Archive for the ‘Robert Mueller’ Category

Kim Strassel’s weekly column highlights the corruption in DC. Specifically, it highlights how corrupt the FBI is, how corrupt the corporate media is and how corrupt Judge Emmitt Sullivan is. Throughout the Trump administration, the FBI has been highlighted as having a corrupted upper echelon. (Notice that I used the singular, not plural, version of the word. It’s important.)

Jim Comey, Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok were particularly corrupt throughout the Flynn fiasco. As Ms. Strassel wrote, the “Flynn pardon was necessary—to correct a corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation, a rogue special counsel, an unprincipled federal judge, and an embarrassingly complicit media.” She continued, saying “Mr. Flynn advised the Trump campaign and in November 2016 was named national security adviser. The FBI had spent months monitoring him as part of its Russia-collusion fantasy, yet by Jan. 4, 2017, it had found nothing and moved to close its case. In rushed Peter Strzok—the now-disgraced then-FBI agent—to keep the investigation open. The FBI had snooped on a Flynn call to the then-Russian ambassador to the U.S.”

The FBI didn’t need to interview the National Security Adviser about his conversation; it had the transcript. Yet the bureau’s then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe sandbagged Mr. Flynn, arranging for him to meet with FBI agents without a lawyer. Former FBI Director Jim Comey later gloated over the setup. The FBI also chose not to provide Mr. Flynn a standard warning against lying, to keep him comfortable. Despite all this, the agents reported—according to government notes—that they “believe that F. believes that what he said was true.” He didn’t intentionally lie.

This was always totally about getting Flynn to flip on President Trump. The FBI’s problem was that there was nothing to flip about. The Mueller report stated that there wasn’t any conspiracy “between Donald Trump and Russia, the Trump campaign and Russia” or any American and Russia.

That didn’t stop the FBI or special counsel from pressing forward:

Fast forward to Robert Mueller, who didn’t care. The FBI knew in January 2017 that its collusion investigation was a bust; it confirmed the Steele dossier was a fabrication. So Mr. Comey engineered a special counsel to salvage the FBI’s reputation by ginning up unrelated “crimes.” Mr. Mueller dredged up the Flynn interview and threatened to prosecute the former national security adviser’s son unless Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying. Facing bankruptcy, Mr. Flynn succumbed to this naked abuse of power.

Jim Comey likely won’t be prosecuted. That’s unfortunate because he’s totally reprehensible. He didn’t think twice about setting up a 3-star general.

Here’s something worth pondering. Would people that set up a 3-star general hesitate to break the law to get rid of the president he served? Let’s remember that the president he served was the target all along.

This Bloomberg article initially made me laugh. Then I realized that they’re serious. The article opens by saying “Joe Biden won the presidency promising to bring Americans together. But now his administration is sure to come under pressure from some Democrats to risk exacerbating divisions by investigating and prosecuting Donald Trump.”

Later in the article, it mentions “Prosecutors could revive the investigation into campaign-finance violations that resulted in a three-year sentence for Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen and re-examine the instances of possible obstruction of justice that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller uncovered in his probe into Russia’s 2016 election interference.”

The Special Counsel’s Office didn’t bring charges because their investigation didn’t find evidence of obstruction of justice. To obstruct justice, the person has to obstruct a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation didn’t start because a criminal investigation wouldn’t have been properly predicated. The investigators knew from Day One that the subsource for the Steele Dossier was a Russian spy known to specialize in Russia’s disinformation projects.

The DOJ can investigate all it wants. It’s a dry well. There’s a reason why nothing from Mueller’s investigation found its way into the Democrats’ articles of impeachment. Watch Jim Jordan utterly shred Mueller during a House Judiciary Committee hearing:

You want Mueller testifying? You can’t be serious.

Representative Mike Quigley of Illinois, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which investigated Trump, said he believes some of the president’s actions warrant further scrutiny. “No one wants to give the perception of being vindictive,” Quigley said. “But, you know, I think there’s genuine concern with ongoing criminal activities. So, at the very least those should be looked at.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has suggested forming an independent commission within the Justice Department to investigate the Trump administration and pursue criminal charges if appropriate.

