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.

 

The Death of America’s Justice System


One thing the Dems have become experts at is exploiting the rule of law to exact Elitist rule over American life by hindering all things Conservative and especially manufacturing non-existent crimes to investigate all things Donald Trump. Justin Smith weighs in.

 

JRH 12/23/18

So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for an upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms.

Whatever my readers can chip in will be appreciated: https://www.paypal.me/johnrhouk

Please Support NCCR

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

The Death of America’s Justice System

President Trump: Besieged by Enemies of the State

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/21/2018 6:44 PM

 

President Donald J. Trump is currently besieged by an out-of-control anti-American Robert Mueller and his Special Counsel team of Democrats, who are abusing the rule of law and wielding the law like a 20-pound sledgehammer to smash President Trump’s existential threat to the Establishment ruling class’s monopoly on power. This “special counsel”, Mueller, an un-elected political hack and Hillary sycophant, is moving against our elected representative to the White House, attacking conservative American’s interests, in an effort to prove President Trump unworthy of the office. And this double-standard of “law” only highlights the fact that our “justice system” has died.

 

America has become punch-drunk from the blows She has recently taken from these self-serving globalists, communists and tyrants of both parties, and we need to return to a true and genuine rule of law rather than the medieval-cum-Bolshevik practices of the Deep State style justice. And in the process, Mueller himself should be prosecuted for overstepping the bounds of common decency and entrapping General Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former National Security Advisor.

 

Flynn’s guilty plea was based on yielding to the FBI’s assertion that he had lied about his perfectly legal conversation with Russia’s Ambassador Kislyak and had concealed a discussion on sanctions. Flynn’s plea was coerced by Mueller, who had the full weight of government behind him, since the legal battle bankrupted him and placed his son under the threat of criminal prosecution. All of this aimed at a real-life war hero, Lt. General Flynn.

 

Flynn is only one of several Trump associates charged with making false statements, during the Russia probe; however incredibly, not one Hillary Clinton aide, not even Cheryl Mills, were charged with making false statements, even though several aids and Clinton herself flat out lied many times, during the FBI’s Clinton email investigation.

 

In October, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth noted:

 

“I had myself found that Cheryl Mills (senior aide) had … lied under oath … I was quite shocked to find that she had been given immunity … by the Justice Department … “.

 

Along with this, on December 17th, we had to listen to another Hillary minion, James Comey the Hypocrite, speak about President Trump’s so-called “attacks” on the rule of law, the very rule he abrogated when he superseded U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and declared the Hillary Clinton email case closed, despite ample evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Comey himself was instrumental in going outside normal White House channels and entrapping Flynn, so ever intent as Comey was on bringing down the President.

 

Equally curious, the original interview FBI 302 document, in which two FBI agents state that Flynn did not lie, an exoneration, has magically disappeared and left us to rely on a half-assed interview of the two agents a half year after they originally interviewed Flynn, even though DC District Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan order Mueller and his lackeys to hand over the original 302, by December 14th. Mueller is pretending he can’t find them, while essentially symbolically telling a federal judge to “go to hell”.

 

Mueller and his group of Democrat lawyers, who represented the Clinton Crime Syndicate, are seeking any crime they can find or manufacture, in order to give Democrats ammo to impeach President Trump and undo the results of the 2016 election; even legal hush payments to Stormy Daniels, a whore, is now being turned into a crime, although Congress has maintained a fund to pay off sexual harassment claims against their members since 1995. “Treason” is the mantra of the day, even though the treason rests squarely in their own hearts and actions.

 

Mueller is applying the law against Trump and his associates in a bizarre and creative manner, putting them in peril from the law, when they could have never imagined that their conduct was somehow “illegal”. He’s charging the hell out of top conservative political shakers and movers, while refusing to give the socialist and communist elitist proponents of high treason skate clean away. making himself a tool of the ruling class to dismantle President Trump’s opposition and stop the draining of “the Swamp”.

 

No one is pretending now, and the mainstream media offers nary a peep over a rising and dangerous situation in our nation. If Trump had erased 30,000 emails that were under subpoena, he’d have been thrown under a prison in a Louisiana swamp somewhere, but not Hillary Clinton. Andrew McCabe and Comey lied through their teeth to Congress, but no one need look for them to ever be charged.

 

The Democrats erased a boatload of texts and used a deception to acquire a FISA warrant to spy on President Trump, but who cares, aside from the true American patriots? Nothing seems to matter to half of the country, other than their next welfare check and getting $15 an hour on the job and destroying our republic, “by any means necessary”. So, the Democrats get a pass.

 

If you and I had done a fraction of what Lying James Comey says Hillary “Felonia” Clinton did with classified information, we’d be in a cell using a plastic bag in the toilet to ferment the fruits we smuggled out of the chow hall.

 

Mueller’s appointment is full of conflicts, from his relationship with Hillary Clinton to his close relationship with fired FBI Director James Comey, who deliberately set the special counsel in place with his leaked documents. And both men have accepted millions from the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Crime Syndicate. Their pal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, helped them set in motion this probe, that has been stacked against President Trump from the beginning, after spending millions of taxpayer dollars, only to find there wasn’t any collusion between President Trump and the Russians, or for that matter, between Russia and any Trump associate.

As noted by Kurt Schlichter, editor at Townhall:

 

“[Lady] Justice is no longer blind. Her blindfold is off and she is picking favorites”

 

No matter how awkward or embarrassing some Americans might view President Trump, the actions of his opponents make them dangerous enemies of the state and America’s public interest. They are the aspiring tyrants, who long to use government agencies full of people with guns to enforce their will, as they circumvent legal statutes and the courts, and abrogate the rule of law; and President Trump must use any power at his disposal, including investigating the investigators, firing and charging them with their known crimes and putting an end to this dismantling of the rule of law, in order to preserve freedom and liberty in America and prevent Her from being forced into a hot civil war.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John E. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

All Dots Connected Validity


John R. Houk

© August 13, 2018

I had a friend request on the MeWe social media (my MeWe profile) where I discovered a repost of a popular chain email. I haven’t figured out how to link to individual MeWe post as yet or I’d share it. I found it on Vonda’s MeWe page if you choose to look for it.

 

If you look around the Web this chain email is all over the place under various names, versions and snippets. I am calling the chain email All Dots Connected based on the first three words on this version.

 

As a Conservative, the chain email is so familiar much of the information you can find here or read from Conservative sources. The thing is though, chain emails are notoriously unreliable for reasons leaning from down-right untrue to partially true, right on through to manipulative propaganda of twisted facts and lies.

 

Indeed, most of the fact checkers (dominated by Leftist ideology) labels this chain email as false. I used to be a devotee of Snopes and Politifact as dependable fact checkers. Then I began to notice the false stamp on facts I knew directly was true or at least mostly true. Here are some posts exposing the Leftist taint of Snopes and Politifact. If you do a little of your own investigating you will probably discover a Leftist taint of most fact checking websites.

 

The fact checking website I currently trust the most is Truth or Fiction.

 

Realizing the bias of fact checkers I decided to do my own look at the chain email All Dots Connected. What I discovered was the post is mostly true. There are some assertions based on one source alone; viz., Roger Stone. Just to be upfront. Stone is berated by the Left as a Right-Wing Conspiracist nut-job. The political Right pundits even question his reliability on many if not most Stone’s line of thinking. You’ll have to decide for yourself on Stone’s credibility.

 

Roger Stone was a one-time campaign advisor for Donald Trump. This placed a target on Stone’s back from the Mueller witch hunt. BUT SURPRISE, just like President Trump, the Mueller hound dogs have found ZERO on Stone as a go-between involving Donald Trump and Russia meddling in the 2016 election:

 

Mr. Mueller, a former FBI director, was appointed in May 2017 to investigate Russia’s alleged involvement, including any potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

 

Mr. Stone, 65, successfully predicted the release of Democratic documents by WikiLeaks during the race and previously claimed to be in contact with the website’s publisher, Julian Assange.

 

“I never received anything including allegedly hacked emails from WikiLeaks or Julian Assange or the Russians or anyone else,” Mr. Stone told ABC News. “[I] never passed them on to Donald Trump or the Trump campaign or anyone else.”

 

Individuals close to Mr. Stone who said they were contacted by Mr. Mueller’s office include Jason Sullivan, his former social media consultant; Andrew Miller, a longtime associate; Randy Credico, a radio host and comedian who personally met with Mr. Assange at his residence in London during the race; and fellow former Trump campaign advisers Sam Nunberg and Michael Caputo. John Kakanis, Mr. Stone’s driver and accountant, was subpoenaed to appear before the special counsel, Reuters previously reported.

 

“CNN reports Mueller probing my personal finances. Reuters reports Mueller subpoenas my current and former associates and now clear my e-mail, text and phone all monitored. My crime? Supporting @realdonaldtrump for President!” Mr. Stone said in a social media post this week.

 

The special counsel’s office declined to comment when reached by The Washington Times. (Mueller team pressing Roger Stone associates in Russian collusion probe: Report; By Andrew Blake; Washington Times; 7/13/18)

 

Currently Mueller is trying to strongarm Stone with investigations that have nothing to do with Russia interfering in the 2016 election. That witch hunt continues on getting anything on President Trump that had nothing to do with Mueller’s mandate to investigate if Trump and Russia worked together to fix the 2016 election cycle.

 

The last part of the chain email All Dots Connected tries to link Rod Rosenstein’s wife Lisa Barsoomian as a potential instrument of the CIA the to take down President Trump. To me, any such link is a huge stretch of the imagination of fantastical speculation. I have little doubt Barsoomian would work with other Deep Staters, but currently there is no connection other than her association with hubby Rosenstein, Comey, Mueller and the Clintons on some kind government basis.

 

AND NOW, All Dots Connected with linked sources, source quotes and personal commentary.

 

JRH 8/13/18

Please Support NCCR

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

ALL DOTS CONNECTED

 

Posted by Vonda Reynolds

August 11, 2018 1:12 PM

From Vonda MeWe Page

[Found very similar post entitled, “From ’01 to ’05 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation…”; By  SuperCharged2000; Investment Watch Blog; 7/24/18]

 

ALL DOTS CONNECTED…Clinton’s, Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, Learner, plus secret guests … Let’s PLAY FOLLOW THE TRAIL…
Let’s follow the trail……

 

Here’s what it looks like when all the pieces are sewn together. It smells like conspiracy and treason. Everyone needs to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because it’s very important……

 

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

 

A Grand Jury had been empaneled.

 

Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.

 

Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared. [The closest corroboration to this assertion is a Daily Mail lengthy article that shows the IRS refused to audit Clinton Foundation during this time period amidst inexplicable fraud schemes in alleged foreign charity work.]

 

Hmmm, now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.

 

Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? [Truth or Fiction; 4/25/18]

 

Bet you can’t guess.

 

None other than James Comey.

 

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

 

Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? [The Real Criminals, a RICO Scheme That Failed; By George McClellan; America Out Loud]

 

Your friend and mine, Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner.

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

 

It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

 

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? [Ibid.]

 

No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

 

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

 

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame?

 

I know, it’s a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances, but it was Robert Mueller. [Ibid. and FBI.gov]

 

What do all four casting characters have in common?

 

They all were briefed and/or were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation. [How $37 Million from the Clinton Foundation Disappeared in Baltimore; By Charles Ortel; LifeZette; 4/6/18]

 

Now that’s just a coincidence, right?

 

Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.

 

Let’s fast forward to 2009……

 

James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin. [Exposed: FBI Director James Comey’s Clinton Foundation Connection; By Patrick Howley; Breitbart; 9/10/16]

 

Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server by the way.

 

The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of Hillary. [Axios – 10/24/17 AND The Hill – 11/02/17 06:00 AM EDT]

 

Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

 

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t, the People got absolutely nothing out of it.

 

However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

 

Ok, no big deal right?

 

Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme. [FBI informant gathered years of evidence on Russian push for US nuclear fuel deals, including Uranium One, memos show; By JOHN SOLOMON; The Hill;  11/20/17 06:11 PM EST]

 

Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame?

 

Yep, Robert Mueller.

 

He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009. [Mueller’s Role in Delivering Uranium to Russians Raises Questions; By Steve Byas; The New American; 8/2/17]

 

Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland? [Russians Bragged About 10 Spies Assigned to Clinton; Mueller, McCabe, and Rosenstein Helped Cover It Up; By C. Mitchell Shaw; The New American; 3/1/18]

 

No other than, Rod Rosenstein.

 

Guess what happened to the informant?

 

The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it. [FBI Informant Testifies, Loretta Lynch Imposed Gag Order To Cover Moscow-Clinton Scheme; By Martin Walsh; Conservative Daily Post; 2/8/18 4:32 PM – Updated 5:16 PM]

 

How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?

 

Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved?

 

~145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal. [What We Know About The Russia-Clinton Uranium One Deal So Far Is Crazy Enough; By James H. Hyde; The Federalist; 12/5/17 –

 

‘The Kazakhstan deal was extremely lucrative for Giustra. He and others, such as Ian Telfer, who according to The New York Times served as Uranium One’s chairman, donated substantial amounts to the Clinton Foundation. In an interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox News, Schweizer says, “As this deal was coming for approval in 2010, the Clinton Foundation received [donations] from nine shareholders in this uranium company that was sold to the Russians. None of them all of a sudden decided they were going to donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation, more than $145 million. And by the way, a lot of those donations were never declared publicly by the Clintons, they were hidden.”’]

 

Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?

 

No other than, Lois Lerner.

 

Ok, that’s all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right?

 

Let’s fast forward to 2015.

 

Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.

 

He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was required by law. [Hillary Clinton didn’t comply with email policies, State Dept IG finds; By CBS/AP; CBSNews.com; 3/25/16 10:56 AM – Updated 1:07 PM EDT:

 

‘”At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report reads.

 

It goes on to say that Clinton produced 55,000 pages of emails to “mitigate” her failure to preserve the emails, but the inspector general “notes that Secretary Clinton’s production [of 55,000 pages of emails] was incomplete.” The report also says that the 55,000 pages included no emails from the first few months of her tenure as secretary for either received or sent messages.’]

 

He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. [But her emails? You’re dang right her emails; By  Marc A. Thiessen; Chicago Tribune; 6/20/18 4:55 PM:

 

“In fact, the overlooked bombshell of the report is the inspector general’s confirmation that classified information contained in Clinton’s emails was in fact compromised by foreign intelligence services, and that Clinton had recklessly emailed President Barack Obama using her unsecured personal email from the territory of a hostile foreign adversary.”]

 

 (Let’s not forget at least 10 CIA spies in China were killed by the Chinese because of the leaks and god knows what else occurred) [Blog Editor: I could not find a direct link to CIA deaths in China and Crooked Hillary’s illegal private email server. BUT a connect the dots look shows Crooked Hillary’s private may have contributed to Chinese murders of CIA Agents. Here are some dots to consider:

 

A DOT:

 

The classified information found on Secretary Clinton’s email server was quite alarming. For instance, at least 47 of Secretary Clinton’s emails from her basement server contain the notation “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. Ultimately, the FBI determined that:

 

“110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning [federal agency] to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.” (Critical Cybersecurity Takeaways From Hillary’s Email Debacle; By Stark On IR; CyberSecurityDocket.com; 7/15/16 12:19 pm)

 

A Dot:

 

The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

 

… Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.

 

 

Still others were put in jail. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, according to two former senior American officials, effectively unraveling a network that had taken years to build. (Killing C.I.A. Informants, China Crippled U.S. Spying Operations; By Mark MazzettiAdam GoldmanMichael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo; NYT; 5/20/17)

 

A Dot:

 

Clinton and her top aides had access to a Pentagon-run classified network that goes up to the Secret level, as well as a separate system used for Top Secret communications.

 

The two systems — the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) — are not connected to the unclassified system, known as the Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet). You cannot email from one system to the other, though you can use NIPRNet to send ­emails outside the government.

 

Somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 of Clinton’s home emails — including several the CIA earlier this month flagged as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs, a subset of SCI.

 

 

As a result of Clinton’s negligence, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a recent interview he thinks “the odds are pretty high” that hostile foreign powers like Iran, China and Russia hacked Clinton’s homebrew email server and stole US secrets. (Hillary’s team copied intel off top-secret server to email; By Paul Sperry; NY Post; 1/24/16 5:09am)

 

A Dot:

 

Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings, revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed FBI sources.

 

 

The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed ‘assets’ had illegally acquired former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 30,000+ “missing” emails, federal sources said.

 

The Russians didn’t do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.

 

And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America’s boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary’s treasure trove of classified and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.

 

 

Hundreds of top secret documents and even the president’s daily travel and security itineraries were on that server — and intercepted by a communist country — yet the FBI sat on the evidence. Likewise, all of Clinton’s and her inner circle’s outgoing emails were compromised as well, sources confirmed.

 

Even the Inspector General had tipped off the FBI — specifically Strzok — about the foreign breach. Still, no timely case was pursued. (FBI: Lisa Page Dimes Out Top FBI Officials During Classified House Testimony; Bureau Bosses Covered Up Evidence China Hacked Hillary’s Top Secret Emails; By Investigative Bureau; True Pundit; 7/17/18)

 

That is enough Dots for me to connect CIA deaths in China to Crooked Hillary’s illegal private email server.]

 

Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we shall leave it with this…… they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

 

Now this is amazing, guess who became FBI Director in 2013?

 

Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer? [Blog Editor:

 

But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year.

 

Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel.

 

How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.

 

Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010.

 

According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.

 

In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department. (Exposed: FBI Director James Comey’s Clinton Foundation Connection; By Patrick Howley; Breitbart; 9/10/16)

 

Most of the Left-Wing fact checkers dispute the direct connection between Comey, Lockheed Martin and Crooked Hillary. The Leftists twist the dots with a “FALSE” disregarding the linkage between dot to claim no direct connection means it didn’t happen. The most neural fact checker – Truth or Fiction – says the facts are correct but those facts do not provide a provable direct link, hence labels the linkage as misleading – HERE and HERE.]

 

No other than James Comey.

 

Amazing how all those no-bids just went right through at State, huh?

 

Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the “Clinton Email Investigation” after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner “Matter” at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. [Blog Editor: This should sound familiar:

 

“The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI began an investigation into the IRS controversy in May 2013.[30] In October 2015, the DOJ announced it was closing the investigation and would not seek criminal charges.[1] The determination came after an investigation of almost two years, in which the DOJ and FBI interviewed more than 100 witnesses and reviewed more than a million pages of IRS documents.[1]

 

In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, announcing the case closure, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter J. Kadzik wrote that while “our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment, and institutional inertia…Not a single IRS employee reported any allegation, concern or suspicion that the handling of tax-exempt applications—or any other IRS function—was motivated by political bias, discriminatory intent, or corruption.”[1] Kadzik wrote “We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”[31] Kadzik stated that the investigation specifically absolved Lerner of criminal liability, and determined that Lerner was in fact the first official to recognize a problem and try and correct it.[1][32] (FBI finds no evidence to support criminal prosecution; Wikipedia; page was last edited on 6/18/18, at 03:09 (UTC)”)]

 

Nope…. couldn’t find any crimes there.

 

Can you guess what happened next?

