappointed in not proving anything against Trump.

“That’s why Mueller left open the obstruction question, something the Democrats are using to harass a President they despise,” said political strategist Mike Barker. “The only good news I heard was Mueller announcing that he was closing his office and resigning from public service,” he added.

 

Mueller sent a clear signal to House Democrats who have demanded his testimony that he won’t provide any information that hasn’t already been made public. “Any testimony from this office would not go beyond this report,” he said.

 

The special counsel also said he found “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” on election interference.

 

President Donald Trump’s newly appointed Attorney General, while keeping a relatively low profile in his first days on the job, now appears to have hit the ground running in his investigation of what many are now calling The Trump-Russia Hoax.

 

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Trump-hating Democrats and news media were taken-aback when they discovered Barr had already begun his probe of the now-famous Hillary Clinton bought and paid for “dirty dossier.”

 

Barr selected U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe of — and spying on —

the Trump presidential campaign in 2016. The questionable investigation continued into the Trump transition and his early weeks as Commander-in-Chief.

 

John Durham, who is the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr. He will examine the FBI’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation into the actions and motives for interfering in the election and “chasing” members of President Donald Trump’s campaign team using arguably misleading or false evidence to obtain warrants. The now famous “dirty dossier” is based on lies and innuendo provided by a foreign agent, a former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele.

 

Deep State Suspects in Conspiracy to Overthrow an Elected President

 

Robert Mueller is the leader of the Trump ouster who are now trying to defend the Deep State’s control over American politics from Donald Trump’s assault on its tyrannical vision. In the process Mueller also hopes to atone for the firing of his friend and fellow conspirator, James Comey.  Unfortunately many Americans cannot see that this man is not a “pillar of impartiality” as the corrupt media paint him. He is deeply committed to Deep State corruption while impersonating a Republican.

 

Rod Rosenstein is the Deputy Attorney General appointed by Obama. This is one reason for his insistence on appointing Robert Mueller as a Special Counsel to investigate Trump for alleged collusion with the Russians. His agenda is preservation of the Deep State as is Mueller’s. He would have been much happier if Hillary had won. In fact he was surely expecting it, as were FBI personnel such as Andrew McCabe.

 

Andrew Weissmann is the primary “witch hunter” on the Mueller team assembled to investigate Russian collusion. He is a notorious pit bull prosecutor with a record of suppressing exculpatory evidence in overreaching prosecutions that have been overturned by judges. He was a “Gung-Ho” Obama supporter. He is known to use questionable tactics in bullying a target’s underlings to force their testimony.

 

Peter Strzok was another Obama-loving FBI agent employed by Mueller because of his experience in counterintelligence. He is known as a devout Hillary Clinton supporter and one of the agents who interviewed Hillary about the email scandal, which turned out to be a phony powder-puff interview. He also edited Comey’s Clinton investigation resolution by replacing the words “grossly negligent” with “extremely careless” because the former action can be prosecuted in the handling of classified information while the latter cannot. His investigation gave almost all of Clinton’s subordinates blanket immunity even though none of them testified against Clinton.

 

Is this, as the media claims, a professional and objective team of crimefighters committed to solving an alleged crime? or was this is a coup d’etat to destroy the election of Donald Trump and and move to impeach him, which Mueller and his cronies had hoped would discredit the “people’s revolution” against the Deep State that Trump has fashioned.

 

“This horrendous nightmare is taking place because of the collectivist corruption of the DOJ and the FBI under Obama, Clinton and the two Bushes. Corruption in practice takes place in men’s institutions only after corruption of ethics and ideology takes place in their minds. Moral relativism (along with political collectivism) took over the minds of our professors, politicians and prosecutors in the aftermath of World War II and exploded throughout our culture from the 1960s to today. The chickens are now coming home to roost and usher in an authoritarian society,” said Jeffrey Longeran, a former criminal/civil investigations manager.

 

Conservatives in Congress should show they have spines and they should counterattack Hillary Clinton a[t] the Deep State with an investigation of the egregious “Uranium One” money grab in which she authorized the sale of 20% of America’s uranium to Russia, which brought tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation from Russian sources.

 

The fingerprints of Mueller, Weissmann and Rosenstein are also on the Uranium One deal, for they worked assiduously to facilitate and protect its completion, knowing full well but not caring that it compromised American security. Because their stalwart political horse, Hillary Clinton, was benefiting. Thus the Deep State’s aggrandizement was benefiting.

