Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Investigations category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

If I were king for a day, one of the things high on my to-do list would be to officially end the fishing expeditions investigations into Russian collusion. I’d finish them because they’re a waste of time. I’d finish them because senators of both parties have admitted that, after a 9-month-long fishing expeditions investigation, they still haven’t found a single piece of evidence that shows President Trump colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Greg Jarrett’s article highlights the fact that “Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), have said they have seen no evidence of Trump- Russian collaboration. Both sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee.” Jarrett then adds that “even more compelling are the statements of senior Obama administration intelligence officials who were privy to all the information gathered by both the FBI and the alphabet soup of intel agencies which began investigating the matter more than a year ago. Take a gander at what they have said. James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, has twice confirmed that he has seen no evidence of collusion. As the basis for his conclusion, he cited reports from the NSA, FBI and CIA. John Brennan, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has said the same thing –no sign of ‘collusion.’ And then there is James Comey. When asked if Clapper’s assessment was correct, the fired FBI Director testified that Clapper was ‘right,’ there is no known evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.”

At this point, it’s pretty clear that Mueller won’t find anything. He won’t because there’s nothing to find on the Trump-Russian collusion topic. It’s time to wrap that up rather than continue to waste taxpayers’ money on a fishing expedition.

Let’s be honest, too. If nobody has proof that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the election from Hillary after 9 months of looking, it doesn’t exist. Let’s remember that the NSA, the FBI and the CIA haven’t found proof of Trump-Putin collusion. If that trio can’t find proof of it, then it doesn’t exist. There’s a better chance that I’ll see the Northern Lights on a foggy night than finding proof of collusion.

This was underscored by the Senate Intelligence Committee when it disclosed that it had conducted in excess of 100 interviews over 250 hours, held 11 open hearings, produced more than 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed some 100,000 documents. Every intel official who drafted the report on Russian election meddling was interviewed, as were all relevant Obama administration officials.

That sounds pretty thorough. If these professional investigators didn’t find anything, it doesn’t exist.

Kim Strassel’s column raises lots of legitimate questions about former FBI Director Jim Comey. Early in the article, though, Ms. Strassel wrote “Mr. Comey’s actions in the Hillary Clinton email probe are concerning enough. He made himself investigator, judge and jury, breaking the Justice Department’s chain of command. He publicly confirmed the investigation, violating the department’s principles. He announced he would not recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, even as he publicly excoriated her—an extraordinary abuse of his megaphone. Then he rekindled the case only 11 days before the election.”

Later, Ms. Strassel wrote “the big development this week is a new look at how Mr. Comey may have similarly juked the probe into Donald Trump’s purported ties to Russia. The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump ‘dossier.'”

Until now, people haven’t discussed whether there was a connection between the FBI and “the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS.” This week, the House Intelligence Committee changed directions when it subpoenaed FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Sessions to testify on whether the FBI used the dossier to justify its launching of any investigations. Trey Gowdy is one of the people looking into whether the FBI, especially while Comey was their director, improperly used the dossier. Last night, Gowdy spoke to Martha McCallum about what’s troubling him:

It’s apparent that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian collusion isn’t taking its probe seriously. They’re more worried about looking bipartisan than they’re worried about digging into whether the FBI manipulated anything, including commissioning the dossier.

The question is when the FBI got in on the act. The Washington Post in February reported that Mr. Steele “was familiar” to the FBI, since he’d worked for the bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a “friend” at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.” Who was Mr. Steele’s friend at the FBI? Did the bureau influence the direction of the Trump dossier? Did it give Mr. Steele material support from the start?

At this point, I don’t see how Congress can’t avoid calling Mr. Comey back in to testify on this new information. Further, I can’t see how Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation isn’t delegitimized. Mueller’s star witness has been utterly tarnished. Mr. Comey’s credibility doesn’t exist anymore.

The minute he testifies in a trial, the defense attorney will grill him about his testimony in front of Congress that he leaked information to a professor in the hopes of starting a special investigation. That defense attorney will paint Comey as deceitful and manipulative. If Mueller’s star witness is painted as deceitful and manipulative, that prosecution is all but officially over.