 

In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy. [Blog Editor:

 

“Former FBI Director James Comey started to draft a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in the bureau’s investigation into her use of a private email server before the FBI interviewed her or her key witnesses, the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.

 

“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second — that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a letter to the FBI.

 

The Judiciary Committee reviewed transcripts, which were heavily redacted, indicating Comey began drafting the exoneration statement in April or May 2016, before the FBI interviewed up to 17 key witnesses, including Clinton and some of her close aides. (James Comey started drafting statement exonerating Hillary Clinton before FBI interviewed her, aides; By Melissa Quinn; Washington Examiner; 8/31/17 01:40 PM)]

 

They didn’t even convene a Grand Jury.

 

Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true “Gangsta” Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. [Blog Editor:

 

VIDEO: FBI Director James Comey’s full statement on Clinton email investigation

 

Posted by CNN

Published on Jul 5, 2016

 

Five-minute rebuttal to Comey exoneration:

 

VIDEO: The FBI and Exonerated Emails: What’s Really Behind Comey and Clinton

 

Posted by Dr. Steve Turley

Published on Jul 12, 2016]

 

Can you see the pattern?

 

It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.

 

FISA Abuse, political espionage….. pick a crime, any crime, chances are…… this group and a few others did it.

 

All the same players.

 

All compromised and conflicted.

 

All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves.

 

All connected in one way or another to the Clintons.

 

They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch.

 

How many lives have these two destroyed?

 

As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

 

Let us not forget that Comey’s brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes. [Report: Comey’s Brother Works for the Law Firm That Handles Clinton Foundation’s Taxes; By June; Gateway Pundit; 5/12/17]

 

And,

See the person that is the common denominator to all the crimes above and still doing her evil escape legal maneuvers at the top of the 3 Letter USA Agencies? Yep, that would be Hillary R. Clinton.

 

WHO IS LISA BARSOOMIAN?

 

Let’s learn a little about Mrs. Lisa H. Barsoomian’s background. [Blog Editor: Much of the information below is based on Roger Stone posts. Incidentally, Stone’s website is under a red McAfee alert warning:

 

“Site Report

 

Here’s why stonecoldtruth.com/muller-rosenstein-and-comey-the-three-amigos-from-the-deep-state/ is dangerous

 

We regularly scan sites for suspicious and malicious activity — and this one just isn’t safe. You’ll find more details below.

 

 

One should consider if the McAfee alert is Left-Wing based or is actually infected with malicious content harmful to one’s computer. Nevertheless, many Conservative websites reference the Stone post and those websites are not under a McAfee alert.]

 

Lisa H. Barsoomian, a US Attorney that graduated from Georgetown Law, is a protege of James Comey and Robert Mueller. [Blog Editor:

 

“Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Intelligence Communities. She works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times, Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebelius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times between 1991 and 2017.

 

Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, but many of the documents from the Court Dockets relating to these cases have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including records of her representation for Clinton in 1998’s case Hamburg. V. Clinton.

 

The “Three Amigos” have surprisingly obvious conflicts of interest in their past and current investigatory responsibilities. Mueller even acted as a delivery boy for Hillary’s State Department, hand transporting ten grams of highly enriched uranium under the auspices of counter-terror. Was it a coincidence that this happened at the same time as Hillary and her associate John Podesta were nurturing the Uranium One deal that would see Russia take control over 20% of America’s proven uranium reserves? Shortly after the Russia uranium deal closed, the Clinton Foundation was showered with many millions of dollars from Russian donors.” (The “Truth” Part III: The Three Amigos; By Dan Newman; Truth News Network; 8/9/18)

 

And more:

 

“But the biggest reason why Rosenstein should recuse himself is that his wife was mentored by both Comey and Mueller and has been involved in many cases representing the FBI and Democrats involved in this case.

 

Roger Stone reported the following on Lisa Barsoomian in 2017:

 

Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein.  Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.

 

Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times, Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebelius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times between 1991 and 2017.

 

Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times.  It would be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998’s case Hamburg. V. Clinton.

 

Her loyalties are clearly with the entities that make up the Deep State, as are her husbands.” (GRAHAM PUTS PRESSURE ON ROSENSTEIN FOR HIS PART IN THE MUELLER PROBE – BUT HERE’S WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW; By STEVEN AHLE; Steadfast and Loyal; 6/3/18)

 

And more:

 

Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter on Thursday to Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about whether Rosenstein should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation due to his obvious conflicts with the case.

Graham should also request information about Rosenstein’s wife who represented the Clintons in the past.

Graham, in the May 31-dated letter, cited reports that Mueller’s investigation is looking at whether President Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey – and the fact that Trump relied on a Rosenstein-authored memo to justify the firing.  Rosenstein’s role was further detailed in a New York Times report earlier this week on a memo written by ousted FBI official Andrew McCabe.

Fox News has confirmed that the memo described a meeting where Rosenstein claimed Trump had asked him to reference Russia in his recommendation to fire Comey. Rosenstein declined, and instead focused on Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe. Trump pushed back on the account Thursday.  “Not that it matters but I never fired James Comey because of Russia! The Corrupt Mainstream media loves to keep pushing that narrative, but they know it is not true!” Trump tweeted.

Rosenstein’s wife, Lisa Barsoomian, represented Bill Clinton in a case in the 1990’s.  This alone should be enough for Rosenstein to be unqualified for any role related to the Clintons, Obama or their cronies.

Roger Stone reported the following on Lisa Barsoomian in 2017 –

Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein.  Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.

Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times, Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebelius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times between 1991 and 2017.

Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times.  It would be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998’s case Hamburg. V. Clinton.

Her loyalties are clearly with the entities that make up the Deep State, as are her husbands.

… Rosenstein’s wife is enough reason for him to recuse himself! (Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s Wife Also Has Extensive Ties to the Clintons, Mueller and Comey; Posted by Jim Hoft – Written by Joe Hoft; Gateway Pundit; 6/2/18)

 

Barsoomian, with her boss R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998. [Hamburg v. Clinton documents of on Scribd.]

 

Lawrence also represented:

 

Robert Mueller three times;

James Comey five times;

Barack Obama 45 times;

Kathleen Sebelius 56 times;

Bill Clinton 40 times; and

Hillary Clinton 17 times.

 

Between 1998 and 2017, Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times.

 

You may be saying to yourself, OK, who cares? Who cares about the

work history of this Barsoomian woman?

 

Apparently someone does, because someone out there cares so much that they’ve “purged” all Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in 1999 from the DC District and Appeals Court dockets (?). [Blog Editor: Honestly, the only reference to a Barsoomian document purge of any sort are the many versions (and there are many) of this chain email. Ergo, either the statement is accurate OR no such purge ever took place.]

 

Someone out there cares so much that the internet has been “purged” of all information pertaining to Barsoomian. [Blog Editor: This statement is blatantly false or I would not be able what I have discovered my own to this point.]

 

Historically, this indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative. [Blog Editor: Unsubstantiated speculation undoubtedly based on the CIA’s reputation] Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community. [Blog Editor: I found this relating to Barsoomian and FOIA:

 

‘In 2000, she represented the FBI in a case that involved “a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center,” according to Wired. An ABC News story stated: “Government lawyer Lisa Barsoomian contended the group’s request for a court order was moot because the FBI had agreed to expedite its review.”

 

She was also involved in a Freedom of Information case involving a prisoner.’ (Lisa Barsoomian, Rod Rosenstein’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know; By Jessica McBride; Heavy.com; Updated 7/9/18 2:52pm)

 

From what I could discover on the fly about Lisa Barsoomian and FOIA is she overwhelming represented the FBI. The only specific FOIA/CIA/Barsoomian action I found are primarily quotes of this chain email without naming the specific reference requested.]

 

And, although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the DC Office of the US Attorney, her email address is Lisa Barsoomian at NIH gov. The NIH stands for National Institutes of Health.

 

This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an operative by using another government organization to shield their activities. Blog Editor: Again, unsubstantiated speculation.]

 

It’s a cover, so big deal right? I mean what does one more attorney with ties to the US intelligence community really matter?

 

It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition to President Trump, the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal and subsequent 14-month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana legalization mix …. and last but not least Mueller’s never-ending investigation into collusion between the Trump team and the Russians.

 

Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention?

 

BECAUSE….

 

She is Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s WIFE….That’s why!!

 

GET THIS INFORMATION OUT TO EVERYONE YOU CAN.

 

Jaw dropping, shocking and extremely sad that this info has never been exposed-

 

DO YOUR PART IN PLASTERING THIS INFORMATION EVERYWHERE …. it’s bullet proof and cannot be blown off by leftists … and will convince many not paying attention that we have a soft coup happening now..

 

GLP powers activate …. get this all over the net and email
Boxes. [Blog Editor: Being a Baby-Boomer, I have no idea what “GLP” means. I’m guessing it has to do with getting the info out far and wide.]

___________________

All Dots Connected Validity

John R. Houk

© August 13, 2018

__________________

ALL DOTS CONNECTED

 

Chain Email with Blog Editor Commentary

 

TRUMP: ‘STAY TUNED’ FOR REVELATIONS ON ‘WITCH HUNT’


I just read an Art Moore/WND article with the central theme being President Trump is about to use his authority to declassify documents utilized by the DOJ/FBI to entice a FISC Judge (or Judges) to issue a FISA warrant (i.e. a secret warrant) to spy, err I mean, investigate the Donald Trump campaign for working with the Russians to rig the 2016 election cycle.

 

I suspect, along with many Conservatives, declassified documents will expose real criminal conspiracy of Democrats loyal to Obama and Crooked Hillary to rig an election victory or fabricate Trump crimes to impeach President Trump.

 

That sounds like Dem treason that should lead a direct line to Obama and Hillary Clinton. When the documents are declassified we will discover how powerful the Deep State is by whether or not indictments follow.

 

JRH 8/10/11

Please Support NCCR

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

TRUMP: ‘STAY TUNED’ FOR REVELATIONS ON ‘WITCH HUNT’

Follows Giuliani’s warning Mueller probe about to ‘blow up’

 

By ART MOORE

August 9, 2018

WND

[Support an independent Press by sending cash to WND]

 

Following personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s warning that the special counsel investigation of alleged Russia-Trump campaign collusion is about to “blow up,” President Trump tweeted Thursday to “Stay tuned.”

 

“This is an illegally brought Rigged Witch Hunt run by people who are totally corrupt and/or conflicted,” the president wrote on Twitter.

 

“It was started and paid for by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats. Phony Dossier, FISA disgrace and so many lying and dishonest people already fired. 17 Angry Dems? Stay tuned!”

 

The Gateway Pundit blog cited investigative reporter Paul Sperry’s tweet pointing out that Trump is about to declassify the renewal application the Justice Department and the FBI submitted to a FISA court – signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.

 

Trump also is declassifying the communications of twice-demoted Justice Department official Bruce Ohr with the author of the Democrat-funded, anti-Trump dossier of still unverified Russian propaganda that became the primary evidence submitted to the FISA court to spy on Page.

 

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who has been investigating Justice Department handling of the Hillary Clinton and Russia probes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a Fox News interview Monday that Ohr “is going to become more and more important in this investigation and I think people should pay close attention to it.”

 

Sperry said in a tweet to look for Trump this month to declassify 20 redacted pages of the June 2017 FISA renewal and possibly 63 pages of emails and notes between Ohr and dossier author Christopher Steele. In addition, the official summaries of 12 FBI interviews with Ohr regarding Steele are expected to be declassified.

 

Giuliani asserted in an interview Wednesday night with the Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that Mueller’s effort to go after President Trump will backfire.

 

“The reality is, the real story is not that this case isn’t going to fizzle,” he said. “It’s going to blow up on them. The real question is, what we talked about before, there’s a lot more to what they did that nobody knows about yet.”

 

Giuliani indicated the evidence is pointing to a conspiracy by the Democrats to defeat Trump.

 

There’s “a lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier,” Giuliani said.

 

Hannity commented, “I know some of it.”

 

The only collusion in the case, the former New York City mayor said, is the intelligence community using the Steele dossier to obtain “several fraudulent FISA wires.”

 

“Can it get any worse?” Giuliani asked. “I mean, what do we need to know that this is a totally illegitimate investigation based on a report, a dossier that was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats – probably the biggest illegality so far, the biggest collusion so far. Completely made up.”

 

Giuliani said he believes “that when this plays out over the next year or two, it’s not going to be about President Trump.”

 

Citing his sources, Hannity said the truth, when it’s finally revealed, will “shock the heart, the soul, and the mind of any fair-minded American.”

______________________

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

About WND

 

WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.

 

“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”

 

Indeed, WND is a fiercely independent news site committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.

 

Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence.

 

WND has broken some of the biggest, most significant and READ THE REST

 

SUPPORT WND DONATION

 

WSJ: Was John Brennan The One Who Actually Engaged In “Treason”?


Tim Brown uses an article by the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel to extrapolate the notion former CIA Director John Brennan (See Also HERE) was an Obamunist traitor. The notion arises because Brennan accused President Trump of Treason for merely meeting with Putin in Helsinki.

 

JRH 7/22/18

Please Support NCCR

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

WSJ: Was John Brennan The One Who Actually Engaged In “Treason”?

When men like John Brennan point their finger at others and cry “treason,” they are attempting to pin the very crime they are guilty of on someone else.

 

By TIM BROWN

JULY 21, 2018

Freedom Outpost

 

Well, Sebastian Gorka has been upfront that former Obama CIA Director John Brennan is both a “Communist” and a “traitor.”  Now, it appears that the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel may be following that path without coming right out and saying it.

 

In a recent column, Strassel seems to take issue with Brennan’s tweets from earlier this week when he tore into President Donald Trump over his actions in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors,’” tweeted Brennan.

 

“It was nothing short of treasonous,” added Brennan, who worked for what could be argued was the most treasonous person to sit in the Oval Office.  “Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

 

 

According to Ms. Strassel, “This is rough stuff, even for an Obama partisan.”

 

She then wrote:

 

That’s what Mr. Brennan is—a partisan—and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is in some ways more concerning than the FBI’s. Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules, breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers. Yet it seems far likelier that the FBI’s Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and overconfidence than some partisan plot. No such case can be made for Mr. Brennan. Before his nomination as CIA director, he served as a close Obama adviser. And the record shows he went on to use his position—as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world—to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and keep his job).

 

Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.” The CIA can’t investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI. This information, he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.” My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he as an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.

 

More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump—which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

 

Think about that just a moment because on Saturday I reported on the fact that sources have claimed that former FBI attorney Lisa Page has begun to testify under oath that there was absolutely no basis for the Mueller investigation into Trump.  In that report, I referenced John Solomon’s claim that:

 

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

 

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

 

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

 

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

 

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

 

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

 

Strassel continues:

 

The CIA director couldn’t himself go public with his Clinton spin—he lacked the support of the intelligence community and had to be careful not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics. So what to do? He called Harry Reid. In a late August briefing, he told the Senate minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to support such a claim.)

 

But the truth was irrelevant. On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public. “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”

 

The Reid letter marked the first official blast of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open. Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI. On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline: “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” Voilà. Not only was the collusion narrative out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating.

 

In their recent book “Russian Roulette,” Mr. Isikoff and David Corn say even Mr. Reid believed Mr. Brennan had an “ulterior motive” with the briefing, and “concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign.” (Brennan allies have denied his aim was to leak damaging information.)

 

Clinton supporters have a plausible case that Mr. Comey’s late-October announcement that the FBI had reopened its investigation into the candidate affected the election. But Trump supporters have a claim that the public outing of the collusion narrative and FBI investigation took a toll on their candidate. Politics was at the center of that outing, and Mr. Brennan was a ringmaster. Remember that when reading his next “treason” tweet.

 

Indeed, remember it.  Brennan was Obama’s Muslim convert for jihad here in the US.

 

When men like John Brennan point their finger at others and cry “treason,” they are attempting to pin the very crime they are guilty of on someone else.  Ms. Strassel, while not being as forthright as Gorka about Brennan’s treason, nevertheless, seems to be saying just that in what she wrote.  America would do well to listen and bring justice to bear upon this traitor and the traitors surrounding him, but I have my doubts that anyone in this life will actually hold him accountable.

 

Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard

__________________________

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.comSonsOfLibertyMedia.comGunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit

 

Copyright © 2018 FreedomOutpost.com

 

8 Times Obama’s Intelligence Agencies Set People Up To Fabricate The Russia Story


Now here is a collusion list that is sure to inspire massive lying deflection with such beginning phrases as “But Trump did …

 

Have you noticed that NOT one scintilla of corroborated evidence has been produced to suggest that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016? My God! It’s 2018 and the Dems pulling all the stops and lies to remove the President from Office.

 

AND YET, there is a huge (or YUGE) amount of public information of not only collusion but also corruption within the Obama/Crooked Hillary camp to steal the 2016 election or (in the blessed event that won Trump won) impeach the President.

 

Willis L. Krumholz writing for The Federalist illustrates a clear picture of actions that should lead to criminal prosecution.

 

JRH 6/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

8 Times Obama’s Intelligence Agencies Set People Up To Fabricate The Russia Story

These events should anger any red-blooded American who believes in representative democracy and the importance of the rule of law.

 

Daily Briefing – Obama & Clapper

 

By Willis L. Krumholz

JUNE 6, 2018

The Federalist

 

The intelligence bureaucracies spied on the Donald Trump campaign: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants were granted because of a Hillary Clinton-funded and unverified document, national-security letters were issued to allow warrantless spying, and the unprecedented but not-illegal-per-se unmasking of Trump officials’ conversations with non-U.S. persons was shockingly routine.

 

Yet the news of a CIA-connected human source operating as far back as April or May of 2016 is about more than just spying. It is the latest example in what now looks to be a long line of attempted setups by the Clinton team, many times aided and abetted by our intelligence bureaucracies.

 

These events should anger any red blooded American who believes in representative democracy and the importance of the rule of law. Let’s review eight examples.

 

  1. CIA And FBI ‘Human Intelligence’

 

We’ve just learned about Stefan Halper, a CIA-connected Cambridge professor who — working for the FBI — contacted Trump advisers Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Sam Clovis during the 2016 election, to investigate what they might know about suspicions of collusion with Russia. Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo has claimed that he was approached by an unknown second U.S. intelligence community asset in early May of 2016.

 

The FBI says that the Russia investigation began in July, because of something Papadopoulos said to an Australian diplomat in May. Papadopoulos had supposedly told the Australian diplomat something about Russia having information that “could be damaging” to Clinton. Papadopoulos allegedly heard this from Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese-born professor who allegedly claimed to have close ties with Russia.

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team charged Papadopoulos — unconvincingly — with lying to investigators, because Papadopoulos said his contacts with Mifsud began before he was on the Trump campaign. Actually, the contacts started after he “learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the campaign,” but before the campaign made a public announcement that he was to be an advisor.

 

Mifsud is strangely now in hiding, possibly fearing for his life. Lee Smith details Mifsud’s ties to Western intelligence agencies, and Margot Cleveland suspects Mifsud may have been a U.S. intelligence plant along with Halper.

