Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Investigations category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

Rep. Steve Drazkowski is one of my favorite state legislators in Minnesota because he’s a straight shooter and an honest man. In contrast, Ilhan Omar is my least favorite state legislator because she’s dishonest and she apparently thinks that the rules don’t apply to her. I’m basing my opinion on information contained in this article.

According to the article, “After learning that State Representative Ilhan Omar accepted payments from MNSCU campuses last year – a violation of Minnesota House rules – State Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) is calling on Omar to return the thousands of dollars she received. ‘It’s clear to me that Representative Omar abused the power of her office and her committee assignment for personal financial gain, which is truly disappointing,’ Drazkowski said. ‘Despite being fully aware that accepting these payments violated the rules of the Minnesota House, she not only kept the money but failed to disclose it for as long as she could to avoid an ethics hearing and an endorsement headache.'”

The article also says “Minnesota House Rule 9.20, Acceptance of an Honorarium by a Member: A member must not accept an honorarium for a service performed for an individual or organization that has a direct interest in the business of the House, including, but not limited to, a registered lobbyist or an organization a lobbyist represents.” There’s no excuse for Ms. Omar’s behavior because “every newly-elected member attends an orientation where non-partisan House research staff explains potential conflicts of interest to incoming lawmakers, including gifts, travel and lodging, and honoraria.” Plus “Rep. Omar voted to adopt the Permanent Rules of the Minnesota House – which includes Rule 9.20 – on February 16, 2017, 12 days before her first paid MNSCU speaking engagement.”

Rep. Omar is a violations machine. Check out this video:

Scott Johnson has done the digging into Ms. Omar’s marital difficulties. He explains what he found in this article:

I originally checked out the SomaliSpot story online through the Minnesota Official Marriage System. Inputting Omar’s name, I found that the two marriages cited in the discussion board post checked out as indicated. The site reflected Omar’s 2002 marriage to her advertised husband, Ahmed Aden (later Ahmed Hirsi), and her 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (identified in the SomaliSpot post as Omar’s brother). A few days after the primary, I submitted written questions to representatives of the Omar campaign, citing the SomaliSpot post, and asking whether Omar’s second marriage had been entered into with her brother for dishonest purposes.

Predictably, Omar deflected the questions Scott Johnson had to an attorney:

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I have been contacted by the Ilhan Omar campaign. Their response to your email from this morning is as follows:

“There are people who do not want an East African, Muslim woman elected to office and who will follow Donald Trump’s playbook to prevent it. Ilhan Omar’s campaign sees your superfluous contentions as one more in a series of attempts to discredit her candidacy. Ilhan Omar’s campaign will not be distracted by negative forces and will continue to focus its energy on creating positive engagement with community members to make the district and state more prosperous and equitable for everyone.”

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please direct them to me in writing so we have a record of any further communications.

Sincerely,

Jean Brandl

Apparently, Rep. Omar is a complaint factory:

  • On May 17, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $1,000 due to the late filing of her 24-hour notice reports.
  • On November 30, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $150 due to the late filing of her campaign finance report. That 2016 report listed a non-campaign disbursement in the amount of $2,250 in legal fees to the Kjellberg Law Office, which specializes in divorce law, and is listed as her representative during her 2017 divorce case. It also noted that she paid her now current husband $3,100 for unspecified campaign services.
  • On June 20, 2018, Rep. Omar was fined the maximum $1,100 due to the late filing of her Statement of Economic Interest.

There’s more:

“Representative Omar’s willingness to accept money from institutions that are dependent on her committee and her vote for their funding is the textbook definition of unethical,” Drazkowski said. “Because of her decision to withhold disclosing this information until after the Legislature adjourned sine die, we are unable to formally file ethics charges against her.”

Drazkowski said Omar must return the MNSCU payments, and he said that she may not use campaign funds to make the repayment. “If the ethics committee were to find Representative Omar in violation of House Rule 9.20, and I have no doubt that it would, the end result would be a demand for her to return the payments,” Drazkowski said. “With that in mind, Representative Omar needs to return these payments to the MNSCU campuses immediately.”