 

“This scenario is unbelievable. The Mueller Probe corruption is something we would expect to find in an African or Latin American country, or one of the Nazi Show Trials under judges who took an oath to serve Adolph Hitler in the 1930’s. It is the result of obsessively partisan FBI leaders that have let their ideology and hatred influence their role as policemen.

_______________________

Mueller: ‘I couldn’t find a Trump-Crime…so it’s Time to Impeach him!’

 

Trump-Barr-Mueller

 

By Sher Zieve 

May 30, 2019

Canada Free Press

 

I have never before witnessed such a sham of a legal system or—even worse—experienced the horror that the real criminals were the ones running it.  The additional horror is that other gangsters have and/or are replacing those who have been fired (some likely awaiting the day when they will be arrested) or have run for the proverbial hills upon realizing what may soon be revealed.  Having personally experienced this lifetime for not quite—but getting closer each day—a century, I do have some small perspective with regards to history.  Mueller—with all of the Trump-haters on his staff—could find that President Trump committed no crime.  So, in his own rather sleazy way, he turned it over to Congress to impeach him.  This is the caliber of human being we currently have in upper management within the bowels of the US government.

 

I, and certainly others, have written about Robert Swan Mueller III and his apparent crimes committed over the years under the color of law.  One of these was sending 4 innocent people to prison, in order to protect the murderer Whitey Bulger who had been designated “an informer” to and for Mueller’s FBI.  Mueller had also interviewed with President Trump to get his old job as FBI Director back.  But, President Trump didn’t choose him.  Uh-oh!  However, Mueller was chosen by Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as “Special Counsel” to head up the investigation of President Trump; whom he at the very least intensely disliked.

 

To briefly recap, this investigation was built upon a foundation of sand which included the following:

 

  • A self-proclaimed Trump-hater and (former?) British MI-6 agent who worked with some Russians to create (out of whole cloth) the now-infamous “Trump Dossier”:

 

  • The Clinton Campaign and DNC funded the “dossier”:  “The DNC and Clinton campaign-funded research continued through the end of October 2016, according to the Post’s report.

 

  • The “dossier” was requested and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.  Excerpt:  “According to the report, lawyer Marc E. Elias, who represented both Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, and his law firm Perkins Coie retained the firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to investigate any connections, according to the Post. Before then, a still-unknown Republican client funded Fusion GPS’ research during the Republican primaries. Fusion had hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct the research.”

 

  • The Mueller investigation began as a counter-intelligence investigation which metastasized into a full-blown criminal investigation…with NO CRIME mentioned!  As a stated crime is required by law before this type of investigation may begin, Mueller’s investigation…was illegal from its inception.  As a very large side-note “collusion” is still not a crime.

 

  • If there is no underlying crime…there can be no “obstruction of justice!”

 

The crimes which were committed by members within our own governmental agencies (DOJ/FBI, CIA, NSA etc.) are the greatest uncovered in the history of our country and are vast to the point that the uncovering of the worldwide Deep State conspiracy against POTUS Trump continues.  Note:  Within the UK, it appears to reach the very highest levels of government.

 

IMO, Mueller has been a dirty cop for decades (also remember his “Uranium One” activities indicating alleged treason) and he doesn’t appear to have any intention of changing.  Our country was close to demise before Donald J. Trump was resoundingly elected to the presidency of the USA.  Considering all of the blocks placed in his way by the DNC, RINOs and US government “intelligence” agencies Trump’s accomplishments are nothing less than remarkable…and legendary.  Think what he will accomplish in his second term of office…

 

“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers”—Proverbs 6:16-19

 

_______________________

Judicial Watch President Calls for Investigation Into Mueller

 

By TTN Staff

2019-05-30

Trump Train News

 

VIDEO: Tom Fitton Discusses Mueller Statement With Lou Dobbs

[Posted by TheDC Shorts

Uploaded on May 29, 2019] 

 

The president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, who investigates government corruption, is calling for an investigation into Robert Mueller.

According to The Daily Caller:

 

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton called for an investigation into Robert Mueller for suggesting “wrongdoing by an innocent person without any foundation.”

“Well, I don’t know what reputation he had that deserved any credence until now, but it’s no longer there,” Fitton told Dobbs. “He’s really destroyed whatever reputation he’s had with this political attack on the president, turning the rule of law on its head, suggesting the president is guilty and, because he can’t prove otherwise, we should conclude that he should be impeached.”