It’s apparent that Democrats are vindictive to the Nth Degree. They’ve spent so much time investigating that they don’t know how to do substantive things that actually help people.

The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into then-President-Elect Trump was illegitimate. In fact, a previous counterintelligence investigation provided the proof:

The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.

CBS’s Catherine Herridge reports:

“Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual who later would be identified as Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source,” the two page FBI memo states. “The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.”

Here’s Page 1:

Here’s Page 2:

Ms. Herridge later wrote “The two-page memo states the case was not reopened, and there is no indication the FISA court was ever told that the dossier source was the subject of an earlier FBI probe.” That’s proof that a) the Mueller Investigation wasn’t properly predicated and b) the FBI didn’t notify the FISA Court that the primary subsource for the Steele Dossier was a Russian spy. Had the FBI disclosed that information, the FBI wouldn’t have gotten a wiretap warrant on Carter Page.

Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe and other senior FBI officials will, at minimum, receive intense new scrutiny from John Durham. It’s apparent that the Obama FBI senior staff was filled with corrupt people. The MSM will, of course, ignore that and continue touting the Obama administration as virtually corruption free.

Lindsey Graham spoke out yesterday, saying that Robert Mueller should testify in front of his Committee if he’s going to write Washington Post op-eds. The article states “Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said Sunday that he will grant Democrats’ request to have former special counsel Robert Mueller testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election before the committee.”

I can imagine Mueller not wanting to testify. The reasons’ names are Graham, Grassley, Lee, Cruz, Hawley and Kennedy. Mueller wouldn’t b worried about answering questions about his op-ed. He’d be plenty worried about answering questions about the Special Counsel investigation he conducted into Gen. Flynn. He’d be on the hot seat answering why the Special Counsel investigation was needed. He’d feel the heat answering why the FBI’s DC Field Office recommended shutting the Flynn investigation down when they didn’t find any “derogatory information” against Flynn. Imagine how Mueller would squirm when presented with Jim Comey’s note that said that the Flynn-Kislyak calls were “totally legit.”

Mueller certainly would’ve gotten that information at the start of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Despite the fact that the investigation lacked proper predication, Mueller bankrupted Flynn based on charges that weren’t sustainable. Besides partisanship, why would Mueller continue investigating when he knew that a) the Steele Dossier was unsubstantiated, b) the FBI’s DC Field Office recommended dismissing the investigation into Gen. Flynn and c) Jim Comey had said that the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls were legitimate?

If Mueller thinks they’ll just talk about Roger Stone, he’s kidding himself. In the op-ed, he wrote this:

“We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false.”

Let’s see whether he’d repeat that testimony. Did Mueller’s investigators act “with the highest integrity” when they prosecuted Gen. Flynn after the FBI’s DC field office recommended Operation Crossfire Razor be terminated? Did Mueller’s investigators act “with the highest integrity” when they tipped off CNN before they executed a pre-dawn raid of Roger Stone?

Let’s hear Mueller’s testimony to those questions. If he thinks that’s acting “with the highest integrity”, then people will think, rightly, that Mueller’s part of the swamp just like Jim Comey is.

Anyone that hasn’t noticed the Democrats’ culture war for the past 3+ years isn’t paying attention. It started before Trump was elected, when they started illegally surveilling Trump’s campaign. That surveillance continued during the transition, with Jim Comey signing FISA warrant applications that weren’t properly predicated. After ‘St. Jim of the FBI’ was fired, the Deep State hired Robert Mueller to prove that President Trump colluded with Russia. That improper investigation ended with a gigantic thud.

When Devin Nunes reported that the FBI had abused the FISA warrant application process, Democrats insisted that the FBI had done everything by the book. Since then, there’s been impeachment based on what wasn’t in the Mueller Report, Democrats criticizing President Trump for doing nothing about COVID, which is BS. He bailed out NYC, Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo, built a new testing regime because the existing one was ancient and deficient, opened up new factories that built PPE, N95 masks and ventilators.

Then George Floyd was killed by a white police officer in a city that’s been run by Democrats since the 1970s. Democrats blamed President Trump for that, too. Now Democrats are tearing down statues, letting Antifa and Black Lives Matter riot, destroy and loot major cities, then criticizing President Trump for being divisive.