For all of Omar’s complaints about being the victim of Islamophobia, etc., the truth is that she’s just a typical unethical politician who thinks that the rules don’t apply to her. There’s nothing Islamophobic about that. That’s just a long-held belief that people in positions of authority shouldn’t extort money from the people they regulate.

In this op-ed, Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz poses a pretty potent what if that liberals should think twice about.

First, he wrote “the New York Times has reported that, according to three sources, special counsel Robert Mueller is trying to stitch together an obstruction of justice case against President Trump based on his public tweets, TV appearances, conversations with public officials and other entirely lawful acts.” Next, he wrote “Just imagine a prosecutor going through all of your tweets, all of your conversations, all of your actions and all of your emails in search of a plausible theory of criminality based on an accordion-like statute such as obstruction of justice. If Mueller manages to cobble together an obstruction of justice case from innocent communications, then this dangerous precedent will lie around like a loaded gun ready to be used by any vindictive prosecutors against any plausible target. That target could be you or someone you love. It could be a Democrat or a Republican. It could be a liberal or a conservative.”

People keep saying that “we don’t know what Mueller has.” Technically, that’s true. It’s also misleading. The truth is that Mueller would already be writing the report if he had something damning against President Trump. He wouldn’t be expanding the fishing expedition into President Trump’s public comments and tweets if he had the goods.

Dershowitz has been consistent talking about civil rights:

Defenders of Mueller will surely argue that it is common for prosecutors to stitch together innocent conduct to manufacture a crime, especially when the target is a suspected drug dealer, a terrorist or gangster. Tragically they are right. There are such cases, but there shouldn’t be. Many wrongs do not make a right.

Moreover, in those cases, the underlying conduct is generally done in secret. Here, Mueller apparently is trying to turn public, open communications — core First Amendment expression — into a crime.

The time has come — indeed, it is long overdue – for all Americans to take a hard look at broad, ambiguous and open-ended statutes, which empower prosecutors to be “creative.” There is a concept in criminal law known as lenity: If there are numerous ways of interpreting a statute, the law requires that it be interpreted in the most reasonably narrow way, so as to avoid empowering prosecutors to target unpopular defendants. Failing to apply this concept to constitutionally protected tweets, messages, emails, etc., should concern every civil libertarian, even those who are anxious to find legal weapons with which to target President Trump.

JFK once famously said that if the laws don’t protect everybody, they don’t protect anybody. We should never forget that statement because truer words were never spoken.

Kim Strassel’s column this week take a bright sharpie and highlight John Brennan’s ulterior motives in spreading the Trump-Russia collusion storyline. Before getting into that, it’s important to highlight the fact that the FBI was politicized. Strassel did that early in her article.

That’s where she wrote “The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship. Last week, it was Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he still describes as ‘horrible’ and ‘disgusting.’ This week, it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.”

John Solomon’s article casts serious doubt on Strzok’s credibility. That’s because he wrote “For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read. That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. ‘There’s no big there there,’ Strzok texted.” Considering the fact that Agent Strzok hates President Trump, it’s safe to say that there really isn’t much to the Mueller ‘investigation’.

I wrote here that calling Mueller’s endeavor an investigation is a stretch because it’s glaringly apparent that he hasn’t found anything against President Trump. If he had, he would’ve written the report and handed it to Congress so they could start pushing impeachment without hesitation.

That points us back to Mr. Brennan:

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

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

Earlier this week, Mr. Brennan emphatically said that President Trump’s statements at the Helsinki Summit rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” before saying that he considered President Trump’s words treasonous.

In this video, Alan Dershowitz emphatically stated that “You can’t just throw the term treason around”:

Apparently, Mr. Brennan hasn’t learned that lesson yet.