Steve Cortes’ article doesn’t pull punches. It should be seen for what it is: an in-your-face put-down of former FBI Director Comey and Washington, DC’s rigged system.

Cortes lays out the evidence immediately, saying “As evidence of the rigged system, voters sided with Trump during the campaign in often citing Clinton’s apparent immunity from consequences regarding her unsavory acts as secretary of state, especially her hidden emails on a private server, as well as corrupt Clinton Foundation dealings.”

Cortes cites Comey’s letter, written in late April or early May, that essentially said the FBI’s investigation was rigged. Cortes highlights the fact that Sen. Grassley and Sen. Graham sent this letter to FBI Director Robert Wray. One of the key parts of that letter is when Grassley and Graham write “According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.”

In fact, after Comey wrote his “nothing to see here” draft absolving Clinton of wrongdoing, the FBI still interviewed a total of 17 key officials.

It’s impossible to find what you refuse to look for. Let’s be clear about something. What Comey did in predetermining the outcome of his investigation is every bit as corrupt as Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac. Then there’s this:

How is it possible that Comey had ascertained, at such an early date, that the evidence would not incriminate Hillary Clinton?

There’s a simple answer to that question. Comey wasn’t interested in finding out the truth. Apparently, he had picked a destination long before his agents had done the heavy lifting.

Finally, what isn’t being discussed is the Democratic Party’s depravity in nominating a woman who was exceptionally corrupt. What type of political party nominates someone who should’ve gotten indicted and prosecuted?

Apparently, former FBI Director Jim Comey needs a refresher course in conducting investigations. It’s apparent because documentation has surfaced that proves Director Comey started drafting a letter recommending that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted before the investigation had really gotten started.

According to the article, “In a news release Thursday, the senators [Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham] said Comey began drafting the exoneration statement in April or May 2016, which was before the FBI interviewed 17 key witnesses, including Clinton herself and other top aides.” Later, the article quoted from Grassley’s and Graham’s letter. Specifically, the letter said “Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”

If the Grassley-Graham letter is right, and I’m 99% certain it is, then Comey’s reputation should be in tatters. President Trump is right in saying “Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton long before the investigation was over…and so much more. A rigged system!”

Then there’s this:

Grassley and Graham said they learned about the draft after reviewing transcripts of interviews with top Comey aides.

“According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton,” the senators said. They added, “That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.”

This interview is, at minimum, disheartening:

According to this article, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Graham wrote “a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking more information, including all drafts of Comey’s final statement on Clinton’s emails by September 13.” Later in the article, it states none “of the committee’s Democrats signed onto the request.”

That’s proof of 2 things — that the FBI didn’t conduct a serious investigation and that Democrats aren’t interested in the truth, especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Far from being the straight shooter that people said he was, it’s looking like Director Comey is just another DC insider whose first instinct is to protect the Swamp.

If this is proven true, then Mueller should shut down his investigation, too. I’m not the first person to write about the belief that Mueller hopes Comey will be his star witness against Trump. Once this information comes out, it won’t take much for a skilled defense attorney to impeach Comey’s testimony.

Jim Clapper, the former DNI, aka Director of National Intelligence, has been a political hatchet man for years. Now employed by CNN, all that’s changed is that he isn’t a hatchet man for the federal government. Instead, he’s a political hatchet man for CNN. This article highlights Mr. Clappers propensity for political shenanigans.

After Don Lemon’s anti-Trump diatribe, he continued with the theme that Trump wasn’t fit to be president, this time getting Clapper to echo Lemon’s accusations. During the interview, Dir. Clapper said “I really question his ability, his fitness to be in this office and I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out. I do wonder, as well about the people that attracted to this, to this rally as others. You know, what are they thinking? Or why am I so far off base? Because I don’t understand the adulation. Of course, that’s why I think he gravitated to having this rally as ill-timed as it is.”