Calling it “an abuse of power,” Fitton said that Attorney General Barr has been “too deferential” to Mueller and should have “shut down” the “report before it was even written.”

“[I]t’s been abuse piled on top of abuse targeting President Trump,” Fitton said. “And this Mr. Mueller, he needs to be investigated as well. The office of professional responsibility should be asking, ‘Why did this Justice Department prosecutor come out and suggest wrongdoing by an innocent person without any foundation?’ Because there is no foundation. If there was a foundation, there would have been indictments or requests for an indictment while highlighting that. Outrageous.”

 

Fitton claims that there is a strong possibility that Mueller and Comey could have colluded in order to direct the investigation in a negative way against the president.

_____________________

DERSHOWITZ BLASTS MUELLER FOR ‘EXCEEDING HIS ROLE’

Statement ‘worse’ than Comey’s regarding Hillary scandal

 

May 29, 2019

WND

 

Then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, left, acknowledges applause during then-President Barack Obama’s remarks on June 21, 2013. Obama had announced James Comey, right, as his nominee to succeed Mueller as FBI director (Official White House photo)

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s statement Wednesday that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than then FBI Director James Comey’s statement about the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton, said Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor at Harvard Law School.

 

“Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton,” he wrote Wednesday in The Hill. “Mueller, however, did even more.”

 

Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.”

 

Dershowitz said Mueller, at his news conference at the Justice Department announcing his resignation as special counsel, “went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump.”

 

“By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings,” he said.

 

Dershowitz noted that obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.

 

WND reported earlier Wednesday Mueller’s claim that the Office of Legal Counsel guidance specifying that a sitting president cannot be indicted was the reason for not coming to a conclusion about obstruction conflicts with Attorney General William Barr’s testimony.

 

Barr told Congress on May 1 that at a March 5 meeting with Mueller, the special counsel told him “that he emphatically was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction.”

 

No longer defending Mueller

 

Dershowitz said he no longer is defending Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan.

 

“I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind.”

 

The law professor said Mueller revealed his bias by putting his “elbow” on the scale of justice.

 

Mueller also has distorted the role of a prosecutor who “should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict.”

 

“No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict,” Dershowitz said.

 

He pointed out that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by nature one sided, hearing only evidence of guilt.

 

“They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.”

Dershowitz said he “cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action.”

 

“Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage,” he wrote.

_______________________

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

At a hastily arranged Wednesday press conference, Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved that he was never interested in justice or the rule of law.

 

Robert Mueller

 

By Sean Davis

May 29, 2019

The Federalist

 

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.

 

“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.

 

If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.

 

Let’s start with the Mueller team’s unique take on the nature of a prosecutor’s job. The standard American view of justice, affirmed and enforced by the U.S. Constitution, is that all are presumed innocent absent conviction by a jury of a specific charge of criminal wrongdoing. That is, the natural legal state of an individual in this country is innocence. It is not a state or a nature bestowed by cops or attorneys. Innocence is not granted by unelected bureaucrats or federal prosecutors.

 

At one point in his remarks, Mueller seemed to agree. Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.”

 

“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

 

Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.

 

“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

 

According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.

 

The contradictions and double standards didn’t stop there, though.

 

“It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” Mueller said, after all but stating that Trump committed a crime for which Mueller never charged him. Just as Mueller’s own words and actions at the Wednesday press conference prove that he didn’t want his team’s report to speak for itself, the report itself proves that Mueller and his team don’t believe it’s unfair to accuse somebody of something a court cannot resolve.

 

If they actually believed that, then the 240-page volume II of their report on their obstruction investigation of the president would never have been authored. After all, according to Mueller’s own statement, such an operation would be patently unfair. And if it’s unfair to air dirty laundry against a target who was never charged, surely it’s doubly unfair to do so in writing and on camera during a press conference whose mere existence refutes the very claims of its host.

 

Mueller revealed himself as little more than a clone of James Comey—the smarmy, scheming politician who replaced Mueller as the head of the FBI. Recall that it was Comey who assumed for himself powers that did not belong to him by law when he declared at a 2016 press conference no “reasonable prosecutor” would charge Hillary Clinton with criminal wrongdoing in her mishandling of classified information and unsanctioned use of a secret, private email server to evade public records laws. Just as Mueller did in his report and Wednesday press conference, Comey followed up his declaration that Hillary would not be charged with statement after statement after statement of all the awful things Hillary Clinton did.

