Mueller’s Investigation is Dead

Here is a partial of a DAILY CALLER article:

Like a headless turkey running around in circles, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation is dead, even if he does not yet realize it. While his investigation stumbles onward, with life support provided by the biased media, from a legal perspective the viability of any criminal case that Mueller could possibly bring has been effectively gutted thanks to the news (suppressed for months by Mueller’s team) that the FBI’s “key agent” in both the Russia investigation and the Clinton email probe was an ardent Hillary supporter with an anti-Trump bias.

Under federal law, a prosecutor is required “to disclose exculpatory and impeachment information to criminal defendants and to seek a just result in every case.” Specifically, pursuant to Giglio v. United States, prosecutors are obligated to provide defendants with impeachment evidence, which includes, according to the DOJ’s guidelines, evidence of a witness’s biases, “[a]nimosity toward defendant,” or “[a]nimosity toward a group of which the defendant is a member or with which the defendant is affiliated.”

As a result, in any prosecution brought by Mueller against a Republican target, defense counsel would be entitled under the Constitution to all evidence in the government’s possession relevant to exploring the apparent biases of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his animosity toward Trump and the Republican Party. This, in and of itself, could be a case-killer because it is very unlikely that Mueller or the DOJ would want defense counsel poring through all the records and documents, emails, and texts in the DOJ’s and Strzok’s possession revealing the agent’s biases since this could fatally undermine any other cases or investigations the agent has worked on—such as the FBI’s decision to recommend charging General Flynn with lying to federal agent seven though Hillary Clinton’s besties, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, were given a free pass despite apparently doing the same thing.

Significantly, the fatal damage done to Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation does not only rest in the fact that defense counsel will be able to conduct an unlubricated prostate examination on the FBI’s key agent at trial. Instead, the real reason why Mueller will not risk a criminal trial is the lasting damage that would be done to the FBI’s reputation by having Strzok’s baggage brought into the daylight.

To expose the agent’s biases, defense counsel would have the opportunity to cross-examine the agent and his apparent mistress, an FBI lawyer who also worked on Mueller’s investigation and the Clinton email probe, about their exchanged messages showing support for Clinton and hostility to Trump. Additionally, the agent’s wife, a high-profile attorney at another federal agency, apparently was a member of several pro-Obama and pro-Clinton Facebook groups and is a follower of a Facebook page called “We Voted for Hillary.”

One can only imagine the fun that an aggressive defense attorney would have shredding Strzok’s credibility by grilling him to see if he shared his wife’s posted political views………….

When Lying To The FBI Wasn’t A Crime

Here is a large excerpt of the article by Daniel Greenfield at FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE:

“There’s always conflicting recollections of facts,” FBI Director Comey said.

It was a year ago and Comey was explaining why Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, not only received an immunity agreement in exchange for turning over her laptop, but a pass on lying to the FBI.

The FBI Director claimed that Mills had to receive immunity because the laptop might be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mills, like Hillary Clinton, had worked as a lawyer. But they were both government officials working for the State Department. Hillary wasn’t Mills’ client. The government was.

Comey and his people knew the law. They chose to ignore it to protect a key Hillary aide from rolling over. Mills was the woman Hillary would send in to clean up her dirty laundry. Mills had taken point on the email server cover-up. If anyone knew where the bodies were buried, she did. Instead not only did she get an immunity agreement, but the FBI also agreed to destroy the computers after the search.

Mills had told the FBI that she didn’t know about Hillary’s email server. But the FBI had notes and emails proving that Mills was lying. And when Comey was asked about it, he came out with, “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”

No doubt.

That is what the lawyer of the woman who had been caught lying to the FBI might have been expected to argue. But there were no charges, instead the FBI Director was presenting her defense.

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with lying to investigators. But lying to investigators isn’t a crime when you’re Hillary Clinton.

Or one of her associates.