 

  1. The Trump Tower Meeting

 

Whenever Democrats or David French types talk about Trump and Russia collusion they look to the Trump Tower meeting as definitive proof. There are several problems with that. First, no presidential campaign in American history would pass up the chance of hearing evidence of crimes being committed by their opponent, no matter the source. In fact, some would say you’re doing the country a favor if you let everyone know that your opponent is subject to blackmail from a not-so-friendly foreign power (just don’t have your son and son-in-law sit in on the meeting).

 

More problematic is that Glenn Simpson — head of Fusion GPS, the firm being paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to prove (or create) ties between Trump and Russia — met with the two Russians who attended the Trump Tower meeting both before and after the meeting. Simpson’s excuse for doing so? Because he was working with the two Russians on a different issue, the repeal of the anti-Kremlin Magnitsky Act.

 

In other words, at the very least, the firm that created the dossier for Clinton and the DNC — using Russian intelligence sources — was the same firm that was working with the Kremlin to repeal a law passed by Congress because Putin’s thugs beat an innocent man to death in Russian prison. At most, this was yet another setup.

 

  1. Mike Flynn And The Logan Act

 

During the 2016 campaign, Democrats howled about the need to prosecute Trump campaign officials under an obscure 1799 law called the Logan Act. Byron York has documented that this was the pretext Obama-appointed former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates used to unmask former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s side of highly-appropriate phone conversations with the Russian ambassador that occurred during the transition period, and then send FBI agents to interview Flynn about those conversations.

 

Although the FBI has tried to cover this up, we now know that the agents who interviewed Flynn — including the disgraced and hugely anti-Trump Peter Strzok — didn’t believe that Flynn had lied. Nevertheless, Mueller’s team charged Flynn with lying to the FBI. After Mueller’s charge had nearly bankrupted Flynn, and after Mueller threatened to go after Flynn’s son, Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

 

  1. Andrew McCabe Sets Up Reince Priebus

 

After an intelligence briefing at the White House in early 2017, former FBI number two Andrew McCabe asked to meet privately with former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. A story had just dropped — anonymously sourced from multiple intelligence community officials — that Trump aides had multiple contacts with Russian intelligence during the election.

 

McCabe wanted to tell Priebus that the FBI didn’t think the story was true. Of course, Priebus asked McCabe if the FBI could publicly say just that. McCabe said he would have to check. But former FBI Director James Comey called Priebus to say that the FBI couldn’t publicly shoot down the story.

 

Days later, the “breaking news” on CNN was that the White House had tried to pressure the FBI into batting down the reports on supposed ties between Trump and Russia. So not only was the White House supposedly colluding, now there were allegations of obstruction of justice.

 

  1. Brennan Shops Dossier To Harry Reid

 

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who may have been the U.S. intelligence official to first push an investigation into the Trump campaign, briefed then-Sen. Harry Reid on the Clinton-funded dossier in August 2016.

 

The briefing did two things: First, it lent some legitimacy to the dossier, and second, it got Reid to pressure the FBI to not drop the investigation. The briefing had the added bonus of allowing Reid to speak publicly about Trump’s ties to Russia, as if he had just gained access to groundbreaking proof of collusion, which was of course covered by the media.

 

  1. Comey And Clapper Give CNN A Reason To Publish The Dossier

 

Comey, at the behest of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, briefed Trump on one of the allegations in the dossier, but not on the main allegation in the dossier, who had funded the dossier, or how that dossier was being used by the FBI. Nevertheless, this briefing looks like one more setup, meant to allow CNN to report on the existence of the dossier as if it were highly verified and being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence community officials.

 

Clapper then leaked information about the dossier and the briefings to CNN, and later looks to have lied about those leaks to Congress. Amazingly, Clapper has previously lied to Congress. Clapper now works for CNN.

 

  1. The Jeff Sessions Recusal

 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation after anonymous intelligence community leaks about his contacts with Russians. Specifically, Sessions — as a senator — met with former Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak in his D.C. office. In another meeting, Sessions gave a speech and a gaggle of diplomats — including Kislyak — talked with him for several minutes as he was coming off the stage.

 

The idea behind the unnecessary recusal was that somehow Sessions had misrepresented these contacts to former Sen. Al Franken. Actually, Franken — referring to one of many CNN stories sourced by anonymous officials about supposed Trump and Russia collusion — had clearly asked about whether Sessions had colluded with any Russians during the campaign, not whether Sessions had ever met any Russians.

 

  1. Rosenstein Recommends Comey Firing, Appoints Special Counsel

 

But with Jeff Sessions out of the way, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein became the acting attorney general for all things Russia-investigation-related. Rosenstein then recommended Comey’s firing, and then — overseeing the investigation that stemmed from that firing — appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. Mueller, a former FBI Director, happened to be a close associate of Comey and Rosenstein, and would surely want to protect the interests of the FBI and the Justice Department.

 

Taken together, these setups indicate a massive effort to aid the Clinton campaign before the election.

 

After all, the entire theory of Trump-Russia collusion originated with the Clinton campaign in the lead-up to the Democrat National Convention, when it became clear that the DNC had experienced a document theft. That document theft was highly embarrassing to Clinton and the DNC, as it revealed that the DNC had been systematically stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders. The immediate goal, then, was to both distract from the mistreatment of Bernie, and completely peel the GOP national security establishment away from Trump. The Clinton campaign was successful in both of these efforts.

 

Later, during the general election, whenever Hillary’s misdeeds came up, Clinton responded by pointing to Trump’s nefarious ties with Russia. Distasteful as it may seem, this was Machiavellian politics 101. Any focus group of voters would have told the Clinton people that Hillary was the steady hand, but that they had ethical concerns about her, and also sought a change from the status quo. The way to counteract this reluctance was to paint Hillary’s opponent as ethically challenged, too, and paint his alternative to the status quo as downright dangerous. (You might say that Trump was an easy target here, but look what the Obama-campaign did to Romney.)

 

Dirty tricks are of course not new to American politics. But the apparent involvement of the U.S. intelligence community in these setups is deeply troubling. Democrats, intelligence bureaucrats, and the media have told us that the investigation started with Page. When that fell apart, they said the investigation started with Papadopoulos. Now, the Papadopoulos origination story is falling apart too.

 

It now looks like the corrupt and highly partisan upper-echelon of the U.S. intelligence community started their preliminary investigation as soon as the Clinton people — in the run-up to the Democratic convention — began claiming that there were ties between Trump and Russia. During this same time, Clinton and the DNC paid Fusion GPS, which hired Chris Steele to dig up ties between Trump and Russia.

 

This is nothing more than prosecutorial point and shoot, where corrupt big-government politicians send the corrupt and sympathetic federal bureaucracy after their political enemies. It’s no different than what happened with Lois Lerner at the Internal Revenue Service. Democrats gave speeches and sent official letters, Obama implied he wanted action, and dutiful bureaucrats did the rest.

 

With the intelligence agencies on board, legitimacy was lent to the Hillary Clinton campaign’s wild claims. All the media had to do in the weeks before Election Day was to frantically report that Trump’s campaign was being investigated, and that a document containing allegations of Trump-Russia ties (the “dossier”) was being seriously looked into by intelligence officials. That fed back to the voters, and certainly made many feel a little bit better about voting for Clinton, or not voting for Trump.

 

After the election, it has been all about C.Y.A., because these corrupt bureaucrats leading these intelligence bureaucracies never imagined Trump would win. Here, ladies and gentleman, is your real election interference and collusion: between the massive, all-powerful and unaccountable intelligence bureaucracies, the media, the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign.

____________________

Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry. The views expressed are those of the author only. You can follow Willis on Twitter @WillKrumholz.

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Tinker, Tailor, Clapper, Carter, Downer, Halper, Spy


In this Jewish World Review post, Mark Steyn relates the obvious to readers: There was indeed interference in the 2016 election cycle, BUT it was not Donald Trump colluding with Russians. Rather it was the Dems and their Deep State comrades in the Obama Administration pulling out ALL efforts to make Trump was not elected. OR if elected, to undermine President Trump so malignantly, he’d get impeached or resign.

 

JRH 5/28/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Tinker, Tailor, Clapper, Carter, Downer, Halper, Spy

 

By Mark Steyn

May 28,2018

Jerusalem World Review

 

Facts – Myths

 

As I think most persons paying attention now realize, the investigation into foreign interference with the 2016 election was created as a cover for domestic interference with the 2016 election.

 

It was run at the highest (or deepest) Deep State levels by the likes of James Clapper and John Brennan, whose frantic and hysterical Tweets are like no utterances of any CIA director in history. That also explains one of the puzzling aspects of the last year that I’ve occasionally mentioned here and on TV and radio: If you were truly interested in an “independent” Special Counsel, why would you appoint Robert Mueller? He’s a lifetime insider and the most connected man in Washington – a longtime FBI Director, and Assistant Attorney-General and acting Deputy Attorney-General at the Department of Justice.

 

Exactly. His most obvious defect as an “independent” counsel is, in fact, his principal value to the likes of Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein: He knows, personally, almost every one in the tight little coterie of discredited upper-echelon officials, and he has a deep institutional loyalty to bodies whose contemporary character he helped create. In other words, he’s the perfect guy to protect those institutions. As for the nominal subject of his investigation, well, he’s indicted a bunch of no-name Russian internet trolls who’ll never set foot in a US courthouse. That’s not even worth the cost of printing the complaint. Rush Limbaugh has been kind enough to quote, several times, my line that “there are no Russians in the Russia investigation”. Which is true. Yet that doesn’t mean there aren’t foreigners. And an inordinate number of them are British subjects – or, to use today’s preferred term, “Commonwealth citizens”. All the action in this case takes place not in Moscow but in southern England.

 

Let’s start at Cambridge University with a two-day conference called “2016’s Race to Change the World“, held on July 11th and 12th 2016 – or three weeks before the FBI supposedly began its “counterintelligence” operation against Trump, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane”. That’s from the first line of the Rolling Stones’ “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”. The song and its key signature figure in the plot of a ho-hum Cold War thriller of the same name, about a British spy trying to get info from the Russians to an [sic] heroic American woman.

 

Yes, really. Jonathan Pryce played “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” , and I asked him about it when I moderated a panel on acting at St Catherine’s College, Oxford with him and Patti Lupone a few years later.

 

If you think that’s a weird event for an Oxbridge college to host, it’s as nothing to this “Race to Change the World” beano. I do my share of international junketing, but the bill of fare for this curious symposium is so bland as to be almost generic – panels titled “Europe and America”, “2016 and the World”, “Global Challenges Facing the Next President”. Compared to the laser-like focus of a typical Cambridge confab (“A Westphalia for the Middle East?“), it’s almost as if someone were trying to create an event so anodyne and torpid no one would notice it. All that distinguished these colorless presentations was the undoubted eminence of the speakers: former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind; and Sir Richard Dearlove, former C (that’s M, for 007 fans) at MI6. The conference appears to have been put together at a couple of weeks’ notice by Steven Schrage, former “Co-Chair of the G8’s Anti-Crime and Terrorism Group” and a well-connected man on the counterterrorism cocktail circuit: Here he is introducing Mitt Romney to the director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, and here he is spending election night in the UK at a party with Scotland Yard elite counterterrorist types. Make of that what you will – it’s a somewhat odd background for the convenor of an insipid, vanilla, cookie-cutter foreign-policy seminar – but among the small number of strangely prestigious attendees at Mr Schrage’s conference were:

 

~Carter Page, a petroleum-industry executive and Trump campaign volunteer;

 

~Christopher Steele, the former head of the Russia house at MI6;

 

~Stefan Halper, a University of Cambridge professor with dual UK/US citizenship.

 

Today, Mr Page is better known as the endlessly surveilled “person of interest” whose eternally renewable FISA warrant was the FBI’s gateway into the Trump campaign; Mr Steele is a sometime FBI asset who, a week before the Cambridge conference, had approached the G-men with the now famous “dossier” that provided the pretext for the FISA application; and Professor Halper turns out to be not some tweedy academic but a man with deep connections to MI6 and the CIA, on the payroll of something at the Pentagon called the “Office of Net Assessment”, and (one of) the supposed FBI informant(s) inside the Trump circle.

 

Carter Page says that in the course of this two-day conference he met Professor Halper for the first time. But I was struck by this aside Mr Page made to Sara Carter:

 

Madeliene [sic] Albright was always trying to get me to go into public debates. I told her I was there just as a listener, just as an attendee.

 

Hmm. If you’ll forgive another Patti Lupone-type digression, many years ago our mutual pal Ned Sherrin decided to launch, just for a laugh, a rumor that me and Carol Thatcher (Mrs T’s daughter) were having an affair. Ned told somebody, and somebody told somebody else, and about eight months later it turned up as an item in Nigel Dempster’s highly authoritative Daily Mail gossip column, along with a rather goofy picture of me and Carol at a David Frost shindig at the Grosvenor House in Park Lane. And Ned was stunned – because he assumed the Daily Mail story was true. Because, by the time it circled back to him, he’d clean forgotten he’d started the whole business.

 

Oddly enough, that’s exactly how James Comey and Andrew McCabe and John Brennan work. At the FISA court, the FBI, to bolster their reliance on the Steele dossier, pointed to newspaper stories appearing to corroborate aspects of it – even though, as he subsequently testified under oath at the Old Bailey, those stories were in fact fed to those reporters by Steele himself. Nevertheless, it works like a charm on gullible FISA judges. You take one thing and you make it two things. Or even better, you take nothing and you make it a thing: Here, from yesterday’s letter by Senator Ron Johnson, are McCabe, Sally Yates and other FBI/DOJ honchos arranging for Comey to brief Trump on the Steele dossier for the sole purpose of giving CNN a news peg for leaking details about what’s in it.

 

It’s almost as if that’s what Madeleine Albright is doing here, isn’t it? It’s one thing to invite Carter Page to show up at some tedious yakfest at Cambridge with Halper sitting in front of him and Chris Steele sitting behind. But what if you could get Page to stand up and say something? Then you could find a friendly journo to report it and, instead of just a nobody on the fringes of the campaign, you’d have a “senior Trump advisor” sharing his thoughts on the global scene with Madam Albright and Sir Richard and Sir Malcolm and all the other bigshots, and then you could use that story three weeks later at the FISA court, to demonstrate how deep into the heart of the campaign the Russkies had penetrated.

 

Instead, Professor Halper has to make do with chit-chatting to Mr Page over the tea and biscuits, and planting the seeds for a friendly relationship.

 

Herewith a note on the academic circuit: emeritus professors and visiting fellows are popular covers with espionage agencies because there’s minimal work and extensive foreign travel, to international talking shops like the one above. If you make the mistake of being a multinational businessman and go to foreign countries to meet with other businessmen, you’ll be investigated up the wazoo. But, if you’re a professor and you go to foreign countries to meet with other professors, the world is your oyster. You also get to meet young people, who are the easiest to recruit.

 

Here’s another professor, and from another Commonwealth country: Malta. Joseph Mifsud is (was) a professorial fellow at the University of Stirling in Scotland, but is (was) based in London as a principal of the “London Centre of International Law Practice” and a director of the “London Academy of Diplomacy”, both of which sound fancy-schmancy but are essentially hollow entities operating from the same premises – 8, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, a tony address (next to the London School of Economics and the Royal College of Surgeons) but the “London Centre/Academy’s” fifth in three years and at which they and a handful of other endeavors are holed up in a minimally furnished back room filled by four interns round a trestle table on fifty quid a week.

 

Professor Mifsud also has (had) similarly undemanding academic sinecures at the “Euro-Mediterranean University” in Slovenia and “Link Campus University” in Italy. At the beginning of March 2016, a young man called George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign. On March 14th, traveling through Italy, he met with Professor Mifsud. They got together again in Britain, and at some point Papadopoulos became head of the “London Centre of International Law Practice’s” soi-disant “Centre for International Energy and Natural Resources Law & Security”, a post for which he had no obvious qualifications. Happily, like most other jobs at the “London Centre”, it didn’t require work, or showing up at the “London Centre” or even being in London.

 

Mifsud is said to have ties to high-ranking figures in Moscow, but there seems to be more prima facie evidence of ties to high-ranking figures in London. That’s Professor Mifsud above with my old friend Boris Johnson, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, at some Brexit event last October 19th. On October 31st Joseph Mifsud disappeared and has not been seen since. I know how he feels: The same thing happened to me twelve days after I lunched with Boris at The Spectator in early 2006. Is (was) Mifsud an FSB asset? An MI6 asset? Both? Neither? Well, there’s more circumstantial evidence of Mifsud’s ties to British intelligence, including multiple meetings with, inter alia, Claire Smith of the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

 

At any rate, back in London on April 26th 2016, Professor Mifsud told young Papadopoulos that the Russians have all this “dirt” on Hillary, “thousands of emails”. A couple of days later, a friend of George’s at the Israeli Embassy, Christian Cantor, introduced him to Erika Thompson, who worked for Alexander Downer, Canberra’s High Commissioner in the UK, at Australia House. On May 4th, Papadopoulos was quoted in The Times of London denouncing David Cameron for calling Trump “divisive, stupid and wrong“. On May 6th, Ms Thompson called Papadopoulos to say that Mr Downer wanted to meet him. On May 10th they met for drinks at the Kensington Wine Rooms. Young George claims that the High Commissioner told him to “leave David Cameron alone”. Which doesn’t sound quite right to me.

 

As longtime readers may recall, I have drunk with Alexander Downer and that is not something to be undertaken lightly. Somewhere in the course of the evening a pretty squiffy Papadopoulos lifted his head up from the bowl of cocktail olives and started blabbing about Russian “dirt” on Hillary.

 

Another digression: Mr Downer was Australia’s longest serving foreign minister and, as I used to say in those days, “my favorite foreign minister”. Since then, he has spent many years on the “advisory board” of Hakluyt, a curiously named body set up by former MI6 chaps. I’m not saying he spends his nights rappelling down the walls of presidential palaces (although I would be tickled to be proved wrong), but I don’t think I’m betraying any confidences when I say that, after tea with Alexander in Adelaide a couple of years back, whence he had just returned from some meeting with some group or other in Lisbon, I remember musing about that select circle of people who can jet around the world in the expectation that doors will open for them and some useful tidbit will drop into their laps. As for Hakluyt, its website is here: I do believe it’s the coolest thing I’ve seen since (another long me-‘n’-Carol-type story) I was given Marlon Brando’s business card, which had the words “Marlon” and “Brando” on it and nothing else.

 

At any rate Mr Downer relayed the information about young George to Aussie Intelligence back home. Canberra sat on the info for two months and then passed it along to the Yanks in late July, just in time for that FISA application.

 

And so, as July turned to August, Peter Strzok bade farewell to his “paramour” Lisa Page and flew to London for a sit-down with the High Commissioner at Australia House. When Strzok reported back to Washington, the FBI sicced the omnipresent “professor” Stefan Halper on George Papadopoulos. So the Trump aide woke up one August morning to an email from a Cambridge academic he’d never heard of, inviting him on an all-expenses-paid trip back to Britain to give a speech for $3,000. Once in London, Halper casually inquired of his new friend, “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?”

 

Right. As Rush put it, the day before I guest-hosted last week:

 

He was a nothing. He was a nobody, which made him a perfect mark. He was a young guy who wanted to go places… He actually put on his résumé that he had participated in Model UN in high school.

