Bye Bye Tramp Trump!!!!!
Expect Trump to blow up Twitter, attempting to divert attention form this.
This is only going to get uglier for both sides, IMO.
In other words, how exactly would Mueller have known about today's news coming out months ago? An alternative, and most likely theory, is that you are dead wrong.
That's a stretch even for you, Spike.
Mike in CT's Link
And you know this how? Do you have some special insight to the investigation that the rest of us don't?
All we know is Mueller has found enough evidence of criminal activity to convince a grand jury to issue indictments. We don't know what side of the isle those arrests will fall on, or if both sides are involved, which is more likely, IMO.
Obama had zero indictments during eight years in office. Trump looks like he is going to beat that in under ten months!!! He’s a winner!!!
Here are the odds on tomorrow: Manafort - Even Money Flynn Sr - 3-2 Flynn Jr - 5-1 Trump Jr - 8-1
Looks like a special bottle of Laphroig is going to get opened tomorrow. Maybe some Deerfield Red Rex.
Gowdy doesn't speak for me nor any other citizen at this point. He's a politician which basically means he is incapable of doing such, regardless of his perceived role here. And, should be held suspect of the politicians ebbs and flows until all the verdict is out. Last time I checked, the majority of both parties hated Trump based on his willingness to do what he campaigned on. Which doesn't play well with the elitist mindset politicians display in their words and actions. So, Gowdy and anyone else suggesting that the cess pool has people determined to get this right, is a laughable joke to me as we stand right now. Time will tell on that too.
All we know is Mueller has found enough evidence of criminal activity to convince a grand jury to issue indictments. We don't know what side of the isle those arrests will fall on, or if both sides are involved, which is more likely, IMO."
I'm just guessing Matt but, I'd say he is basing that on what the media has reported about the dealings these groups had with Russia and, the news that keeps getting leaked out tidbit at a time. IMO, You have one, so did he. And, so do I. Aside from Manafort, at this point any speculation suggesting someone else is just an opinion.
Maybe tomorrow we will all be surprised that all the BS flying around about Russia and Trump was just a diversion and the real investigation was on the prior administration.
President Trump did mention the “Calm before the storm” a few weeks ago, and if you are into thinking outside the box, this could have some merit.
It is definite that nobody posting here actually knows. We can choose to speculate, or wait to see what actually happens.
As many people as there are involved in a campaign and administration, it would be naive to think that all of them are always honest or actually working the will of the candidate or president.
With the reports coming out that Hillary, Holder, and even King Obama were involved in improper dealings with the U and Russia for money$, they not only sold out America but the human race.
Perhaps Bad Karma, or some other legal beagle could confirm.
I'm not an attorney, but it is my understanding that if in the course of doing an investigation, whatever leads to crimes the special prosecutor uncovers can be pursued, whether or not they are related to the original inquiry.
That may well be the case. Certainly charges of any crimes should be pursued as a result of the inquiry. That just seems a bit of an open ticket for the investigation to get derailed in multiple directions unrelated to the original intent.
Putin: "I task you with causing turmoil and doubt in the US by meeting with any campaign people you can. Pretend you want to help, have damaging info on their opponents, etc.."
Agent: "Which side?"
Putin: "Both, we don't know who will win and really don't care. The point is making a mess. Americans busy with scandals and doubting leadership keeps them all occupied and scattered while we go about our business around the world"
There are NO allegations in this, let alone any indictments even remotely related to any Russian meddling in the election.
That was supposed to be Meuller's charge here, yet all he came up with were indictments which have ZERO to do with any Trump collusion with Russia re. the election.
What a 'coincidence' the Mueller comes out with this right after it's been proven that the DNC and the Clinton campaign WERE colluding with the Russians re, the election!
Did or did not the DNC and the Hillary campaign pay for Fusion GPS to work with the Russians to come up with dirt on Trump?
ANSWER: YES! And there in lies the only collusion re. Russia's involvement in the election.
Gray Ghost's Link
It seems both sides are getting caught with their hands in the Russian cookie jar.
I had read it. There is NO mention of evidence of any collusion with the Russians on his part.
There is evidence he was a minor player in the campaign and had no access to Trump.
There IS evidence of the DNC and the Clinton campaign colluding with the Russians on the election, however.