Hillary Clinton had told the FBI that she had no idea that the “C” stood for confidential. Instead of laughing in her face or arresting her, the FBI boss testified personally to her truthfulness.

Hillary Clinton, Mills and Huma Abedin made what appear to be false statements to the FBI.

Had Mills been working for Trump, the same number would have been run on Mills as on Flynn and Papadopoulos. But the men interviewing Mills didn’t want her to sing. They wanted her to keep quiet.

Mills and Abedin were interviewed by the FBI’s Peter Strzok and the DOJ’s David Laufman. Strzok was exchanging pro-Hillary and anti-Trump messages in an extramarital affair with a woman working for FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe’s wife had received a sizable amount of money from a Clinton ally. Laufman, whose counterintelligence section was heading the investigation, is an Obama donor.

Mills’ lie made it more urgent to hand her an immunity agreement on any pretext. The immunity agreement wasn’t leverage for her testimony. It was leverage to keep her from testifying. The obstruction of justice was coming from the inside.

Strzok received input on the Comey letter exonerating Clinton. The Mills interview killed two birds with one stone. A key Hillary aide got immunity and the evidence would be destroyed.

This wasn’t an interview. It was a cover-up.

It’s why Comey sounded like Mills’ lawyer. And why so many Clinton associates got immunity agreements. Why the FBI agreed to destroy evidence. Why there were no recordings of Hillary’s testimony. And why lying to the FBI wasn’t a crime when it came to Hillary and her aides.

But the double standard kicked in when the Clinton cover-up crew went after Trump.

While Mills received an immunity agreement based on an imaginary attorney-client privilege that didn’t exist, Manafort was denied attorney-client privilege with his actual attorney.

The double standard isn’t surprising when you look at who was doing the interviewing.

Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it’s a “crime to lie to us”.

Not for the Clintons and their associates.

Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn’t received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn’t carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did.

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie.

These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie.

And that meant he was lying.

Not only did Clinton’s people lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.

The fix had been in all along……..

(READ IT ALL)

Probe Into Clinton’s “Uranium Deal” With Russians Opens

NEWSBUSTERS comments on the situation followed by the excellent legal reporting by Greg Jarrett:

…It’s a scandal that the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening shows have gone out of their way to shun, spending only 3 minutes and 1 second on the story in over two years. 

On October 17 The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann reported that “Before the Obama administration had approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.”

Additionally, The Hill reported that the FBI had “obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.”…

From GATEWAY PUNDIT:

Attorney and FOX News Contributor Gregg Jarrett joined Sean Hannity to discuss the illegal money laundering and bribery of the Clinton Foundation.

It was reported earlier today that the FBI uncovered Russian bribery of the Clintons in 2009 and the Department of Justice and the FBI sat on this for four more years.

Worse yet, from today’s report we discovered the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.

ROSENSTEIN AND MUELLER ALSO SAT ON THE CFIUS COMMITTEE THAT APPROVED THE SALE OF 20% OF US URANIUM RESERVES TO RUSSIA DESPITE KNOWING RUSSIA HAD BRIBED THE CLINTONS FOR THE ILLICIT SALE.

This further tarnishes this respected organization’s good name….

THE HILL writes about this story:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, gets his first chance to raise the issue in public on Wednesday when he questions Attorney General Jeff Sessions during an oversight hearing. 

Aides said the committee had sent requests for information to 10 federal agencies involved in the Russian uranium approvals.

[….]

The senator also specifically conveyed in the latest letters he no longer accepts the Obama administration’s assurances from 2015 that there was no basis to block the Uranium One deal.

“I am not convinced by these assurances,” Grassley wrote the Homeland Security Department last week. “The sale of Uranium One resulted in a Russian government takeover of a significant portion of U.S. uranium mining capacity. In light of that fact, very serious questions remain about the basis for the finding that this transaction did not threaten to impair U.S. national security.”

[….]

He also questioned whether the documented corruption that was uncovered posed a national security threat that should have voided approval of the uranium deal.

