Mueller Bullet Points: 10 Reasons to Dislike the Guy”

With the appointment as Special Counsel by his buddy Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller has become just about the most powerful man in the U.S., making him just about the most powerful man on Earth. With his convoluted appointment that violates all types of moral and legal ethics, breaks every rule regarding conflict of interest, and has given him and his group of legal henchmen an unlimited budget with no time restraints whatsoever, this Russia collusion hoax has morphed into what President Trump calls a Witch Hunt.

In this atmosphere, it is easy to see the political, social, moral, and cultural divide steadily widen as this probe forces most Americans to pick a side: Mueller or President Trump. Very few Americans have taken the time and given the effort to research who Mueller is, his political and legal history, and researched the actual basis for this investigation, which is unquestionably based on a false legal premise. For a Special Counsel to even be appointed, the process requires actual evidence of a crime to be present to justify such an appointment. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s named justification for the appoint was “collusion with Russians by members of the Trump Campaign to change the results of the 2016 election.”

Rosenstein was given NO evidence of any collusion that would justify Mueller’s appointment. And even if there was, there is no federal law regarding collusion except in Anti-Trust proceedings! And after 18 months, Mueller has turned up NO collusion with Russia.

Many Americans are steamed about this probe. In fact, a majority who have been polled say this investigation needs to end. And many Americans have negative feelings about Mueller and don’t appreciate what he’s doing.

Instead of our traditional “Bullet Points,” today we are going to look at “10 Reasons to Dislike Robert Mueller,” even if you don’t know him. Let’s get going:

1. The guy’s a leaker.

Breitbart says so. Sure, Mueller’s got a rep for rarely speaking in public or giving interviews. But behind the scenes he’s obviously spending day and night dishing dirt on Donald Trump and the president’s oh-so-honorable colleagues to any reporter who will listen. The deluge of daily stories disparaging President Trump, after all, began the day Mueller was appointed; before Mueller, Trump press coverage was constant sunshine and rainbows. Plus, it’s clearly to Mueller’s strategic advantage to have his investigative steps aired to the public in real time. Besides, who else would leak this kind of stuff? Only Mueller and his team have a motive. The White House isn’t a factionalist den of vipers; the president’s legal team is a well-oiled machine that never leaks; defense lawyers are paragons of virtue. Don’t even get us started on tight-lipped congressional staff — those guys never talk. The only logical explanation here is information about the investigation is coming from Mueller.

2. Mueller is a highly political actor.

Thank God, Newt Gingrich has seen through Mueller’s act. He tweeted recently that “Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair. Look who he has hired. (check FEC reports) Time to rethink.” It’s quite a rethink. Mueller is so political that he’s spent his entire career going back and forth between politicians. He worked in the first George H.W. Bush administration as an assistant attorney general, then he was a prosecutor on murder cases in Washington, D.C., after running the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and then he flip-flopped back to be a U.S. attorney in the Bill Clinton administration. Get this: He then goes on to run the FBI for both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama (a bipartisan Congress even extended his term for two years at Obama’s request). The guy is so political he can’t even decide which side he’s on.

3. Mueller is too thorough and taking too long.

This thing is seriously taking forever. Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders spoke for all of us in saying that, “the president is frustrated by the continued witch hunt of the Russia investigation and he’d love for this to come to a full conclusion so that everyone can focus fully on the thing that he was elected to do.” You and me, both, friend. Could Mueller go any slower? It’s as if he’s a highly methodical actor systematically gathering strings on multiple broad areas simultaneously: Trump-Russia collusion, Trump Organization business dealings, misconduct in the Trump campaign, and obstruction of justice. He needs to hurry this thing along. Trump just wants to be cleared without the fuss of an investigation. Wouldn’t you? The president knows he is innocent and only wishes to spare us all the pain of this drawn-out ordeal. Of course, Trump recently told the New York Times that “I’m not under investigation. For what? I didn’t do anything wrong.” It’s completely reasonable of Trump to be frustrated that this investigation — which doesn’t exist — is taking so long and that Mueller is being so thorough about it.

4. Mueller is too aggressive and is moving too fast.

Slow down, buddy. The New York Times reported that “The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors” and their “shock-and-awe tactics.” When Mueller isn’t moving at a glacial pace, he’s being unprecedentedly aggressive. The Times reported clucking in the defense bar:

Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller’s investigation privately complain that the special counsel’s team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth that precedes — or substitutes for — grand jury testimony. They argue that the team’s more aggressive tactics might end up being counterproductive, especially if some grand jury witnesses turn out to be more guarded than they would have been in a more informal setting or invoke the Fifth Amendment.

This well-meaning concern among defense lawyers for the effectiveness of Mueller’s investigation is touching. When they aren’t overwhelmed with concern Mueller is moving too slowly, they’re worried sick that he’s going too fast for his own good.

5. He’s hiring bad people with conflicts of interest.

Trump warned us that Mueller’s staff comprises “some very bad and conflicted people.” Fact check: True. Some of Mueller’s staff attorneys have indeed committed the iniquitous crime of donating to Democratic candidates. This is what matters. Ignore their famed careers as prosecutors or appellate lawyers. Ignore the Supreme Court clerkships. Mueller’s staff actually are just human embodiments of contributions to Democratic candidates. No previous special prosecutor has ever employed people with political affiliations. We can’t recall any Republicans in sight for Kenneth Starr’s investigation, and Democrats absolutely fled from working for the Watergate special prosecutor and in the Iran-Contra investigation. If Mueller’s team isn’t wearing #MAGA t-shirts to work underneath their suits, the whole endeavor is hopelessly biased.

6. Mueller himself has conflicts of interest.

Mueller is the most conflicted one of all. Trump astutely pointed out that he’d even agreed to discuss becoming FBI director again following Comey’s dismissal: “He was up here and he wanted the job,” Trump told the New York Times. After he was named as special prosecutor, “I said, ‘What the hell is this all about?’ Talk about conflicts. But he was interviewing for the job.” Plus, Mueller’s old firm also had clients involved in the investigation. The Justice Department reviewed those and found no problem with Mueller’s current role, but what do those guys know anyway? And there’s even more! Trump told the Times that “There were many other conflicts that I haven’t said, but I will at some point.” When he does tell us, everyone is going to feel very foolish about trusting this Mueller guy.

7. Mueller keeps expanding his investigation.

The president warned Mueller that his investigation “is about Russia” and it would cross a red line if he strays into areas like Trump-family finances. And yet, the prosecutor keeps having the temerity to stray beyond the lines that Trump — the conduct of whose campaign and company is the investigation’s very subject — thinks he should be examining. It’s possible Mueller just got confused by his capacious mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which gives him authority not merely over “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” but also over “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and any attempt obstruct the investigation. But clearly, Mueller is trampling the time-honored legal principle that the subjects of investigations get to say which parts the police are allowed to investigate.

8. Mueller is best friends with Comey.

A lot of people say this. Here’s Republican Rep. Trent Franks: “Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties. Those who worked under them have attested he and Jim Comey possess a close friendship, and they have delivered on-the-record statements effusing praise of one another.” Here is blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a problem. He has a disqualifying conflict of interest regarding a large part of his work. It involves a choice between investigating or relying on former FBI director James Comey, a longtime close friend of Mueller’s.”

Sure, their actual premise is wrong and Comey and Mueller are not close friends. But never mind that. If we say it enough times, it will become true.

Mueller and Comey certainly know each other. They ran the same federal law enforcement agency in sequence. They worked together when one of them was deputy attorney general and the other was running the FBI. And they appear to have a mutually respectful relationship. They’ve probably even had lunch. And just as all of us maintain intimate personal friendships and unfailing loyalty towards all our former co-workers, so too is Mueller in the tank for Comey and incapable of remaining objective about President Trump.

9. Mueller is a problem because he was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, who is a problem because he appointed Mueller.

No less a figure than the estimable Sean Hannity made this decidedly sensible — and certainly not circular — argument by way of arguing both that Mueller’s probe has gone on too long and that it was exceeding its jurisdictional boundaries, both points discussed above. Rosenstein, you see, is suspect because, among other things, “Rosenstein is … the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn’t know or didn’t care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director’s job.” Mueller, thus, is suspect because his investigation is being overseen by the guy who is suspect for having appointed him. “You can’t make this up,” Hannity writes.

Indeed you cannot.

10. Mueller is respected and admired at the FBI, and the FBI is the depths of the Deep State.

Do you need a better reason to dislike him than that?

Summary

I don’t think anyone knows for certain how this Mueller thing is going to play out — even Mueller himself. But in the midst of the strangest and most obviously evil federal investigation I know of in American history, something certainly IS about to happen. Only time will tell what it is.