The first obvious question that Clapper needs to be asked is why he thinks President Trump is “looking for a way out.” Since the Russia collusion investigation pretty much collapsed, Democrat operatives starting conducting a stealth campaign questioning President Trump’s stability. At this year’s Netroots Nation gathering, DNC Vice-Chair Keith Ellison didn’t mince words. He said that President Trump was less stable than Kim Jung Un. This week, the storyline from Don Lemon and James Clapper has been that President Trump is unhinged.

To fully understand this story, let’s understand who Jim Clapper is. This is the opening paragraph of Sen. Wyden’s statement after DNI Clapper resigned:

During Director Clapper’s tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance. Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them.

It’s worth noting that Sen. Wyden isn’t a diehard movement conservative. He’s a liberal Democrat from Oregon. There’s more from Sen. Wyden’s official statement:

After the NSA Director declined to correct these statements, I put the question to the Director of National Intelligence in March 2013.  I wouldn’t have been doing my job if I hadn’t asked that question.  My staff and I spent weeks preparing it, and I had my staff send him the question in advance so that he would be prepared to answer it.  

Director Clapper famously gave an untrue answer to that question.  So I had my intelligence staffer call his office afterward and ask them to correct the record. The Director’s office refused to correct the record. Regardless of what was going through the director’s head when he testified, failing to correct the record was a deliberate decision to lie to the American people about what their government was doing. And within a few months, of course, the truth came out.

That isn’t all that DNI Clapper did, though. Here’s more:

Former President Barack Obama’s intelligence chief issued revised procedures in 2013 that made it easier for executive branch officials to “unmask” the names of lawmakers or congressional staffers caught up in intelligence intercepts overseas, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Hill. Procedures issued by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in March 2013 formally supplanted a 1992 set of rules that made the dissemination of names of intercepted lawmakers or congressional aides an act of last resort.

The new standard allowed for a lawmaker’s or staffer’s name to be unmasked if  “an executive branch recipient of intelligence” believed that learning “the identity of the Member of Congress or the Congressional staff is necessary to understand and assess the associated intelligence and further a lawful activity of the recipient agency,” according to a memo released earlier this month by the DNI’s office with little public fanfare.

Unmasking these people’s identities wasn’t done for national security purposes. It was done for political purposes.

UPDATE: During Brian Kilmeade’s interview of Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer, Lt. Col. Schaffer highlighted the fact that former DNI Clapper got caught lying under oath. Democrats first tried delegitimizing President Trump’s victory by saying Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. When that investigation fell apart, Democrats switched to insinuating that President Trump wasn’t fit for office. Who knows what’s next?

Here’s the video of Schaffer’s interview with Kilmeade:

It’s clear to me that Robert Mueller’s ‘investigation’ has turned into a fishing expedition. It’s clear, too, that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein won’t be the most forceful person in holding Mueller accountable and keeping his investigation on the right track.

Jazz Shaw’s post raised a point with me when he wrote “The actual findings of the investigation in this wild ride may not wind up being what matters. Even if no charges can be filed, this could turn out to be a complete treasure trove for Trump’s opponents. And if the investigation is steered away from any non-Russia material and back to the original charter, it’s a cover-up in the minds of those who want to find one. Ditto if Mueller winds up being fired. It’s pretty much a win-win for the Democrats at this point, so kudos to them for setting the trap this well.”

Not to be a contrarian but I read this situation the opposite way. First, it’s more than possible that Director Mueller has started a backlash against his fishing expedition. While people want to know whether Russians interfered with the 2016 election, it’s difficult to picture them being even slightly interested in President Trump’s decade-old financial transactions.

Once Mueller drifts too far afield from his originally assigned mission, people will question whether he’s trying to find the truth about Russia or whether he’s just looking for another scalp. The minute the American people get a whiff that this is a fishing expedition, Mueller’s support will crater.

Mueller apparently thinks that people aren’t paying attention while he hires more Democratic headhunters. That’s a mistake. Trump’s supporters are watching very closely. If Mueller starts investigating things that weren’t part of his original mission, Trump’s supporters will punish Democrats who insisted on a special counsel.

If there’s anything that comes through clear in Kim Strassel’s latest article, it’s that Democrats have returned to being national security appeasers. The Awan family is living proof that Democrats don’t take national security seriously.

One of the first points from Ms. Strassel’s article that’s disturbing comes when she wrote “Mr. Awan, 37, began working for House Democrats as an IT staffer in 2004. By the next year, he was working for future Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Over time he would add his wife, two brothers, a brother’s wife and a friend to the payroll—and at handsome sums. One brother, Jamal, hired in 2014 reportedly at age 20, was paid $160,000. That’s in line with what a chief of staff makes—about four times the average Capitol Hill staffer. No Democrat appears to have investigated these huge numbers or been asked to account for them.”

For the Awan family to get hired by 38 Democrats is outrageous enough. That the Awan family got hired at high salaries is more outrageous. That that isn’t the worst that the Awan family did is what’s most frightening. Ms. Strassel’s article continues, saying “The family was plenty busy elsewhere. A litany of court documents accuse them of bankruptcy fraud, life-insurance fraud, tax fraud and extortion. Abid Awan, a brother, ran up more than $1 million in debts on a failed car dealership he somehow operated while supposedly working full time on the Hill. One document ties the family to a loan from a man stripped of his Maryland medical license after false billing. Capitol Police are investigating allegations of procurement fraud and theft. The brothers filed false financial-disclosure forms, with Imran Awan claiming his wife had no income, even as she worked as a fellow House IT staffer.”

What’s cute is what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said in defending her decision to keep Imran Awan on her staff:

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz made this foolish statement:

If there’s one thing that I’m going to make sure and maintain, it’s maintain my integrity.

That’s hilarious, especially coming from the woman who rigged the Democratic primaries to guarantee that Hillary Clinton won the nomination. The thought that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz thinks she’s got an ounce of integrity left is gut-busting laughable. This isn’t laughable:

Yes, it is weird that Ms. Wasserman Schultz continued to shield Imran Awan to the end. Yes, the amounts of money, and the ties to Pakistan, are strange. Yes, it is alarming that emails show Imran Awan knew Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s iPad password, and that the family might have had wider access to the accounts of lawmakers on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees.

It’s sad that people elected to represent us chose to protect fraudsters.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, Rep. Trent Franks, (R-AZ), has called for Robert Mueller’s resignation as special counsel. According to the article, “Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey have been longtime allies dating back to 2003 when the men both worked in Washington, Mueller as the FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General. Franks cited the pair’s relationship as a reason for Mueller to be disqualified from the probe. ‘Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties,’ Franks said. ‘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.'”

Gregg Jarrett laid it out perfectly, saying that “the special counsel statute says that if you have a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution”, you cannot serve. It’s mandatory. Jarrett said that the language of the statute says that “you shall disqualify yourself.” It doesn’t suggest the special counsel should look into possible conflicts of interests. The statute says that the special counsel shall disqualify themselves.

The fact that Mueller hasn’t disqualified himself already indicates that Mueller isn’t the ethical man Democrats claim he is. That statute isn’t a suggestion. It’s a command.

Franks continued, saying this:

“Until Mueller resigns, he will be in clear violation of the law, a reality that fundamentally undermines his role as Special Counsel and attending ability to execute the law,” Franks said.

Mueller can’t stand for law and order if he’s selectively enforcing the law. It’s time he step aside ASAP.

It’s increasingly clear that the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, is intent on creating an artificial constitutional crisis. I offer Doyle McManus’ column as proof of this affliction.

In writing, you’re told to not bury the lede. Mr. McManus certainly didn’t do that. The opening paragraph of Mr. McManus’ column says “President Trump has openly declared war on Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the Russian saga. The president clearly wishes he could fire Mueller; his associates say he’s mused about that for weeks. Now, by stepping up the pressure, he’s moving toward a showdown, and a possible constitutional crisis.”