 

Just so: Papadopoulos was the perfect mark. And the easiest way to reel him in is to get him off his home turf. In your own neighborhood, you have your routine – your usual bars, favorite restaurants; you notice if something’s off. But, flown to London, you have no routine, no old haunts. You go where you’re invited, you’re introduced to important people – like “High Commissioners”, woshever the hell thash ish, hic – [Blog Editor: As an American I think Steyn is expressing a drunken form of “whoever the hell they is, hiccup] and you want them to think you’re important, too, so you reveal that you know all about the Russian “dirt” on Hillary.

 

So you got that from the Russians, right? Er, no. I got it from a Maltese guy in Italy who’s a Scottish professor and plugged in to MI6, and then I told it to an Australian bloke in London who’s also plugged in to MI6 and told me to lay off David Cameron, and then an American guy in Cambridge who’s plugged in to MI6 reminded me about it to see if I’d deny all knowledge of it, which would be suspicious, wouldn’t it..?

 

As I said, and as Rush likes to quote, there are no Russians in the Russia investigation. But, like that rumor about me and Carol Thatcher, you just put these things out there and a few months later they come back to you, via Canberra and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing program and suddenly it’s “independently” “corroborated” “evidence” from a respected ally and you can take it to a FISA judge.

 

There were two investigations into presidential candidates during the 2016 election. But, as Andrew McCarthy reminds us, these two investigations were not the same. The Clinton “matter” was a criminal investigation – because there was credible evidence that Hillary had committed criminal acts. The FBI had no such clear-cut goods on Trump. So they had to find something else:

 

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

 

And the advantage of a “counterintelligence investigation”, unlike a criminal investigation, is that everything in it is “classified”. So that even an obvious set-up at a Cambridge confab or Kensington wine bar is “intelligence” that has to be “protected” for “national security” reasons. It’s a brazen, audacious scheme, and unlikely to have been loosed without the approval, however discreetly stated, of the then President. Occam’s Razor suggests that the man running the operation was the CIA’s John Brennan through the “inter-agency taskforce” that met at Langley. But Brennan isn’t that reckless: Go back to Madeleine Albright urging Carter Page to speak up at a Cambridge conference; Christopher Steele leaking parts of his dossier to the newspapers; a staffer at Australia House inviting George Papadopoulos for a drink… The best way to turn nothing into something is to plant it somewhere far away and wait for it to work its way back to you:

 

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

 

Golly, you don’t say! I wonder who “told” The Guardian that. A conference here, a speech there, a cocktail round the corner, and pretty soon you have the simulacrum of “counterintelligence” concerns from America’s closest allies:

 

According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.

 

Er, wait a minute. If it’s “so sensitive” it’s being handled “director-to-director”, why isn’t the head of GCHQ meeting with his opposite number at NSA? Why’s he meeting with Brennan?

 

Hey, don’t get hung up on details. It all went brilliantly – except for one tiny detail: Hillary managed to do the impossible and lose. On January 23rd 2017, three days after Trump’s inauguration, GCHQ at Cheltenham Tweeted the sad fate of Mr So Sensitive:

 

We’re sorry to announce that Robert Hannigan, our Director since 2014, has decided to step down as head of GCHQ.

 

Oh, dear. Well, enjoy your sudden retirement, old boy. Unfortunately, for Brennan and Comey and McCabe and Strzok and the others on this side of the Atlantic in the third week of January, it wasn’t quite that simple. Because, instead of protecting Hillary, they were now protecting themselves – so it was necessary to dig in and double-down on the “Russia investigation”.

 

Which sounds super-credible except for one small point: there was never a Russia investigation. As Andrew McCarthy sums it up:

 

Opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

 

Which is what they did – Brennan and Clapper and Comey and McCabe. They took tools designed to combat America’s foreign enemies and used them against their own citizens and their political opposition. It was an intentional subversion of the electoral process conducted at the highest level by agencies with almost unlimited power. And, if they get away with it, they will do it again, and again and again. That’s what Brennan’s telling us on Twitter, and Clapper on “The View”:

 

Yeah? So what? Whatcha gonna do about it?

 

Good question.

________________________

Mark Steyn is an international bestselling author, a Top 41 recording artist, and a leading Canadian human rights activist. His latest book is “The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned“. (Buy it at a 57% discount by clicking here or order in KINDLE edition at a 41% discount by clicking hereSales help fund JWR)

 

© 2018 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc.

 

© 1997- 2018 Jewish World Review 

 

About JWR

 

JWR is a free magazine published five days a week on the World Wide Web of interest to people of faith and those interested in learning more about contemporary Judaism from Jews who take their religion seriously.

 

Our inaugural editorial is also our mission statement.

 

Readers, individuals wishing to submit an article on “spec,” or make a tax deductible donation and those seeking advertising rates may contact JWR by email or by calling (718) 972-9241. Please note that all correspondence with JWR remains our property and may be used accordingly.

 

READ THE REST

 

Judge Ellis Excoriates Mueller & Team


It Should End Mueller Agenda, But Will It?

 

John R. Houk, Editor

© May 6, 2018

 

Judge Ellis, Manafort, Mueller & Rosenstein

 

On Friday I posted an exposé on Robert Mueller written by Rep. Louie Gohmert. That post makes remarkable sense after I read that Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III excoriated a Special Prosecutor team member in charge of the Paul Manafort prosecution. WHY?

 

Judge Ellis caught Mueller’s team using a,

 

… pre-existing FISA Title-1 warrant that was originally applied to U.S. person Carter Page and the Trump campaign.

 

Under normal criminal investigation any search warrant or surveillance warrant would normally proceed through U.S. courts, under Title-3, where the Mueller team would need to show probable cause for a warrant.  However, by using the Title-1 warrant from the FBI counterintelligence operation, as extended by AAG Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller was able to use far more intrusive and unchecked searches and seizures for his criminal probe.” (Federal Judge Catches Robert Mueller Using Preexisting FISA Title-1 Warrant Against Paul Manafort Instead of Title 3 Authority…; By sundance; The Last Refuge [aka ConservativeTreeHouse.com]; 5/4/18)

 

Good for Judge T.S. Ellis III!

 

Under any normal legal circumstances, I have little doubt the bank fraud case would be dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct. Which would mean the Special Prosecutor and his team must be discredited on ANY work they have down to find collusion between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government to become POTUS.

 

To get the gist of Judge Ellis’ legal anger, I have four articles from Conservative sources (including the quote above) providing perspectives that are doubtful to be heard or read from the Leftist MSM.

 

JRH 5/6/18 (Hat Tip Ali Hoppe posting at G+ Community United We Stand One Nation Under God)

Please Support NCCR

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

Federal Judge Catches Robert Mueller Using Preexisting FISA Title-1 Warrant Against Paul Manafort Instead of Title 3 Authority…

 

By sundance

May 4, 2018

The Last Refuge

 

Well, well, well…. they say timing is everything.

 

Today U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III appears to have caught on to an explosive issue CTH noted yesterday.  In building the case against Paul Manafort, special counsel Robert Mueller’s team used the pre-existing FISA Title-1 warrant that was originally applied to U.S. person Carter Page and the Trump campaign.

 

Under normal criminal investigation any search warrant or surveillance warrant would normally proceed through U.S. courts, under Title-3, where the Mueller team would need to show probable cause for a warrant.  However, by using the Title-1 warrant from the FBI counterintelligence operation, as extended by AAG Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller was able to use far more intrusive and unchecked searches and seizures for his criminal probe.

 

The media, and broad media-consumption public, are currently unaware the Mueller probe was simply a continuance of the 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation. Most people think the special counsel investigation is a separate issue. It’s not.

 

However, in addition to a scathing rebuke of the underlying prosecutorial premise, ie.  Mueller trying to keep the originating structure hidden, Judge Ellis demanded today that Mueller unredact the August 2, 2017, instructions from AAG Rosenstein.  That removal will expose the use of the FISA Title-1 warrant use that drove the investigative origin.

 

WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.

 

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever.”

 

Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought. […] The Reagan-appointed judge asked Mueller’s team where they got the authority to indict Manafort on alleged crimes dating as far back as 2005.

 

The special counsel argues that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein granted them broad authority in his May 2, 2017 letter appointing Mueller to this investigation. But after the revelation that the team is using information from the earlier DOJ probe, Ellis said that information did not “arise” out of the special counsel probe – and therefore may not be within the scope of that investigation.

 

“We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” he said.

 

Mueller’s team says its authorities are laid out in documents including the August 2017 scope memo – and that some powers are actually secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security matters that cannot be publicly disclosed.

 

Ellis seemed amused and not persuaded.

 

He summed up the argument of the Special Counsel’s Office as, “We said this was what [the] investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying.”

 

He referenced the common exclamation from NFL announcers, saying: “C’mon man!”  (read more)

 

Mueller Leverage

 

The Mueller team saying: “some powers are actually secret” is a direct reference to their use of the FISA Title-1 warrant, which they took over from the FBI counterintelligence operation and applied to their criminal investigation.

 

With the third 90-day extension of the FISA warrant, issued by AAG Rod Rosenstein (July 18, 2017), Mueller’s team were obviously using the FISA warrant from May through October of last year.  [The FISA warrant expired 90 days from July 18.]

 

 

 

♦ Michael Caputo discusses the scope of the Mueller Evidence – HERE

 

♦ The timeline of Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller – Available HERE

 

+++++

Whoa: Judge Goes Off on Mueller Staff Prosecutor, Says He’s Only Prosecuting Manafort for Bank

 

By Dan Calabrese

May 4, 2018

Canada Free Press

 

This has been the presumption for some time, of course. Robert Mueller wasn’t appointed to prosecute bank fraud cases. He was appointed to find out if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. So why is he prosecuting Paul Manafort on an unrelated bank fraud case?

 

The answer is obvious: He’s doing it for the same reason he had his team stage a 6 a.m. raid of Manafort’s home at a time when Manafort was already cooperating with him. He’s trying to harass and intimidate Manafort into flipping and giving Mueller something he can use to bring down Trump.

 

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, who drew the case, sees exactly what’s going on here, and today in court he stunned Mueller’s chosen man on the case by calling a spade a spade:

 

A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller’s motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.

 

Although Mueller’s authority has been tested in court before, Friday’s hearing was notable for District Judge T.S. Ellis’ decision to wade into the divisive political debate around the investigation.

 

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper. Ellis said prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump’s “prosecution or impeachment,” Ellis said.

 

“That’s what you’re really interested in,” said Ellis, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

 

Ellis repeated his suspicion several times in the hour-long court hearing. He said he’ll make a decision at a later date about whether Manafort’s case can go forward.

 

“We don’t want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants,” Ellis told Dreeben. “The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power.”

 

When Dreeben answered Ellis’ question about how the investigation and its charges date back to before the Trump campaign formed, the judge shot back, “None of that information has to do with information related to Russian government coordination and the campaign of Donald Trump.”

 

When Ellis talks about someone having unfettered power, he’s referring to Mueller. Mueller seems to think his original charge is irrelevant, and that he can go beyond it and use his prosecutorial power to bring pressure on anyone he wants, in any way he wants, regardless of the matter’s relevance to the Russia investigation, if the end result is that it will yield him something he can use to damage the president.

 

Judge Ellis is right to call BS on that.

 

If Mueller has evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, let’s see it. If he doesn’t, let’s wrap this up. He’s had enough time.

 

If Paul Manafort committed bank fraud that’s worthy of prosecution, let Mueller refer that to the Justice Department proper and then stick to the matter he was appointed to deal with. Everyone can see what’s going on here, but it’s really jarring to hear it from a federal judge, from the bench. And today that’s exactly what happened.

 

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

 

A new edition of Dan’s book “Powers and Principalities” is now available in hard copy and e-book editions. Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

++++++++

Federal Judge Drops Two-Word Bomb on Mueller’s Prosecutors

 

BY BENJAMIN ARIE
MAY 4, 2018 AT 4:12PM

Conservative Tribune

 

For months, the special counsel led by Robert Mueller has been spinning its wheels. Initially set up to investigate alleged “collusion” between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign team, the probe has so far been largely a dud … and now even a federal judge is fed up with it.

 

On Friday, Judge T.S. Ellis III had harsh words for prosecutors who are working to charge former Trump adviser Paul Manafort.

 

Manafort, who served as a campaign leader for a few months before leaving, is facing bank and tax fraud charges for activities that happened over a decade ago, but they appear to be unrelated to the administration.

 

The case looks increasingly like a “fishing expedition” being conducted by Mueller to dredge up anything that can be used against President Trump.

 

That’s certainly what Judge Ellis seems to think; he just accused prosecutors of trying to gather unrelated evidence against Trump team members in order to pressure them to “flip” on the president.

 

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Ellis told prosecutors on Friday, according to The Washington Post. “You really care about getting information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

 

According to a report from The Daily Caller journalist Saagar Enjeti, Judge Ellis went even further and openly scoffed at the prosecution’s insistence that decade-old tax issues had anything to do with the special counsel’s mission.

 

“He summed up the Special Counsel’s Office as, ‘We said this was what (the) investigation was about but we are not bound by it and we were lying,’” Enjeti explained. At one point, the judge apparently stopped taking Mueller’s team seriously, responding “C’mon man!” to their unconvincing argument.

 

Manafort’s defense attorney Kevin Downing maintained that the financial charges — which occurred in the state of Virginia — are not connected to the Russia probe and that Mueller’s team is dramatically over-reaching.

 

“This doesn’t make any sense,” Downing said in court. “It’s so unrelated as to be in violation (of the Mueller mandate).”

 

Judge Ellis seemed to agree and even warned prosecutors about exceeding their purview. “The American people feel pretty strongly about no one having unfettered power,” he said.

 

To be clear, Manafort could, in fact, be guilty of the financial crimes he’s accused of in Virginia, although of course he is presumed innocent at this time. That will be for a court to decide, but the larger question right now is whether those accusations have anything to do with Donald Trump, Russia, and the 2016 election.

 

For months, conservatives have maintained that the Mueller investigation has dragged on too long and produced almost no solid results. The response from Judge Ellis shows that he likely agrees.

 

While Manafort certainly has his problems, the overwhelming indication after months of inquiries has been that it was the FBI and the DOJ, not the Trump team, which has some serious explaining to do.

 

As evidence continues to show that there was political bias and perhaps an active push to undermine Trump, it looks increasingly likely that Mueller has ulterior motives.

 

It may be time to reel him back in and end the special counsel circus once and for all.

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

HUGE NEWS! As TGP Predicted — Judge in Manafort Case BLASTS MUELLER SPECIAL COUNSEL on lawless “Unfettered Power”

 

Post by Jim Hoft

Guest post by Joe Hoft

May 4, 2018

Gateway Pundit

Laughing- Mueller & Rosenstein

 

In April The Gateway Pundit reported that the US is now in a constitutional crisis due to the unconstitutional and corrupt Mueller investigation kept in place by corrupt FBI and DOJ Leadership.

 

Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort may soon be the one to shut it all down.

 

Mueller’s illegal Trump-Russia investigation continues to take corrupt and unconstitutional actions while criminal activities in Obama’s FBI, DOJ and State Department are ignored. If there is justice, America will soon have a real investigation looking into the Obama and Clinton criminal acts while in office.

 

Paul Manafort first made arguments in a suit with Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions as Head of the DOJ, related to illegalities in the way that Rosenstein set up the Mueller special counsel. Rosenstein’s special counsel order was not based on a crime and unconstitutionally stated that Mueller could basically look at anything he wanted to look at. These provisions are against the law and are now for the courts to settle.

 

In addition to the above suit, Robert Barnes wrote last week at Law and Crimes that Mueller’s actions not related to the 2016 campaign are outside the scope of Jeff Sessions recusal as AG and therefore unconstitutional –

 

Paul Manafort‘s legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign. I agree with this take on Mueller’s authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller’s requested interview with President Trump.

 

Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related to obstruction of Mueller’s investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Additionally, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases would be exercising Sessions’ court-recognized Constitutional obligation to “direct and supervise litigation” conducted by the Department of Justice Furthermore, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases protects against the inappropriate use of the federal grand jury that defendant Manafort now rightly complains about.

 

Sessions limiting Mueller to the 2016 campaign would also be restoring confidence in democratic institutions, and restore public faith that democratically elected officials.

 

One thing to remember about Sessions’ recusal: Sessions only recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions’ recusal to the 2016 campaigns; it does not authorize Sessions’ recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a “duty to direct and supervise litigation” conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory obligations for cases that are not related to the “campaigns for President.”

 

In April Mueller and Rosenstein presented to the courts a rebuttal for Manafort’s latest action – they presented a previously undisclosed memo to a federal court in Washington supposedly addressing Manafort’s argument. The problem is it doesn’t.

 

The memo is dated August 2, 2017 and is from Rosenstein to Mueller supposedly directing Mueller to look into Manafort actions with a Russian operative perhaps before 2016. This however is clearly outside the scope of Sessions’ recusal as argued by Manafort and doesn’t even address Manafort’s argument that these actions are not for Mueller to take or Rosenstein to order but are Sessions actions alone as AG.

 

On Friday a federal judge agreed with Paul Manafort that the Mueller witch hunt was out of control and out of bounds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The hearing is taking place before US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Alexandria, Virginia.

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) May 4, 2018

 

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

Further reading from Gateway Pundit

 

The Federal Judge in Paul Manafort’s case cast doubt on Friday over Mueller’s bank fraud case against the former Trump campaign manager; By Cristina Laila; Gateway Pundit; 5/4/18)

______________________

Judge Ellis Excoriates Mueller & Team

It Should End Mueller Agenda, But Will It?

 

John R. Houk, Editor

© May 6, 2018

_____________________

Federal Judge Catches Robert Mueller Using Preexisting FISA Title-1 Warrant Against Paul Manafort Instead of Title 3 Authority…

 

About The Last Refuge

_____________________

Whoa: Judge Goes Off on Mueller Staff Prosecutor, Says He’s Only Prosecuting Manafort for Bank

 

[CFP] Site Copyright 1997 – 2018

 

About CFP

_________________________________

Federal Judge Drops Two-Word Bomb on Mueller’s Prosecutors

 

Copyright ©2017 Liftable Media Inc. All rights reserved.

 

About Conservative Tribune

______________________________

HUGE NEWS! As TGP Predicted — Judge in Manafort Case BLASTS MUELLER SPECIAL COUNSEL on lawless “Unfettered Power”

 

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

About Gateway Pundit

 

Gohmert Exposes Mueller & Comrades


John R. Houk

© May 4, 2018

 

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01) wrote a post I found at Noisy Room that paints a profile of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller as a Crooked DOJ attorney (at various levels of promotion) and as a Crooked FBI Director. EXTREMELY well worth the read!

 

I recall watching Gohmert on Fox News stating it is a huge mistake appointing Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor. It seems I recollect Gohmert replying stating something to the effect, “You will regret the day Mueller is a Special Prosecutor.” (A recollection of several months ago, so I doubt my quote is word for word. It’s my memory of the intended meaning.)

 

At the time other Conservative pundits and politicians praised the Mueller appointment because of a reputation of an integrity but tough. At the time it seemed to me Gohmert was as a lone voice in the wilderness proclaiming the truth about Mueller. Even now there are way too many Republicans calling Mueller a man of integrity. After you read Gohmert’s profile of Mueller (which is commonly known history and not fake news), if you still think Mueller has integrity you are a blind Dem or just a gullible idiot.