Regardless of its outcome, one thing has been lighted like Rockefeller Center during Christmas holidays: there is a large number of evil folks in our government in D.C. And there is a very large volume of evil that needs to be identified, rooted out, and “turned” out — whether it’s laws, policies, government employees or elected legislators. The bad stuff and people must go.

If this Mueller probe does nothing more than simply shine a light on all of this wrongdoing, isn’t that enough? The light is on in the kitchen and the roaches are scrambling for cover. This is not a political thing. This is a good vs. evil thing. And the war has just begun.

This American for one hopes the guys wearing the white hats win this one.

Play

The “Latest” NY Times Anonymous Source

Yep. The hits just keep on coming! The New York Times insulted every pensive, reflective, and intelligent American with their “current” bombshell allegedly based on inside information provided by a senior White House Source. Before we dig into all this, here’s the actual Op-Ed:

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. President Trump is facing a test of his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall. The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more. But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective. From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims. Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier. The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t. The result is a two-track presidency. Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over. The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

Facts

Let’s put this all in perspective with Bullet Points!

  • “Anonymous” Think about the fact that such a derogatory Op-ed would be printed in a national newspaper that is supposed to be impartial, honest, and transparent. It contains a series of negative attacks against a sitting President, and is supposedly to be penned by a senior member of that president’s staff! “Anonymous” source? Who reading/listening to this really feels there’s something fishy about this entire process AND the opinion piece? It’s no secret that the owner, publisher, editors, columnists, and reporters at the New York Times despise Donald Trump. It’s no secret they have taken every opportunity to print horrendous stories that contain every conceivable type of nasty allegation against Mr. Trump. Over and over again, this paper has printed “factual” stories that have on numerous occasions been exposed to be complete fabrications. Yet with that history, the Times expects Americans to ignore their history of purposely telling lies and to simply believe that an anonymous White House senior staffer not only wrote this Op-ed for publication but is working with an entire segment of the White House staff surreptitiously actually running the policies of the White House behind the President’s back!
  • For a moment let’s assume someone there really did write and submit this to the New York Times. Look at the content and the claims made. According to this source, this group of staffers sees themselves as knowing what’s best for Americans, what presidential policy should look like, are quietly framing legislation and policy on all fronts, and as American heroes are “steering the administration in the right direction until — one way or the other — it’s over.”
  • The “right direction.” I am trying to understand what direction that might be. Obviously, this “group” does not believe in the Constitutional right of every American to vote their conscience in each election and those elected are then legally empowered to fulfill the responsibilities of the office for which they were elected. They obviously don’t trust that Americans had the sense or prudence to elect this president, are too stupid to understand what craziness would result in America if his campaign promises were fulfilled. Those policies were revealed to Americans months and even years before those staffers ever thought they had a chance to work in the White House. Oh….the President HAS implemented dozens of those policies (I guess over their hard work to thwart behind-the-scenes his doing so) that have resulted in the unequaled and never-before-achieved employment numbers, tremendous corporate expansions, hirings, implementation of new technology, billions of corporate dollars kept abroad re-patriated back to the U.S. to fuel expansion, growth, employee raises and bonuses. That doesn’t sound like the work of some back-office pirates contemplating mutiny OR a deranged politician who apparently cannot even complete sentences in a conversation or make a phone call.
  • This person is (with all of this animus, anger, regret, and frustration) still working in the White House. Why? Purportedly to steer the ship — the U.S. — out of the Trump troubled waters back into the waters they have empowered themselves to determine as “safe.”

Summary

If you have not yet surmised this: I don’t believe this “anonymous” source even exists. I feel strongly — especially with the ridiculous past exposures of New York Times reporters’ fabrication of stories — this is a non-existent source with outrageous manufactured story elements.

How many times does it take for you to hear lies from a liar before you question the viability of everything the liar says? How many times will the Times lie before you refuse to believe what they publish — especially an Op-ed replete with bombastic allegations that heretofore are unreported and unconfirmed. But wait: using “anonymous” sources allows one to say anything, quote anyone, make numerous allegations, and expecting benign acceptance of a willing public. I am confident that is what we are experiencing with this.

We have reported extensively — as have numerous other reputable news sources  — of the danger of reliance upon anonymous news sources. Those who use those sources claim that without identification protection, details of a presidential administration wrongdoing, illegal and/or inappropirate actions of government agencies and individuals, and even their illegal activities would remain unknown. In a way, I can “kind of” agree with that. (hey: “kind of” agree with sounds a bit like being “kind of” pregnant!) But then I remember this: Congress crafted a federal whistleblower program that not only protects those who step forward with information such as that revealed in this Op-ed, but the whistleblower is rewarded financially for doing so. Why then would the New York Times “anonymous source” want to remain in the shadows? Any reasonable person in the White House would know that with the release of this Op-ed, their identity will certainly be ferreted out and they will be exposed and almost certainly terminated.

But that should never be necessary. This person — if they exist — should immediately resign their position. No American who really believes in the American political system, the structure and operation of the presidency, and the sensitive nature of running a White House, would even consider working under such conditions as are alleged in this story.

The release of this Op-ed has begun another Trump feeding frenzy — especially in the Media. Here’s how it works:

Bubba Gump Newspaper” prints a story that quotes an anonymous source who said Jack and Jill went up the hill. Then “Barney Fife News Network” airs a television breaking news story that says: “According to confirmed sources, we have verified that Jack and Jill went up the hill.” Barney Fife Network did not verify the source or the accuracy of the story. Their “confirmed source” was “Bubba Gump Newspaper!”

This is how today’s Mainstream Media functions. One will release a story. The others may half-heartedly make attempts to confirm independently from a reputable source the truth of the story. But usually, they simply use the news outlet that originated the story as their “confirmed source!” It happens every day.

In fact, regarding the Trump-Russia FISA warrant, the basis was at least in part based on such a process:

The FBI leaked information about Carter Page and his Russian contacts to a news source so that news source would publish it. When published, other news sources immediately picked up that story and ran with it. Then the FBI went to the FISC requesting a FISA warrant, stating in the warrant application that “multiple sources have confirmed that Carter Page actually met with Russians promoting a meeting between Trump and Russian President Putin.” Their “multiple sources” were the news agencies that re-published the original story leaked by the FBI! The original source was not a source, but was the FBI.

Today’s media cannot be trusted to tell the truth. That’s sad but true.

Let’s hope those 45,000 sealed indictments (yep: the number is up to 45,000 now) begin being unsealed and executed soon. “Aren’t you afraid there are indictments in there of President Trump, his campaign members, his family members, and Republican lawmakers?” You know what: I REALLY DON’T CARE! I want the truth on the street. I want the discontinuance of news releases based on information obtained from “anonymous” sources. I want complete transparency without hiding anything.

Mr. or Ms. White House senior staff member anonymous source: either be quiet and trust the decision made by your bosses — the American people — to make Donald Trump the American CEO to operate the business of the country, or resign and sell your story — with supporting and verifiable evidence — to the New York Times.

Maybe you already have sold it to them.

If I was you I would have.

Play

The Mueller “Blockbuster”

I hated to end yesterday’s story forced for lack of time to “tease” the finale today. But there are very important considerations for you as this Mueller Investigation is winding down — so important they deserve a space of their own. There is history to start this story. I think it is apparent to most people that this investigation by Special Counsel Mueller is anything BUT traditional or normal. Its sources are hazy at best. Its foundation is questionable based on the Special Prosecutor statute and Department of Justice regulations. Nevertheless, a sitting U.S. President is under investigation for “collusion” or involvement with Russia in some way to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

Let’s begin this analysis by drawing two potential/probable conclusions as to the basis, intent, and expected findings of the Mueller Investigation. Please follow the thoughts and evidence immediately below. At the end of the story, we’ll look at the “Either-Or” blockbuster scenario I promised! Don’t cheat…read all the way through!