First, the president can fire Mueller without triggering a constitutional crisis. It wouldn’t be the smartest move politically but it wouldn’t trigger a constitutional crisis. The next paragraph is just as hyperbolic, saying “There’s plenty of other craziness billowing from the White House: lawyers considering whether the president can pardon himself, the president publicly denouncing his attorney general for failing to protect him. But the clearest portent of a crisis is the president’s increasingly evident desire to be rid of the meddlesome prosecutor, who appears to be doing his job too well.”

If conflation were an Olympic event, Mr. McManus would be the gold medalist. Yes, it wasn’t bright for President Trump to publicly criticize Jeff Sessions. Still, jumping from that to saying “the meddlesome prosecutor” “appears to be doing his job too well” is a mighty leap.

At this point, Mueller looks more like the establishment’s hit man than an honest man seeking the truth. Roger Simon’s article highlights Mueller’s potential pitfalls, saying “significant portion of the American public, myself admittedly among them, will be convinced he has been railroaded in a partisan hatchet job. The voters who elected the president are going to feel, at the very least, undermined, more likely betrayed, & by their own government and public officials. Many are going to feel this has nothing to do whatsoever with justice and will act accordingly.”

After months of searching for a crime, Mueller still hasn’t found one. Adam Schiff, who specializes in running for Dianne Feinstein’s U.S. Senate seat, still hasn’t found a crime. He’s great at making accusations but he’s terrible at offering proof for his accusations.

The MSM is disgracing itself. This is a perfect example:

If Trump had business relationships with Russians who could be acting on behalf of Vladimir Putin, that would seem quite relevant.

Then there’s this stupidity:

The nightmare haunting Trump, of course, is the history of past counsels — especially Kenneth Starr, who took an inquest into Bill Clinton’s family finances and turned it into an investigation of sex and perjury.

The key difference between the Starr investigation and the Mueller fishing expedition is that Starr’s investigation expanded because judges expanded the investigation. Another important difference is that the statute that Ken Starr operated under expired.

Perhaps, at one time, Mueller was a man of integrity. Expanding his fishing expedition this far afield, though, appears intent on creating a legacy rather than seeking justice. Similarly, at one time, the MSM attempted to look semi-impartial. Those days seem like ancient history.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Gregg Jarrett’s op-ed asks an interesting ethical question of former FBI Director Mueller. Jarrett first noted that the Hill reported that “Comey authored seven memorandums reflecting the contents of his conversations with President Trump and that four of the memos ‘have been determined to contain classified information.'”

Later, Jarrett made the observation that “If this is true and Comey kept these documents in his personal possession upon leaving government service and conveyed some of them to another individual without authorization, then it would appear that he committed multiple felonies under the Espionage Act.” Jarrett didn’t say that Comey had “committed multiple felonies under the Espionage Act.” Jarrett said Comey might’ve done that. In other words, he didn’t sound like a Democrat asserting that Trump had committed treason.

Another point Jarrett made was that “All of his memos are, unquestionably, government property under the Federal Records Act and the FBI’s own Records Management regulations. They were composed by him in the course and scope of his employment as the Director of the FBI. In meeting with President Trump, Comey was not acting as a private citizen. Both Congress and the FBI agree on this obvious point.”

What’s most interesting, though, is these questions:

How can Mueller discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner? Will the mentor investigate and, if warranted, prosecute his protégé?

This is a charade that only DC insiders would think passes the smell test. Outsiders already think that the fix is in and that Comey will skate.

Let’s get serious about something. Comey’s documents weren’t private documents. They weren’t conversations about their grandchildren. They were work product. Comey let the cat out of the bag when he testified that it was important to get the information out. In fact, the fact that Comey took the documents with him after he was fired indicates that he stole government work product. Whether those documents contained classified information or not, they are work product subject to the Federal Records Act.

On the one hand, Comey is in deep dew-dew. On the other hand, he’s in serious trouble. That’s if Mueller doesn’t rescue him.

Technorati: , , , , , ,