“It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction,” Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.

“The fact that Rosatom subsidiaries in the United States were under criminal investigation as a result of a U.S. intelligence operation apparently around the time CFIUS approved the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction raises questions about whether that information factored into CFIUS’ decision to approve the transaction,” the chairman added.

Grassley has been one of the few congressional leaders to have consistently raised questions about the uranium deal, and in 2015 agencies told his committee they had no national security reasons to reject the Moscow approval.

Those representations, however, made no mention of the FBI probe or the national security issues uncovered by agents, including the fact that Russian officials had compromised an American trucking firm that transported uranium….

THE DAILY WIRE makes note of the political contributions:

….According to The Hill, there are strong ties between the high-level officials who were involved in the allegedly undisclosed investigation on the Russian bribery scheme and the current investigation into whether Trump campaign officials “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign:

The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Mueller has come under fire after it was revealed that the attorneys on his staff made previous political donations to the Democratic Party, including to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while making none to then-candidate Donald Trump.

Comey’s Double Jeapordy

Hillary Clinton, thanks to James Comey, escaped criminal prosecution for violating the Espionage Act. 

Now it is Comey who may have violated that same law.  If he did, will Comey escape prosecution, courtesy of his good friend, Robert Mueller?

The fired FBI Director’s legal predicament comes as The Hill reports 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.” 

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.

It is a crime to mishandle classified information:  18 USC 798 and 1924  prohibit a government official from removing a classified document from its proper place of custody to a location which is unsecure and disclosing it to an unauthorized person.  Is this what Comey did?  It sure looks like it……..

(FOX NEWS)

The Democrat’s Selective Outrage On Intelligence

UPDATE! via THE DAILY CALLER and the NYTs:

The New York Times issued a correction Thursday on an article that incorrectly claimed all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that “Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get [Trump] elected.”

[….]

Former candidate Hillary Clinton made the claim in late May that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed “that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.”

Former FBI Director James Comey refuted this false claim in a congressional hearing in May, stating that the assessment was only from the NSA, FBI and the CIA.

The Daily Caller News Foundation published a fact-check June 1 that rated Clinton’s claim as “False.”

Larry Elder discusses in the following clips some of the hypocritical positions the Democrats have in regard to accepting or rejecting intelligent agencies positions — selective outrage in other words. The above audio includes a partial interview with Ed Klein as well (interview begins at the 6:28 mark). Mr. Klein’s books and more can be found here: http://edwardklein.com/

I believe this line about 17-intelligence agencies saying the “Russians” did it is still the same evidence as when I posted this: “NO, 17-U.S. AGENCIES DID NOT SAY RUSSIA HACKED DEM E-MAILS.”

But many issues have still negated the narrative by the Democrats in this regard…see:

CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election
The Hillary Campaign and the DNC Refused FBI Help

The bottom line is that even if the Russian’s have an involvement, it didn’t change the outcome of the election. Whatsoever. And the leaks from Podesta’s emails and the DNC were from insiders, not Russians.

Via CNSNEWS:

“Hold on a minute! CNN didn’t invent this,” said Camerota. “As you know, there were a score of intelligence agencies — seventeen of them — that concluded that Russia had hacked and meddled in our election.”

King replied, “Alisyn, there was dissent among that. And, furthermore, I sat in on that classified briefing and they divulged not one fact. They only gave us their opinions. So, we’re back at the same place again. We need facts to work with.”

Camerota then asked, “Just so I’m clear Congressman: You do not believe that Russia meddled?”

King answered,  “I don’t know. I don’t have — I don’t know if they meddled or not. I want to see a transcript; I want to hear some audio. I want to see a chronological timeline, that we can say these things we know that are facts. Because what we’re dealing with are opinions.”