“In The Beginning”

It started long before Robert Mueller sat in the Oval Office with Rod Rosenstein and President Trump, reportedly interviewing for the FBI Director position after the President terminated James Comey. Many think that Mueller’s NOT being offered the job initiated a payback by Mueller to Mr. Trump for not hiring him. That supposedly prompted his appointment the next day as Special Counsel by his longtime friend and business associate (now Deputy Attorney General) Rod Rosenstein. Let’s think this through:

  • Mueller was not even eligible to take that job even if offered. Mueller had already served his term limit as FBI Director: 10 years. In fact, President Obama held him over as Director, obtaining special permission to do so. Mueller knew that before the meeting was even scheduled;
  • There was someone else in that Oval Office meeting: Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The AG certainly knew of Mueller’s term limits conflict. Knowing this, why would the President and Attorney General have such a meeting with Mueller? And if Sessions was in that meeting, why would his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, be there as well?
  • Sessions as the newly appointed U.S. Attorney General recused himself from his being a part of “any investigation into any matter dealing with the 2016 election.” His stated purpose for his recusal: potential conflict of interest in that he had been somewhat involved in the Trump campaign;
  • Robert Mueller — a lifelong attorney who had spent much of his career in the Justice Department — hired a team of investigators comprised almost entirely of Democrats who had supported the Hillary Clinton campaign and previously Barack Obama. Why would Mueller make such a partisan effort to taint the investigative staff knowing it would certainly cause concern for any impartiality of any actions the group would take?
  • Mueller, with the expansive investigatory authority he held from Rosenstein’s letter of appointment and its amendment, could have (and many say “should have”) cast a net far wider in the Russian investigation to include the Clinton Campaign and its surrogates in light of the findings of Clinton involvement with Russians before and during the campaign. Why would such an experienced investigator not go after that “low hanging fruit?”
  • The Mueller team is comprised of 13 attorneys and their staff. How could such a small group effectively examine 1 million + documents received from the Trump Campaign plus the myriad of other applicable evidence in the investigation? (divide 1.4 million by 13. Each would have had 107,692 multi-page documents to investigate)
  • There is a legal term called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” If the evidence, or tree, is tainted, then anything gained from the evidence — the fruit — is tainted as well. The evidence that triggered the special counsel’s Russia investigation was the 35-page opposition research document known as the “Steele dossier.” Democratic campaign operatives funded the dossier; it was not an independent intelligence report. And it was later shared with the FBI, whose former director, James Comey, has acknowledged that allegations in the document could have been made up.
  • Comey’s personal memos. The then-FBI director intentionally leaked these classified memos recounting his version of conversations he had with President Donald Trump, hoping they would lead to the appointment of a special counsel. Comey admitted this at a Senate intelligence committee hearing last year, testifying, “I needed to get that out into the public square. And, I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Under the poisonous tree doctrine, if the premise is faulty, the conclusion must also be faulty. Since the evidence for a special counsel was tainted, so too was his appointment. Comey got exactly what he wanted, even if it was unfair to the president, possibly illegal, and tarnished the reputation of the FBI.

A Look at The “Other” Thoughts

  • Remember DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his bombshell report of DOJ wrongdoing in the Clinton email investigation? Remember that note from AG Sessions stating that the DOJ had assigned “470 investigators to work with Horowitz on the investigation?
  • Remember AG Sessions in November of 2017 appointed Utah federal prosecutor John Huber to (independently and far from D.C. distractions) investigate a bunch of things that included wrongdoing by unnamed politicos in D.C.?
  • Did you know that Sessions assigned those 470 investigators to work with Huber after the Horowitz investigation was completed?
  • Did you know that starting in late October of 2017, more than 45,000 federal indictments issued in part by every federal district court in the U.S. have been sealed for later adjudication? Did you know that in U.S. history, the most such indictments handed down in total in the U.S. in any year is less than 2,000?

Let’s play the “What If” Game with this.

“What If:”
  • The Trump/Mueller/Rosenstein/Sessions meeting in the Oval Office was NOT about FBI Director position. What if it was a meeting to initiate a plan to quietly create a smokescreen with a Special Counsel investigation to simultaneously investigate secretly the Clinton Campaign, Clinton Foundation, former and current Justice Department officials, while objectively investigating any potential wrongdoing in the Trump Campaign?
  • Some of those 45,000 sealed indictments are of a rogue intelligence agency, IRS, FBI, DOJ, State Department, and political party individuals for illegal activities? Remember: 25+ DOJ and FBI employees have been fired, demoted, or have “retired” since this investigation began.
  • Jeff Sessions — who has been suspiciously “incognito” during the last year or so — has been quietly working behind the scenes supervising these ongoing investigations? Remember: Sessions made a public statement regarding Utah federal attorney John Huber’s appointment to investigate many things without Washington D.C. interference. In that announcement the AG mentioned Huber’s having access to those 470 DOJ investigators. Many think Sessions announcing that was quietly putting the word out that serious investigations were/are ongoing in all of these wrongdoings by many.
  • All the noise and tweets and allegations and even name-calling by the President the last 18 months has been a purposeful distraction of the American media (and even of potential targets of these investigations) and Americans? We have seen the President use this distraction tool on numerous occasions: “Look what I have in my right hand — see, I’m waving it.” When all along what he is REALLY doing is in his left hand behind his back. Trump is a master salesman.
  • The targets of the Mueller Special Counsel investigation are NOT Donald Trump and Trump associates, but rather James Brennan, James Clapper, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and James Comey being investigated for obstruction of justice in their actions in covering up illegal activities? Other targets could also be the Clinton Campaign, Hillary and Bill personally, the Holder and the Lynch DOJ, the Comey FBI, Brennan CIA, and Clapper DNI? That could explain the public anger and borderline threats by Brennan, Clapper, and Comey and why Holder and Lynch have stayed so obviously out of any discussions.
  • John Huber is really “The Guy” carrying the weight of ALL these investigations? He certainly has sufficient investigative staff and resources to get the job done.

The “Blockbuster” Revelation

By now you certainly know the TruthNewsNetwork perspective that there are actually two possible scenarios we are living through regarding the real purposes for the Mueller investigation. Obviously, the premise of the investigation was false: there IS no collusion between the Russians and the Trump Campaign.

The conventional wisdom is that the first explanation listed above is exactly what is happening. But to believe that, one has to believe in the Deep State, that all those in leadership at the Department of Justice, the FBI, DNI, CIA, and other investigative agencies and the U.S. Military are actually part of a grand conspiracy to turn the U.S. rule of law upside down. And while doing so, their intent would surely be to turn the nation away from its established political structure as a democratic representative republic. A Deep State comprised of a self-appointed class of individuals would have to be chosen, installed, and in control of the U.S. political process AND the U.S. military. It could never be successful without a military coup.

On the other hand, the second scenario and possible Mueller investigation explanation detailed above would require thousands of people to remain totally quiet about that process: no leaks at all. One would have to believe that Mueller, Rosenstein, Sessions, the President, and his senior staff members would all have come to an agreement to work together surreptitiously to complete these investigations.

You might feel that getting such a task successfully completed is impossible. And you might be correct. There are so many moving parts and so many people that are part of it, accomplishing the investigative tasks necessary is a monumental task at best. But IF it is actually as described above, it would explain many things and answer any questions we have no answer for now:

  • Why has AG Sessions been so quiet and seemingly totally uninvolved in any of the investigations in what appears to be an effort to force a sitting President out of office?
  • Why was Huber appointed, and to investigate what and whom?
  • Why has Sessions allocated Huber 470 DOJ investigators fulltime?
  • Why has President Trump not fired Sessions in light of the President’s many tweets questioning the Attorney General’s lack of action regarding any of this?
  • Why has the DOJ and/or FBI NOT announced any investigations that are underway into anything to do with obvious inappropriate if not illegal actions by the Clinton Campaign, the Democrat Party, and individuals in both organizations?
  • Why has the DOJ not launched a REAL investigation into the Uranium One transaction and those who were part of the sale of U.S. uranium to a Canadian company who sold it to a Russian government-controlled company?

Summary

Which do you think it is? I am certain you have an opinion on both possibilities. Let’s face it: either Mueller is an evil tyrant bent on the destruction of Donald Trump and all those who work for or with him, or you think Mueller is secretly a really good guy working with the President, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and others to bring a bunch of people to justice for their reprehensible wrongdoing.

I have personal opinions as I am certain you do on this entire American political debacle. Part of me wants to give all those involved in the investigation the benefit of the doubt. Another part wants to believe there is a grand conspiracy by a large group of those heretofore who have been trusted leaders of the Department of Justice, the FBI, other intelligence agencies, and even senior members of the Democrat Party and the Clinton campaign.

Unfortunately, part of that second scenario must be consideration of the involvement in this entire action by former President Obama and members of his administration.

My conclusion? It’s certain to be one or the other. Only time will tell. I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the evil by many that have been exposed, and how much evil was successfully hidden from Americans for so long.

God help us if the Deep State is already in charge or is successfully taking charge of our country. If so, we can all be certain Big Brother is in control and the rule of law is gone as is “liberty and justice for all.”

GOD HELP US!

 

 

 

Play

Mueller Mania

“The White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, has cooperated extensively in the special counsel investigation, sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Trump obstructed justice, including some that investigators would not have learned of otherwise, according to a dozen current and former White House officials and others briefed on the matter.

In at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, Mr. McGahn described the president’s fury toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged Mr. McGahn to respond to it. He provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.