You can cling to that straw if you want too. But, the fact that Papadopoulos admitted to lying about his attempts to coordinate with Russians during the campaign doesn't bode well for their claims of no collusion.
And a short video to lighten the mood:
"You can cling to that straw if you want too. But, the fact that Papadopoulos admitted to lying about his attempts to coordinate with Russians during the campaign doesn't bode well for their claims of no collusion."
Ooops! That is not what the indictment says. It simply says he lied about his conversations with the Russians, nothing more. It says nothing about any actual collusion.
What's really funny is it mentions the woman who claimed she had connections and power she did not have, that the Russians supposedly had thousands of Hillary's e-mails which could be damaging to Clinton, (Who didn't?), yet it was the Clinton campaign which hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump and did so while trying to hide that fact.
Actually, that's exactly what the indictment says. Papadopoulos lied about his conversations *about* coordinating a meeting with the Russian women. Quit being obtuse.
So, we have Trump's ex-campaign chairmen charged with laundering $18M to avoid taxes, and we have a "foriegn advisor" to his campaign plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with Russians. Doesn't that at least raise an eyebrow about the credibility of Trump's associates?
The swamp may be empty on both sides when Mueller is done, if he's allowed to see this thru. That wouldn't hurt my feelings.
That's true, it's a catch all phrase describing a number of crimes, including conspiring with foreign nationals to influence an election, or computer and wire fraud, or contributions and donations from foreign nationals, even treason, among other things.
Semantics are important, but the media doesn't seem to think so. In this case "collusion" has become synonymous to a wide assortment of crimes that may apply.
They also mean nothing about the credibility of any of Trump's other advisors. If you'll recall, Manafort was fired after about 2 months and replaced with Kelli Anne Conway, which turned out to be a very good move.
You can't just take a leap of faith with criminal indictments.
Unless of course you have a specific agenda to push.
Then if Mueller uncovered a bricklayer on one of Trump's building sites with a DUI from 36 years ago, that would surely point to the credibility of all Trump's hires.
Who knows what deal Papodopolous struck for that guilty plea, but I'm betting the FBI has more on him, and/or Papodopolous is being used to get to bigger fish.
Plea bargains have bastardized our system.
God bless, Steve
Opposition research isn't a crime either.
Mueller needs to recuse himself in regards to DNC/ HRC, and let someone with less political motivation handle things, since he was a former FBI Director who worked closely with Comey, when the Fake Dossier was recognized by the Feds, but used as a tool to wiretap Trump and Associates.
Over the weekend, the mainstream media was absolutely giddy with delight upon learning there would be an indictment by special counsel, Robert Mueller.
This was proof positive, they insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature.
Manafort & Gates
The celebration came to a crashing end when the indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates, were unsealed Monday morning. It turns out the charges are, basically, a tax fraud case. The two men stand accused of hiding their income from their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then lying about it. That’s it.
The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or Russia or “collusion.” The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the tree. Gee whiz.
The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his business dealings. The FBI raided his home over the summer. It was later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as 2014. And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged.
It could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity. The media became even more dispirited when they read through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman of the Trump campaign. In other words, there is no connection to either Trump or his campaign.
Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van Jones were crying. Again. Just like the tears they shed on camera election night when Hillary lost.
But wait. Shortly after the indictments were unsealed, the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right?
Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns.
It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Or, in Papadopoulos’s case, attempting to talk with a Russian through an intermediary. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.
To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable. But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump, Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton. What law did he break? None. The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money. Which brings us to Hillary Clinton.
It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.
Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.
But that’s not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.
If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343). It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.
Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel. Trump, on the other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team, notwithstanding a dearth of evidence.
The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel.
Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal. The criminal charges change all that. The two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.
As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would be disbanded by judicial order. The Department of Justice would have to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special counsel or drop the case entirely.
The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning. Fired FBI Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner.
It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed Mueller. We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering. They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a vital national security asset. A cover-up? It has the stench of one.
How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case? Both men should resign.
And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).
Now lets really blow this thing wide open and investigate the investigators.
Im not optimistic about catching Hillary when a complicit AG and FBI let her erase records and decide what is relevant. A lawyer with full reign- tough to nail.