 

“There is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey said of Clinton. He excoriated her for repeatedly sending and receiving top secret information on her unsecured server which had never been authorized to process classified information. He even said it was possible, due to her “extreme” carelessness, that hostile foreign actors had penetrated her system and obtained highly classified information about U.S. national security programs.

 

Regardless of how you feel about Clinton, Comey’s display at that press conference was an embarrassment. He did an extreme disservice to the nation and the rule of law by unilaterally declaring himself the primary arbiter of prosecutorial decisions in the federal government when that authority belongs solely to the Department of Justice. And he did an extreme disservice to Clinton herself by dragging her through the mud in such a manner that clearing her name would be impossible.

 

In fact, DOJ guidelines expressly prohibit the actions of both Comey and Mueller in naming and shaming individuals who were never formally charged with any wrongdoing.

 

“As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily ‘no legitimate governmental interest served’ by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true ‘regardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third-party] for the future,’” states DOJ’s formal policy manual on the duties of federal prosecutors and principles of federal prosecutions.

 

Nationwide bar rules governing all practicing attorneys in the United States also explicitly prohibit Mueller’s display during Wednesday’s press conference.

 

“The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused,” states Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct.

 

Multiple federal agents and prosecutors reached out to The Federalist after Mueller’s press conference to express dismay at the former FBI director’s behavior.

 

“I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist. “I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”

 

“I wish these former FBI directors would learn their lessons: keep your mouths shut unless you’re referring a case for prosecution,” Jeff Danik, a retired FBI supervisor, said during a phone interview with The Federalist on Wednesday.

 

Mueller’s performance made it clear for all to see that what he ran for the last two years wasn’t an independent investigation pursuant to the rule of law so much as an inquisition motivated by political animus. Mueller and his team refused to charge prominent Democrats for crimes he charged against Republicans. Paul Manafort was charged with unregistered lobbying for foreign governments, while Mueller left alone long-time Democrat donor Tony Podesta and former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig.

 

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with making false statements to federal investigators, while Clinton campaign cronies Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele’s false statements to Congress and the FBI were ignored. Trump’s nonexistent Russian connections were plumbed while a dubious Clinton campaign-funded dossier sourced directly to Russian officials was used as a prosecutorial roadmap rather than rock-solid evidence of actual campaign collusion with the Kremlin.

 

Mueller claimed his report spoke for itself, then put together a completely unnecessary press conference more than a month after his report’s public release, in which he not just spoke for the report, but expounded on the new legal standards he created to govern its conclusions.

 

These are the actions not of an impartial and independent investigator, but of a scheming political operative. None of this is any surprise to anyone who has followed Mueller’s tenure in government. As FBI director, Mueller repeatedly misused and abused the authority granted to him by Congress.

 

Mueller and Comey utterly bungled the federal investigation into the 2001 Anthrax attacks, resulting in a $5.8 million judgment against the government after the two men falsely accused an innocent man of being behind the attacks.

 

Even after the court judgment against him, Mueller was defiant.

 

“I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” Mueller said afterward. He then doubled down and said it would be wrong to say there were any mistakes in how he handled the investigation.

 

Then there was Mueller’s handling as FBI director of a case in which FBI agents framed innocent men of murders the FBI knew had been committed by their own informants. One of the innocent men died in prison awaiting justice for a crime he never committed.

 

Then, as special counsel to investigate Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign, Mueller promptly hired partisan Democrats to run his investigation. He tapped as investigators FBI personnel who openly discussed their hatred of Trump and his voters, as well as their plans to keep him out of office.

 

There’s no longer any doubt about who Robert Mueller is or why he conducted himself the way he did. As abominable as his press conference was, we should in many ways be thankful that Mueller so willingly displayed for all to see his disdain for basic rules of prosecutorial conduct, his total lack of self-awareness, and his naked desire to stick it to Trump.