 

The Gohmert article is lengthy, because Mueller’s corruption is legion. I suggest you bookmark this blog post or the Noisy Room post to keep going back to read its entirety. Know the truth.

 

Just as a teaser here are the subject headings from Gohmert’s exposé:

 

  • MONUMENTAL: The Naked Truth About Robert Mueller

 

  • ROBERT MUELLER – BACKGROUND

 

  • MUELLER: THE WHITEY BULGER AFFAIR

 

  • CURT WELDON ATTACKED AND CRUSHED BY ROBERT MUELLER

 

  • ROD ROSENSTEIN

 

  • AN ILLEGAL RAID ON CONGRESS BY MUELLER

 

  • MUELLER’S 5-YEAR UP-OUR-OUT

 

  • NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER ABUSES

 

  • SENATOR TED STEVENS

 

  • Unfortunately for Ted Stevens, his conviction came only eight days before his election, which tipped the scales on a close election.

 

  • THE DISGUSTING TREATMENT OF DR. STEVEN HATFILL

 

  • THE FRAMING OF SCOOTER LIBBY

 

  • MUELLER’S EMBRACE OF THE FRIENDS OF ISLAMIC TERROR

 

  • PURGING THE FBI OF ANTI-TERROR INFORMATION

 

  • PURGING COUNTER-TERRORISM TRAINING MATERIALS

 

  • MUELLER’S UNETHICAL ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

 

  • SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MUELLER’S TROUBLINGLY BIASED HIRES

 

  • GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN

 

  • FISA ABUSE

 

  • MUELLER IGNORES PROVABLE CRIMES BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THE FBI, THE FISC, ETC.

 

JRH 5/4/18

Please Support NCCR

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

MONUMENTAL: The Naked Truth About Robert Mueller

 

Posted on May 3, 2018 11:00 am by TMH

By Rep. Louis Gohmert 

From Doug Ross @ Journal

Noisy Room

 

Mueller & Comey

 

Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people. His many actions are a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.

 

I do not make these statements lightly. Each time I prepared to question Mueller during Congressional hearings, the more concerned I became about his ethics and behavior. As I went back to begin compiling all of that information in order to recount personal interactions with Mueller, the more clearly the big picture began to come into focus.

 

At one point I had to make the decision to stop adding to this compilation or it would turn into a far too lengthy project. My goal was to share some firsthand experiences with Mueller — as other Republican Members of Congress had requested — adding, “You seem to know so much about him.”

 

This article is prepared from my viewpoint to help better inform the reader about the Special Prosecutor leading the effort to railroad President Donald J. Trump through whatever manufactured charge he can allege.

 

Judging by Mueller’s history, it doesn’t matter who he has to threaten, harass, prosecute or bankrupt to get to allege something or, for that matter, anything. It certainly appears Mueller will do whatever it takes to bring down his target — ethically or unethically — based on my findings.

 

What does former Attorney General Eric Holder say? Sounds like much the same thing I just said. Holder has stated, “I’ve known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years; my guess is he’s just trying to make the case as good as he possibly can.”

 

Holder does know him. He has seen Mueller at work when Holder was obstructing justice and was therefore held in Contempt of Congress. He knows Mueller’s FBI framed innocent people and had no remorse in doing so.

 

Mueller Wicked Green-Face

Let’s look at what we know. What I have accumulated here is absolutely shocking upon the realization that Mueller’s disreputable, twisted history speaks to the character of the man placed in a position to attempt to legalize a coup against a lawfully-elected President. Any Republican who says anything resembling, “Bob Mueller will do a good job as Special Counsel,” “Bob Mueller has a great reputation for being fair,” or anything similar; either (a) wants President Trump indicted for something and removed from office regardless of his innocence; (b) is intentionally ignorant of the myriad of outrageous problems permeating Mueller’s professional history; or (c) is cultivating future Democrat votes when he or she comes before the Senate someday for a confirmation hearing.

 

There is simply too much clear and convincing evicdence [sic] to the contrary. Where other writers have set out information succinctly, I have quoted them, with proper attribution. My goal is to help you understand what I have found.

 

ROBERT MUELLER – BACKGROUND

 

In his early years as FBI Director, most Republican members of Congress gave Mueller a pass in oversight hearings, allowing him to avoid tough questions. After all, we were continually told, “Bush appointed him.” I gave him easy questions the first time I questioned him in 2005 out of deference to his Vietnam service. Yet, the longer I was in Congress, the more conspicuous the problems became. As I have said before of another Vietnam veteran, just because someone deserves our respect for service or our sympathy for things that happened to them in the military, that does not give them the right to harm our country later. As glaring problems came to light, I toughened up my questions in the oversight hearings. But first, let’s cover a little of Mueller’s history.

 

MUELLER: THE WHITEY BULGER AFFAIR

 

Looney Hillary & Mueller

The Boston Globe noted Robert Mueller’s connection with the Whitey Bulger case in an article entitled, “One Lingering Question for FBI Director Robert Mueller.” The Globe said this: “[Mike] Albano [former Parole Board Member who was threatened by two FBI agents for considering parole for the men imprisoned for a crime they did not commit] was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset…”

 

Mueller was the head of the Criminal Division as Assistant U.S. Attorney, then as Acting U.S. Attorney. I could not find any explanation online by Mueller as to why he insisted on keeping the defendants in prison that FBI agents—in the pocket of Whitey Bulger— had framed for a murder they did not commit. Make no mistake: these were not honorable people he had incarcerated. But it was part of a pattern that eventually became quite clear that Mueller was more concerned with convicting and putting people in jail he disliked, even if they were innocent of the charges, than he was with ferreting out the truth. I found no explanation as to why he did not bear any responsibility for the $100 million paid to the defendants who were framed by FBI agents under his control. The Boston Globe said, “Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.”

 

The New York Times explained the relationship this way: “In the 1980’s, while [FBI Agent] Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a ’top echelon informant.’

 

Officials of the Massachusetts State Police and the Boston Police Department had long wondered why their investigations of Mr. Bulger were always compromised before they could gather evidence against him, and they suspected that the FBI was protecting him.”

 

If Mr. Mueller had no knowledge that the FBI agents he used were engaged in criminal activity, then he certainly was so incredibly blind that he should never be allowed back into any type of criminal case supervision. He certainly helped continue contributing to the damages of the framed individuals by working relentlessly to prevent them from being paroled out of prison even as their charges were in the process of being completely thrown out.

 

Notice also the evidence of a pattern throughout Mueller’s career: the leaking of information to disparage Mueller’s targets. In the Whitey Bulger case, the leaks were to organized crime — the Mafia.

 

One of the basic, most bedrock tenets of our Republic is that we never imprison people for being “bad” people. Anyone imprisoned has to have committed a specific crime for which they are found guilty. Not in Mueller’s world. He has the anti-Santa Claus list; and, if you are on his list, you get punished even if you are framed.

 

He never apologizes when the truth is learned, no matter how wrong or potentially criminal or malicious the prosecution was. In his book, you deserve what you get even if you did not commit the crime for which he helped put you away. This is but one example, though — as Al Pacino once famously said — “I’m just getting warmed up!”

 

REP. CURT WELDON ATTACKED AND CRUSHED BY ROBERT MUELLER

 

Strzok-Mueller caricatures

During my first term in Congress, 2005 to 2006, Congressman Curt Weldon delivered some powerful and relentless allegations about the FBI having prior knowledge that 9/11 was coming. He repeatedly alleged that there was documentary evidence to show that 9/11 could have been prevented and thousands of lives saved if the FBI had done its job. He held up documents at times while making these claims in speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives.

 

I was surprised that FBI Director Mueller seemed to largely ignore these allegations. It seemed to me that he should either admit the FBI made significant mistakes or refute the allegations. Little did I know Mueller’s FBI was preparing a response, but it certainly was not the kind of response that I would have expected if an honorable man had been running that once hallowed institution.

 

You can read two of Congressman Weldon’s speeches on the House floor that are linked below. After reading the excerpts I have provided, you may get a window into the mind of the FBI Director or someone under Mueller’s control at the FBI. The FBI literally destroyed Congressman Weldon’s public service life, which then foreclosed his ability to use a national platform to expose what he believed were major problems in the FBI fostered under the Clinton administration. Here is but one such excerpt of a speech wherein he spoke of the failure of FBI leadership, then under the direction of the Clinton administration and as came within Mueller’s control just before 9/11. Shockingly, the Mueller FBI failed to even accept from the military any information on the very terrorists who would later go on to commit the atrocities of 9/11, much less act upon it.

 

The U.S. gleaned this information through development of a surveillance technology called Able Danger. On October 19, 2005, Rep. Curt Weldon delivered the following statement on the House floor.

 

Mr. Speaker, back in 1999 when I was Chair of the Defense Research Subcommittee, the Army was doing cutting-edge work on a new type of technology to allow us to understand and predict emerging transnational terrorist threats. That technology was being done at several locations but was being led by our Special Forces Command. The work that they were doing was unprecedented. And because of what I saw there, I supported the development of a national capability of a collaborative center that the CIA would just not accept.

In fact, in November 4 of 1999, two years before 9-11, in a meeting in my office with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of the CIA, Deputy Director of the FBI, we presented a nine-page proposal to create a national collaborative center.

When we finished the brief, the CIA said we did not need that capability, and so before 9/11 we did not have it. When President Bush came in after a year of research, he announced the formation of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center, exactly what I had proposed in 1999. Today it is known as the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center.

But, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me is not the fact that we did not take those steps. What troubles me is that I now have learned in the last four months that one of the tasks that was being done in 1999 and 2000 was a Top Secret program organized at the request of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, carried out by the General in charge of our Special Forces Command, a very elite unit focusing on information regarding al Qaeda. It was a military language effort to allow us to identify the key cells of al Qaeda around the world and to give the military the capability to plan actions against those cells, so they could not attack us as they did in 1993 at the Trade Center, at the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole attack, and the African embassy bombings.

What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that this secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over one year before 9/11 ever happened.

In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9-11 attack.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over one year before 9-11, that [the] Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Louis Freeh, FBI Director at the time, was interviewed by Tim Russert. The first question to Louis Freeh was in regard to the FBI’s ability to ferret out the terrorists. Louis Freeh’s response, which can be obtained by anyone in this country as a part of the official record, was, ‘Well, Tim, we are now finding out that a top-secret program of the military called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta over a year before 9/11.’

And what Louis Freeh said, Mr. Speaker, is that that kind of actionable data could have allowed us to prevent the hijackings that occurred on September 11.

So now we know, Mr. Speaker, that military intelligence officers working in a program authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the General in charge of Special Forces Command, identified Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9/11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI [and] were denied; and [that] the FBI Director has now said publicly if he would have had that information, the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings that struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the plane that landed in Pennsylvania and perhaps saved 3,000 lives and changed the course of world history.

 

Curt Weldon gave a series of speeches, recounting what he saw and what he knew, regarding the failures of the FBI and the Clinton administration to share information that could have prevented 9/11.

 

Congressman Weldon tried to hold those accountable in the FBI and CIA that he felt had mishandled actionable intelligence which he said could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks. He recounted many examples of similar intelligence failures.

 

In 2006, the Robert Mueller-led FBI took horrendously unjust actions to derail Curt Weldon’s reelection bid just weeks before the vote—actions that were later described as a “hit job”: “Each of Weldon’s 10 previous re-elections had been by sizable margins. Polls showed he was up by 5-7 points [in the fall of 2006]. Three weeks prior to the election, however, a national story ran about Weldon based upon anonymous sources that an investigation was underway against him and his daughter, alleging illegal activities involving his congressional work. Weldon had received no prior notification of any such investigation and was dumbfounded that such a story would run especially since he regularly briefed the FBI and intelligence agencies on his work.

 

A week after the news story broke, alleging a need to act quickly because of the leak, FBI agents from Washington raided the home of Weldon’s daughter at 7:00AM on a Monday morning… Local TV and print media had all been alerted to the raid in advance and were already in position to cover the story. Editor’s note: Sound familiar?

 

Within hours, Democratic protesters were waving “Caught Red-Handed” signs outside Weldon’s district office in Upper Darby. In the ensuing two weeks, local and national media ran multiple stories implying that Weldon must also have been under investigation. Given the coverage, Weldon lost the election… To this day, incredibly, no one in authority has asked Weldon or his daughter about the raid or the investigation. There was no follow up, no questions, no grand jury interrogation, nothing.

 

One year after the raid the local FBI office called Weldon’s daughter to have her come get the property that had been removed from her home. That was it…The raid ruined the career of Weldon and his daughter.”

 

Though some blamed the Clintons and Sandy Berger for orchestrating the FBI “hit job,” we can’t lose sight of the fact that the head of the FBI at the time was Robert Mueller. Please understand what former FBI officials have told me: the FBI would never go after a member of Congress, House or Senate, without the full disclosure to and the blessing of the FBI Director. Even if the idea on how to silence Curt Weldon did not come from Director Mueller himself, it surely had his approval and encouragement.

 

The early morning raid by Mueller’s FBI — with all the media outside — who had obviously been alerted by the FBI, achieved its goal of abusing the U.S. Justice system to silence Curt Weldon by ending his political career. Mueller’s tactics worked. If the Clintons and Berger manipulated Weldon’s reelection to assure his defeat, they did it with the artful aid of Mueller, all while George W. Bush was President. Does any of this sound familiar?

 

People say those kinds of things just don’t happen in America. They certainly seemed to when Mueller was in charge of the FBI and they certainly seem to happen now during his tenure as Special Counsel. It appears clear that President Obama and his adjutants knew of Mueller’s reputation and that he could be used to take out their political opponents should such extra-legal actions become politically necessary.

 

To the great dismay of the many good, decent and patriotic FBI agents, Obama begged Mueller to stay on for two years past the 10 years the law allowed. Obama then asked Congress to approve Mueller’s waiver allowing him to stay on for two extra years. Perhaps the leaders in Congress did not realize what they were doing in approving it. I did. It was a major mistake, and I said so at the time. This is also why I objected strenuously the moment I heard Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed his old friend Bob Mueller to be Special Counsel to go after President Trump.

 

ROD ROSENSTEIN

 

I was one of the few who were NOT surprised when Mueller started selecting his assistants in the Special Counsel’s office. Many had reputations for being bullies, for indicting people who were not guilty of the charges, for forcing people toward bankruptcy by running up their legal fees (while the bullies in the Special Counsel’s office enjoy an apparently endless government budget), or by threatening innocent family members with prosecution so the Special Counsel’s victim would agree to pleading guilty to anything to prevent the Kafka-esque prosecutors from doing more harm to their families.

 

AN ILLEGAL RAID ON CONGRESS BY MUELLER

 

 

Comey-Mueller with Kremlin backdrop

There is a doctrine in our governmental system that mandates each part of government must have oversight to prevent power from corrupting — and absolute power from corrupting absolutely. The Congress and Senate are accountable to the voters as is the President. Our massive and bloated bureaucracy is supposed to be accountable to the Congress.

 

A good example would be complaints against the Department of Justice or, specifically, the FBI.

 

If constituents or whistleblowers within those entities have complaints, a Congressman’s office is a good place to contact. Our conversations or information from constituents or whistleblowers are normally privileged from review by anyone within the Executive Branch. It must be so.

 

If the FBI could raid our offices anytime an FBI agent were to complain to us, no FBI agent could ever afford to come forward, no matter how egregious the conduct they sought to disclose.

 

Whistleblowers in the FBI must know they are protected. They always have known that in the past. As I learned from talking with attorneys who had helped the House previously with this issue, if the FBI or another law enforcement entity needed to search something on the House side of the Capitol or House office buildings, they contacted the House Counsel, whether with a warrant or request. The House Counsel with approval of the Speaker, would go through the Congress Members’ documents, computers, flash drives, or anything that might have any bearing on what was being sought as part of the investigation.

 

They would honestly determine what was relevant and what was not, and what was both irrelevant and privileged from Executive Branch review. Normally, if there were a dispute or question, it could be presented to a federal judge for a private in-chamber review to determine if it were privileged or relevant. If the DOJ or FBI were to get a warrant and gather all of the computers and documents in a Congressman’s office without the recovered items being screened to insure they are not privileged from DOJ seizure, the DOJ would be risking that an entire case might be thrown out because of things improperly recovered and “fruit of the poisonous tree,” preventing the use of even things that were not privileged.

 

FBI Director Mueller, however, seemed determined to throw over 200 years of Constitutional restraints to the wind so he could let Congress know he was the unstoppable government bully who could potentially waltz into our offices whenever he wished.

 

In the case of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, Mueller was willing to risk a reversal of a slam dunk criminal case just to send a message to the rest of Congress: you don’t mess with Mueller. That Congressman Jefferson was guilty of something did not surprise most observers when, amidst swirling allegations, $90,000 in cold hard cash was found in his freezer. As we understood it, the FBI had a witness who was wired and basically got Jefferson on tape taking money. They had mountains of indisputable evidence to prove their case. They had gotten an entirely appropriate warrant to search his home and had even more mountains of evidence to nail the lid on his coffin, figuratively speaking.

 

The FBI certainly did not need to conduct an unsupervised search of a Congressman’s office to put their unbeatable case at risk. Apparently, the risk was worth it to Mueller — he could now show the members of Congress who was in charge. Apparently, the FBI knew just the right federal judge who would disregard the Constitution and allow Mueller’s minions to do their dirty work.

 

I read the Application for Warrant and the accompanying Affidavit for Warrant to raid Jefferson’s office, as I did so many times as a judge.

 

I simply could not believe they would risk such a high-profile case just to try to intimidate Members of Congress.

 

In the opinion of this former prosecutor, felony judge and Appellate Court Chief Justice, they could have gotten a conviction based on what they had already spelled out in the very lengthy affidavit. The official attorneys representing the House, knowing my background, allowed me to sit in on the extremely heated discussions between attorneys for the House, DOJ attorneys, and, to my recollection, an attorney from the Bush White House, after Jefferson’s office was raided.

 

The FBI had gathered up virtually every kind of record, computerized or otherwise, and carted them off. I was not aware of the times that the DOJ and House attorneys, with the Speaker’s permission, had cooperated over the years. No Congressman is above the law nor is any above having search warrants issued against them which is why Jefferson’s home was searched without protest.

 

However, when the material is in a Congressional office, there is a critical and centuries’ old balance of power that must be preserved.

 

The Mueller FBI, along with the DOJ, assured everyone that all was copacetic. They would ask some of the DOJ’s attorneys review all of the material and give back anything that was privileged and unlawful for the DOJ to see. Then they would make sure none of the DOJ attorneys who participated in the review of materials (that were privileged from the DOJ’s viewing) would be allowed to be prosecutors in Jefferson’s case.

 

If you find that kind of thinking terribly flawed and constitutionally appalling, you would be in agreement with the former Speakers of the House, the Vice President at the time, and ultimately, the final decisions of our federal appellate court system. They found the search to be illegal and inappropriate. Fortunately for the DOJ, they did not throw the entire case out. In retrospect, we did not know at the time what a farce a DOJ “firewall” would have been. Now we do!