Impeachment? Nah… Even Comey Responded “NO” To Obstruction

Comey Responded “NO” (Under Oath) To Obstruction — https://youtu.be/I-GkLXNZcDoLarry Elder takes us on a tour-de-force of Comey saying — prior to the “memo,” he was not asked to stop the investigation[s]. BTW, no one has seen this memo… even the reporter who wrote the article. This is mainly a quick upload to show that “impeachment” cannot be a level reached – legally. EVEN DENNIS KUCINICH is worried about the Democratic machine [i.e., the “deep state”] left in the administration that wants to undermine Trump:

➤ “ Well, you have a politicization of the agencies. That is resulting in leaks from anonymous unknown people and the intention is to take down a president. This is very dangerous to America. It is a threat to our republic. It constitutes a clear and present danger to our way of life. What is the motive of these people? Who’s putting these leaks out? Why isn’t somebody coming forward to make that charge and put their name and their reputation behind it instead of attacking through the media and not substantiating their position?”

Larry Elder discusses the non-evidence so far regarding Comey’s firing and the “obstruction” charge. Larry Elder includes audio from a debate between Jeffrey Toobin (a lawyer and liberal/progressive blogger as well as CNN legal analyst) and Jonathan Turley (lawyer, legal scholar, legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism, as well as currently a professor at George Washington University). Later in the segment “The Sage” includes some audio (I insert the video) of Peter King wondering why Comey stayed silent if he feared instruction.

Larry Elder Ruminates On Trump, Comey, and Watergate

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article by Bill Clinton’s former Attorney General:

….It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October, that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general, not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such grave importance.

Until Comey’s testimony last week, I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican — who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave usurpation of authority.

Comey’s basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy regardless of who won the election.

It is not surprising that Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the president’s decision.

Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers.

It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.

The notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation….

(Read It All)

The Hillary Campaign and the DNC Refused FBI Help

SOOPERMEXICAN notes this about the CNN video that follows:

While Democrats are still running around like chickens with their heads cut off about the election, the FBI is saying that they repeatedly warned the DNC about their getting hacked, and they ignored them.

That’s hilarious. Things are really unravelling now – Hillary is blaming Comey while Comey just backed up the CIA claiming Putin ordered the hacking. Democrats are all angry at Obama for not revealing the interference, but he just claimed that he got Putin to stop it way back in September!! It’s all Democrats freaking out because the electors will vote on Monday, and Trump will defeat the crappiest Democratic candidate in recent memory.

Apparently, this was the norm with them (from July):

The Clinton Campaign was warned by the FBI that they were the target of a cyber attack but they REFUSED TO COOPERATE.

Earlier today the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee announced it was hacked too.

CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election

Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:

YOUNG CONSERVATIVES have this clip from TOWNHALL:

…Contrary to claims made by Democrats about Russian interference helping President-elect Donald J. Trump, there is no definitive proof that the Kremlin ordered such cyber attacks. It’s all based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and anonymous sources that are bound by an apparent inter-agency feud between the CIA and the FBI. On December 10, The Washington Post reported that both agencies were not on the same page, which seemed to have angered Democrats:

Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking.

During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.

[…]

The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

Our intelligence agencies don’t all agree that the Kremlin is responsible.

The talking point that 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia was behind the hacks is not accurate….

More YOUNG CONS… “Here are the top 5 reasons why it isn’t accurate to definitively say Russia interfered in our election process. From Breitbart

  • There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.
  • The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.
  • Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
  • Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
  • What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.

FBI 99% Certain 5 Foreign Agencies Hacked Into Hillary’s Server

Firstly — and foremost — FBI sources say indictment of Clinton Foundation is “likely.” Here are five points being made known today from the investigation:

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.
2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.
3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton’s secret server on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.
4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is “likely” in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, “barring some obstruction in some way” from the Justice Department.
5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton’s server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.

(GATEWAY PUNDIT)

  • “Investigators are now, as I said to you at the outset, 99% sure that as many as five foreign intelligence agencies were able to hack into the Clinton email server” ~ Lou Dobbs