I dont understand how even the most hardcore Dem can defend the crap Hillary got away with.
Where better to start than in our home field? It's not like some Republicans (or those hiding behind that party logo) haven't been corrupt.
Personally, I'd rather clean up my own backyard (at a cost) before pointing my finger at someone else's mess. Then I won't be so tempted to harshly accuse others of their issues.....
Annony Mouse's Link
FBI illegally obtained FISA wiretapping of Manafort based on dossier
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s case is in danger of being thrown out of court when the FBI is forced to admit FISA court authority to conduct electronic surveillance on former Trump campaign Paul Manafort was based on the fraudulent Fusion GPS “Russia dossier” that the FBI, the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic National Committee paid to be produced.
On Sept. 19, 2017, CNN reported that U.S. investigators conducted electronic surveillance on Manafort both before and after the election under a FISA court warrant.
The CNN article cites only unnamed sources, strongly suggesting the leak was based on an illegal leak to the press that could end up being traced back to the FBI, to Mueller’s Special Counselor office, or to both.
Under the “fruit of the poison tree doctrine” established by the Supreme Court in Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure cases, the FBI and/or Mueller may have compromised their entire investigation of Paul Manafort by either using the fraudulent “Russia dossier” paid for in part by the FBI, or by illegally leaking information derived from the FISA-authorized electronic surveillance to CNN and other mainstream media publications known to be partisan “Never Trump” mouthpieces.
CNN reported the secret FISA warrant was obtained after Manafort became the subject of the FBI investigation that began as early as 2014 under then FBI Director James Comey, and centered upon work Manafort conducted consulting with Ukraine.
“Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive,” CNN reported.
“Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which is leading the investigation into Russia’s involvement in the election, has been provided details of these communications,” the CNN report stressed.
God bless, Steve
Manafort’s lawyer said Monday to the press, “Today you see an indictment brought by a Special Counsel that is using a very novel theory to prosecute Mr. Manafort regarding a FARA filing. The United States government has only used that offense 6 times since 1966 that resulted in one conviction.”
Now today Manafort was arrested for not filing the same forms the Podestas just filed in August.
Also, it was already reported in August that Manafort had not filed these forms.
Gray Ghost's Link
This isn't the first time Mueller has gone that route. Problem is, still not one shred of evidence of collusion. Going to hard to fabricate something like that.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal doctrine used when law enforcement is the bad actor. That other people in the DNC did something illicit, like essentially money laundering the payments to Fusion GPS, does not trigger that doctrine, or the possible remedy of dismissal of the charges. It's more like the scene in Dirty Harry where he stomped on the leg of the suspect, when the suspect asked for his lawyer, to get a confession as to where the victim was. Someone will have to explain to me why when the suspect are committing crimes, the evidence can't be used because that's not how I remember it.
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
Did I miss anything?
Yeah, there's that as well!
As in "wonderfully grossly not the POTUS!"
"What Happened?" LOL!
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
What's taking your guys so long to bring down Trump, you said it was Mueller time?
What's the heck going on, are you full of bs or what?
Annony Mouse's Link
Conservative Review:Special counsel Robert Mueller’s career is rife with examples of prioritizing politically correct sensitivities over the unfiltered, and sometimes difficult, truth of the matter. And this issue came to the forefront at the beginning of President Obama’s second term in office, when Mueller decided to purge hundreds of counter-terrorism training materials that arguably rendered America less safe in the face of a growing domestic Islamic extremist problem.
While serving as FBI director, Mueller (the current head of the special counsel investigation of the 2016 election) presided over an effort to silence counter-terrorism experts from discussing the threat posed by radical Islamic ideologies. His decision to choose this approach could call into question his judgement while presiding over an incredibly politically toxic debate surrounding the 2016 election.
Instead of providing the tools his agents needed to fight the ideological war against the continuing rise of radical Islam in America, Mueller handicapped his agents because he seemingly prioritized making sure that nobody was offended over keeping America safe.
Andrew Weissmann hid exculpatory evidence and threatened witnesses. He acts like a mobster, and he resides on Mueller’s team. Former DOJ Prosecutor Sidney Powell and Greg Jarrett weigh in.
When he was named special counsel in May, Robert S. Mueller III was hailed as the ideal lawman — deeply experienced, strait-laced and nonpartisan — to investigate whether President Trump’s campaign had helped with Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
The accolades squared with Mueller’s valor as a Marine rifle platoon commander in Vietnam and his integrity as a federal prosecutor, senior Justice Department official and FBI director from 2001 to 2013 — the longest tenure since J. Edgar Hoover’s. He was praised by former courtroom allies and opponents, and by Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
But at 73, Mueller has a record that shows a man of fallible judgment who can be slow to alter his chosen course. At times, he has intimidated or provoked resentment among subordinates. And his tenacious yet linear approach to evaluating evidence led him to fumble the biggest U.S. terrorism investigation since 9/11.
Now, as he leads a sprawling investigation aimed at the White House, Mueller’s prosecutorial discretion looms over the Trump presidency.
On what terms would Mueller offer immunity from prosecution to investigative targets? How broadly will he interpret his mandate to look into not only the 2016 campaign but also matters that “may arise directly from the investigation”?
Will he target Trump’s sprawling family business and financial empire and the years before the developer ran for the White House?
Robert Swan Mueller III began life on an elite footing.
Raised in affluent suburbs west of Philadelphia, he attended St. Paul’s School in New Hampshire (classmates included future Secretary of State John F. Kerry) before majoring in politics at Princeton. He joined the Marines after graduation and was awarded Navy and Marine Corps medals for his service in Vietnam, where he was shot in the thigh. He graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1973.
Bored by a stint at a white-shoe San Francisco law firm, the jut-jawed Mueller switched to the U.S. attorney’s office there in 1976. Colleagues say he typically arrived by 6:30 a.m., at times in his Marine-issue green raincoat. He played on the office softball team but was careful not to let down his guard while socializing.
“He’d join us, have one — and it was only one — and then his wife would arrive to pick him up,” recalled a colleague.
This article is based, in part, on interviews with more than two dozen lawyers and investigators who have worked with Mueller. Citing the sensitivity of the Russia investigation and potential repercussions, most spoke on the condition of anonymity. Mueller declined, through a spokesman, to comment.
Mueller also is remembered for a headline-grabbing case that ended in failure.
In 1979, the government lodged then-novel racketeering charges against 33 members of the Hells Angels motorcycle club. The indictments alleged bombings and murders as well as the manufacture and sale of illegal drugs. The defendants and their supporters were so feared that bulletproof glass was installed in court to shield the judge.
The first trial, of 18 defendants, ended with only five convictions. All were overturned on appeal.
Mueller, who led the U.S. attorney’s special prosecutions unit, then took over the case. He dropped many of the charges, including those against Ralph “Sonny” Barger, leader of the club’s Oakland chapter, whose charismatic testimony had dominated the first trial.
Mueller led a team of four prosecutors in court when the second trial, with 11 defendants, began in October 1980. But after four months, the jury said it was deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Mueller decided not to ask for a retrial.
Richard B. Mazer, a defense lawyer at both trials, said the government was unable to prove the Hells Angels was a racketeering enterprise. Key prosecution witnesses, he said, seemed unreliable — especially those granted immunity to testify despite having committed violent crimes themselves.
“They made a mess of it,” Mazer recalled. “It was an entirely snitch case. It depended entirely on the quality of snitches.”
But Mazer and Alan Caplan, another defense lawyer, praised Mueller’s straightforward handling of the case. “We fought hard, but I can’t conceivably say anything negative about him,” Caplan said.
About a year after the case collapsed, a new U.S. attorney in San Francisco chose a prosecutor with more trial experience to head the office’s criminal division, a post that Mueller had held for a year.
He doesn’t invite disagreement. He’s an order-giver. — A former prosecutor who served under Robert Mueller Mueller responded by transferring to the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston. He prosecuted financial fraud, terrorism and public corruption cases for six years, and served as acting U.S. attorney from 1986 to 1987.
One case — involving a Soviet-bloc spy — gave Mueller an early window into U.S.-Russia intrigues.
At the direction of the Justice Department’s internal security division, Mueller negotiated a plea agreement with an East German physicist named Alfred Zehe. In February 1985, Zehe admitted in court that he had conspired to deliver U.S. defense information to East German intelligence authorities.
Under the agreement, Zehe was sentenced only to the time he had served in jail after his arrest at a scientific conference in Boston. In turn, he became a bargaining chip for a major spy swap.
“We ultimately got 25 of our people out, including their families,” in a trade for Zehe and several other Soviet-bloc spies, recalled a U.S. official involved with the negotiations.
The successful June 1985 exchange helped pave the way, the official said, for a more significant exchange between Washington and Moscow.
In February 1986, officials again faced off for a trade on the so-called Bridge of Spies between East and West Germany. Among those escorted to freedom was Natan Sharansky, the celebrated Russian human rights activist who had served nine years in Soviet prisons.
As the Cold War ended, Mueller moved to “main Justice” in Washington. He easily won his first Senate confirmation after President George H.W. Bush appointed him assistant U.S. attorney general, responsible for the criminal division.
Mueller oversaw investigations of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and Gambino crime family boss John Gotti, among other high-profile cases. But his tendency to command, rather than inspire, came into sharp relief.
“He doesn’t invite disagreement,” said a former prosecutor who served under Mueller. “He’s an order-giver.”
He could be harsh on subordinates — sparking resentment when he referred privately to reassigning career lawyers as “moving the furniture.”
In 1993, at age 49, Mueller decided to try private practice again, joining Hale and Dorr as a partner in Washington, representing corporate clients.
The money was better, but Mueller was unfulfilled. After two years, he returned to government service — signing on as a homicide prosecutor in the District of Columbia. It was a time of mayhem in the nation’s capital, made worse by the scourge of crack cocaine.
Mueller began working with a cold-case squad of Metropolitan Police detectives and FBI agents that sought to bring murderers to justice.
The squad sent applications for search warrants and subpoenas for Mueller’s review before seeking a judge’s approval. Unlike some prosecutors, Mueller “wouldn’t automatically give a signature,” recalled one of the investigators.
“He would ask, ‘Have you done your work? Do you have your facts?’ … He knew what he was asking was the way to make sure everything stood up” in court.
Building cases often entailed forging trust with victims, witnesses and suspects. Relating to both the sympathetic and the unsavory did not play to Mueller’s strengths.
“He was a gruff guy, and a lot of times, there wasn’t much warmth or ability to really build a bond or connect with a victim-witness,” said the same investigator. “There’s times when you’ve got to bond with the suspect to get what you need. His personality wasn’t necessarily the best for that.”
Nor was Mueller an easy fit with juries in Washington, especially in the freewheeling local Superior Court, where decorum is typically below what judges demand in U.S. District Court.
“In D.C. Superior Court, it’s a bit like meatball surgery. It’s a bit like a M.A.S.H. unit — it’s the unexpected,” said one of Mueller’s former colleagues. “His strength was not as a M.A.S.H. unit trial lawyer.”
Mueller, a Republican, moved back to San Francisco in 1998 after President Clinton appointed him U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California. In July 2001, President George W. Bush nominated him as FBI director, and he won unanimous Senate confirmation. Mueller asked the White House for a delay, however, so he could undergo treatment for prostate cancer.
His first day on the job was Sept. 4, 2001 — a week before hijacked airliners slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.
At 7 a.m. on Sept. 12, Mueller, then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and other officials arrived for an emergency briefing at the FBI’s operations center. The senior agent had been given an hour to prepare while investigators were still combing airline manifests and scouring crash sites.
When Mueller asked a rapid-fire series of questions, the agent replied that accurate information was not yet “established.”
“‘I want answers, goddamn it!’” Mueller exploded, an official who was present recalled.
Mueller already was coming under siege from critics who questioned why the FBI had not prevented the attacks. Fear spread of a “second wave” terrorist strike.
Robert Mueller President George W. Bush waves on July 5, 2001 after announcing Robert Mueller as his choice for FBI director. On the right stands then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft. (Emilie Sommer / AFP) Mueller countered by announcing plans to reshape the FBI. Its first priority would be to prevent another terrorist attack — not conventional law enforcement.
The vastness of the FBI’s challenge emerged within weeks.
A handful of letters laced with powdered anthrax killed five people and sickened 17 others. The government closed congressional office buildings, the Supreme Court and postal facilities as the country braced for further biological terrorism.
But Mueller’s FBI struggled for nearly seven years to determine who was responsible — even as he personally managed the case.