Among them were Mr. Trump’s comments and actions during the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and Mr. Trump’s obsession with putting a loyalist in charge of the inquiry, including his repeated urging of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to claim oversight of it. Mr. McGahn was also centrally involved in Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, which investigators might not have discovered without him.

For a lawyer to share so much with investigators scrutinizing his client is unusual. Lawyers are rarely so open with investigators, not only because they are advocating on behalf of their clients but also because their conversations with clients are potentially shielded by attorney-client privilege, and in the case of presidents, executive privilege.”

This bombshell story was released by the New York Times Sunday, August 19th. Don McGahn — White House Counsel — according to this report has spent 30 hours in private meetings with the Robert Mueller team answering questions about President Trump’s actions regarding all those things Mueller is investigating. And who knows what things that includes.

There are some significant things to note from this occurrence:

  1. For the counsel to the President to have such conversations, as President Mr. Trump would have had to waive Executive Privilege for McGahn to meet with Mueller;
  2. For the counsel to the President to have such conversations, Mr. Trump would have had to waive his right to confidentiality between his attorney and himself;
  3. 30 Hours: Obviously this was a long time for a lawyer to meet with prosecutors to discuss anything — especially alleged wrongdoing by the President of the United States. Certainly MUCH was discussed, MUCH was asked of McGahn, and MUCH was answered;
  4. I’ll stretch way out there with this statement: It is almost certain McGahn’s discussions yielded absolutely nothing in the way of implicating President Trump on collusion (which is not a crime) or obstruction of justice. In fact, buried at the bottom of the New York Times story is this: “Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities, though the limits of executive power are murky.”

Mueller Leaks

  • June 3, 2017: The Associated Press revealed Mueller’s team had taken over a criminal probe of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
  • July 22, 2017: Two sources claiming direct knowledge told Reuters Mueller’s investigators were hoping to use evidence of money laundering or other financial crimes to pressure Manafort to cooperate in the collusion probe.
  • August 3, 2017: Citing “people familiar with the matter,” the Wall Street Journal reported a grand jury had been impaneled by Mueller. White House attorney Ty Cobb said at the time he was unaware of the grand jury’s existence.
  • August 9, 2017: The Washington Post reported FBI agents conducted a predawn raid of Manafort’s Virginia home on July 26 to seize documents and other materials related to Mueller’s investigation. According to the Post, people familiar with the search said a warrant sought financial records and the evidence collected included binders Manafort had prepared for his congressional testimony.
  • August 24, 2017: “A source close to the investigation” provided Fox News with new details of the raid of Manafort’s house and claimed it was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”
  • August 25, 2017: “People familiar with the matter” informed the Wall Street Journal that Mueller was investigating Flynn’s involvement in a private effort to obtain Hillary Clinton’s email from Russian hackers.
  • August 28, 2017: According to NBC News, three sources said Mueller’s investigators were focused on Trump’s role in writing a response to media reports about a meeting between campaign officials and Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016.
  • September 1, 2017: The Washington Post reported Mueller’s investigators had a copy of a draft letter prepared by Trump aide Stephen Miller to justify the firing of Comey in May 2017.
  • September 20, 2017: Emails reportedly turned over to Mueller’s team and Senate investigators leaked to the Washington Post revealed that Manafort offered to provide private briefings to a Russian billionaire with ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 campaign.
  • October 4, 2017: Reuters cited three “sources familiar with the investigation” saying that Mueller’s team had taken over the FBI’s inquiries into a dossier of allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Two officials also reportedly told Reuters Mueller was looking into whether Manafort or others helped the Kremlin target hacking efforts and social media posts to influence the election.
  • October 27, 2017: “Sources briefed on the matter,” told CNN that the first charges in Mueller’s investigation had been filed under seal. The following Monday, charges were unsealed Manafort and campaign aide Robert Gates, as well as a guilty plea by former adviser George Papadopoulos.
  • November 5, 2017: NBC News reported multiple sources said Mueller had enough evidence to bring charges against Flynn and his son. According to NBC, the FBI was also investigating a possible effort by Flynn to extradite a Muslim cleric in the U.S. whom Turkish President Recep Erdogan blamed for a coup attempt.
  • November 16, 2017: The Wall Street Journal cited a “person familiar with the matter” reporting that Mueller’s team had subpoenaed Russia-related documents from Trump’s campaign, including documents and emails were written by several campaign officials.
  • December 2, 2017: Multiple “people familiar with the matter,” told the Washington Post that former top counterintelligence official Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team because of anti-Trump texts between him and an FBI attorney with whom he was having an affair. Details of many of those texts, which were under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office, have since been leaked to various media outlets.
  • January 2, 2018: A source detailed the physical characteristics, clothing, race, and gender of grand jury members to the New York Post and alleged that the grand jury room “looks like a Bernie Sanders rally.”
  • February 17, 2018: CNN cited anonymous sources stating that Gates was close to negotiating a plea deal with Mueller and that new charges against Manafort were being prepared. Less than a week later, Gates entered a guilty plea to conspiracy and lying to the FBI, and a superseding indictment was filed against Manafort.
  • February 27, 2018: CNN reported that three “people familiar with the matter” said Mueller had recently questioned witnesses about Trump’s business activities in Russia and negotiations surrounding a potential Trump Tower in Moscow.
  • February 28, 2018: An unnamed former Trump campaign aide told CNN Mueller’s team asked about comments former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks made during her interview with investigators about possible contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives.
  • March 2, 2018: Witnesses and others familiar with the investigation reportedly told NBC News Mueller’s team was asking questions about Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business ties. The following week, NBC cited “sources familiar with the matter” saying Qatari officials withheld damaging information about the United Arab Emirates’ influence on Kushner from Mueller.
  • March 3, 2018: According to the New York Times, Mueller was looking into attempts by the United Arab Emirates to buy political influence on Trump and the role of Lebanese-American businessman George Nader.
  • March 4, 2018: Axios obtained a copy of a subpoena sent to a former Trump campaign official by Mueller’s team. Sam Nunberg later confirmed he was the source and spoke extensively to the media about the investigation.
  • March 7, 2018: “People familiar with the matter,” told the Washington Post Mueller had evidence from a cooperating witness that a secret meeting in Seychelles between a Trump ally and a Russian official prior to the inauguration was an attempt to establish a back channel between the administration and the Kremlin.
  • March 15, 2018: The New York Times reported that Mueller had subpoenaed documents from the Trump Organization.
  • April 9, 2018: The New York Times learned federal investigators had raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room. Hours later, sources told the Washington Post Cohen was under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
  • April 30, 2018: The New York Times obtained a list of questions Mueller wanted to ask Trump. According to the Times, the list was prepared by Trump’s attorneys after speaking to investigators but it was not given to reporters by Trump’s legal team.
  • March 9, 2018: from POLITICO —“Special counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors aren’t talking to the media, but still the leaks keep coming. In the past two weeks, anonymously sourced news reports have said the top federal Russia investigator is preparing to indict Russians for hacking Democratic emails in 2016; focusing on why one of President Donald Trump’s longtime lawyers was in talks about a Moscow real estate deal during the campaign; asking questions about Trump son-in-law, Jared Kushner’s business dealings; and probing whether the United Arab Emirates improperly sought to influence Trump White House policy.”
  • Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman has seen no evidence that these leaks—often sourced to people familiar with the investigation or briefed on it—have come directly from Mueller or his staff. When Mueller has spoken publicly, it has been through criminal complaints and indictments.

This list includes Mueller leaks only through March 9, 2018. How many others are there? How many more will there be?

What is Mueller’s Objective and How do Leaks Play into that?

I have an “informed” conclusion I have drawn from this and other evidence surrounding the Mueller Investigation. It’s pretty exhaustive and detailed. For the sake of time, let’s wait until tomorrow to have that entire discussion. There are enough important details in this explanation that we need to lay it all out in chronological order and with complete details. We’ll do that tomorrow.

Rest assured of one thing: there IS a master plan with a sinister under-girding in the Mueller probe. Many circumstances of this investigation are too stark and too related to things outside of the actual investigation to be random. This entire chapter of the Trump presidency was planned in advance and orchestrated.

Who, How, and What? Find out tomorrow at the Truth News Network!

Play

Mueller’s Evil is Not Exclusive

By now you know a lot about Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his past. You have watched with me as the Trump-Russia investigation has virtually gone nowhere in 20 months. Yes, there have been indictments — but NOT of anyone or anything related to 2016 election-tampering collusion between Russians and members of the Trump Campaign. But Mueller does not give up. And he has a lapdog that owns a past in legal prosecutions that is more vicious and dogged than that of Mueller: Andrew Weissmann. Let’s meet Mr. Weissman.

Who is Andrew Weissmann?

       Andrew Weissmann

FBI Director Christopher Wray was an assistant attorney general in 2004 when he heaped praise on an ambitious Mafia-tested prosecutor while promoting him to the top of the Justice Department’s high-profile Enron task force. Wray specifically praised Andrew Weissmann for getting convictions against two Enron clients: accounting giant Arthur Andersen and executives at banking dynamo Merrill Lynch.

Andersen was finished as a company; four Merrill executives went to prison. Today, Weissmann stands as special counsel Robert Mueller’s top gun in a squadron of nearly 20 prosecutors and scores of FBI agents delving into Trump-Russia. Mr. Weissmann is leading the probe into the biggest target to date, Paul Manafort, President Trump’s onetime campaign manager. How Weissmann operated over a decade ago offers possible glimpses at how he carries out orders today from his longtime mentor, Robert Mueller.

He went to Texas from New York City in 2002 fresh from putting a number of Mafiosos in prison. By the time he left in 2005, he had rung up some impressive numbers, such as 22 guilty pleas and millions of dollars in restitution. But he also suffered historic courtroom losses. And how he won and how he lost is still the subject of bitter comments from his adversaries in Houston.

“Do not misunderstand my disdain for him with ineffectiveness or something not to be concerned with,” said Dan Cogdell, who represented three Enron defendants. “He’s a formable prosecutor. If I’m Donald Trump and I know the backstory of Andrew Weissmann, it’s going to concern me. There is no question about it.”

The backstory: Defense attorneys say Weissmann bent or broke the rules. As proof, they point to appeals court decisions, exhibits and witness statements.

They say he intimidated witnesses by threatening indictments, created crimes that did not exist and, in one case, withheld evidence that could have aided the accused. At one hearing, an incredulous district court judge looked down at an Enron defendant and told him he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that did not exist. “Weissmann seemed more interested in obtaining convictions than in promoting justice,” said Tom Kirkendall, a Houston lawyer who represented an Enron executive.

Those convictions for which FBI Director Wray offered praise in 2004? Weissmann’s cases against Andersen and Merrill Lynch lay in shambles just a few years later.

The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 vote, overturned the Andersen conviction. A year later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erased all the fraud convictions against four Merrill Lynch managers. The jury had acquitted another defendant. “People went off to prison for a completely phantom of a case,” said Kirkendall.

Kirkendall became sort of an unofficial Enron historian. He observed goings-on at the Houston federal courthouse and blogged about what he considered a systematic miscarriage of justice. The task force, which ultimately would catapult prosecutors to lucrative careers, wanted to win as many convictions as possible. They were prosecuting players in one of the nation’s biggest corporate scandals. Enron bosses falsified balance sheets, inflated earnings and traded stocks with insider knowledge. By 2001, the mega-company went bankrupt. Its stock was worthless.

The Justice Department task force mobilized in 2002 and quickly won convictions. But there were dark sides. That’s where Sidney Powell enters the picture. The Dallas lawyer took the appeal of a Merrill Lynch figure. She obtained from Justice a batch of task force documents that should have been disclosed to trial attorneys years earlier. Justice prosecutors not connected to the Enron task force deliberately withheld evidence favorable to Stevens. A judge threw out his conviction.

Powell wrote a 2014 book about the scandals, “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” “All of the cases Weissmann pushed to trial were reversed in whole or in part due to some form of his overreaching and abuses,” Powell said. “The most polite thing the Houston bar said about Weissmann was that he was a madman.”

It probably will come as no surprise that the special counsel’s office declined to comment about Weissmann’s track record. However, the Justice Department in 2012 and 2013 defended him against ethics complaints and concluded he did not violate the rules.

His hardball tactics seem intact today. Within weeks of his arrival in June, the FBI executed a no-knock, predawn raid on Mr. Manafort’s condo. Agents stayed for hours after waking up the target and his wife. Then a leak appeared in The New York Times. Mueller had informed Manafort that he would be indicted. It’s an old Enron tactic: Scare people into talking.

Arthur Anderson

With over 20,000 employees, Andersen stood as one of the country’s most prominent corporate auditors. The Securities and Exchange Commission began investigating Enron, an Andersen client. Auditors started destroying documents. Weissmann took the lead in prosecuting Andersen for obstruction of justice in 2002. Andersen’s defense: It followed company policy on when to destroy the confidential material.

Convicted at trial, a fatally damaged Andersen appealed. The Supreme Court eventually took the case. In 2005, the nation’s highest court overturned the conviction in a 9-0 opinion, a devastating judgment that shattered Weissmann’s showcase. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion, solo — a message of how seriously the high court took the breach. In essence, Rehnquist said the prosecutor sold the presiding judge on jury instructions that assured a conviction. “Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required,” Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote. “For example, the jury was told that, even if [Andersen] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [Andersen] guilty. The instructions also diluted the meaning of ‘corruptly’ so that it covered innocent conduct.”

Rehnquist wrote that the government (Weissmann) insisted, over defense objections, that the word “dishonestly” be excluded from the instructions and that the word “impede” be added. The chief justice went to the dictionary, read the meaning of “impede” and concluded it was “such innocent conduct” for someone to “impede” the government.

According to Attorney Powell, “Weissmann indicted them for conduct that was not criminal, and he took criminal intent out of the jury instructions that he then persuaded the judge to give.”

With a lack of sustaining clients, a mortally wounded Andersen put out a statement. “We are very pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision, which acknowledges the fundamental injustice that has been done to Arthur Andersen and its former personnel and retirees,” it said. In the end, the George W. Bush Justice Department put out of business a thriving accounting firm whose actions could have been handled in other ways short of felony charges. The pain? 10,000 Arthur Andersen employees were put on the street without jobs by an over-aggressive prosecutor.

Merrill Lynch

It became known as the Nigerian barge case. Weissmann induced indictments in 2003 against four Merrill Lynch executives, an Enron vice president, and an Enron accountant. He contended that Merrill and Enron entered into a sham transaction in 1999. The banker would buy three Enron barge-mounted power generators for $7 million purely to boost the Houston company’s balance sheet — and then Enron would buy them back at a profit. They were charged under a federal statute that normally requires proof that someone paid a bribe or received kickbacks that denigrated the business practices of “honest services.” There were no bribes or kickbacks. Five were convicted. The accountant — represented by Cogdell — heard the jury say, “Not guilty.”

Four of them appealed while serving time in prison. In 2006, the 5th Circuit reversed all the fraud charges, leaving just a perjury conviction against one executive, whom Powell came to represent on appeal. Again, the problem for Weissmann was his definition of a crime that greatly relaxed the standard for convictions. “We reverse the conspiracy and wire fraud convictions of each of the defendants on the legal ground that the government’s [Weissmann task force] theory of fraud relating to the deprivation of honest services is flawed,” the appeals court said. The opinion said the scheme may have been unethical but did not violate federal fraud laws. The court said that not all corporate fiduciary lapses are tantamount to crimes.

Attorney Kirkendall said the Enron trials in Houston were held “in a highly inflamed environment.” “The task force took advantage of that and convicted these men,” he said. “What it caused them and their families, you can just imagine.”

The government did not retry the five on fraud charges.

Concealed evidence

What the Merrill defense attorneys did not know during the trial was this: There were favorable witness statements that the prosecution withheld. In 2010, Justice began releasing confidential Enron task force documents. They showed that Weissmann’s team provided misleading summaries at the trial of raw witness statements to the FBI and to the grand jury. The disconnect became an issue in the appeal of Attorney Powell’s client, Merrill executive James A. Brown, in the Nigerian barge case. Although his fraud conviction went away, his perjury guilt stuck.

Powell was particularly struck by this: The government’s summary said a witness, Enron’s Jeffrey McMahon, “does not recall” a barge buyback agreement. In his actual interview, he said there was no deal. The prosecution badly distorted what he had said, depriving trial attorneys of information that could persuade a jury to acquit. Mr. McMahon was under threat of indictment and did not testify. The 5th Circuit agreed — to a point. “Favorable information was plainly suppressed from McMahon’s notes,” the court wrote. “The McMahon notes contain numerous passages that unequivocally state that it was McMahon’s understanding that there was only a ‘best efforts’ agreement and no ‘promise,’ whereas the government’s disclosure letter says only that McMahon ‘does not recall’ a guaranteed buyback.”

Even worse, the documents showed that Weissmann’s team yellow-highlighted favorable information that it deliberately withheld from its summaries presented in court. Yet the appeals court did not throw out the perjury conviction. It said the prosecution “flaw” was not material.

