Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Investigations category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

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: , , , , , ,

Last week, Gov. Dayton recommended that a fund be started to instruct police officers. At Gov. Dayton’s announcement, unfortunately, the most well-received speaker was Valerie Castile, Philando Castile’s mother.

That’s mostly because Gov. Dayton proposed that the training fund be named after Philando Castile. That didn’t sit well with the police. Their response was that “Still, the topic of naming the fund came up. Dennis Flaherty, a former executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association who was at the meeting, said it was ‘fair to say there was disagreement’ in the law enforcement community over naming the fund.”

Castile’s mother was well-received because she said “At the end of the day, everyone wants to go home. The police wants to go home and the civilian wants to go home. And if we can combine and work together as human beings that will happen. We got to learn how to communicate better with each other. We’re supposed to be the most intelligent species on the planet, but look (at) what we do to one another. We’re worse off than some animals, that just go around and prey on people.”

A loyal reader of LFR told me that Philando Castile’s uncle has participated in some meetings designed to work on police training issues. I was told that Castile’s uncle, for whatever it’s worth, is fairly level-headed. That’s believable in light of this paragraph:

Of police, she said, “We need them because the world would be chaotic if we didn’t have the police. Don’t get me wrong: I love having the police to protect and serve us. But when it comes to the point where there’s miscommunication and it turns out the way it turned out for my son, it’s unacceptable.”

This is a tragedy. This is the dashcam video of the shooting:

Gov. Dayton, unfortunately, spoke before he had the facts in the shooting. When he spoke, Gov. Dayton said that Castile probably wouldn’t have gotten shot if he was white. Gov. Dayton said that not knowing that Officer Yanez is Hispanic. Gov. Dayton said that without seeing the video of the shooting.
Technorati: , , , ,

To say that Sen. Grassley gave Jim Comey and Chuck Schumer a tutorial in integrity is understatement. This article highlights Sen. Grassley’s speech on the Senate floor that should’ve been delivered months ago.

First, Sen. Grassley reported that “then-FBI Director James Comey briefed ranking member Dianne Feinstein and him on the Russia probe.” Sen. Grassley then said the briefing included “telling us who was, and who was not, under investigation.” Then Sen. Grassley opened both barrels and trained them on then-FBI Director Comey and Senate Minority Leader Schumer.

During his speech, Grassley said “After that meeting, I publicly called for Mr. Comey to tell the public what he had told us about whether President Trump was under investigation. The public had a right to know. Mr. Comey told me and other Congressional leaders that President Trump was not under investigation. He even told the President himself – repeatedly. But, Mr. Comey didn’t listen to my request for transparency. He didn’t listen to the President’s request. Only months later has the truth finally come out.”

With that, Sen. Schumer was exposed. Then Sen. Grassley added this:

So the media was wrong. So the Democrats were wrong. So the wild speculation and conspiracy theories ended up harming our country. They played right into Russia’s hands. And how did we all learn about this truth? In President Trump’s letter removing Mr. Comey from office.

At first most didn’t believe it. The media scoffed when they wrote what the president said in that letter. They insisted that Mr. Comey would never tell the president that he was not under investigation. Well we learned earlier this month from Mr. Comey himself that he had done exactly that. It wasn’t a surprise to me because Mr. Comey had told me the same thing.

Check out this video of Sen. Grassley’s speech:

Let’s be clear about something. Mr. Comey didn’t tell the American people that President Trump wasn’t being investigated. Further, Senate Minority Leader Schumer didn’t tell the whole truth about the FBI’s investigation when he knew that it wasn’t focusing on President Trump. Instead, Sen. Schumer stuck with the Democrats’ chanting points, pretending that President Trump was under investigation.

At this point, Sen. Schumer’s integrity doesn’t exist. What politician ignores that type of information for political gain? A: The most corrupt leader of Senate Democrats since Harry Reid. People hate politicians because they’re morally bankrupt. Sen. Schumer is the poster child of moral depravity in the Senate. As the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, Schumer should be a leader. Instead, he’s the chief obstructionist in a party without a message.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If this article is quoting Rep. Adam Schiff right, then he’s either dumber than a sack of hair or he’s one of the shiftiest (and not in a good way) politicians in Congress.

Thursday, President Trump admitted that he didn’t tape his conversations with former FBI Director Jim Comey. Rep. Schiff issued a statement, saying “This raises a lot of questions about why he would suggest in the first place there were tapes, what he hoped to gain from that? And, moreover, why he kept the country guessing about this issue for weeks, and weeks and weeks.” He said it also raises questions about “what lengths he will go to try to intimidate people from speaking out?”

I’m betting that Rep. Schiff isn’t interested in the truth in this instance. I’m betting that he’s mostly interested in keeping this story alive. I’m betting that’s because it’s the only thing that makes him politically relevant. Further, I’m betting that he’s doing what Nancy Pelosi has told him to do. Does anyone doubt that Ms. Pelosi thinks that’s the only way to keep distracting from Trump’s agenda? Honestly, for all the talk about how the Democrats’ brand is toxic outside California, New York and universities, it’s pretty apparent that the Democratic Party is Ms. Pelosi’s party.

At the moment, here’s Ms. Pelosi’s chief wimp:

Until Democrats stand up to Ms. Pelosi, they’ll deserve to be the minority party.

Technorati: , , , ,

After watching U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, it’s clear that the Democrats aren’t interested in investigating their claims that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. For that matter, it’s apparent that they aren’t that interested in finding out whether President Trump obstructed justice. Finally, it’s apparent that their goal is to attempt to play a game of gotcha.

Tuesday afternoon, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden got into a testy exchange with Attorney General Sessions. Saying that Gen. Sessions got upset is understatement. The exchange started with Sen. Wyden saying “The question is that Mr. Comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and that he couldn’t talk about them. What are they?” Sessions replied “Why don’t you tell me? There are none, Sen. Wyden. There are none. I can tell you tell that for absolute certainty.”

The Democrats can’t pretend anymore that President Trump colluded with Russia to defeat HRC. With Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley shooting down the Democrats’ obstruction of justice arguments, there’s nothing much left but rubble of that argument, either.

After Comey’s testimony last Thursday, he exited looking like a pathetic wimp. After Tuesday’s testimony, it’s clear that this is mostly just a show produced by the Democrats. With people getting tired of the pure partisan politics played by the Democrats, they can’t afford to play this game much longer. If they do, the Democrats will hurt themselves for 2018.

It’s clear that this investigation is mostly rubbish from the Democrats. People were initially drawn to the claims like a moth to a flame. Now that we’ve had 2 witnesses, one pathetic (Comey), the other impressive (Sessions), people are questioning the validity of the collusion/obstruction of justice scandal.

Technorati: , , , ,

After reading Clarice Feldman’s article, it’s clear she’s on the right track. Anyone that Mueller asks to testify should immediately demand to know what the underlying crime is that Mueller is investigating. If Mueller refuses to tell them that basic information, that person should immediately assert their Fifth Amendment rights.

Further, that person’s attorney should tell Mueller that this pattern will continue until Mueller states publicly what the underlying crime is. That attorney should make this statement publicly, preferably on TV. That way, Mueller will be put on the spot. If Mueller doesn’t state what crime he’s investigating, then the people will know that he’s conducting a fishing expedition. The minute that’s exposed, he and Jim Comey become laughingstocks.

At that point, they’ll also turn into discredited DC political operatives.

Why shouldn’t they be exposed? Comey and Mueller aren’t patriots. They’re political hacks. They haven’t earned and maintained that reputation. They might’ve been patriots at one point but they don’t fit that description anymore. It’s time they’re put to rest.

Technorati: , , , ,