Tag Archives: Mueller investigation

President Trump waived both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege because he was so confident of his innocence relative to Special Counsel probe

White House Counsel says he “never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities.”

There is now no excuse for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to ask to interview President Trump.

In fact, it is now clear the investigators have been given so much information about the president’s actions and had such remarkably open access, they should just close shop and write their final report.

They no longer have any grounds for going to court to get a subpoena to compel the president to testify.

Mueller’s fatal mistake was revealed Saturday in The New York Times story titled, “White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry.” Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman reported that there were at least 30 hours of interviews between the Mueller team and the White House Counsel.

Don McGahn asserted throughout the interviews that “he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities.”

McGahn’s cooperation is historically unique because President Trump waived both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege. President Trump was so confident of his innocence that he waived both of these protections to allow the Special Counsel to thoroughly question the White House attorney.

We are now at the end of the failed investigation.

Accepting such a thorough and detailed briefing from the White House Counsel will ultimately hurt the efforts of Mueller’s team of left-wing Democratic lawyers.

McGahn is a very widely-respected lawyer, who thoroughly understands the difference between legal and illegal behavior – and he was in the room for virtually all of President Trump’s activities.

It couldn’t be more clear: The Trump White House was comfortable talking for 30 hours with a pack of high-powered, very tough-minded investigators, because the president has done nothing wrong.

Nevertheless, at every stage, Mueller has conducted an aggressive, one-sided, and increasingly irresponsible investigation.

Mueller was brought in to seek the truth about whether there was collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and Russians to impact the 2016 election.

His first step down the road of abusive aggressiveness was to hire a completely partisan team of mostly Democrat attorneys. Mueller could have hired a balanced team of Republican and Democratic lawyers. He could have avoided hiring lawyers who had worked for Hillary Clinton or gone to the Clinton election night party. Instead he hired totally biased opponents of Trump – who all want to take down the president.

The Manafort trial is a case study in how a ruthless prosecutor can use the power of the state to intimidate and punish an individual.

Mueller’s second step down the road was to find accusations that had nothing to do with the election, the Russians, or a question of collusion.

Look at the outrageous abuse of Paul Manafort. Manafort had been campaign chairman. He had ties with foreign businessmen. He had done extensive business in Ukraine. I’m sure the Mueller team believed if anyone was the obvious entry point for collusion, it would have been Manafort.

Yet they found nothing.

Let me repeat this, because it is so ignored by the daily media headlines: The Mueller team found no evidence of Manafort colluding with any foreign entities on the 2016 election.

Manafort is being tried over tax and banking issues that have nothing to do with Russian collusion or any election.

In fact, the Manafort trial is a case study in how a ruthless prosecutor can use the power of the state to intimidate and punish an individual. Manafort and his wife were awakened in their pajamas in pre-dawn hours by FBI agents conducting a raid on their residence – even though the previous day Manafort had been cooperating with the Senate’s investigative body. Furthermore, there was no evidence Manafort represented any danger of violence or flight. The early morning attack was designed to frighten Manafort and send a signal to other potential witnesses to cooperate – or else.

An extraordinary abuse of power was displayed through Mueller’s holding of Manafort in solitary confinement in a cell for 23 hours a day as he awaited trial. This level of deprivation is astonishing when done to an American citizen, who has committed no violent crimes and has not been convicted of anything. Again, it is an effort to intimidate and coerce.

Mueller also understands that every person he goes after has to hire lawyers, spend their lifetime savings, and potentially end up deeply in debt to simply protect themselves from government lawyers who could potentially put them in prison.

Now, we are at the end of Mueller’s failed investigation.

With McGahn’s 30 hours of testimony, it is clear there is no evidence of President Trump either colluding with the Russians or engaging in illegal obstruction of justice.

Saturday’s New York Times piece should be the end of the story.

No sitting president has the time for distractions as big as the Mueller investigation absent the showing of a compelling need – the most important element of which is that any information President Trump has cannot be derived from some other source.

President Trump has not invoked any privilege and has permitted complete access to his White House Counsel, as well as others. Mueller can no longer even come close to meeting the compelling need standard.

As such, it is time to shut the investigation down and allow the president to do what Americans hired him to do – focus on making America great again.  Continuing to draw out this partisan investigation only serves to confirm what most Americans now understand – it had no basis in law or fact.

Mueller should write his report to Congress and return to his retirement.

 

[From an article by Newt Gingrich written for FOX NEWS]

 

……………………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

More FBI bias and corruption revealed…(what else is new?)

If you are just starting to get the impression that the entire Obama administration was in on some dark and nefarious scheme to ruin Donald Trump’s chances in the 2016 election, you’re late to the party.