Chilling witnesses

When the task force brought indictments in July 2004 against the big cheese in the Enron saga — Kenneth L. Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and Richard Cause — defense attorneys learned that Weissmann had done something even more far-reaching. In a sealed court document, he named 114 unindicted co-conspirators. Defense attorney Kirkendall did some research. He found that it was by far the largest number of such targeted people in the history of federally prosecuted white-collar crime.

Defendants at trial hoped that some Enron executives would testify on their behalf. But those hopes collapsed on the list of 114.

“Chilling effect, my ass,” said attorney Cogdell. “It was Ice Station Zebra. No one in their right mind would do anything that would upset the task force, specifically Weissmann.” It was evident Weissmann made the list for that exact reason: to scare potential witnesses.

Summary

Justice Department press releases in the 2000s would tout the number 30 as in over 30 people charged in the Enron saga. But final conviction count is short that number given that appeals courts eviscerated two major cases — Merrill Lynch and Arthur Andersen — while juries acquitted two people and partially acquitted others and two were allowed to withdraw guilty pleas. In all, 22 pleaded guilty and four trial convictions stuck.

Afterward, some task force prosecutors rose to significant government posts.

Weissmann joined Robert Mueller at the FBI and then arrived at a powerhouse New York law firm as a white-collar-crime defense specialist. He returned to the FBI as Mr. Mueller’s general counsel and, later, was appointed by the Obama administration as chief of Justice’s fraud unit in Washington.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, the Justice Department assistant attorney general who named him task force chief a decade ago, is now supplying Weissmann with the FBI manpower he needs to pursue Trump-Russia.

Kathryn Ruemmler prosecuted both the Merrill defendants and Lay-Skilling. Years later, she emerged in the prestigious post of White House counsel to President Obama.

Lisa Monaco, another task force prosecutor, stayed at Justice, was Mueller’s chief of staff and then went to the Obama White House as the president’s top counterterrorism adviser. She joined CNN as an analyst this year.

Weissmann has become Mueller’s bulldog in the Trump-Russia investigation. He is arrogant, forceful, demanding, and almost cruel. He spearheaded the pre-dawn raid of Mannafort’s home. Agents broke through the front door with no notice, startled Mannafort and his wife in bed, and ransacked their house damaging much in the way of furniture and fixtures. These tactics are NEVER used by law enforcement in white-collar crime cases. As is his norm, Weissmann by taking this approach sent messages to all those surrounding President Trump that this investigation was and is brutal, far-reaching, and that Weissmann has carte blanche to use whatever tactics in this investigation he chooses to use.
Plain and simple: Weissmann is an evil guy who thrives on power over others. Even though he is sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, he does almost anything and everything he needs to prevail in every case in which he is involved. And he does so with total disregard for the law or the fact that his perverting the law for his purposes has in the past destroyed the lives of innocent Americans. Yes, he has sent guilty people to jail. But his actions in the Enron and Merril Lynch and Arthur Andersen matters destroyed the lives of thousands of Americans. Even though those cases were overturned respectively by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, people had already served time in prison, lost jobs, Arthur Andersen went out of business costing thousands of people millions of dollars. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle!
The question of the day regarding the current Trump-Russia investigation pertaining to the actions of Weissmann is: to what lengths is Weissmann willing to go to “get” the President? Is Weissmann so bent on prevailing in action against the President that he is willing to employ the same or similar tactics as he employed in Houston? Only time will tell.

 

Play

The “Truth” Part III: The Three Amigos

Mueller, Rosenstein, and Comey: three people from the Intelligence Community that play really important roles in the current U.S. political system. We know them all by name and title. But do we really KNOW them, or do we just know ABOUT them? Let’s look at their individual roles in current political matters and examine how they got to their current “positions.”

James Comey

Comey was a minor assistant US attorney in the late 90’s. He gained power and money by being the DOJ official who “investigated” and cleared Bill Clinton of any wrong-doing in Clinton’s pardon of criminal financier Marc Rich as Clinton was leaving the Presidency.  Many feel this was the beginning of a career for Comey in which he used his position and power to assist political folks in ways that only an incredibly connected D.C. lawyer could.  Comey reportedly provided “cover” for the Clintons in their gaining power and wealth after leaving office through pardoning a billionaire money-launderer, arms dealer, and criminal.  Comey was a key piece in how the Clintons gained incredible wealth through their foundation after leaving the White House.  A huge piece of that puzzle was giving Marc Rich a free pass when he should have spent life in prison.  This started a new “politicratic” life for Comey, making him powerful and wealthy.

That’s how Comey got his start to judicial system “Stardom.” He has far more than this in his past. Rather than a lengthy essay on his legal travels, follow these two links to stories posted previously on our website that detail the professional history of the former FBI Director:

http://truthnewsnet.org/who-is-james-comey-part-i/

http://truthnewsnet.org/who-is-james-comey-part-ii/

Rod Rosenstein

The Deputy Attorney General has lived a quiet life when compared to most in D.C. He grew-up in a Philadelphia suburb, graduated from Penn and Harvard. In 1995, Rosenstein joined the team of lawyers investigating the Whitewater scandal, which involved allegations of illegal real estate dealings by the Clintons. Rosenstein headed one of the few successful Whitewater prosecutions, which led to the conviction of former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and Clinton associates James and Susan McDougal.

Before ascending to the deputy attorney general post, Rosenstein spent more than a decade serving as a US attorney in Maryland. He is politically conservative and was appointed by President George W. Bush. But when Barack Obama took office, Rosenstein was one of only three US attorneys among 93 to be kept on the job by the new president.

As US attorney, Rosenstein led successful prosecutions for leaks of classified information, corruption, murders, and burglaries. But he is best known after being confirmed 94-6 by the U.S. Senate as Deputy Attorney General for writing a damning 1000 word letter to President Trump in which he excoriated James Comey’s action in the Clinton email investigation. Trump after receiving Rosenstein’s letter famously fired FBI Director Comey.

All know Rosenstein appointed Muller as Special Counsel in the Russian collusion investigation of the Trump Campaign. Since that appointment, Rosenstein has lived in constant turmoil as his actions in that case and others receive political assaults from both Houses of Congress for various reasons. The normal even-tempered deputy attorney general has blustered in Congressional hearings at the seemingly non-stop partisan drilling he has received from committee members. There have been many partisan calls for his impeachment for various reasons that have so far resulted in no action. (more about Rosenstein in our Summary below)

Robert Mueller

Mueller like Comey has a long, documented professional history. We have documented in several previous stories various chapters of his “speckled” past. Rather than repeat that here, please follow these links to get the “rest of the story” on Mueller. Then we will bring this all together with the shocking truth of where America stands with these three guys: the “Three Amigos.”

http://truthnewsnet.org/robert-mueller-who-is-he/

The “Three Amigos”

There is a longtime relationship between the Amigos who have been tasked with investigating President Trump, under the narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller go even further back.

James Comey wasn’t just an associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey’s go-to guy when he needed help. The two men, as it came to light years later, together disobeyed potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was incapacitated in March of 2004.

Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein became close.

We look back at Rosenstein’s loyal work for Hillary Clinton when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He allegedly covered for the Team Bill Clinton, including for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Not surprisingly, no indictments were filed.

Rosenstein was appointed to work in the U.S. Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then-President Bill Clinton. The Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rosenstein had help from his co-worker James Comey, who worked to see the Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.

Mueller seemed to be shepherding Rosenstein and Comey, leading them in careers along the way. Knowing the close personal and legal relationships between these three, it should come as no surprise that once Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out to his old mentor for help. And it should have surprised no one when three of the top federal attorneys from the past find themselves together in a questionable quest to find wrongdoing by President Trump. But it surprised many.

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.

Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller are truly the “Three Amigos” of the Deep State. Only time will show us what their true intentions were in the FBI investigation of the Clinton email server and the current investigation of the Trump Campaign. But from historical interactions between the three, it is almost certain the three are working in tandem for whatever their objectives in these investigations may be.

Summary

Here’s the Grand Finale of all this: Robert Mueller’s appointment by Rod Rosenstein as Special Counsel violates the law!

Here is the Special Counsel law used to appoint Mueller:

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and –

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

There are multiple sleazy actions taken by the Mueller team — obviously with the approval of Rosenstein — in this action.
  • There was no criminal investigation underway by the FBI and no evidence of criminal activity;
  • Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller stated the following:

“The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.”

Here’s the problem with this: according to the law shown above, a Special Counsel can be appointed when “he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” A criminal matter worth investigating was NOT the predicate for Mueller’s appointment!