 

MUELLER’S 5-YEAR UP-OUR-OUT

 

Mueller Art

In federal law enforcement, it takes a new federal agent or supervisor about five years or so after arriving at a newly assigned office to gain the trust and respect of local law enforcement officers. That trust and respect is absolutely critical to doing the best job possible. Yet new FBI Director Robert Mueller came up with a new personnel policy that would rid the FBI of thousands of years of its most invaluable experience.

 

In a nutshell, after an FBI employee was in any type of supervisory position for five years, he or she had to either come to Washington to sit at a desk or get out of the FBI.

 

In the myriad of FBI offices around the country, most agents love what they do in actively enforcing the law. They have families involved in the community; their kids enjoy their schools; and they do not want to move to the high cost of living in Washington, DC, and especially not to an inside desk job. What occurred around the country was that agents in charge of their local offices got out of the FBI and did something more lucrative. Though they really wanted to stay in, they were not allowed to do so if they were not moving to DC. Agents told me that it was not unusual for the Special Agent in Charge of a field office to have well over 20 years of experience before the policy change. Under Mueller’s policy that changed to new Special Agents in Charge having five to ten years of experience when they took over.

 

If the FBI Director wanted nothing but “yes” men and women around the country working for him, this was a great policy. Newer agents are more likely to unquestioningly salute the FBI figurehead in Washington, but never boldly offer a suggestion to fix a bad idea and Mueller had plenty of them.

 

Whether it was wasting millions of dollars on a software boondoggle or questionable personnel preferences, agents tell me Mueller did not want to hear from more experienced people voicing their concerns about his ideas or policies. An NPR report December 13, 2007, entitled, “FBI’S ‘Five-And-Out’ Transfer Policy Draws Criticism” dealt with the Mueller controversial policy: “From the beginning of this year (2007) until the end of September (2007), 576 agents found themselves in the five-and-out pool. Less than half of them — just 286 — opted to go to headquarters; 150 decided to take a pay cut and a lesser job to stay put; 135 retired; and five resigned outright.”

 

In the period of nine months accounted for in this report, the FBI ran off a massive amount of absolutely priceless law enforcement experience vested in 140 invaluable agents. For the vast part, those are the agents who have seen the mistakes, learned lessons, could advise newer agents on unseen pitfalls of investigations and pursuit of justice.

 

So many of these had at least 20-30 years of experience or more. The lessons learned by such seasoned agents were lost as the agents carried it with them when they left. In the 2007 NPR report, the FBI Agents Association indicated that the Five-Year-Up-or-Out program hobbles field offices and takes relationships forged there for granted. In other words, it was a terrible idea.

 

The incalculable experience loss damages the FBI by eliminating those in the field in a position to advise the FBI Director against his many judgment errors, which were listed in the NPR article. But this was not the only damage done.

 

If an FBI Director has inappropriate personal vengeance in mind or holds an inappropriate prejudice such as those that infamously motivated Director J. Edgar Hoover, then the older, wiser, experienced agents were not around with the confidence to question or guide the Director away from potential misjudgment. I also cannot help but wonder: if Mueller had not run off the more experienced agents, would they have been able to advise against and stop the kind of Obama-era abuses and corruption being unearthed right now?

 

Rather than admit that his 5-Year program was a mistake, Mueller eventually changed the policy to a Seven-Year-Up-or-Out Program. I once pointed out to him at a hearing that if he had applied the Five Year Up-or-Out Policy to literally everyone in a supervisory position, he himself would have had to leave the FBI by September of 2006. He did not seem to be amused.

 

One other problem remained that will be discussed in more detail later in this article. Before Mueller became Director, FBI agents were trained to identify certain Muslims who had become radicalized and dangerous. Mueller purged and even eliminated training that would have helped identify radical Islamic killers. By running off the more experienced agents who had better training on radical Islam before Mueller, “blinded us of the ability to identify our enemy,” as I was told by some of them, Mueller put victims in harm’s way in cities like Boston, San Diego and elsewhere.

 

NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER ABUSES

 

Mueller (green) & Comey

National Security Letters (NSL) are a tool that allows the DOJ to bypass the formality of subpoenas, applications for warrants with affidavits in support, and instead simply send a letter to an individual, business or any entity they so choose to demand that records or documents of any kind must be produced and provided to the sender.

 

The letter also informs the recipient that if the he or she reveals to anyone that the letter was received or what it requires to be produced, then the recipient has committed a federal felony and will be prosecuted.

 

It is a rather dramatic event to receive such a letter and then realize that this simple letter could have such profound power and consequences.

 

The Committee in the House of Representatives that has oversight jurisdiction over the DOJ is the Judiciary Committee of which I am a member. We have grilled DOJ personnel in the past over the potential for NSL abuse, but both the House and Senate Committees were reassured that there were no known abuses of this extra-constitutional power.

 

Unfortunately, the day came when we learned that there had been an extraordinary number of abuses.

 

Apparently, some of Mueller’s FBI agents had just been sending out demands for records or documents without any probable cause, which the Fourth Amendment requires. Some agents were on outright fishing expeditions just to find out what different people were doing. We were told that there may have even been thousands of NSL’s dispatched to demand documents without following either the Constitutional requirements or the DOJ’s own policy requirements.

 

When the Inspector General’s report revealed such absolutely outrageous conduct by FBI agents, some in Congress were absolutely livid. An NBC News report on March 9, 2007, had this headline and sub-headline: “Justice Department: FBI acted illegally on data; Audit finds agency misused Patriot Act to obtain information on citizens.”

 

The report went on to say, “FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was to blame for not putting more safeguards into place. ‘I am to be held accountable,’ Mueller said. He told reporters he would correct the problems and did not plan to resign. ‘The inspector general went and did the audit that I should have put in place many years ago,’ Mueller said.” Some Republicans wanted to completely eliminate such an extraordinary power that was so widely abused. Nonetheless, I could not help but wonder that if Mueller had not run off thousands of years of experience though his “Five Year Up-or-Out Policy,” perhaps young, inexperienced agents would not have been so tempted to vastly abuse the power of the NSL.

 

In fact, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lost his job over the widespread, pervasive abuses under Mueller’s supervision. In retrospect, Mueller probably should have been gone first. It was his people, his lack of oversight, his atmosphere that encouraged it, and his FBI that did virtually nothing to hold people accountable.

 

SENATOR TED STEVENS

 

With Mueller as his mentor and confidant, is it any surprise that we’re now finding James Comey’s FBI found additional ways to monitor Americans and plot with Democrat loyalists in an attempt to oust a duly-elected President?

 

Ted Stevens had served in the U.S. Senate since 1968 and was indicted in 2008 by the U.S. Justice Department. One would think before the U.S. government would seek to destroy a sitting U.S. Senator, there would be no question whatsoever of his guilt. One would be completely wrong, at least when the FBI Director is Robert Mueller. Roll Call provides us with General Colin Powell’s take on Ted Stevens.

 

“According to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had worked closely with the senator since his days as President Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser, the senator was ‘a trusted individual … someone whose word you could rely on. I never heard in all of those years a single dissenting voice with respect to his integrity, with respect to his forthrightness, and with respect to the fact that when you shook hands with Ted Stevens, or made a deal with Ted Stevens, it was going to be a deal that benefited the nation in the long run, one that he would stick with.’”

 

Such a glowing reputation certainly did not inhibit Mueller’s FBI from putting Stevens in its cross-hairs, pushing to get an indictment that came 100 days before his election, and engaging in third world dictator-type tactics to help an innocent man lose his election, after which he lost his life. As reported by NPR, after the conviction and all truth came rolling out of the framing and conviction of Senator Stevens, the new Attorney General Eric Holder, had no choice. He “abandoned the Stevens case in April 2009 after uncovering new and ‘disturbing’ details about the prosecution…”

 

Unfortunately for Ted Stevens, his conviction came only eight days before his election, which tipped the scales on a close election. [Blog Editor: Prosecutorial misconduct & FBI sex with prosecution’s star witness had conviction tossed – CFP]

 

Does this sound familiar yet? The allegation was that Senator Stevens had not paid full price for improvements to his Alaska cabin. As Roll Call reported, he had actually overpaid for the improvements by over twenty percent. Roll Call went on to state:

 

“But relying on false records and fueled by testimony from a richly rewarded ‘cooperating’ witness… government prosecutors convinced jurors to find him guilty just eight days before the general election which he lost by less than 2 percent of the vote.”

 

After a report substantiated massive improprieties by the FBI and DOJ in the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens, the result was ultimately a complete dismissal of the conviction.

 

At the time there was no direct evidence that Director Mueller was aware of the tactics of concealing exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated Stevens, and the creation of evidence that convicted him in 2008. Nearly four years later, in 2012, the Alaska Dispatch News concluded:

 

“Bottom line: Kepner (the lead FBI investigator accused of wrongdoing by Agent Joy) is still working for the FBI and is still investigating cases, including criminal probes. Joy, the whistleblower (who was the FBI agent who disclosed the FBI’s vast wrongdoing, especially of Kepner), has left the agency.”

 

Director Mueller either did control or could have controlled what happened to the lead FBI agent that destroyed a well-respected U.S. Senator. That U.S. Senator was not only completely innocent of the manufactured case against him, he was an honest and honorable man. Under Director Mueller’s overriding supervision, the wrongdoer who helped manufacture the case stayed on and the whistleblower was punished. Obviously, the FBI Director wanted his FBI agents to understand that honesty would be punished if it revealed wrongdoing within Mueller’s organization. Further, not only was evidentiary proof of Senator Stevens’ innocence concealed from the Senator’s defense attorneys by the FBI, there was also a witness that provided compelling testimony that Stevens’ had done everything appropriately. That witness, however, was who agents sent back to Alaska by FBI Agents, unbeknownst to the Senator’s defense attorneys. This key exonerating testimony was placed out of reach for Senator Stevens’ defense. Someone should have gone to jail for this illegality within the nation’s top law enforcement agency. Instead, Senator Stevens lost his seat, and surprise, surprise, Mueller’s FBI helped another elected Republican bite the dust. Unfortunately, I am not speaking figuratively.

 

In August of 2010, former Senator Stevens boarded his doomed plane. But for the heinous, twisted and corrupt investigation by the FBI, and inappropriate prosecution by the DOJ, he would have still been a sitting U.S. Senator.

 

Don’t forget, one vote in the Senate was critical to ObamaCare becoming law. If Senator Stevens was still there, it would not have become law. In the following month after Senator Stevens’ untimely death, in September of 2010, a young DOJ lawyer, Nicholas Marsh — who had been involved in the Stevens case — committed suicide at his home as the investigation into the fraudulent case continued. The report expressed, “no conclusion as to his (Marsh’s) conduct,” given his untimely death. Robert Luskin, an attorney for Marsh, said, “he tried to do the right thing.”

 

If you’re wondering what happened to the valuable FBI agent who was an upstanding whistleblower with a conscience, you should know that inside Mueller’s FBI, Special Agent Joy was terribly mistreated.

 

Orders came down from on high that he was not to participate in any criminal investigation again, which is the FBI management’s way of forcing an agent out of the FBI. On the other hand, the FBI agent who was said to have manufactured evidence against Senator Stevens — while hiding evidence of his innocence — was treated wonderfully and continued to work important criminal cases for Director Mueller.

 

If you wonder if mistreatment of an FBI agent who exposed impropriety was an anomaly in Mueller’s FBI, the Alaska Dispatch noted this about another case:

 

“Former FBI agent Jane Turner was treated much like Joy (the whistleblower agent in the Stevens case) after she blew the whistle on fellow agents who had taken valuable mementos from Ground Zero following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. She took the FBI to court over her treatment and ended up winning her case against the agency after a jury trial. When you blow the whistle on the FBI, ‘it’s death by a million paper cuts,’ she told Alaska Dispatch. Turner said that agents who violate the FBI’s omerta — those who internally challenge the agency — are undercut and isolated. ‘They (Mueller’s FBI supervisors) do everything they can to get you to quit’ she said.”

 

THE DISGUSTING TREATMENT OF DR. STEVEN HATFILL

 

Here is how Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist described this combined Mueller-Comey debacle:

 

“The FBI absolutely bungled its investigation into the Anthrax attacker who struck after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Carl Cannon goes through this story well, and it’s worth reading for how it involves both Comey and his dear ‘friend’ and current special counsel Robert Mueller. The FBI tried — in the media — its case against Hatfill. Their actual case ended up being thrown out by the courts: Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure. More from the Carl Cannon cited above, recounting how disastrous the attempt to convict Dr. Steven Hatfill for a crime he didn’t commit was: In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency threw a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

 

Unfortunately, both Mueller and Comey were absolutely and totally convinced of the innocent man’s guilt. They ruined his life, his relationship with friends, neighbors and potential employers. And from Carl Cannon, Real Clear Politics:

 

You’d think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who’d been convicted — and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who’d tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution’s dog handler “as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.” Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, and personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill, the bureau had its man… Mueller didn’t exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill – and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement ($2.82+150,000/yr. for 20 yrs) – Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. “I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” he said, adding that it would be erroneous “to say there were mistakes.”

 

Though FBI jurisdiction has its limitations, Mueller’s ego does not. Mueller and Comey’s next target in the Anthrax case was Dr. Bruce Ivins. As the FBI was closing in and preparing to give him the ultimate Hatfill treatment, Dr. Ivins took his own life. Though Mueller and Comey were every bit as convinced that Dr. Ivins was the Anthrax culprit as they were that Dr. Hatfill was, there are lingering questions about whether or not there was a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Dr. Ivins is deceased, we are expected to simply accept that he was definitely the Anthrax killer and drop the whole matter. That’s a difficult ask after taxpayer money paid off Mueller’s previous victim. Mueller had relentlessly dogged Dr. Hatfill using life destroying, Orwellian tactics. Either Mueller was wrong when he said it would be a mistake, “to say there were mistakes,” in the railroading of Hatfill or Mueller did intentionally and knowingly persecute an innocent man.

 

THE FRAMING OF SCOOTER LIBBY

 

In 2003, there was yet another fabricated and politically-charged FBI investigation: this one “searching” for the leak of CIA agent Valery Plame’s identity to the media. Robert Mueller’s close friend James Comey was at the time serving as the Deputy Attorney General. Comey convinced then Attorney General John Ashcroft that he should recuse himself from the Plame investigation while Ashcroft was in the hospital.

 

After Deputy A.G. Comey was successful in securing Ashcroft’s recusal, Comey then got to choose the Special Counsel. He then looked about for someone who was completely independent of any relationships that might affect his independence and settled upon his own child’s godfather, nameing [sic] Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the source of the leak. So much for the independence of the Special Counsel.

 

The entire episode was further revealed as a fraud when it was later made public that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, FBI Director Mueller, and Deputy Attorney Comey had very early on learned that the source of Plame’s identity leak came from Richard Armitage. But neither Comey nor Mueller nor Fitzgerald wanted Armitage’s scalp. Oh no. These so-called apolitical, fair-minded pursuers of their own brand of justice were after a bigger name in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Yet they knew from the beginning that these two men were not guilty of anything.

 

Mueller Caricatures

Nonetheless, Fitzgerald, Mueller and Comey pursued Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as a path to ensnare the Vice President. According to multiple reports, Fitzgerald had twice offered to drop all charges against Libby if he would ‘deliver’ Cheney to him. There was nothing to deliver. Is any of this sounding familiar? Could it be that these same tactics have been used against an innocent Gen. Mike Flynn? Could it be that Flynn only agreed to plead guilty to prevent any family members from being unjustly prosecuted and to also prevent going completely broke from attorneys’ fees? That’s the apparent Mueller-Comey Special Counsel distinctive modus-operandi. Libby would not lie about Cheney, so he was prosecuted for obstruction of justice, perjury, making a false statement. This Spectator report from 2015 sums up this particularly egregious element of the railroading.

 

“… By the time Scooter Libby was tried in 2007 it wasn’t for anything to do with the Plame leak — everyone then knew Armitage had taken responsibility for that — but for lying to federal officials about what he had said to three reporters, including Miller. It is relating to this part of the story that an extraordinary new piece of information has come to light. After her spell in prison, and with her job on the line, Miller was eventually worn down to agree to hand over some redacted portions of notes of her few conversations with Libby. Several years on, she could no longer recall where she had first heard of Plame’s CIA identity, but her notes included a reference to Wilson alongside which the journalist had added in brackets ‘wife works in Bureau?’

 

After Fitzgerald went through these notes it was put to Miller that this showed that the CIA identity of Plame had been raised by Libby during the noted meeting. At Libby’s trial Miller was the only reporter to state that Libby had discussed Plame. His conviction and his sentencing to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine, rested on this piece of evidence. But Miller has just published her memoirs. One detail in particular stands out. Since the Libby trial, Miller has read Plame’s own memoir and there discovered that Plame had worked at a State Department bureau as cover for her real CIA role. The discovery, in Miller’s words, ‘left her cold’. The idea that the ‘Bureau’ in her notebook meant ‘CIA’ had been planted in her head by Fitzgerald. It was a strange word to use for the CIA. Reading Plame’s memoir, Miller realized that ‘Bureau’ was in brackets because it related to her working at State Department. (Emphasis added)

 

What that means is that Scooter Libby had not lied as she originally thought and testified. He was innocent of everything including the contrived offense. For his honesty and innocence, Scooter Libby spent time behind bars, and still has a federal felony conviction he carries like an albatross. The real culprit of the allegation for which the Special Counsel was appointed, and massive amounts of tax payer dollars expended was Richard Armitage. A similar technique was used against Martha Stewart. After all, Mueller’s FBI developed both cases. If the desired crime to be prosecuted was never committed, then talk to someone you want to convict until you find something that others are willing to say was not true. Then you can convict them of lying to the FBI. Martha Stewart found out about Mueller’s FBI the hard way. Unfortunately, Mueller has left a wake of innocent people whom he has crowned with criminal records. History does seem to repeat itself when it is recording the same people using the same tactics. Can anyone who has ever actually looked at Robert Mueller’s history honestly say that Mueller deserves a sterling reputation in law enforcement? One part of his reputation he does apparently deserve is the reputation for being James Comey’s mentor.

 

MUELLER’S EMBRACE OF THE FRIENDS OF ISLAMIC TERROR

 

In 2011, in one of the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight hearings, FBI Director Mueller repeatedly testified during questioning by various Members about how the Muslim community was just like every other religious community in the United States. He also referenced an “Outreach Program” the FBI had with the Muslim community.

 

When it was my turn to question, I could not help but put the two points of his testimony together for a purge question:

 

GOHMERT: Thank you, Director. I see you had mentioned earlier, and it’s in your written statement, that the FBI’s developed extensive outreach to Muslim communities and in answer to an earlier question I understood you to say that you know Muslim communities were like all other communities, so I’m curious as the result of the extensive outreach program the FBI’s had to the Muslim community, how is your outreach program going with the Baptists and the Catholics?

 

MUELLER: I’m not certain of, necessarily the rest of that, the question I would say — there are outreach to all segments of a particular city or county or society is good.

 

GOHMERT: Well do you have a particular program of outreach to Hindus, Buddhists, Jewish community, agnostics or is it just an extensive outreach program to –

 

MUELLER: We have outreach to every one of those communities.