“The director was always the leader of the anthrax investigation, period,” said Michael Mason, former head of the FBI’s Washington field office.
The FBI focused on Steven J. Hatfill, a virologist at the Army’s laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Md. In January 2003, Mueller assured congressional leaders in a closed-door briefing that bloodhounds had traced anthrax from the attacks to Hatfill.
But Hatfill had no experience handling anthrax. Nor did he have access to anthrax stored at Ft. Detrick or elsewhere. Years later, the FBI would reject the bloodhound evidence as unreliable.
After media leaks fingered Hatfill, he sued the FBI and the Justice Department on privacy grounds. In June 2008, the government agreed to pay Hatfill about $5.8 million.
Two months later, on Aug. 6, Mueller summoned senior investigators and prosecutors on the anthrax case to his seventh-floor office. The FBI would hold a news conference that afternoon, and he wanted to recap the case’s stunning denouement.
Bruce E. Ivins, an Army microbiologist at Ft. Detrick who specialized in handling anthrax, had committed suicide after his lawyers informed him he was about to be charged with murder for the letter attacks.
Evidence showed Ivins had created and held custody of a batch of anthrax traced by DNA to each of the killings. He had spent hours alone in specially equipped labs just before each batch of letters was mailed.
Mueller let others hold the news conference. Some aides who met Mueller that day think he was reluctant to publicly address the missteps with Hatfill, the bloodhounds and the long delay in focusing on Ivins.
“I think he was personally embarrassed,” said one. “I would assess him as someone that can’t accept the fact that he screwed up.”
At FBI headquarters, protecting the director from embarrassment was ingrained.
A case in point unfolded in 2011 — just as the Senate was considering President Obama’s request to extend Mueller’s expiring term as FBI director by two years.
The FBI’s Inspection Division, a unit that scrutinizes bureau operations, conducted a three-week examination of the Directorate of Intelligence, a unit that Mueller had created to carry out the shift in preventing terrorism.
“They inspected it and they wrote the inspection report, and it said the whole thing’s broken — set it on fire and start from scratch,” said a former official familiar with the report. Another ex-official confirmed the account.
Mueller’s top aides saw peril in following normal procedure — forwarding the report to the Justice Department’s inspector general for possible follow-up action.
“It was, ‘The director will get skewered. We’ve got to protect him, and we can’t issue this,’” the former official recalled.
The aides kept the report in-house, the former official said, by tweaking its language.
“Anywhere it said ‘inspection,’ they changed it to ‘review.’ And said this was a review, not an inspection, and therefore they didn’t have to issue it to … the inspector general.”
Two years later, Mueller — without citing the inspection — informed Congress that he had restructured the Directorate of Intelligence “to maximize organizational collaboration, identify and address emerging threats and more effectively integrate intelligence and operations within the FBI.”
Trump’s name or brand is not going to back down Mueller. — A former FBI colleague of Robert Mueller During his final months as FBI director, Mueller was again enlisted to help with a thorny matter in U.S.-Russia relations.
In the summer of 2013, the White House asked Mueller to negotiate the release from Russia of Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who stole volumes of classified material on U.S. surveillance operations at home and abroad. Snowden had fled to Moscow after leaking the data to journalists.
Unlike the Cold War spy cases, the U.S. did not offer a trade. The Obama administration wanted Moscow to return Snowden as part of a diplomatic “reset,” an ultimately unsuccessful effort to improve relations with Russia.
Lisa Monaco, the White House’s Homeland Security advisor, tasked Mueller to talk to Alexander Bortnikov, head of Russia’s internal security and counter-intelligence service, the FSB.
For at least a week, Mueller called Bortnikov’s office, starting at 3 a.m. in Washington. Each time, the FBI director was turned aside without getting Bortnikov on the line.
“Mueller just kept calling over there, like begging to talk to the guy,” said a former official. Instead, Snowden was granted asylum in Russia.
The unsuccessful outreach offered Mueller insight into Russian intelligence, which U.S. officials say helped hack and leak Democratic Party emails last year in an effort to undermine U.S. democracy and to help Trump’s campaign.
Investigators and lawyers who have worked with Mueller say that his legacy as special counsel will depend, ultimately, on his resolve, his integrity and especially his judgment.