While Democrats aren’t excited in the least about Dementia Joe Biden, they’re jazzed at the thought of using him as a trojan horse to retake the White House and the Senate. Democrats are excited to tear down everything that the United States stands for. That’s because the leading ideological driver for Democrats is BLM, a self-admitted Marxist organization.

The Declaration specifically cites “Nature’s God.” The Declaration emphatically states that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Marxists think that people are servants of the government and have no rights.

BLM shouts down people with opposing points of view. The First Amendment insists that people have the right to say what’s on their mind without worrying that the government will oppress them for their beliefs. The Declaration emphatically states that “all men are created equal.” BLM insists that government is more equal than the people.

The next time you hear that there isn’t a major ideological divide between Democrats and the vast majority of people, ask yourself this question: would you rather live in a nation where you’re shouted down because people disagree with you? Or would you rather live in a nation that lets you speak your mind without punishment?

That’s the difference between BLM Democrats and the rest of this incredible nation. That’s literally what’s at stake in this election. If you aren’t willing to fight, bite, scratch and claw your way to victory, prepare to wake up to President-Elect Joe Biden. It’s just that simple.

Whenever a Democrat spins the Flynn plea bargain story, that Democrat omits an important (some might say essential) sentence. In this article, the Democrat wrote “In 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with making false statements to the FBI regarding his conversations with the Russian ambassador about U.S. sanctions, among other things. Flynn promptly entered a guilty plea, and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s team in its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.”

Actually, they’re missing multiple sentences. First, the Democrats omit the part that the DC Field Office wanted to shut down the Flynn investigation because they didn’t find any derogatory information on Gen. Flynn. See Jonathan Turley’s post on the subject. Turley wrote “It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR”, the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.”

This part is important to understanding the Democrats’ Flynn spin campaign:

The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

The Flynn case should’ve been dropped right there. Because of when this happened, that also means that there never should’ve been a special counsel investigation. Mueller’s special counsel investigation happened because a corrupt FBI agent named Peter Strzok intervened. While what he did isn’t illegal, it’s definitely swampy.

The other thing that Democrats omit is the part about how Mueller used that Strzok decision to push Gen. Flynn to the brink of bankruptcy before threatening to prosecute Gen. Flynn’s son and Gen. Flynn. I’d love hearing the ACLU explain how those Gestapo tactics are accepted by the Bill of Rights. I guess they’re accepted under the part that says that the ends justify the means.

Democrats have constantly omitted these details from their story. It’s disgraceful that they aren’t confident enough to win an argument on the merits. If Democrats have that weak of arguments, shouldn’t they find better arguments? That’s what smart people would do.

Anyone explaining how the unmasking of Gen. Flynn was routine isn’t trustworthy. To believe that the Flynn unmasking was innocent, I’d have to believe that the same people who spent $40,000,000 investigating the fake Trump-Russia collusion, appropriated 40 FBI agents and hired 19 corrupt attorneys just wanted better understanding of who was talking to the then-Russian ambassador to the US. That’s spin. This was a vendetta led by Jim Clapper, Jim Comey, Robert Mueller, Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissman et al.

The cabal that didn’t hesitate in using the Steele Dossier to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page suddenly developed integrity? (Let’s remember that they didn’t get their warrant the first time when they filed their application without the discredited dossier.) I don’t think so. The definition of a cabal is “a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.” That definition fits Clapper, Comey, Mueller, Strzok and Weissman perfectly.

Again, to the Weissman/Strzok/Clapper/Comey cabal, this was a vendetta. They hated President-Elect Trump. Strzok told Lisa Page that he went to Walmart once and that he could smell the Trump supporters. Suddenly, this cabal of Trump haters are doing things purely out of civic pride? Shame on them for thinking that we’re that stupid.