 

GOHMERT: And how do you do that?

 

MUELLER: Every one of those communities can be affected can be affected by facts or circumstance.

 

GOHMERT: I’ve looked extensively, and I haven’t seen anywhere in any one from the FBI’s letters, information that there’s been an extensive outreach program to any other community trying to develop trust in this kind of relationship and it makes me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem like that that the FBI has seen in that particular community.

 

MUELLER: I would say if you look at one of our more effective tools or what we call citizens academies where we bring in individuals from a variety of segments of the territory in which the office operates . . . look at the citizens’ academy, the persons here, they are a crosssection [sic] of the community, they can be Muslim, could be Indian, they can be Baptists – GOHMERT: Okay but no specific programs to any of those. You have extensive outreach to the Muslim community and then you have a program of outreach to communities in general is what it sounds like.

 

We went further in the questioning. The 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, linked the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Because of this affiliation, the FBI issued policy and guidance to restrict its non-investigative interactions with CAIR in an effort to limit CAIR’s ability to exploit contacts with the FBI. As a result, FBI field offices were instructed to cut ties with all local branches of CAIR across the country.

 

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation case that linked the Council on American-Islamic relations, CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and the North America Islamic Trust to the Holy Land Foundation?

 

MUELLER: I’m not going to speak to specific information in a particular case. I would tell you on the other hand that we do not –

 

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the case, Director?

 

[CROSSTALK] MUELLER: – relationship with CAIR because of concerns –

 

GOHMERT: Well I’ve got the letter from the Assistant Director Richard Powers that says in light of the evidence – talking about during the trial – evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, including its current president emeritus and executive director and the Palestine committee, evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine committee and Hamas, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995.

 

In light of that evidence, he says, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and FBI. Well now it’s my understanding, and I’ve got documentation, and I hope you’ve seen this kind of documentation before, it’s public record, and also the memo order from the judge in turning down a request that the unindicted co-conspirators be eliminated from the list, and he says the FBI’s information is clear there is a tie here, and I’m not going to grant the deletion of these particular parties as unindicted coconspirators.

 

So, I’m a little surprised that you’re reluctant to discuss something that’s already been set out in an order, that’s already been in a letter saying we cut ties in light of the evidence at this trial. I’m just surprised it took the evidence that the FBI had, being introduced at the trial in order to sever the relationships with CAIR that it (the FBI) had that showed going back to the 1993 meeting in Philadelphia, what was tied to a terrorist organization. So, I welcome your comments about that.

 

MUELLER: As I told you before, we have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership on that.

 

What Director Mueller was intentionally deceptive about was that the FBI had apparently maintained a relationship and even “community partnership” instigated on his watch with CAIR and other groups and individuals that his FBI had evidence showing they were co-conspirators to terrorism. That, of course, is consistent with his misrepresentation that Mueller’s FBI had outreach programs to other religious communities just like they did with the Muslim community. They did not. He was not honest about it. In a March 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) questioned Mueller over the FBI move to cut off contact with CAIR. Mueller responded to Kyl’s pressing over how the policy was to be handled by FBI field offices and headquarters with the following:

 

MUELLER: We try to adapt, when we have situations where we have an issue with one or more individuals, as opposed to institution, or an institution, large, to identify the specificity of those particular individuals or issues that need to be addressed. We will generally have — individuals may have some maybe leaders in the community who we have no reason to believe whatsoever are involved in terrorism, but may be affiliated, in some way, shape or form, with an institution about which there is some concern, and which we have to work out a separate arrangement. We have to be sensitive to both the individuals, as well as the organization, and try to resolve the issues that may prevent us from working with a particular organization.

 

KYL: They try to “adapt” with members of terror-related groups? Are they as “sensitive” with other organizations? Do they work out “separate arrangements” with members of, say, the Mafia or the Ku Klux Klan for “community outreach”? Why the special treatment for radical Islamic terrorism?

 

A March 2012 review of FBI field office compliance with this policy by the Office of Inspector General found a discrepancy between the FBI’s enforcement policy restricting contact and interaction with CAIR and its resulting actions. Rather than FBI headquarters enforcing the rules, they hedged. Mueller set up a separate cover through the Office of Public Affairs and allowed them to work together, despite the terrorist connections.

 

That was the cultivated atmosphere of Mueller’s FBI. The DOJ actually set out in writing in an indictment that CAIR and some of the people Mueller was coddling were supporters of terrorism. I had understood that the plan by the Bush Justice Department was that if they got convictions of the principals in the Holy Land Foundation trial, they would come right back after the co-conspirators who were named in the indictment as co-conspirators but who were not formally indicted. In late 2008, the DOJ got convictions against all those formally indicted, so DOJ could then move forward with formally indicting and convicting the rest—EXCEPT that the November 2008 election meant it was now going to be the OBAMA DOJ with Eric Holder leading. The newly-named but not confirmed Attorney General apparently made clear they were not going to pursue any of the named co-conspirators. That itself was a major loss for the United States in its war against terrorism in the Obama administration. It was a self-inflicted refusal to go after and defeat our enemies. All of the named co-conspirators would not likely have been formally indicted, but certainly there was evidence to support the allegations against some of them, as the federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had formally found. One of the problems with FBI Director Mueller is that he had already been cozying up to named co-conspirators with evidence in hand of their collusion with terrorists. That probably was an assurance to President Obama and Attorney General Holder that Mueller would fit right in to the Obama administration. He did. It also helps explain why President Obama and AG Holder wanted him to serve and extra two years as FBI Director. Mueller was their kind of guy. Unfortunately for America, he truly was!

 

PURGING THE FBI OF ANTI-TERROR INFORMATION

 

We repeatedly see cases where people were radicalized, emerge on the FBI’s radar, but federal agents are instead looking for Islamophobes, not the terrorists standing in front of them. That is because Mueller’s demand of his FBI Agents, in the New Age to which he brought them, was to look for Islamophobes.

 

If a Mueller-trained FBI agent got a complaint about a potential radical Islamist who may pose a threat, the agent must immediately recognize that the one complaining is most likely an Islamophobe. That means the agent should first investigate whether the complainant is guilty of a hate crime. Too often it was after an attack occurred that Mueller-trained FBI agents would decide that there really was a radical Islamic threat to the United States.

 

The blinding of our FBI agents to the domestic threat of radical Islam is part of the beguiling damage Robert Mueller did as FBI Director. That is also the kind of damage that got Americans killed, even though Mueller may have avoided offending the radical Islamists who were killing Americans. As terrorism expert Patrick Poole continually points out in his “Known Wolf” series, the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are committed by those the FBI has interviewed and dismissed as a threat. Here are three of the more high-profile cases:

 

ORLANDO: The mass killer who attacked the Pulse nightclub in June 2016, Omar Mateen, had been interviewed by the FBI on three separate occasions. The open preliminary investigation in 2013 lasted 10 months, after Mateen had told others about mutual acquaintances he shared with the Boston bombers and had made extremist statements. He was investigated again in 2014 for his contacts with a suicide bomber who attended the same mosque. At one point, Mateen was placed on TWO separate terrorism databases. He was later removed from them.

 

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Detroit bound Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 with 289 other passengers wearing an underwear bomb intended to murder them all. He was well-known to U.S. intelligence officials before he boarded.

 

Only one month before the attempted bombing, Abdulmutallab’s father had actually gone to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and met with two CIA officers. He directly told the CIA that he was concerned about his son’s extremism. Abdulmutallab’s name was added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database. However, his name was not added the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database. Or even the no-fly list. So, he boarded a plane. When asked about the near-takedown of the flight and these missteps, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano remarkably told CNN that “the system worked.” The only “system” that worked in this incident: a culture that values bravery, already instilled in the passengers who acted.

 

BOSTON: Prior to the bombing of the Boston Marathon by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in April 2013 that killed three people and injured 264 others, the FBI had been tipped off. Twice. Russian intelligence warned that Tamerlan was “a follower of radical Islam.” Initially, the FBI denied ever meeting with Tamerlan. They later claimed that they followed up on the lead, couldn’t find anything in their databases linking him to terrorism, and quickly closed the case. After the second Russian warning, Tamerlan’s file was flagged by federal authorities demanding “mandatory” detention if he attempted to leave or re-enter the United States. But Tsarnaev’s name was misspelled when it was entered into the database.

 

An internal FBI report of the handling of the Tsarnaev’s case -unsurprisingly — saw the FBI exonerate itself. When I asked at yet another House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, Mueller himself admitted in response to my questioning, that the FBI had indeed gone to the Boston mosque the bombers attended. Of course, The FBI did not go to investigate the Tsarnaevs. The bombers’ mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston, was incorporated by known and convicted terrorists. The incorporation papers were signed by none other than Abduram Al-Amoudi who is currently serving 23 years in a federal prison for funding terrorism. One of the members of the Board of Trustees included a leader of the International Muslim Brotherhood, Yusef al-Qawadari, who is barred from entering the United States due to his terrorist ties. Did Mueller’s FBI go to the Boston bombers’ mosque to investigate the Tsarnaevs? This is from the House Judiciary oversight hearing transcript:

 

GOHMERT: The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks. If the Russians tell you that someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosque that they went to, then you get the articles of incorporation, as I have, for the group that created the Boston mosque where these Tsarnaevs attended, and you find out the name Al-Amoudi, which you will remember, because while you were FBI Director this man who was so helpful to the Clinton administration with so many big things, he gets arrested at Dulles Airport by the FBI and he is now doing over 20 years for supporting terrorism. This is the guy that started the mosque where the Tsarnaevs were attending, and you didn’t even bother to go check about the mosque? And then when you have the pictures, why did no one go to the mosque and say, who are these guys? They may attend here. Why was that not done since such a thorough job was done?

 

MUELLER: Your facts are not altogether——

 

GOHMERT: Point out specifically. MUELLER: May I finish my——

 

GOHMERT: Point out specifically. Sir, if you’re going to call me a liar, you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong.

 

MUELLER: We went to the mosque prior to Boston.

 

GOHMERT: Prior to Boston?

 

MUELLER: Prior to Boston happening, we were in that mosque talking to the imam several months beforehand as part of our outreach efforts. “Outreach efforts”? Yes. That is apparently Mueller’s efforts to play figurative pattycake with the leaders and tell them how wonderful they are and how crazy all those Islamaphobes out there are, but they surely got assurance that Mueller’s FBI is after those bigots. Maybe they sat around on the floor and had a really nice meal together. One thing for certain, they weren’t asking about the Tsarnaevs! But the hearing got even worse:

 

GOHMERT: Were you aware that those mosques were started by Al-Amoudi?

 

MUELLER. I’ve answered the question, sir.

 

GOHMERT. You didn’t answer the question. Were you aware that they were started by Al-Amoudi?

 

MUELLER. No. . .

 

Then my time for questioning expired, leaving many questions unanswered. Why was the FBI unaware of the origins of the mosque attended by the Boston bombers? This was arguably the most traumatic Islamic terrorist attack in America since 9-11 because the explosions happened on live television at the Boston Marathon. When did the FBI become an outreach-to-terrorism organization to the detriment and disregard of its investigations? Under Director Robert Mueller’s tenure, that’s when!

 

In Director Mueller’s efforts to appease and please the named co-conspirators of terrorism, he was keenly attuned to their complaints that the FBI training materials on radical Islam said some things about Islamic terrorists that offended some Muslims. Never mind that the main offense was done to the American people by radical Islamists who wanted to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. Mueller wanted to make these co-conspirators feel good toward Mueller and to let them know he was pleased to appease. Director Mueller had all of the training materials regarding radical Islam “purged” of anything that might offend radical Islamic terrorists. So, in addition to using his “Five Year Up-or-Out” policy to force out so many experienced FBI agents who had been properly trained to identify radical Islamic terrorists, now Mueller was going even further. He was ensuring that new FBI agents would not know what to look for when assessing potentially radicalized individuals.

 

When those of us in Congress learned of the Mueller-mandated “purge” of FBI training materials, we demanded to see what was being removed. Unfortunately, Mueller was well experienced in covering his tracks, so naturally the pages of training materials that were purged were ordered to be “classified,” so most people would never get to see them.

 

After many terrorist attacks, we would hear that the FBI had the Islamic terrorists on their radar but failed to identify them. Now you are beginning to see why FBI agents could not spot them. They were looking more at the complainant than they were at the radical Islamist because that is what Mueller had them trained to do.

 

Michele Bachmann and I were extremely upset that Americans were being killed because of the terribly flawed training. We demanded to see the material that was “purged” from the training of FBI agents regarding radical Islam. That is when we were told it could not be sent over for review because the purged material was “classified.” We were authorized to review classified material, so we demanded to see it anyway. We were willing to go over to the FBI office or the DOJ, but we wanted to review the material.

 

We were told they would bring it over and let us review it in the Rayburn Building in a protected setting. They finally agreed to produce the material. Members of Congress Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, and I went to the little room to review the vast amount of material. Lynn was not able to stay as long as Michele and I did, but we started pouring through the notebooks of materials. It was classified so naturally I am not allowed to disclose any specifics, but we were surprised at the amount of material that was purged from the training our agents. Some of the items that were strictly for illustration or accentuation were removed. A few were silly. But some should clearly have been left in if an FBI agent was going to know how and what a radical Islamic terrorist thinks, and what milestone had been reached in the radicalization process.

 

It was clear to Michele and me as we went through the purged materials that some of the material really did need to be taught to our FBI agents. For those densely-headed or radical activists who will wrongly proclaim that what I am writing is an Islamophobic complaint, please note that I have never said that all Muslims are terrorists. I have never said that, because all Muslims are not terrorists. But for the minority who are, we have to actually learn exactly what they study and learn how they think. As Patton made clear after defeating Rommel’s tanks in World War II, he studied his enemy, what he believed and how he thought. In the movie, “Patton,” he loudly proclaims, “Rommel, you magnificent ___, I read your book!”

 

That is how an enemy is defeated. You study what they believe, how they think, what they know. Failure to do so is precisely why so many “Known Wolves” are able to attack us. Clearly, Mueller weakened our ability to recognize a true radical Islamic terrorist. As one of my friends in our U.S. Intelligence said, “We have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy! You cannot defeat an enemy you cannot define.” Robert Mueller deserves a significant amount of the credit for the inability of our federal agents to define our enemy.

 

PURGING COUNTER-TERRORISM TRAINING MATERIALS

 

FBI Special Agent Kim Jensen had spent a great deal of his adult life studying radical Islam. He is personally responsible for some extraordinary undercover work that remains classified to this day. He was tasked with putting together a program to train our more experienced FBI agents to locate and identify radicalized Muslims on the threshold of violence.

 

Jensen had done this well before Mueller began to cozy up with and pander to groups such as CAIR. Complaints by similar groups caused Mueller to once again demand that our agents could not be properly instructed on radical Islam.

 

Accordingly, Jensen’s roughly 700-pages of advanced training material on radical Islam were eliminated from FBI training and all copies were ordered destroyed.

 

When Director Mueller decides he wants our federal agents to be blind and ignorant of radical Islam, they are indeed going to be blind and ignorant.

 

Fortunately, in changing times well after Mueller’s departure as FBI Director, a new request went out to Mr. Jensen to recreate that work because at least someone in the FBI needed to know what traits to look for in a terrorist. It still did not undo the years of damage from Mueller’s commanded ignorance of radical Islam.

 

MUELLER’S UNETHICAL ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

 

Robert Mueller had more than one direct conflict of interest that should have prohibited him from serving as the Special Counsel to investigate President Donald Trump.

 

For one thing, President Trump fired his close friend and confidante, disgraced FBI Director James Comey. Mueller had long served as a mentor to Comey, who would most certainly be a critical witness in any investigation of Donald Trump.

 

Mueller and Comey had also been exceedingly close friends beyond the mentor relationship. But Comey’s insertion of himself into so much of the election cycle — and even its aftermath — in conversations he had with the President himself made him a critical witness in the investigation. There is no way Mueller could sit in judgment of his dear, close friend’s credibility, and certainly no way he should be allowed to do so.

 

Gregg Jarrett explained one aspect of this situation quite clearly and succinctly at FoxNews.com in an article titled, “Gregg Jarrett: Are Mueller and Comey ‘Colluding’ against Trump by acting as co-special counsel?” A portion of that article reads:

 

The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has a “conflict of interest.” Even the appearance of a conflict is disallowed. The same Code of Federal Regulations defines what constitutes a conflict. That is, “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” (28 CFR 45.2).

 

Comey is that person. He was substantially involved in the conversation with President Trump who may be the subject of an obstruction investigation. In fact, the former Director is the only other person involved. There were no witnesses beyond himself. A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Here, it sets up a clash between the special counsel’s self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest in discharging his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner. His close association with the star witness raises the likelihood of prejudice or favoritism which is anathema to the fair administration of justice.

 

Mueller has no choice but to disqualify himself. The law affords him no discretion because the recusal is mandatory in its language. It does not say “may” or “can” or “might”. It says the special counsel “shall” recuse himself in such instances.

 

An excellent post by Robert Barnes, a constitutional lawyer, identifies five statutes, regulations and codes of conduct that Mueller is violating because of his conflict of interest with Comey. Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner recounts in detail the close personal relationship between Mueller and Comey which gives rise to the blatant conflict of interest.

 

Another deeply troubling aspect of Mueller’s conflict of interest is and was his role in the investigation of Russia’s effort to illegally gain control of a substantial part of United States’ precious supply of uranium. That investigation was taking place within the Mueller FBI, which should have had a direct effect on prohibiting Secretary of State Clinton from participating in the approval of the uranium sale into the hands that were ultimately the Russian government.

 

Of course, then U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein had direct control over that Russia uranium investigation in conjunction with FBI Director Mueller. It certainly appears that with what they had gleaned from that undercover investigation, they should never have been involved in any subsequent investigation that might touch on potential collusion and millions of dollars paid to the Clinton’s foundation by the very beneficiaries of the Russians’ uranium schemes. Rosenstein and Mueller’s failure to warn against or stop the sale reeks of its own form of collusion, cooperation, or capitulation in what some consider a treasonous sale.

 

Quite the interesting duo is now in charge of all things investigatory surrounding their own actions. In fact, Rosenstein and Mueller are now in a position to dissuade others from pursuing them for their own conduct.

 

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MUELLER’S TROUBLINGLY BIASED HIRES

 

Through it all, Mueller’s modus operandi does not seem to have ever changed. He has hired nine Democrat-supporting lawyers and zero Republicans. Certainly all attorneys likely have political views and that is not a problem so long as they do not affect their job. But not a single Republican was worthy of Mueller’s selection?

 

Were there no establishment Republicans who wanted to join his jihad? Mueller’s hand-picked team of Democrats reveal political views that distinctly conflict with Trump and the conservative agenda, raising questions about Mueller’s bias and his ability to conduct a fair investigation. At least nine members of Mueller’s team made significant contributions to Democrats or Democratic campaigns, while none contributed to Trump’s campaign and only James Quarles contributed to Republicans in a drastically smaller amount than what he gave to Democrats.