 

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

++++++

Other voices noting the horse-pucky:

 

Bogus Mueller Investigation Ends With His Sudden Retirement; By Judi McLeod; Canada Free Press; 5/30/19

 

Mueller is a Coward; By M. Noonan; Blogs For Victory; 5/29/19

 

DEMOCRATS INSULT TRUMP, ACCUSE, THEN WONDER WHY HE WALKS AWAY; By Timothy Benton; Ocensor; 5/29/19

 

Bob Mueller Runs and Hides in Eight Minutes to Avoid Having to Answer One Key Question; By ROGER L. SIMON; PJ Media; 5/29/19

 

Limbaugh on Mueller Remarks: ‘Do You Realize What an Abomination of the Justice System That Is?’ By JEFF POOR; Breitbart; 5/29/19

 

Robert Mueller’s abuse of our legal system continues – He didn’t need to speak Wednesday; By Tom Del Beccaro; Fox News; 5/29/19

____________________

Mueller/Dem Horse-Pucky

John R. Houk

© May 30, 2019

___________________

Special Counsel Mueller Gives Final Back Stabbing To Trump In Press Briefing To Help Democrats

 

© 2019 NWV – All Rights Reserved

_________________________

Mueller: ‘I couldn’t find a Trump-Crime…so it’s Time to Impeach him!’

 

Content is Copyright 1997-2019 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2019 Canada Free Press.Com 

_____________________

Judicial Watch President Calls for Investigation Into Mueller

 

© 2016 TrumpTrainNews

________________________

DERSHOWITZ BLASTS MUELLER FOR ‘EXCEEDING HIS ROLE’

 

© Copyright 1997-2019. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

___________________

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

 

Copyright © 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

The damning proof of innocence that FBI likely withheld in Russian probe


Here’s another Sunday cross post some piece you may find interesting or fascinating. Again YOU may have read, BUT I’m guessing many have not read.

 

The theme of Solomon’s piece is the FISA warrant standards presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to look at Carter Page and George Papadopoulos did NOT include the exculpatory evidence a FISC Judge probably would have denied a warrant.

 

JRH 3/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

The damning proof of innocence that FBI likely withheld in Russian probe

 

By JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

03/14/19 04:00 PM EDT

The Hill

 

If President Trump declassifies evidence in the Russia investigation, Carter Page’s summer bike ride to a Virginia farm and George Papadopoulos’s hasty academic jaunt to London may emerge as linchpin proof of FBI surveillance abuses during the 2016 election.

 

The two trips have received scant attention. But growing evidence suggests both Trump campaign advisers made exculpatory statements — at the very start of the FBI’s investigation — that undercut the Trump-Russia collusion theory peddled to agents by Democratic sources.

 

The FBI plowed ahead anyway with an unprecedented intrusion into a presidential campaign, while keeping evidence of the two men’s innocence from the courts.

 

Page and Papadopoulos, who barely knew each other, met separately in August and September 2016 with Stefan Halper, the American-born Cambridge University professor who, the FBI told Congress, worked as an undercover informer in the Russia case.

 

Papadopoulos was the young aide that the FBI used to justify opening a probe into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016, after he allegedly told a foreign diplomat that he knew Russia possessed incriminating emails about Hillary Clinton.

 

Page, a volunteer campaign adviser, was the American the FBI then targeted on Oct. 21, 2016, for secret surveillance while investigating Democratic Party-funded allegations that he secretly might have coordinated Russia’s election efforts with the Trump campaign during a trip to Moscow.

 

To appreciate the significance of the two men’s interactions with Halper, one must understand the rules governing the FBI when it seeks a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant such as the one secured against Page.

 

First, the FBI must present evidence to FISA judges that it has verified and that comes from intelligence sources deemed reliable. Second, it must disclose any information that calls into question the credibility of its sources. Finally, it must disclose any evidence suggesting the innocence of its investigative targets.

 

Thanks to prior releases of information, we know the FBI fell short on the first two counts. Multiple FBI officials have testified that the Christopher Steele dossier had not been verified when its allegations were submitted as primary evidence supporting the FISA warrant against Page.

 

Likewise, we know the FBI failed to tell the courts that Steele admitted to a federal official that he was desperate to defeat Trump in the 2016 election and was being paid by Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to gather dirt on the GOP candidate. Both pieces of information are the sort of credibility-defining details that should be disclosed about a source.

 

What remains uncertain in the court of public opinion is whether the FBI possessed evidence suggesting Papadopoulos and Page — and, thus, the larger Trump campaign — were innocent of collusion. Republican lawmakers have suggested for months that such evidence existed and was hidden from the courts, but none has emerged in public.

 

My reporting from more than two dozen sources, many with access to the FBI’s evidence, suggests one answer to that question lies in Halper’s interactions with the two Trump campaign advisers, some of it documented in FBI records. And interviews with both men reveal just how much they told Halper about their innocence.