We know the stories. Jim Clapper insisted in public that President Trump was a Russian asset but testified under oath that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Susan Rice testified to this:

Susan Rice, who served as Obama’s national security adviser, testified in September 2017 that she hadn’t seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion during questioning by former Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

Rice certainly didn’t tell viewers that when being interviewed on TV. Why should we think that she’s a person of integrity? Peter Strzok found out that field officers wanted to shut down Crossfire Razor, the investigation into Gen. Flynn. Immediately, he ordered that Crossfire Razor not be stopped. A day later, there was a meeting in the Oval office about unmasking. Three weeks later, FBI agents entrapped Gen. Flynn.

Why shouldn’t people think that these different groups weren’t working together? They definitely had common purposes. They definitely weren’t people of integrity. They all hated the thought of a Trump administration. This interview is worth watching:

The FBI agent who foolishly asked on paper what the goal was is Bill Priestap. Here’s Priestap’s ‘contribution’ to the unmasking fiasco:

Priestap’s memo reflected his own thoughts on the FBI’S internal debate about interviewing Flynn. “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Priestap wrote, adding: “Protect our institution by not playing games.” His notes also show the FBI “softened its interview strategy” with Flynn, giving him hints to refresh his memory of his conversations, the Times reports. Nevertheless, Flynn “lied repeatedly, and prosecutors have said that agents gave him ‘multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by revisiting key questions.'”

This isn’t going away anytime soon. That’s why it’s important to realize that the Democrats’ spin will intensify. The simple fix for the Democrats’ spin is to ask this simple question: Is it likely that the cabal that wanted to prevent a Trump administration, the cabal that impeached President Trump and tried to remove him from office, suddenly become public servants with integrity? Of course, they didn’t.

The keys to this election, at least in terms of themes, will be trust and performance over the past 2 years. That’s the headwind working against the Democrats this year, both here in Minnesota and nationwide. Let’s start with what’s happening in Minnesota.

Gov. Walz has grudgingly started reopening Minnesota’s economy. That’s happening only because of multiple protests and the threat from some business owners who simply started threatening to open with or without Gov. Walz’s permission. Even then, Gov. Walz has been pathetically slow. LFR was told that protecting the most vulnerable in LTC facilities were a high priority for this administration. Despite that prioritization, 81% of Minnesota’s COVID deaths have happened in LTC facilities.

In terms of Minnesota’s economy, it’s in the crapper. Rep. Anne Neu debated House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler on Friday night’s Almanac. It didn’t turn out well for Winkler:

When Cathy Wurzer asked about the possibility of laying off or furloughing state workers, things got interesting fast.

WINKLER: I think that should be one of the last resorts that we should consider. State workers are providing essential services throughout Minnesota, from people who are processing unemployment insurance checks to epidemiologists at the Department of Health to correction officers engaged at the Department of Corrections to making sure that that doesn’t become a hotspot. We have people working to protect the meatpacking industry. We have people working to make sure our state parks are able to operate. … I also think that layoffs or wage cuts doesn’t help the economy, doesn’t help any of us if some people are making less money and so that’s why I hope that’s one of the last things we would look at.
REP. NEU: Well, I certainly think that salary freezes are appropriate. … The reality is that we’re looking at a significant deficit. We’re at $2.4 billion right now. There’s a good chance that will go up by the November forecast. And frankly, we have asked our private sector businesses, our mom and pop shops, are devastated right now and it really is not fair to those businesses to take the hits that they have taken and then to say that, no, as a government, we are going to fund everything at the levels that we always have.

We shouldn’t trust the DFL, aka the party of big government. Walz’s campaign slogan was One Minnesota. The policy that Winkler defended sounded like one of the private sector getting tossed table scraps after the government has feasted and had seconds. That isn’t my definition of One Minnesota.

Nationally, Democrats like Gretchen Whitmer keep tightening the screws on Blue Collar Americans with arbitrary (and unilateral) executive orders. It’s apparent that Democrat governors don’t want to return to sharing power with GOP legislatures. They’d rather act unilaterally rather than work with Republicans.

