Robert Mueller

When Lying To The FBI Wasn’t A Crime

Published by Papa Giorgio

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)

I predict Flynn will be exonerated from all this. And with Mueller’s teams past, other cases he has and will put forward may fall apart. NOT because he is wrong, but because of the tactics used (like with Enron and the like).

Podesta’s May Be At Center of Investigation (Uranium One)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Tucker’s Thoughts: Source tells Tucker Carlson Tonight Paul Manafort worked extensively with the Podesta Group as far back as 2011 on behalf of Russia. Manafort’s Russian associates wanted to influence Washington and sought the Podesta brothers because of their ties to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The source said the Podesta Group was in regular contact with Manafort while Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat. (See more at FOX)

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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.

A Coup Is Under Way ~ Levin

Published by Papa Giorgio

Mark Levin was called out on cable news about the language he uses. in describing no crime being named yet in any legal matter against the Trump administration. A grand jury is convened to see if a crime — clearly stated — is prosecuted. NOT to uncover a crime. Dumb! Maxine Waters makes the intentions of the socialist Left in Congress clear. That is, once Trump is impeached, Pence is next. This is why Charles Krauthammer said we are headed toward some Constitutional “choppy waters.”

The Democrats have already left the idea that there was collusion between the Trump admin and Russia (the mandate for Mueller), and are now merely looking into business dealings of the Trump children. Again, like with Clinton, like with Libby, someone will go to jail for not remembering 3-people in the room under oath when they said there were two.

And the Left just foams at the mouth… Pence is next.We are living in dangerous times of people not realizing the attack on our Constitutional form of government.

✦ Cannot use simple language on college campuses or you are deemed a racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot conduct an guest conduct an orchestra because a person is conservative and considered racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot run for office without being called a Nazi or Alt-Right (the Left’s way of saying they REALLY disagree with you);
✦ Cannot be placed into office without being called racist or alt-right (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot contribute money as a CEO to organizations that support traditional marriage, and are called a homophobe and racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot opt out of photographing weddings or baking goods for an specialized event, thus being called a homophobe and racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you)…

In all those – and more – cases, you are banished from the campus, have the power of the state come after you, fired, fined, threatened to never be able to own a business again, have all business dealings looked into, etc., etc.

These are all tactics of the Left (insert name of any dictator or tyrant here) — many Democrats praise the leaks, just like in these totalitarian nations where if you had a dissenting you were told on to the state and consequences soon followed.

And people cheer it on.

Robert Mueller Needs to Disqualify Himself from Special Counsel

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gregg Jarrett: If you look at the special counsel statute it says you cannot serve as special counsel if you have a personal relationship with someone who is central to the case. If this Washington Post story is true, it’s now Trump against Comey. Comey is now the star witness, the key witness against Trump. Well, guess what? Comey and Mueller are longtime close personal friends, partners, allies. They were joined at the hip at the DOJ and FBI. It’s a mentor-protege relationship. How is this fair to Donald Trump because Mueller is now going to decide whether to believe his good friend or the man who fired his good friend…This is the kind of stuff over which lawyers get disbarred. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)

 

Is Special Prosecutor Mueller Showing His Bias?

Published by Papa Giorgio

I was asked the following by a friend:

  • If Trump fires Mueller, would you still support Trump? It’s not a trick question ;-)

I responded with this:

  • I support Trump till he is out of office. Like I supported Dubya. I think it would be a bad decision personally, but Gingrich makes some good points here:

I then linked to an article that notes this about some of Mueller’s choices for his team:

Justice Department Deputy Solicitor General MICHAEL DREEBEN donated in 2008 to a political action committee for then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as well as a PAC for Hillary Clinton in 2006. Jeannie Rhee, who previously served as a deputy assistant attorney general and now works as a partner in the investigations practice at WilmerHale, donated to the Democratic National Committee as well as campaign PACs Obama in 2008 and 2011, and Clinton’s campaign in 2015 and 2016.

My friend then humorously said this:

  • How about if he shot somebody on 5th Ave?

To which I asked:

  • Lol. No. I just have a funny feeling that Comey leaked on purpose to get a guy to investigate (his words), and it happens to be his golfing partner who then hires persons closely allied with the DNC and Obama/Hillary.

I then linked to this article mentioning another couple hires by Mueller:

One of the hires, JEANNIE RHEE, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity. Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. Rhee also has contributed to a trio of Democratic senators: Mark Udall of New Mexico, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

JAMES QUARLES, who worked on the Watergate investigation as a young prosecutor, has an even longer history of supporting Democratic politicians. He gave $1,300 to Obama in 2007 and $2,300 in 2008. He also gave $2,700 to Clinton last year. He has supported a number of other Democratic candidates, including Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), former Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), former Vice President Al Gore, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Colorado congressional candidate Gail Schwartz. In addition, Quarles gave money to former Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and three current Democratic senators — Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He chipped in $300 to the DNC Services Corp. $300 in 2012. Quarles did donate to a couple of GOP politicians — $250 to then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2006 and $2,500 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in 2015.

ANDREW WEISSMANN, a former Justice Department lawyer who now is at Jenner & Block, contributed $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,000 to the DNC Services Corp. in 2006. Weissmann served as chief of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section and worked on the Enron fraud case.

I then asked: “That doesn’t raise any flags with you?” Of course it doesn’t. That is because he is not a Republican with the interests of protecting conservatism.

He also thinks Comey has “an incredible reputation for integrity.” WRONG again… he broke the law, in the least

  • Besides being subject to nondisclosure agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.” ~Professor Turley

Here is a devastating tour of the case against Comey:

BREAKING: Rep. Jim Jordan Hints That the FBI Was Working In Tandem with the IRS To Scare Conservatives

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Update: I can’t believe this hasn’t been the point in news reports — even on conservative sites — about Rep. Jim Jordan’s grilling!?) Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) destroyed FBI Director Robert Mueller on the IRS targeting scandal and investigation today.

Video Description:

I think this is a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of this IRS scandal… that is, were they working in tandem with the IRS to scare/target conservatives? With thanks to Joe Schoffstall (http://youtu.be/BPrUCPTWTAo), whom the original video file is from. (Posted by: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/)

For a slightly longer video see my MRCTV account: http://tinyurl.com/msuqb92