“If he believes somebody has committed a crime, he’s going to do whatever he can to hold them accountable,” said a former FBI colleague. “Trump’s name or brand is not going to back down Mueller.”
Mueller is a swamp creature of the 15 foot long, 1200 pound variety! He has been feeding in that swamp for 50 years!
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
Here’s what I’d be tempted to do if I were President Trump: I’d direct the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, including any Obama-administration collusion in that enterprise.
I would make sure to call it a “counterintelligence investigation,” putting no limitations on the special counsel — just as with the investigation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been unleashed to conduct into Trump “collusion” with Russia. That is, I would not restrict the prosecutor and investigators to digging for specified criminal violations. Or, indeed, any criminal violations. I’d just tell the special counsel, “Have at it” — with unbound authority to scrutinize the negotiations surrounding the eventual Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).
Would I really expect the special counsel to find that Obama officials conspired with the mullahs to obtain nukes for Tehran? No . . . but hey, as the “Trump collusion with Russia” crowd says, “You never know.” Meantime, under the guise of investigating this highly unlikely “collusion,” I’d want the special counsel to scrutinize closely any variances between what Obama-administration officials were telling Congress and the public about the negotiations and what they were telling the Iranians; to probe any side deals the administration agreed to but failed to disclose to Congress; and to consider whether any laws or policies were violated in such matters as President Obama’s payment of a cash ransom in exchange for American hostages held by Iran.
Why would I do this? Well, because I disagree with Obama-administration foreign policy, of course. Under the Mueller “collusion” precedent, it is evidently now American practice to criminalize foreign-policy disputes under the pretext of conducting a counterintelligence investigation.
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion based on the guilty plea that Mueller just pried out of Michael Flynn... (continued at link)
Annony Mouse's Link
Spike Bull 's Link
When I was a kid, the term Federal Bureau of Investigation represented the pinnacle of the American justice system: incorruptible, utterly fair, and ethically... above reproach.
My, how times have changed.
Under the Obama administration, the FBI (and former director Robert Mueller's investigation) appears to have been hopelessly politicized at its uppermost levels. Consider:
A lead FBI investigator -- Peter Strzok -- has been removed from Robert Mueller's special counsel team for texting his mistress a series of various anti-Trump tweets (I'm old enough to remember when having a mistress disqualified you from a TOP SECRET clearance, but -- hey -- I'm an old man). Furthermore, the upper echelons of the FBI have refused requests from Congress to release said texts.
As for Hillary Clinton's illegal email server, the same investigator -- the mercurial mega-scapegoat super-agent is said to have rewritten language to exonerate Clinton rather than criminally charging her.
As for the Mueller "special" impeachment counsel, at least three of the key investigators donated a total of more than $50,000 to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.
Gee. No conflict there, I guess.
One of Mueller's top investigators, a partisan hack named Andrew Weissmann, actually congratulated then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to enforce the President's Travel Ban Executive Order. Because I guess the FBI can overrule the Executive Branch's Chief Executive Officer.
And they say comedy is dead.
Another Mueller "investigator" -- one Jeannie Rhea, if that is her real name -- "was the personal attorney of Ben Rhodes and also represented the Clinton Foundation".
Gee, I'm sure she'll be unbiased.
Fortunately, help may be in the way in the form of an Inspector General. One can dream, can't one?
...Before December, we're going to see other parts of his report coming out after January. And they are looking at Peter Strzok, they are looking at Comey. They are looking at 27 leakers. It would not surprise me if there is a shake-up at the FBI and house cleaning...
...I think that one thing that we are lucky with here is that the layers of this onion have been peeling back. And we have been able to get information slowly but we have been able to get information that is exposing it for what it is. And I think that is the most important thing right now.
As Gregg Jarrett noted, "...[It] is astonishing is that one man with a political agenda exonerated Hillary Clinton and then simultaneously launched the investigation against President Trump."
Astonishing, but not unexpected given the unparalleled corruption and criminality of the most scandalous president in American history* -- one Barack Hussein Soetero Dunham Obama (which is the legal name he prefers, I hear).
Annony Mouse's Link
Value added content.
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON IMPEACH TRUMP NOW!!!!!!!!
Spike Bull 's Link
Spike Bull 's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link