 

Analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, Andrew Goldstein, James Quarles, Elizabeth Prelogar, Greg Andres, Brandon Van Grack, Rush Atkinson, and Kyle Freeny all contributed over $50,000 in donations to Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s Presidential campaigns, various Democratic non-presidential candidates, and the Democratic National Convention. Mueller also has surprisingly strong personal ties to a number of the lawyers he hired.

 

Three former partners with Mueller at the Boston law firm of Wilmer Hale are on the payroll: Aaron Zebley, Jeannie Rhee, and James Quarles. In addition to strong personal ties to Mueller, many of the attorneys have potential conflicts in working for persons directly connected to the people and issues being investigated.

 

Jeannie Rhee represented Ben Rhodes, ex-Obama National Security Adviser, and the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit, as well as Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit probing her private emails.

 

Aaron Zebley, former Chief of Staff to Mueller while Director of the FBI, represented Justin Cooper in the Clinton email scandal as he was responsible for setting up Clinton’s private email server. He admitted to physically damaging Clinton’s old mobile devices.

 

Andrew Goldstein joined the team after working under major Trump critic Preet Bharara in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York. Bharara became a strong critic after Trump fired him as an Obama-holdover and spoke on ABC News that “there’s absolutely evidence to launch an obstruction of justice case against Trump’s team with regard to the Russia probe.” Does he sound a bit prejudiced?

 

Andrew Weissman, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissman shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined.

 

Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi. Additionally, Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weissman was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans.

 

Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after more than 10,000 texts between him and former Mueller investigator Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. They were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming President and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected.

 

GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN

 

Michael Flynn is a man entangled in manufactured controversy from the moment he stepped into his role in the Trump administration. The circumstances surrounding his take-down have become one of the more puzzling aspects of the Trump-Russia investigation. His career took him from three decades in the U.S. Army to overseeing the Pentagon’s military intelligence operation and directing the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was more than qualified to act as the first national security adviser in a new administration. However, his influence and zeal made him a clear target for the Trump-Russia investigation.

 

As a strong supporter and friend of Donald Trump’s from the onset, he campaigned and publicly supported then-candidate Trump throughout 2016. As best I can sort it out through the media hype and hysteria, having no first-hand knowledge like the rest of America: after the successful election, during the transition period, in December 2016, Flynn reportedly conversed with a Russian ambassador.

 

He was “accidentally” swept up in an intelligence foreign surveillance recording. When this happens, the names of American citizens are supposed to be masked in the transcripts. Somehow Flynn’s name was magically unmasked, which apparently allowed the Obama administration to peruse his meetings and conversations. Parts of the classified transcript of that conversation were leaked to the media by rogue Deep State law breakers (criminals who Mueller seems completely disinterested in). This appears to be what fueled the media-driven narrative of Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia because Flynn had a discussion with a Russian ambassador, which conversation is absolutely legal and advisable. A media-generated doubt clouded Flynn’s reputation, as the discussion was long reported as having taken place during the campaign (which could possibly be illegal) but was later proven to have been after the election and during the transition which should not have been illegal.

 

After a complete pounding of media-driven hysteria, in mid-February of 2017, Flynn resigned having served only 23 days as National Security Advisor. Mueller targeted Flynn using illicitly-gathered and leaked foreign intelligence and surveillance as evidence. Nine months later after Flynn and his family were subjected to Mueller’s usual threats and intimidation, a financially exhausted Flynn entered a guilty plea on one count of lying to the FBI—the result of a Mueller-technique perjury trap as was used on Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart. What is Flynn guilty of? He apparently misremembered a conversation that took place 33 days previously? The FBI had a transcript of that conversation and already knew what information was there. They went into a conversation with Flynn not seeking answers to questions, but to try to trip him up on exact statements made in a conversation when they were already in possession of the transcript.

 

Flynn’s unmasking has become the center of a controversy wherein those transcripts were procured under exceedingly questionable circumstances before a judge who had a questionable and undisclosed relationship with part of Mueller’s team. That judge was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the secretive court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allows federal law enforcement to seek secretive warrants to surveil foreign persons outside of the United States who are suspected of terrorism. But the Obama administration and Mueller seemed to find it much more politically expedient to use the secret court to go after Americans who were part of the Trump team for actions that did not occur while they were part of the Trump campaign team. Strange goings-on.

 

One could argue that Judge Rudolph Contreras, the federal judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, conveniently misremembered that he also served on the FISA court as a judge and conveniently misremembered his friendship with the FBI agent whose interview was used as evidence against Flynn. As it turns out, the FBI interview notes of that very encounter with Flynn may exonerate Michael Flynn, crushing Mueller’s case against him, not to mention the highly questionable hearing before a judge who may well have been recused much too late to save the Flynn prosecution.

 

FISA ABUSE

 

The FISA-authorized FISC is built upon the principle that highly delicate cases dealing with government surveillance of foreign agents and officials would be handled in an unbiased and respectful environment where secrecy at all costs was critical. There is supposed to be an added precaution to prevent any potential for bias in a FISA Judge by having a rotation of judges. That is why it is such a shock to find out now that Mueller’s case against Michael Flynn would happen to end up before the “randomly selected” very dear close personal friend of FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who hated President Trump with a passion, as evidenced in his text messages with colleague and paramour, Lisa Page. U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, or “Rudy” as Strzok likes to refer to him, should have recused himself from such a highly sensitive case involving the ultimate attempted removal of the duly-elected President of the United States who happened to be despised by the very people who by law were required to prosecute with fairness. He was later forced to ‘recuse’ himself and be removed from the Flynn proceedings, without public explanation.

 

This forced recusal was an unmistakable indication that he never should have been involved in the Michael Flynn plea agreement. Judge Contreras’ conflict of interest has yet to be explained by the court. Contreras’ is one of only three local FISA court judges, and by default, is likely one of the judges who have on four occasions approved the Title I surveillance of another character in this melodrama, Carter Page. This is the case where the FBI is known to have intentionally misled the FISA court by using as evidence the illustrious “Steele Dossier,” a sordid opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Oh, what a tangled web of crime Special Prosecutor Mueller’s team appears to have helped weave, and of which Mueller appears to be completely disinterested, all while he searches high and low for an elusive crime to pin on the President.

 

MUELLER IGNORES PROVABLE CRIMES BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THE FBI, THE FISC, ETC.

 

Strategically timed leaks of selective classified information are being used to target individuals for investigation in order to create the appearance of some sinister crime are committed.

 

Upon closer scrutiny, the cases fall apart.

 

Yet, slam dunk federal criminal cases of leaking classified material are going on under Mueller’s nose, and by those within his purview and his team. When we think of all the leaks from Mueller’s investigation, it brings to mind Wilford Brimley’s quote from Absence of Malice: “You call what’s goin’ on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.”

 

Case in point: Erik Prince. As Lee Smith put it in a recent article from TabletMag.com, Robert Mueller’s Beltway Cover-Up:

 

News that special counselor Robert Mueller has turned his attention to Erik Prince’s January 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles with a Russian banker, a Lebanese-American political fixer, and officials from the United Arab Emirates, helps clarify the nature of Mueller’s work. It’s not an investigation that the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading—rather, it’s a cover-up…

 

Mueller is said to believe that the Prince meeting was to set up a back channel with the Kremlin. But that makes no sense. According to the foundational text of the collusion narrative, the dossier allegedly written by former British spy Christopher Steele, the Kremlin had cultivated Trump himself for years. So what’s the purpose of a back channel, when Vladimir Putin already had a key to the front door of Mar-a-Lago? Further, the collusion thesis holds that the Trump circle teamed with high-level Russian officials for the purpose of winning the 2016 election. How does a meeting that Erik Prince had a week before Trump’s inauguration advance the crooked election victory plot? It doesn’t—it contradicts it. The writer goes on to point out that serious crimes have been committed which Mueller is purposefully ignoring. Prince was thrown into the middle of Russiagate after an April 3, 2017, Washington Post story reported his meeting with the Russian banker. But how did anyone know about the meeting? After the story came out, Prince said he was shown “specific evidence” by sources from the intelligence community that the information was swept up in the collection of electronic communications and his identity was unmasked. The US official or officials who gave his name to the Post broke the law when they leaked classified intelligence. “Unless the Washington Post has somehow miraculously recruited the bartender of a hotel in the Seychelles,” Prince told the House Intelligence Committee in December, “the only way that’s happening is through SIGINT [signals intelligence].” Prince’s name was unmasked and leaked from classified signals intelligence. Oddly enough, it’s the same modus operandi used in the targeting of President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. It is a federal felony to publish leaked classified information.

 

Ask WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about that particular unequal application of the law. The Deep State felons who are strategically leaking this information have politically weaponized our justice system and should be prosecuted for their attempts, with malice aforethought, to manufacture the overthrow of a duly elected President of the United States. The leaks and publication of classified information alone warrant investigation and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law in this matter, yet Mueller appears utterly uninterested in those crimes even as they go to the very heart of the credibility of his investigative mandate.

 

Yet, as I’ve demonstrated here, the man put in charge of the investigation of “Russian Collusion”; case, Robert Mueller, has perfected the art of abuse of the justice system for personal and political gain. He is uninterested in any criminal activity that does not further his cause of damaging this President. If you think that is harsh, consider the criminality of the FISA court abuses by the Obama Department of Justice and FBI. We have all heard ad nauseum about the infamous “Steele Dossier,” the opposition research document paid for by the Clinton campaign that was used to manufacture the Russia collusion narrative and spark what became the Mueller investigation into our President. On June 18, 2017, Muller protégé and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the Clinton campaign-funded document, telling Congress that the document was, “salacious and unverified.” https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295)

 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, created a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to allow secret warrants to surveil agents of foreign governments, be they U.S. citizens or non-U.S. actors. In October of 2016, the Obama DOJ/FBI successfully applied for one of these secret warrants to surveil Carter Page, a short-time Trump campaign volunteer. Since these warrants against U.S. citizens are outside of the bounds of the Constitution, they have to be renewed by applying to the court every 90 days after the first warrant application is approved. These secret warrants are so serious they have to be signed off on at the highest levels. The applications in question would have been signed off on by Obama administration FBI and DOJ officials including then FBI Director James Comey. At least one of the renewal applications would have been signed off on by our current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. At the time of the signing, they all would have had the knowledge and/or the professional and legal duty to know that the dossier was used as evidence and also had the legal duty to know the evidence origins. The same would apply to the knowledge of the penalty for submitting unverified information to the FISC for the purpose of obtaining a warrant. It is a crime to submit under the color of law an application to the FISC that contains unverified information 50 U.S. Code § 1809).

 

Comey’s “salacious and unverified” testimony before the Senate occurred eight months after the Clinton campaign-funded dossier was used in the first successful FISA court application to obtain a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a Trump campaign volunteer for several months. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence examined the documentation submitted to the court and concluded that the unverified information contained in the Steele dossier was in fact used in the FISC application, without disclosing to the court that it was an opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

 

Neither the initial application in October of 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, the Clinton campaign, or any other partyn [sic] in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials. The timing of the applications, the inclusion of material the DOJ/FBI knew to be unverified at the time, and the successful result after this fraudulent inclusion speak to the level of criminal corruption of those who sought to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and still seek to overturn his election. The widespread abuse of the FISA-authorized court, FISC, was laid bare in a court memorandum of review of these abuses that was declassified in 2017 and went virtually unnoticed by the media because it didn’t fit their narrative.

 

These are serious crimes that, left unchecked, lead nations down the path to tyranny at the hands of people who think they know better than citizens. It’s an age-old struggle America’s Founding Fathers knew well and did everything they could to prevent from happening. The FISC judges themselves have a duty to police their own courts and call to account these bad actors who, by all facts in the documentation I’ve personally seen, have committed a fraud upon the court. If these judges do not have the integrity to self-police in this matter, we in Congress must hold them accountable using the power granted to us in the Constitution. Congress has created every single federal court in the country except the Supreme Court. We have the duty to phase out, change or disband the FISC, all while developing a better solution to address the authorization of this sort of surveillance of foreign agents and actors. It is our duty to clean up the mess that the Obama administration demonstrated is far too easy to create.

 

If you want answers, and you can handle the truth, join me in demanding those answers from “Special Counsel” Robert Mueller, along with his resignation. If he were to resign, it could well be the only truly moral, ethical and decent action Mueller has undertaken in this entire investigation.

______________________

Gohmert Exposes Mueller & Comrades

John R. Houk

© May 4, 2018

________________________

MONUMENTAL: The Naked Truth About Robert Mueller

 

© 2018 NoisyRoom.net

 

Intro to ‘An Unethical Nightmare’


Intro by John R. Houk, Editor

Original post by Justin O. Smith

Posted April 14, 2018

I realize the news cycle today will focus on the U.S. military strike against locations believed to be chemical weapons development centers. The wicked Dems have even suggested that an attack on Syria is a smokescreen to obstruct Robert Mueller’s witch hunt against President Trump.

 

In reality, if there is any distraction in obstructing justice, it is the Deep State corruption beginning to unravel. The December 9 FBI raid of Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen at his home, office and hotel is an unrepentant attempt to keep the Deep State conspiracy against the President from unraveling.

 

At first many believed Mueller directed the raid to occur. But to avoid the appearance of conflict, Mueller turned over some info on Cohen financial practices to the DOJ that resulted in some judge certifying a search warrant against Cohen.

 

As far as I know to date, the actual reason has not been disclosed to the public. The guess is Cohen allegedly may have tried to cover any financial tracks leading to himself by manipulating how a payoff to porn star Stephanie Clifford (stage name Stormy Daniels) had occurred. Apparently, the payoff and confidentiality contract were legal, but the “how” may have been accomplished illegally.

 

The concern is the FBI search warrant execution may have resulted in attorney-client privilege between President Trump and Michael Cohen unrelated to any Cohen financial impropriety probably will be violated. My concern and your concern should be the Deep State FBI-DOJ Trump-haters will manipulate the attained search warrant data to be used against the President. AND if you think no such manipulation is capable by the FBI, you should think of Obama’s cadres of unmaskers, leakers and liars were unleashed on candidate and President-Elect Trump which includes Crooked Hillary paying for the highly discredited Steele Dossier.

 

JRH 4/14/18

Please Support NCCR

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

An Unethical Nightmare

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/12/2018 10:19 PM

 

The rule of law and President Donald Trump came under one more withering attack on April 9th 2018, through the FBI and Department of Justice raid on the office of Michael Cohen, the President’s personal lawyer, and under Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s initiative and direction, as he stepped outside the purview mandated for the “Russia collusion” investigation, in an attempt to find any wrongdoing by the President. This attack is largely political revenge and a fishing expedition designed to unseat President Trump and keep some very real criminals out of prison, like Mueller himself, and Hillary Clinton.

 

The Justice Department issued a warrant for the FBI to search for evidence surrounding a $130,000 dollar payment from Cohen to pornography actress Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, who allegedly had an affair with Pres. Trump in 2006. Cohen has repeatedly stated that the President had no knowledge of the payment, intended to buy Daniel’s silence.

 

Many problems with this investigation exist, and Mueller and his team appear to be desperate to find wrong doing and a crime committed by the President, in a manner no better than Good Ol’ Stalin who was often quoted as having said “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. In a year’s time, Mueller has yet to find any Russian collusion by President Trump.

 

Also, according to world renown lawyer and author, Alan Dershowitz, this recent action violated President Trump’s attorney-client privilege and his 4th and 6th Amendment Rights, which prohibit the government from intruding on the privacy of attorney-client rights of citizens. These FBI agents and prosecutors have no right to view confidential materials between a client and their lawyer, and this alone constitutes a core violation of both Cohen’s and the President’s rights, even if the government never uses the confiscated material.

 

If anyone should lose their job and be prosecuted, it should be Mueller for obscuring the fact that Hillary Clinton authorized Russia to receive 25% of the United States’ total uranium resources, through a corrupt Uranium One deal, for a payment to the Clinton Foundation of $145 million dollars, when Mueller was the FBI Director. This deal allowed Russia to eventually gain majority control of those resources. And so, Hillary too should be in prison for treason.

 

Weren’t the Russians just as dangerous when Mueller headed the FBI?

 

Where is Mueller’s investigation into the false Steele Dossier, Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS and the Hillary Clinton campaign? Each used Russian sources to leak unproven rumors and smears against Donald Trump in an attempt to ensure his defeat in 2016.

 

Where are the investigations and prosecutions of James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and others for unmasking innocent Americans caught in surveillance and illegally leaking their names to the media? Where is the prosecution of Comey and McCabe for leaking information on their investigations of the 2016 campaign and lying about it to investigators?

 

Equally corrupt, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is the same man who allowed an illegally presented FISA warrant to be used against then candidate Trump and who appointed Mueller Special Counsel; subsequently, Mueller hired 17 political hit-men, nine of whom are Clinton donors and the remainder being Clinton supporters, with the exception of one. Rosenstein personally signed off on Monday’s warrant and the FBI’s decision to raid Cohen’s office.

 

Dershowitz recently told Fox News: “If this were Hillary Clinton [having her lawyer’s office raided] the ACLU would be on every TV station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.”

 

The double standard is all too evident, since it is common knowledge now that Obama’s politicized FBI and DOJ protected Hillary Clinton, after revelations she was using a private computer server to transmit classified top secret information to unauthorized personnel, and they allowed her to delete 33,000 documents from her server during the following three weeks. The FBI and DOJ also allowed Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s personal lawyer, to invoke attorney-client privilege to prevent the FBI from further investigating Hillary Clinton’s email scheme, even though Mills too was under investigation at the time. Mills even stormed out of a meeting with the FBI in May of 2016, because a question supposedly breached that privilege.

 

As Andrew McCarthy of the National Review observed: “It was astonishing that the Justice Department indulged [Mills’] attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her … But it is simply unbelievable to find her turning up at Mrs. Clinton’s interview [and] participating in the capacity of a lawyer under circumstances where Clinton was being investigated over matters in which Mills participated as a non-lawyer government official.”

 

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the President must fire Mueller and Rosenstein and damn the consequences, while at the same time, he must demand that a judge require all of the seized documents to be reviewed by a court in order to determine which are relevant to any investigation and which violate attorney-client privilege. The President has the right and the authority to fire Robert Mueller for exceeding his original mandate, and by defending his own rights under the Constitution, he ultimately defends and protects individual Americans against an increasingly intrusive federal government.

 

In the meantime, one must assume that Mueller’s hit team, without any morals and unrestrained, will continue to lie, cheat, perjure themselves and mislead the American people, if that’s what it takes to secure Trump’s impeachment, and possibly a criminal conviction, in their attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election. It is left to us — Conservative America — to see through the lies and hit back harder and more determined by telling Congress, in no uncertain terms, that they had better throw their full support behind the President or look for another job

 

President Trump has committed no crime, but he remains the target of the Mueller inquisition and an unethical nightmare of a frame-job against him, all in the name of maintaining the elitist Establishment status quo and securing their unchallenged lock on the reins of power.  And it must be stopped — the lies and attempts to manufacture crimes — before it does more irreparable damage to our Republic and moves the nation closer to all out civil conflict, because this is not justice. It is a continued coup from within our own government.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Intro to ‘An Unethical Nightmare’

Intro by John R. Houk, Editor

Posted April 14, 2018

_______________________

An Unethical Nightmare

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor

 

© Justin O. Smith