Why trust Democrats who want to act unilaterally and without the consent of the governed? This isn’t a third-world dictatorship. This is the nation whose Declaration of Independence emphatically states that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Democrats have dragged their feet in terms of reopening the economy and restoring our God-given rights. Democrats have jailed patriots like Shelley Luther:

Democrats even tried jailing a 3-star general because Donald Trump had the audacity to win the 2016 presidential election. Listen to the condescension of this pundit:

He’s perplexed after reading the deposition transcripts? When Jim Clapper said that he hadn’t seen “any direct empirical evidence” of conspiracy between Russia and Trump or anyone in Trump’s campaign, does this idiot still think that there was justification for prosecuting Gen. Flynn? If he thinks that, the next question is why he’s that stupid.

None of this engenders trust for Democrats. Finally, if Biden is elected, why think that he wouldn’t return Clapper, Comey, Mueller, et al, to his national security team? Why trust any of these people in positions of power after what they’ve done?

Apparently, Adam Schiff is in panic mode now that transcripts of the House Intel Committee are about to be released. What’s supposedly getting under Schiff’s skin is that he’s about to be exposed:

Another source familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that the people interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia probe were asked whether they had evidence that Trump, himself, or the Trump campaign conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election.

Two sources familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that not one of the 53 witnesses could provide evidence of collusion. “The transcripts show a total lack of evidence, despite Schiff personally going out saying he had more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion,” one source involved in House Russia investigations told Fox News.

Mueller, similarly, at the conclusion of his nearly two-year-long investigation, said he and his team found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did not reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice, which current Attorney General Bill Barr ultimately decided not to pursue.

Then there’s this:

While law enforcement officials have long maintained that there was clear intelligence Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, to date, there have been no charges concerning actual conspiracy against people associated with the Trump campaign, which was at the core of the Russia investigation.

There isn’t any dispute that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The question was whether people from the Trump campaign assisted in that meddling. It isn’t that Mueller couldn’t find enough evidence to recommend impeachment of President Trump. It’s that the official Mueller Report didn’t find any evidence that anyone in the United States worked with the Russians.

This should make Schiff nervous:

This won’t help Schiff’s credibility, either:

“According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft,” Schiff declared at a March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing.

“Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s. According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company,” the California Democrat added.

Later, Schiff added this:

For instance, Schiff claimed this about the Steele dossier in a Nov. 15, 2017 interview with The Wall Street Journal: “The bigger factor is how much of it can you corroborate and how much of it is true. A lot of it has turned out to be true.”

Adam Schiff is a guttersnipe and a Democrat partisan hack. If Nancy Pelosi cared about integrity, which she doesn’t, she should’ve thrown Schiff out of the House.

Most people outside the DC Beltway know who Brandon Van Grack is. Before this morning, I didn’t know who he was. That’s certainly changing rapidly. After reading this article, I suspect that’s going to change.

First, Van Grack was part of Robert Mueller’s team of partisan attorneys. Next, it’s important to know that since “February 2018, Van Grack has been obligated to comply with D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s standing order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession ‘that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.'”

Third and most importantly, Van Grack might have some explaining to do:

In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.”

That might be difficult to prove in light of this information:

What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about, and didn’t provide to Flynn, was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.”

It’s difficult to picture anything more exculpatory than an FBI document that says an “exhaustive search” through the FBI’s databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” Nothing says ‘he isn’t guilty’ than a document that says there’s no predication for “further investigative efforts.” That’s like a bright flashing neon light saying ‘He isn’t guilty. Stop wasting our time.”

Remember that Operation Crossfire Razor, the surveillance operation into Gen. Flynn, remained open only because Peter Strzok overruled field officers who wanted to shut down Operation Razor. Then there’s this:

He argued to Sullivan that Flynn’s “conduct and communications with Russia went to the heart of that inquiry.” And Van Grack said that Flynn’s alleged “false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, were absolutely material.”

But by that time, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any improper ties or coordination with Russia. Shedding light on internal FBI deliberations, notes from the then-assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, written before the Flynn interview and after discussions with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told, show discussions of whether their “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

Devin Nunes has taken hit after hit from partisan hacks like Adam Schiff for years. Schiff even published a memo that said virtually everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. The Horowitz utterly discredited Schiff’s memo.

Now the question is whether the Senate will interrogate Brandon Van Grack. If they believe in justice and equal justice under the law. Unfortunately, that’s still debatable at this point.