And it gets even deeper. Remember that Rosenstein wrote another memo later that was hidden from public view for a long time? That memo was to amend the first appointment memo quoted above to allow Mueller to investigate things that were not shown to be criminal. The problem is that the Special Counsel law was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. No member of the Justice Department or any agency of the Government has authority to change any duly passed law or even amend its stated purpose without Congressional approval.

Rosenstein had NO authority to appoint Mueller in the first place. Why? The FBI investigation under Comey had unearthed NOTHING that could be considered a criminal action. And Rosenstein’s second memo written to Mueller to try and justify his illegal initial appointment further proved the wrongdoing.

What will this mean in the long run?

This is my opinion only, but I think the facts of this illegal appointment will result in the entire Mueller investigation, its indictments of those Russians, the guilty pleas of Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos will be thrown out. And further, I believe that any of the actions taken by Mueller against Paul Manafort that may result in a conviction will be ruled void. Why? “The fruit of the poison tree.” The very foundation of the Mueller Investigation was invalid, illegal, and uncalled for.

There are several sad things about this debacle: General Michael Flynn was virtually blackmailed into his guilty plea. He was interviewed by Peter Strozk but was not represented by his attorney during the interview and was not under oath. He pled guilty to keep his son from being charged. FBI agents later said they did not feel he told any untruth during that interview!

Papadopoulos was pretty much trapped in a similar scenario. And Paul Manafort is being nailed to a tree for actions taken a decade ago regarding financial matters that Rosenstein and others at the time these were discovered decided they were not worth charging Manafort back then!

What are all these people actually guilty of? Supporting Donald Trump, and nothing more.

The “Three Amigos” are leaving a black mark on the history of the greatest law enforcement department in the World by bending the law and railroading good people. No matter the outcome, we are seeing the Deep State attacking the fabric of the American Justice System like happens only in third-world countries.

How will this end?

Play

The “Truth” Part II

In The “Truth” Part 1, we examined and explained some of the hoopla in D.C. regarding dissemination of information as fact when it has not been true. This includes alleged collusion by the Trump Campaign with Russians during the 2016 election cycle, and alleged Obstruction of Justice during that same time. Today we will move forward looking deeper into the heretofore mysterious circumstances surrounding the massive negativity that permeates the Nation regarding all things political. We have not seen such negativity in our country since the 1960’s when young people literally revolted against the U.S. Government regarding the Vietnam War. First, we address some more of the “noise” — or as President Trump terms it “Fake News” — to dispel some of the rumors so you can get your brain around facts. Then we will discuss some behind-the-scenes actions being taken.

Obstruction of Justice

In Part I we quoted the segment of the legal definition of Obstruction of Justice in federal law that pertains to Obstruction allegations made against the Trump Campaign and those associated with it that pertain to the Mueller Investigation. But there are other parts to the Obstruction law that do not necessarily apply to the Trump Campaign but do apply to others regarding the 2016 election and matters since.

James Comey

The former FBI Director has pretty much kept himself in the limelight before, during, and after the 2016 Presidential election. We have in previous offerings here documented his professional (and often questionable) background. He has a speckled past, no doubt. However, listening to him in speeches, reading his book, or even listening to his sworn testimony before Congress, one would think he is a ray of sunlight in the total darkness of Washington D.C. And he hates Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for Mr. Comey, he HAS a public past. And unfortunately for James, his past is easily visible to all who care to take a look. James Comey — by federal statute — committed criminal acts while serving as FBI Director and since his removal. He has been and still is relying on his friends in federal law enforcement to protect him from prosecution for his wrongdoing. But if Justice is really “Equal under the law” for all, Lady Justice will soon come calling on Mr. Comey.

What did he do?

  • He forwarded FBI confidential memos of his meetings with President Trump to his friend at Columbia University expressly to be disseminated to the Press. Comey’s doing so violates 18 U.S. Code 798 which states “it is a violation to disseminate classified information to any unauthorized person. The term ‘unauthorized person’ means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.” Comey has given two different excuses for his releasing those memos: 1) the memos were NOT the property of the FBI, but his personal notes; and 2) his giving them to his friend was authorized because Comey was no longer an FBI employee. By law, the memos ARE property of the U.S. Government. In addition to the terms of the federal statute regarding his illegal release, The FBI employee agreement which Comey signed clearly states that all such documents belong to the FBI even after employment termination.
  • He lied under oath, and in doing so affected an ongoing FBI investigation. 1) Comey stated under oath there was no coordination between the DOJ and the FBI regarding the Clinton email investigation. Recovered text messages between FBI’s Peter Strozk and then DOJ Attorney Lisa Page expose that was not truthful; 2) Either James Comey or fired FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe lied to Congress. Comey stated (under oath) he never personally nor authorized anyone else to release any investigative information to the Press. Andrew McCabe in his sworn Congressional testimony stated HE gave information to the media and Comey knew about it making it authorized dissemination; 3) Comey testified that the decision to not indict Hillary Clinton for illegal use of a private email server to share classified information was made shortly before the press conference in which he announced that FBI decision. It was discovered that he penned the note announcing that decision two months before the FBI even interviewed Clinton or any of her aids.
  • There are more examples of Comey obstruction, but for the sake of time, we’ll leave it there.

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch

This is a tough one. It is rare for any Presidential Administration to take legal action against members of their predecessors. Why? Doing so would seem to be taking punitive actions for strictly political purposes of “Payback,” which no one wants to experience when THEY leave office. However, where there’s smoke there’s fire.

What did she do?

  • Apparently, that mysterious and “unscheduled” meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Sky Harbour Airport in Phoenix was NOT so “unscheduled.” According to reports, pilots later debunked that story saying the meeting WAS planned and coordinated.
  • James Comey testified that the Attorney General had asked Comey to call the FBI “investigation” into the Clinton email issue a “Matter” and not an “Investigation.” If her doing so was to deflect ordinary investigation into criminal matters, her doing so from her position of authority would be Obstruction.
  • Additionally, during Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention. The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document. Hamstringing the investigation by ordering the FBI director to mislead the public by calling it a “matter” instead of an investigation perfectly fits the description of keeping “the Clinton investigation from going too far.” After all, an investigation might “go too far” for those who wanted to protect Clinton, but a “matter” never ran that risk. Lynch’s interference also perfectly fits the description of “obstruction of justice.”

Andrew McCabe

  • The Justice Department’s inspector general submitted a criminal referral for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred the matter to the US attorney’s office in Washington, DC, for potential prosecution. McCabe has been harshly criticized for months for alleged anti-Trump bias, he’s been investigated for and may be charged about a different topic entirely — his purported attempts to mislead about his role in a leak at Hillary Clinton’s expense. The gist is that McCabe orchestrated a leak to a Wall Street Journal reporter shortly before the 2016 election, describing private deliberations he’d had with Obama Justice Department officials about an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. McCabe leaked that he had tried to keep this investigation moving forward, over an unnamed Justice Department official’s resistance. His motivation for leaking about this pending investigation, it appeared, was to rebut an earlier Journal article raising questions about his impartiality in the Clinton email probe, and a planned follow-up piece along similar lines. Once the FBI began looking into how the Clinton Foundation leak happened, Horowitz claims that McCabe repeatedly misled officials about his involvement.
  • Under McCabe’s watch, Anthony Weiner’s laptop was taken into possession of the FBI field office in New York. It was immediately discovered there were potential illegal pictures stored on Weiner’s laptop of underage girls. McCabe was notified by the Manhatten office of the laptop and its illegal contents, but McCabe slowplayed retrieving that laptop for forensic examination in New York. In doing so (and by not letting then FBI Director Comey know of the laptop and its contents) McCabe apparently was hiding the evidence of Weiner’s wrongdoing until after the November election. Accusations are that he was protecting Hillary Clinton whose chief aid was the wife of Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin. If true, McCabe committed Obstruction.

Hillary Clinton

Where do we begin? Hillary Clinton: Obstruction of Justice “PLUS”

  • 18 U.S. Code 798: “(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information, concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
  • The unsecured email server: based on legal requirements of protecting and keeping confidential documents and classified information, Clinton’s use of a non-certified computer server in an unsecured environment was a gross violation of the law. “Knowingly” is the keyword that exposed Clinton. Think about this: using that email server, then Secretary of State Clinton when traveling in foreign countries exchanged texts and emails with President Obama from an unsecured Blackberry transmitting messages via that server to Obama’s secret Gmail account.  Multiple violations of multiple statutes by both Hillary and Barack.
  • 46 CFR 503.59 – Safeguarding classified information: “All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification. Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.”
  • It is safe to say that using an unsecured server and a private (non-.gov) email address, Secretary Clinton grossly violated the law protecting classified documents and information. Notwithstanding her insistence regarding the “marked classified” status of some of those documents and emails, the fact the server was NEVER certified by the State Department and therefore was not an authorized server for use by the Department, can under the law be classified as obstruction of justice. If technically it would NOT be Obstruction, it would definitely have violated 46 CFR 503.59 — and makes it a felony.