 

Page, an avid biker, rode his mountain bike on Aug. 20, 2016, to a Northern Virginia farm after being invited there by Halper for a casual Saturday visit. Page met Halper weeks earlier when invited by Halper’s assistant to a Cambridge academic conference. The two corresponded by email around the time of Page’s trip to Moscow and arranged to meet in Virginia.

 

By the time Page arrived at Halper’s farm, he had been rattled by media calls during the prior week in which reporters alleged having information that Page met with two senior Russian intelligence figures in Moscow. The reporters suggested his trip might have been part of a larger plot to coordinate with Russia to benefit Trump’s election as president.

 

That allegation, it turns out, was one of many in the uncorroborated Steele dossier guiding the FBI’s collusion probe.

 

Page told me he was incredulous at the suggestions and told everyone he knew, including Halper, that he had not met either Russian intel figure and knew of no Trump-Moscow coordination.

 

“I’m certain that nothing I said that day at the professor’s farm could be deemed as anything other than exculpatory. And once again, in September, I explained reality to the FBI. Contrary to the DNC’s false reports, I have never met those Russians, and I did not know of any effort to coordinate, collude or conspire with Russia. Period.”

 

Page said he went to Moscow in July 2016 simply to give a speech, at the same university where former President Obama spoke a few years earlier. And he said he consciously did not take any actions with Russians that might raise concerns, especially after helping U.S. prosecutors and the FBI in an earlier Russian criminal case and meeting with federal authorities as recently as the previous March.

 

“I’ve never done anything even vaguely resembling illegality throughout the countless trips to Russia. But I was exceptionally meticulous that trip to carefully avoid anything that could be remotely construed as questionable,” he told me.

 

Page’s recollection is backed up by a letter he sent to then-FBI Director James Comey a few weeks after his Halper meeting. “For the record, I have not met this year with any sanctioned official in Russia, despite the fact that there are no restrictions on U.S. persons speaking with such individuals,” he wrote in September 2016.

 

Multiple sources tell me none of the FISA applications the FBI submitted to judges over the course of a year’s surveillance of Page made any mention of exculpatory statements or protestations of innocence that Page made to informants.

 

If such statements exist, in the form of a tape or a transcript or an FBI interview report — three routine investigative tools the FBI uses when managing informers — then it would be a huge omission that likely violated FBI rules.

 

A month later, in London, Papadopoulos was paid $3,000 to present a foreign policy paper to Halper. On the second day of his visit with Halper, Papadopoulos said the conversation turned from academic work to a barrage of questions about Russia, Trump and collusion, including whether the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia on the hacked Clinton emails or changed the GOP platform on Ukraine to appease Vladimir Putin.

 

Papadopoulos told me he pointedly remembers his response: “I made it clear to Halper that what he was suggesting did not only amount to treason, but that I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about and had no information at all about anyone involved with the campaign who might have been involved with a conspiracy because there never was a conspiracy and no one was colluding with a foreign power, especially Russia.

 

“Furthermore, I made it clear to him that Ukraine should be supported and that Russia will always remain a competitor, even if Trump decided to work with Russia to stabilize Syria and East Ukraine while checking China’s rise.”

 

Sources familiar with the FISA applications say they contain no evidence that Papadopoulos made exculpatory statements unwittingly to an FBI informer.

 

Again, if such statements exist in transcripts, tapes or FBI reports, they’re a major omission.

 

Page never has been charged with wrongdoing. And Papadopoulos, after an exhaustive investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, was not accused of conspiracy with Russia; instead, he pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI about a months-old conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a rumor that Russia possessed embarrassing emails from Clinton.

 

The crime was deemed so minor by the presiding judge that Papadopoulos was sentenced to a mere 14 days in jail.

 

If Page’s and Papadopoulos’s recollections of what they told Halper are accurate, former FBI officials Comey, James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok — all of whom played a role in the Russia probe and the FISA warrants — have some serious explaining to do. So does departing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed the fourth and final FISA warrant.

 

My reporting suggests a much bigger scandal — the intentional misleading of the nation’s federal intelligence court — soon may eclipse the Russia narrative that has dominated the media the past two years.

 

The fastest way to know if that storm is on the horizon is for Trump to declassify the documents showing exactly how the FBI behaved in this case.

___________________

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.

 

THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX

 

THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE ©2019 CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING CORP., A SUBSIDIARY OF NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.