Let’s be clear about the Mueller ‘investigation’. I’m with President Trump when he says that it’s a witch hunt. (Personally, I prefer calling it a fishing expedition but I’m ok with a witch hunt.) Day after day, we hear that Mueller is squeezing Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen or Gen. Flynn. I’m not a lawyer but I’m thinking that this proves that Mueller doesn’t have anything on President Trump. If you have the goods on President Trump, why wouldn’t he put that proof into the report and turn it over to the Congress?

After all, there won’t be an indictment of President Trump while he’s in office. The Constitution is quite clear on that. They saw the mischief that a political opponent might cause by charging a sitting president with trumped up accusations. That president would then be distracted from his official duties because he’d be defending himself against deceitful criminal accusations. But I digress.

The truth is that Mueller doesn’t have anything because he’d want to get the dirt to Congress so Republicans would either be forced to impeach a sitting Republican president or pay a political price this November if they did nothing. Further, it isn’t believable to think that Mueller wouldn’t want to extract revenge for President Trump’s firing of his friend Jim Comey. It simply isn’t believable to think that Mueller doesn’t want a great historical legacy. What better way to gain a legacy than by getting a president impeached and convicted?

I get it that some Republicans are saying that Mueller should be given the time:

Then again, Mueller’s had time. He’s had tons of time to investigate. Biased people who hate President Trump have said that there’s no there there in this case. In the interview, it’s mentioned that the Benghazi investigation took 2+ years.

That’s entirely different because Hillary tried hiding everything from investigators. She was the opposite of transparent. With President Trump, he turned over all requested documents virtually immediately. How are the Mueller investigation and the Benghazi investigation remotely similar? That’s like arguing that a kayak race and a speed boat race are the same because they’re both races and they’re both watercraft.

It’s time to wrap this up even if it requires listening to Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell whine about obstruction of justice and collusion for the next 6 months.

Most headlines about today’s joint hearing will focus on the firefights between Peter Strzok and Republicans. The goal thus far is to portray Republicans as either pawns of Russian President Putin or as bitter partisans who are just upset that Hillary isn’t wearing prison uniform. Either that or they’ll be portrayed as hyper-partisan hatemongers who just don’t understand the context surrounding his texts with Lisa Page.

That’s how the MSM is portraying today’s hearing. The truth, however, is that buried within the intramural catfights are major helpings of important substance that demolish Agent Strzok’s credibility. One such interlude is John Ratcliffe’s interrogation of Agent Strzok:

Ratcliffe sets Strzok up, saying “On page 400 of the Inspector General’s report, someone tells the Inspector General quote — there is a line — a bright and inviolable line between what you think personally and believe and the conduct of your official business. Who said that?”

Agent Strzok replied “I believe I said that.” Here’s the rest of that exchange:

Rep. Ratcliffe: You did say that. I heard you say similar things last week and I heard you say similar things today. You said it very clearly today. You said it very clearly, very unequivocally in your opening remarks. You said that you never crossed that inviolable line in 26 years. Earlier today in response to a question, you said “I took my personal belief out of every official act.” So you’re asking us to believe that when you say things like “f— Trump” and “Stop Trump” and “Impeach Trump”, that those are just personal beliefs and that when you say those things, you never crossed that line and that bright, inviolable line and allowed that to impact your official judgment. That’s what this really comes down to. You said that “I took my personal belief out of every official action.” So you’re asking us to believe that when you say things like ‘F— Trump’ and ‘Stop Trump’ and ‘Impeach Trump’, that those are just personal beliefs and that when you said those things, you never crossed that line, that bright, inviolable line and allow it to impact your official conduct. That’s really what this comes down to that you’re asking to believe, isn’t it?
AGENT STRZOK: Sir, what I’m asking you believe is that I’m offering you evidence…
REP. RATCLIFFE: Listen, you’ve been absolutely clear under oath, as clear as a bell on it. You’ve said it over and over again and because of this, I’m almost embarrassed to ask you this question. Of the approximately 50,000 text messages that I’ve seen with your personal beliefs with things like ‘F— Trump’ and ‘Stop Trump’ and ‘Impeach Trump’, go ahead and confirm on the record that none of those were done on an official FBI device or on official FBI time. Go ahead and do that.
AGENT STRZOK: Sir. No sir, some of them did…
REP. RATCLIFFE: Oh they did? So what you really meant to say when you said that you’d never crossed that bright, inviolable line, what you meant to say is ‘Except for the hundreds of times a day when I went back and forth expressing my personal opinions about ‘F—ing Trump’ and ‘stopping Trump’ and ‘impeaching Trump’ on official FBI phones and official FBI time, other than that, you never crossed that line.

This is how you interrogate a rogue FBI agent. For all his hours or moral preening and saying all the right words, Agent Strzok couldn’t avoid the truth that he’d crossed “that bright, inviolable line” hundreds of times.

The NYTimes’ bias shines through in this article. It starts in a paragraph that says ‘In the lead-up to the report, Trump’s allies agreed that this was paramount. The central question in my opinion,’ David Bossie, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager, wrote this week on the Fox News website, ‘is did Hillary Clinton and her cronies get preferential treatment in her email server investigation for political reasons?’ And the report’s answer is clear: No.”

One of the findings of the 568-page report is that there is proof that Hillary’s emails were accessed by hostile actors. Contrary to Jim Comey’s declaration of July 5, 2016, that’s a violation of the Espionage Act. The fact that most of her top campaign people got immunity suggests that the FBI didn’t pursue them with the same vigor that Special Counsel Robert Mueller pursued Paul Manafort or Carter Page.

Then there’s this:

Federal investigators and prosecutors did not give preferential treatment to Clinton. They pursued the case on the merits. They were guided by, as the inspector general’s report puts it, “the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.”

Right. Tell that to David Petraeus and Gen. Flynn. Mueller’s team couldn’t find the political mainstream if they were given a GPS and a year’s worth of gasoline. Mueller’s prosecutorial team looks more like Hillary Clinton’s donor list than a team of skilled prosecutors. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte disagree with the NY Times:

Chairman Goodlatte stated emphatically that well-established DOJ and FBI procedures weren’t followed in investigating Hillary. That says it all. Goodlatte then said that there’s a stark contrast in the procedures used in the Hillary email investigation and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. No grand jury was impaneled for the Hillary ‘investigation’. There was a grand jury impaneled for the Trump-Russia investigation. Again, that says it all.

The most significant mistake in the investigation didn’t help Clinton. It hurt her, badly. It was James Comey’s decision to violate department policy and talk publicly about the investigation. If it weren’t for that decision, the polling data suggests Clinton would be president.

This is disgusting reporting. If Hillary had followed government procedures, there wouldn’t have been an investigation. Hillary acted like this nation’s laws didn’t apply to her. The fact that she’s now gotten bit by the FBI is karma. What comes around goes around.

Jim Comey’s NYTimes op-ed is so filled with spin that it’d make half the nation dizzy. In his op-ed, Mr. Comey wrote “I do not agree with all of the inspector general’s conclusions, but I respect the work of his office and salute its professionalism. All of our leaders need to understand that accountability and transparency are essential to the functioning of our democracy, even when it involves criticism. This is how the process is supposed to work. This report is important for two reasons. First, the inspector general’s team went through the F.B.I.’s work with a microscope and found no evidence that bias or improper motivation affected the investigation, which I know was done competently, honestly and independently.”

This IG report dealt solely with Comey’s Clinton email scandal. This isn’t a report on the FBI’s activities as a whole. It isn’t just important to remember that. It’s essential to remember that. Let’s put this in context. The title of the op-ed is “James Comey: This Report Says I Was Wrong. But That’s Good for the F.B.I.”

The FBI is everything except exonerated. Trey Gowdy is as sincerely pro-FBI as anyone in Congress. He isn’t convinced that the FBI is exonerated:

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement the report shows “an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI. Peter Strzok’s manifest bias trending toward animus casts a pall on this investigation…His bias impacted his decision making and he assigned to himself the role of stopping the Trump campaign or ending a Trump Presidency,” Gowdy said. “This is not the FBI I know.”

Included in the report is this bombshell:

The Washington Post reported that Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report includes an August 2016 text message exchange between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page about Trump’s chance of being elected president. “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

With all due respect to Mr. Horowitz, I don’t know how you can discover the Strzok-Page texts, then conclude that there’s no bias in the FBI. Further, it’s impossible to think that there wasn’t extreme animus inside the FBI’s upper ranks.

Check out this exchange between Strzok and Page:

But remember, there’s no bias within the FBI. Seriously, Democrats spewing that nonsense are destroying what little is left of their credibility. The good news for Democrats is that destroying what’s left of their credibility is light duty work. It can be finished in a New York minute.

First, today isn’t President Trump’s birthday. June 14th is. The reason I’ve titled this post is because Michael Horowitz has announced that he’s releasing the much-anticipated DOJ Inspector General’s report on President Trump’s birthday.

According to Fox News reporting, “In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Horowitz said ‘we anticipate releasing the report on June 14, 2018.’ That day is also President Trump’s birthday. The inspector general also told committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in the letter that he has accepted the invitation to testify about the report on June 18, meaning his scheduled appearance before the committee is being delayed again.”

If Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey and Loretta Lynch aren’t worried, they should be. It’s already been reported that McCabe wants immunity to testify against Comey. Lawmakers are already hesitant to grant him immunity. If McCabe’s attorney can’t offer an impressive proffer, then McCabe shouldn’t get immunity. If he’s subpoenaed to testify, he can plead the Fifth and take his chances with a DC jury:

Horowitz’s review has already put top FBI official Andrew McCabe in legal jeopardy. The Justice Department’s internal watchdog sent a criminal referral for McCabe in April to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.

Good luck with that, Andy.

The inspector general’s review uncovered the anti-Trump texts from FBI official Peter Strzok, who famously called Trump an ‘idiot’ and texted about an ‘insurance policy’ against a Trump presidency. Strzok had been assigned to Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe, but has since been reassigned.

I suspect that Mr. Horowitz’s investigative findings will lead to several people in the DOJ and FBI wearing prison uniforms.

CNN’s article about President Trump starts off by reading like a fashion critique rather than like a serious news article.

Early in the article, it says “This may be the first Department of Justice criminal investigation ordered via Twitter feed. Given the importance of a presidential decision regarding a possible criminal investigation, the use of Twitter was completely inappropriate. It trivializes the entire process. What’s next in the presidential communication arsenal, the use of Facebook and Instagram with photos?”

The message from that paragraph seems to be ‘how dare he use Twitter to express his opinion’. That’s kind of disappointing considering the fact that the investigation President Trump ordered was about determining whether the Obama Justice Department or the Obama FBI sought to infiltrate the Republicans’ presidential campaign for strictly partisan reasons. At a time when people get their news from social media, why wouldn’t President Trump use Twitter to put pressure on the Deep State? Why wouldn’t President Trump use Twitter to put John Brennan, Jim Comey and Jim Clapper on notice that they’d better hire a good lawyer?

The CNN article also treats this situation like it was normal:

In modern times, though, most presidents have taken a hands-off approach with respect to specific criminal investigations in a deliberate effort to keep them out of partisan politics and to preserve public respect for the integrity of federal law enforcement authorities.

This investigation is totally about partisanship. The fact that the NYTimes and the Washington Post tried spinning it as the Obama administration’s attempt to protect the Trump campaign is laughable. It’s disgusting that CNN tries peddling that same line in their article:

Part of the DOJ and the FBI ‘s job is after all the conduct of counterintelligence investigations and, if warranted by the evidence, the warning of presidential candidates that the Russians might try to infiltrate their campaigns to influence the American election. One would think that Trump would be grateful rather than suspicious about the warning.

Apparently, CNN didn’t notice that the DOJ and FBI didn’t warn the campaign. Rather, when then-President-Elect Trump insisted that his campaign had been surveilled, people openly ridiculed him, saying that couldn’t happen in America. Now they’re peddling this infiltration of the Trump campaign like it’s a public service? Seriously?

In the end, Trump’s attempt to embarrass his own Department of Justice and FBI is likely to wound only his own presidency. If Inspector General Horowitz makes the highly unlikely finding that the DOJ and the FBI acted criminally in their conduct of a counterintelligence operation related to the Trump campaign, a criminal referral will be necessary.

I’m almost to the end of the article and the ‘reporter’ still hasn’t told us what the investigation is about. I’ve heard about burying the lede but this is ridiculous.

The lede should be that Obama DOJ or FBI political appointees might have tried interfering in a presidential election. While the article hints at that, it certainly doesn’t lead with that.

Sunday’s Twitter order to commence a new investigation to smear the Obama administration is likely to backfire and extend the Mueller investigation. It may also cause Mueller to look at an interesting new idea — was the presidential order to commence such a frivolous investigation itself really an attempt to block the progress of the Mueller investigation and obstruct justice?

What would a CNN article be without them defending either Hillary or the Obama administration? Here’s something for CNN to think about. The thought of a presidential administration of one political party using its intelligence services to gather information on the presidential campaign of the other political party is a true threat to our system of government. There’s nothing trivial about such an investigation. Watching Kimberley Strassel lay this out is what real journalism looks like:

Unlike this CNN ‘article’, Kim Strassel’s articles have been the work product of a professional journalist.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Judge Mukasey’s op-ed helped open the floodgates questioning the Mueller investigation. Mark Penn’s op-ed is actually more damning because Penn is a Democrat. Penn’s op-ed connects lots of dots that Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein don’t want connected.

For instance, Penn wrote “At this point, there is little doubt that the highest echelons of the FBI and the Justice Department broke their own rules to end the Hillary Clinton ‘matter,’ but we can expect the inspector general to document what was done or, more pointedly, not done. It is hard to see how a yearlong investigation of this won’t come down hard on former FBI Director James Comey and perhaps even former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who definitely wasn’t playing mahjong in a secret ‘no aides allowed’ meeting with former President Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac. With this report on the way and congressional investigators beginning to zero in on the lack of hard, verified evidence for starting the Trump probe, current and former intelligence and Justice Department officials are dumping everything they can think of to save their reputations.”

This isn’t the outcome they were hoping for. They were hoping to take down a president they thought wasn’t qualified. Instead, Mueller, Lynch, Rosenstein and Comey have ruined their reputations and their legacies. Straight shooters like Judge Mukasey and Mark Penn are asking all the right questions and making the right observations while putting this puzzle together.

But it is backfiring. They started by telling the story of Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat, as having remembered a bar conversation with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. But how did the FBI know they should talk to him? That’s left out of their narrative. Downer’s signature appears on a $25 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation. You don’t need much imagination to figure that he was close with Clinton Foundation operatives who relayed information to the State Department, which then called the FBI to complete the loop. This wasn’t intelligence. It was likely opposition research from the start.

Contributing to the Clinton Foundation isn’t illegal by itself. It’s just convenient for this contributor to point the finger at Mr. Papadopoulos. With the Clintons, it isn’t wise to think that coincidences are truly coincidental. More often than not, these ‘coincidences’ are manufactured with precise intent.

This isn’t flattering to Mueller:

Flush with 16 prosecutors, including a former lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, and an undisclosed budget, the Mueller investigation has been a scorched-earth effort to investigate the entirety of the Trump campaign, Trump business dealings, the entire administration and now, if it was not Russia, maybe it’s some other country.

I’ll put this simply. It’s time to wrap this fishing expedition up. It’s been spinning its wheels for over a year.