During the election, there were certainly concerns about how things were faring out on the peripherals.  We could hear Hillary Clinton beginning to indoctrinate the youth of America into the coming #RussiaGate hoax, but we had no idea at the time that the information she was getting likely came from FBI spies within the Trump campaign.

Furthermore, we could see that the entire democratic primary process seemed a little strange, but it took Wikileaks, with the possible help of Seth Rich, to bring the Queen of Corruption’s financial takeover of the DNC to the light.

Of course, the disclosure that the FBI chose not to prosecute Hillary Clinton when there was obvious, ample evidence of wrongdoing with her private email server, was simply icing on the cake.  Later, it was even determined that then-director of the Bureau James Comey had made up his mind about letting Clinton walk even before interviewing her.

Multiple reviews of whether FBI agents’ political bias affected the Russia-Trump collusion case remain in their infancy, but investigators already have unearthed troubling internal communications long withheld from public view.

We already know from FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok’s now-infamous text messages with his fellow agent and reported lover, Lisa Page, that Strzok — the man driving that Russia collusion investigation — disdained Donald Trump and expressed willingness to use his law enforcement powers to “stop” Mr. Trump from becoming president.

The question that lingers, unanswered: Did those sentiments affect official actions?

Memos the FBI is now producing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general and multiple Senate and House committees offer what sources involved in the production, review or investigation describe to me as “damning” or “troubling” evidence.

They show Strzok and his counterintelligence team rushing in the fall of 2016 to find “derogatory” information from informants or a “pretext” to accelerate the probe and get a surveillance warrant on figures tied to the future president.

One of those figures was Carter Page, an academic and an energy consultant from New York; he was briefly a volunteer foreign policy adviser for the GOP nominee’s campaign and visited Moscow the summer before the election.

The memos show Strzok, Lisa Page and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigating Carter Page’s travel to Moscow. The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity as soon as Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey complaining about the “completely false” leak.

“At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016.

Within weeks, that “pretext” — often a synonym for an excuse — had been upsized to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant, giving the FBI the ability to use some of its most awesome powers to monitor Carter Page and his activities.

To date, the former Trump adviser has been accused of no wrongdoing despite being subjected to nearly a year of surveillance.

Some internal memos detail the pressure being applied by the FBI to DOJ prosecutors to get the warrant on Carter Page buttoned up before Election Day.  In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA,” Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant.

“Crossfire Hurricane” was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related to Russia matters in the 2016 election.  “At a minimum, that keeps the hurry-up pressure on him,” Strzok emailed Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day.

Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.”  “Still an expedite?” one of the emails beckoned, as the FBI tried to meet the requirements of a process known as a Woods review before a FISA warrant can be approved by the courts.  “Any idea what time he can have it woods-ed by?” Strzok asked Page. “I know it’s not going to matter because DOJ is going to take the time DOJ wants to take. I just don’t want this waiting on us at all.”

Until all the interviews are completed by Congress and DOJ’s inspector general later this year, we won’t know why counterintelligence agents who normally take a methodical approach to investigation felt so much pressure days before the election on this case.

Were they concerned about losing a chance to gather evidence at a critical moment? Or maybe, as some Republicans long have suspected, they wanted to impact the election?

The agents got the Carter Page warrant in October and, within two weeks, Democrats in Congress such as then-Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and some media members were raising questions about the FBI withholding word of a probe that could hurt Trump. FBI agents monitored those reports, too.

The day after Trump’s surprising win on Nov. 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission, bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.

“We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas.

“Andy didn’t get any others,” Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.”

“That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.

It’s an extraordinary exchange, if for no other reason than this: The very day after Trump wins the presidency, some top FBI officials are involved in the sort of gum-shoeing normally reserved for field agents, and their goal is to find derogatory information about someone who had worked for the president-elect.

As the president-elect geared up to take over, the FBI made another move that has captured investigators’ attention: It named an executive with expertise in the FBI’s most sensitive surveillance equipment to be a liaison to the Trump transition.

On its face, that seems odd; technical surveillance nerds aren’t normally the first picks for plum political assignments. Even odder, the FBI counterintelligence team running the Russia-Trump collusion probe seemed to have an interest in the appointment.

These and other documents are still being disseminated to various oversight bodies in Congress, and more revelations are certain to occur.

Yet now, irrefutable proof exists that agents sought to create pressure to get “derogatory” information and a “pretext” to interview people close to a future president they didn’t like.

Clear evidence also exists that an investigation into still-unproven collusion between a foreign power and a U.S. presidential candidate was driven less by secret information from Moscow and more by politically tainted media leaks and very obvious political bias.

And that means the dots between expressions of political bias and official actions just got a little more connected.  I don’t know about you, but I can smell a whole plate of Obama’s home cooking here.

 

[From articles published by CONSTITUTION.COM and TheHILL.com]

 

………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized