Jetty Jumper

Mueller’s Credibility Problem

Rate this topic

204 posts in this topic

Mueller is compromised, a swamp critter,even the WSJ has figured it out.

 

By The Editorial Board
Dec. 4, 2017 7:05 p.m. ET
2375 COMMENTS
Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.
The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.
The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.
This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.
Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.
There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.
While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation. The public has a right to know whether the Steele dossier inspired the Comey probe, and whether it led to intrusive government eavesdropping on campaign satellites such as Carter Page.
All of this reinforces our doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.
***
Mr. Mueller’s media protectorate argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump. But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes—Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.
Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive.
First it claimed cooperation would hurt the Mueller probe, but his prosecutions are proceeding apace. Then Justice claimed that providing House investigators with classified material could hurt security or sources. But House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has as broad a security clearance as nearly anyone in government. Recently Justice said it can’t interfere with a probe by the Justice Department Inspector General—as if an IG trumps congressional oversight.
Mr. Nunes is understandably furious at the Strzok news, on top of the other stonewalling. He asked Justice to meet the rest of his committee’s demands by close of business Monday, and if it refuses Congress needs to pursue contempt citations against Mr. Rosenstein and new FBI Director Christopher Wray.
The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.
Appeared in the December 5, 2017, print edition.

Wall Street Journal
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the hole keeps getting deeper. 

Quote


A top prosecutor who is now a deputy for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe praised outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she was fired in January by President Trump for refusing to defend his controversial travel ban.

The email, obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, shows that on the night of Jan. 30, Andrew Weissmann wrote to Yates under the subject line, “I am so proud.”

He continued, “And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.”

 

 

5a2707c50cbce_soproud.jpg.a7b7661eeadda52a871e1e679cd2aa84.jpg

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J, welcome home.

 

You guys do realize that you're quoting the NYTimes and the WSJ with approval, right?  You might want to sit down, if feeling dizzy, while contemplating this.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, BrianBM said:

J, welcome home.

 

You guys do realize that you're quoting the NYTimes and the WSJ with approval, right?  You might want to sit down, if feeling dizzy, while contemplating this.  ;)

Tide can only come in just so far before it turns.     :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From InstaPundit, himself a law professor:

 

A READER WHO IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE EMAILS:

Did the prosecution tell Flynn’s lawyer that their main witness against him was removed for bias? Since Strzok led the interview and his testimony would be needed to establish untruthfulness, he is a critical witness not just a prosecutor. If not disclosed, would this not be a Giglio violation? This is the kind of misconduct that can get a case dismissed and a lawyer disbarred. It is a Constitutional violation. This has bothered me since I heard about it.

 

This is the equivalent of finding out a medical lab faked results for a single case, it taints everything else it has touched. In this case, it could beg the question of Strzok on the stand:

 

Flynn's attorney: "So Mr. Strzok, when did you first start cheating on your wife with an FBI lawyer who worked for Deputy Director McCabe?" 

 

Oops, can’t object to that question, can you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Flynn was recorded in 5 different conversations that the FBI interviewed him about.

 

The FBI acknowledged the 5 conversations where in of themselves all legal and above board.

 

Flynn said he agreed to the interview without counsel because the FBI said it was simply an interview.

 

Flynn has said that when asked by the FBI in the interview he could not remember the 5 conversations.

 

So with that he has lied to the FBI.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tomkaz said:

From InstaPundit, himself a law professor:

 

A READER WHO IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE EMAILS:

Did the prosecution tell Flynn’s lawyer that their main witness against him was removed for bias? Since Strzok led the interview and his testimony would be needed to establish untruthfulness, he is a critical witness not just a prosecutor. If not disclosed, would this not be a Giglio violation? This is the kind of misconduct that can get a case dismissed and a lawyer disbarred. It is a Constitutional violation. This has bothered me since I heard about it.

 

This is the equivalent of finding out a medical lab faked results for a single case, it taints everything else it has touched. In this case, it could beg the question of Strzok on the stand:

 

Flynn's attorney: "So Mr. Strzok, when did you first start cheating on your wife with an FBI lawyer who worked for Deputy Director McCabe?" 

 

Oops, can’t object to that question, can you? 

Actually, yes.  Easy solution: the prosecutor puts another witness on the stand, not Strzok.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really enjoying the turning of this table... 

 

Quote

 

The FBI’s investigation into unproven “collusion” between the Trump team and Russia was supposed to bring down his presidency, at least if the loudest shrieking Democrats were right.

Instead, it looks like that tactic has completely backfired. It’s now the FBI that appears corrupt and has found itself at the center of a scandal, while President Trump may be vindicated after all.

According to Bloomberg News, Congress is preparing contempt charges against both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, based on the claim that the federal agencies are burying evidence that was requested by lawmakers.

At the core of the controversy is a glaring problem: It has been revealed that a key FBI official involved in the “collusion” investigation had a clear anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton bias.

In other words, the FBI probe is starting to look a bit like a witch-hunt that was motivated by politics all along.

“(T)he official, Peter Strzok, was removed after allegedly having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress, who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe,” Bloomberg reported.

Strzok was apparently deeply involved in not only the Trump dossier and collusion probes, but also the the now-famous Hillary Clinton email investigation which magically cleared her of wrongdoing before even interviewing her.

That top investigator has now been dismissed from his position, but it appears that the FBI concealed his involvement in going after Trump and may have purposely obstructed Congress when it requested details about the investigation.

“In light of today’s press reports, we now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make Deputy Director McCabe available to the Committee for an interview,” declared Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” he said. Emphasis added.

It’s worth pointing out that it takes more than one rogue investigator inside an agency to completely stonewall Congress and cover up bias.

What this means is chilling: There’s now strong evidence that an entire swath of top people at the FBI tried to pull strings to target the president, and purposely hid this from the people’s representatives in Washington.

It’s one thing to find a few holdouts from a past administration pouting that their candidate didn’t win.

It is something else entirely to realize that a whole group of politically motivated zealots within once-respected agencies have been doing everything they can to undermine the president of the United States.

Ironically, every attempt to bring down President Trump has resulted in establishment insiders over-playing their hand and sabotaging themselves.

In their zeal to play political games, the elitists in places like the FBI and the Department of Justice have been exposed as part of the “swamp.”

They need to go… even if they have to be dragged out kicking and screaming after being charged with contempt. The American people — and Congress — are finally fed up with these antics.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.