Summary

There is no doubt there was Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller probe and also the Clinton email investigation — but apparently not by President Trump or members of his campaign, based on at least what we know now. But the others obviously have “dirty hands.”

Will there be any prosecution in these cases? At this point, it is hard to say. However, a prosecution is definitely warranted. There are numerous cases in which those guilty of far less serious infractions were sent to prison for their wrongdoing. If these escape penalties for their actions, it will prove the point that many Americans feel is applicable today: that political elites receive special treatment under this Justice Department and have for some time. It will be a travesty.

But wait: there’s more! In The “Truth” Part III that will be released tomorrow, read or listen to find out what the “Three Amigos” have been up to. Who are the “Three Amigos?” Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and James Comey. What have they been up to? I will NOT give it away today. But I assure you it is mind-boggling and exposes the worst elitism to date uncovered in the Justice Department. You will shiver to think that such corruption is alive and well in the very government department charged with protecting the laws of our Nation.

Don’t miss it!

Play

ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Four

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MUELLER HIRED EXTREMELY BIASED ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS WHO WORKED TO STOP TRUMP’S ELECTION

Through it all, Mueller’s modus operandi does not seem to have ever changed. He has hired nine Democrat-supporting lawyers and NO Republicans. Sure, all attorneys likel 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 him in railroading President Trump?

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 WilmerHale 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; Weisman 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 who was caught up 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.

A FISA JUDGE TOO CLOSE TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS INVOLVED

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 APPARENTLY PROVABLE CRIMES INVOLVING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THE FBI, THE FISA COURT, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES

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 having been 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: Eric 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 that 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 brought up on charges of high treason for their attempts, with malice of forethought, 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 is uninterested in those crimes even as they go to the very heart of the credibility of the supposed justification of his investigative mandate. Yet, as I’ve demonstrated here, the man put in charge of the investigation of this Russia “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)

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 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 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1809]

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: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf

Neither the initial application in October of 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign 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 destroy his subsequent Presidency when their initial efforts failed. 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 that went virtually unnoticed by the media because it didn’t fit their narrative.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

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 we do what is best for us. It’s an age-old struggle America’s Founding Fathers knew well and did everything they could to keep us from experiencing.

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, then disband the FISC, while developing a better solution to address the authorization of this sort of surveillance of foreign agents and actors. We have got to clean up the mess that the Obama administration showed 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.

Play

ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Three

This story — now beginning its “third chapter” — is being relayed to TruthNewsNet.org by Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert. Congressman Gohmert has an extensive past as a criminal attorney, a judge, and now a longtime member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also has extensive personal interactions with Robert Mueller when Director of the FBI. Gohmert serves on the House Judiciary Committee that holds oversight of the U.S. Intelligence community as one of its highest priorities. It is in that setting that Congressman Gohmert has obtained a detailed and accurate understanding of Robert Mueller as a man, as an attorney, as an FBI Director, and now as Special Counsel in the Russia/Trump Campaign “collusion” investigation that remains ongoing.

If you have not read or listened to Parts One and Two of this story, please do so before reading or listening to Part Three. Doing so will give you a greater understanding of Mr. Mueller.

Tomorrow we will wrap this story up. But our wrapping it up will NOT end it — Mueller is still trying to find something — ANYTHING AT ALL — to use to attack President Trump. Maybe after these four chapters about Robert Mueller, the professional inside interactions between Mueller and Congressman Gohmert, and your own interpretation of Mueller’s actions, you will be able to form informed and objective determinations of the Truth in this “Mueller Matter.”

THE FRAMING OF SCOOTER LIBBY

In 2003, during 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 very dear 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. At the time, 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 and named 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. 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 in 2015 sums up this particularly egregious element of the railroading: [https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/judith-miller-scooter-libby- and-the-trouble-with-special-prosecutors/]

“… 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 work 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 taxpayer 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 ‘COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’ WITH DOJ ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS OF TERRORISM

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: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haayF4jmthU ]

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 is 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, the 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 anyone 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 cross- section 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.

(Congressman Louie Gohmert)

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 co-conspirators. 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: [https://www.investigativeproject.org/1242/fbi-director-vague-on-cair-freeze]

MUELLER: We try to adapt, when we have situations where we have an issue with one or more individuals, as opposed to the 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 into the Obama administration. He did. It also helps explain why President Obama and AG Holder wanted him to serve and an extra two years as FBI Director. Mueller was their kind of guy. Unfortunately for America, he truly was!

PURGING THE FBI TRAINING MATERIALS

We repeatedly see cases where people were radicalized, came on the FBI radar, but the federal agents were 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: [https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/09/28/known-wolf-terrorism-a-dozen-cases-of-fbi-failure-on- obamas-watch/]

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 to 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: https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/113-32-81462-1.pdf

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 patty- cake with the leaders and tell them how wonderful they are and how crazy all those Islamaphobes out there are, but they surely got the 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 some 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 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 THE ADVANCED COUNTER-TERRORISM AGENTS’ 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 approximately 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 said the following:

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, the 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. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/12/gregg-jarrett-are-muller-and-comey-now- acting-in-concert-as-co-special-counsel.html]

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 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 little duo 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.

Play

ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Two

At the TruthNewsNetwork, we have previously revealed some startling evidence of Robert Mueller’s past, which is not so squeaky clean. Mr. Mueller has multiple question marks in his law enforcement career. But few know or understand just how devastatingly compromised the current Special Investigator’s life has been.

I have great admiration for Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) who represents the 1st Congressional District in Texas. His southern drawl disarms many who when hearing Gohmert assume he’s slow as his Texas drawl indicates he may be. Not so. During his long stay in the U.S. House of Representatives, he has compiled a long list of legislative accomplishments along with the respect of his peers for his daunting willingness to confront political foes no matter what approach those may take. He may be best-known in recent days for taking on former FBI Intelligence officer Peter Strozk in a recent joint committee hearing regarding Mr. Strozk’s involvement in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and also the early stages of Mueller’s investigation of the Trump Campaign for alleged collusion with Russians during the 2016 election. Louie Gohmert is as fearless as a pit bulldog and just as tenacious.

Congressman Gohmert in his political career has had many interactions with Mr. Mueller that have prompted Gohmert to question Mueller’s integrity and work ethic. To that end, I feel it is extremely important for www.TruthNewsNet.org to step outside of our normal research processes for instead the learned perspective of Robert Mueller from Congressman Gohmert who has far more “personal” experience with Mueller than we.

Gohmert’s perspective is detailed and underpinned with facts which substantiate his opinions, making this story lengthy. We will share Congressman Gohmert’s personal Mueller account titled “Robert Mueller: Unmasked” in installments. You will NOT want to miss this massive story! We had Part One yesterday. Today: Here is ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Two.

MUELLER’S FIVE YEAR UP-OR-OUT POLICY

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 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 Mecca in Washington, and the Director, and 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 write to or meet with the FBI Director to advise him against some of the mounting judgment errors on his part 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 abuses and corruption being unearthed right now that occurred during the Obama administration. Rather than admit that his Five Year Up or Out Policy 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 radicalized and become 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

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 recipient 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 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 as 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 sent out to get 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 of us 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 of us 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. 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.

THE WITCH HUNT AGAINST REPUBLICAN SENATOR TED STEVENS AND HIS TRAGIC DEATH

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 in thinking so 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.

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 also. 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 fraudulently created 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 wonder what happened to the valuable FBI agent who was an upstanding whistleblower with a conscience, you should know that in 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.

DEATH OF DR. STEVEN HATFILL’S REPUTATION AND PRODUCTIVE LIFE

Here is how Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist described this combination

Mueller/Comey debacle:[http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/12/james-comey-long-history-questionable-obstruction-cases/]

“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 did 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: [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/05/21/when_comey_and_mueller_bungled_the_anthrax_case_13 3953.html]

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 and had some mental issues, 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.

Summary

The plot thickens!

I’ve heard many times through the years allegations made against someone that if true would be extremely damaging to that person. But often people who hear those allegations — especially when they come from a well-known and respected member of law enforcement — the default position of the hearer is that “if Billy Bob said that then it must be true.” Mueller in his investigatory career very seldom has personally made allegations against others from criminal wrongdoing. But he has continually manipulated the criminal justice system to achieve whatever in each case is his ultimate objective. Unfortunately for those who are targets of Mueller’s anger, often Mueller’s objectives have been successful and have ruined peoples’ lives.

Tomorrow please come back for ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Three!

Play
WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com