Down and Dirty Mueller Probe

Here Are 5 Big Holes in Mueller’s Work

RealClearInvestigations
By Aaron Maté,
August 1, 2019

Robert Mueller’s two-year, $25.2 million investigation was supposed to provide the definitive account of Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election. Yet even after he issued a 448-page report and testified for five hours before Congress, critical aspects remain unexplained, calling into question the basis for the probe and the decisions of those who conducted it.

Time and again in his report and his testimony, Mueller refused to address a wide range of fundamental issues, claiming they were beyond his purview. Some of the issues Mueller and his team did not clarify include whether the FBI had a sound predicate for opening a counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign; whether the FBI knowingly relied on false material; and the links between U.S. government agencies and key figures who fueled the most explosive claims of an illicit Trump-Russia relationship. Mueller claimed that he was prevented from answering critical questions due to ongoing Justice Department reviews, one by Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham and the other by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. In the meantime, here are some of the biggest mysteries that Mueller’s team left hanging in the air.

    • Who Is Joseph Mifsud, and Was He the Actual Predicate for the Russia Investigation?

“Did the FBI egregiously overreact by launching its Trump-Russia probe on vague and ultimately fruitless information … or is Mifsud himself evidence that the Russia investigation was itself a set-up launched for still unknown reasons?”

    • What Was the Role of the Steele Dossier?
    • Why Did the Mueller Team Invent the Polling Data Theory About Konstantin Kilimnik, and Omit His U.S. Ties?
    • Why Did the Mueller Team Falsely Suggest That Trump Tower Moscow Was a Viable Project – and What Was the Role of FBI Informant Felix Sater?
    • Was Specious Info Leaked to Justify the Absence of Trump-Kremlin Links?

Read at RealClear Investigations

 

I think it is time to fill in those “unknown reasons.”

Something is very wrong when people stretch a matter beyond any possible integrity or honesty, and then shovel it out to the public as established fact. Especially when they made no attempt to be honest or fair in what they did from the very beginning.

And something is wrong when someone stands in front of a building screaming fire while the building burning is on the next street over. What are the reasons for doing any of this? All you would know is the person or people do have big reasons for it.

How sinister it is when the investigation(s) itself becomes just an extension of the ongoing cover up. And more when that investigation(s) is blessed with immune legitimacy.

Now that Mueller’s Report is out, I can’t feel any relief

Trips down memory lane are not always positive or don’t always end that way.

Now that the report is out, I can’t feel any relief. It should be relief that it is over but it isn’t because it goes on and on. It is meant to continue ad nauseam.

Why did they do an exhaustive investigation on Russia’s election meddling without talking about what Obama did? But they can talk about every detail of what Trump did?

Weeks ago, Comey the persistent talked about “so many questions.After the Report, he says “so many answers.” I think he has it exactly backwards. We knew so much before the report came out. Now that it is published it poses so many questions. The jig is up.

Why haven’t those who committed offenses been brought to justice? Like Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Glenn Simpson, Steele, Comey, McCabe? And don’t think we forgot about it; what was all the unmasking by Obama officials doing for it all? Where was Loretta Lynch when all this was going on? What about meetings between DOJ officials and Obama in the Oval Office, like on January 5th 2017?

But if you follow mainstream media’s lead now, this report information is all so important. It is alarming. All this should bother you and me. This influence of Russia is so severe that Blumenthal now says our democracy is under siege, still is, and that it is an act of war. And then prizewinner congresswoman Jackie Speier says that it shows we would actually not have Trump as President but for Russia’s actions. Talk about a dramatic stretch.

So in my hypothetical mind, I’m trying to figure out if Russia was that influential and the deciding factor in 2016, then I have a few questions. It represents Russia as winning. Doesn’t it make our democracy fragile? Haven’t you given Russia way too much credit? And if Speier thinks that Russia succeeded, then whom did they beat? Wasn’t the guy who was in the Oval Office responsible for what they did? So why is the blame coming down on an outsider, incoming president?

Now Comey has another seismic revelation about “so many answers.” What are they? How does Trump being pissed off about appointing a Special Counsel answer any questions? Sure he would be mad that they would do that to him. He was only in office for months. What the hell is there really to investigate in the White House if this is about Russia?

When I was much younger, I remember people would wait for the next new phrase or word to be coined so that they could run out and start using it. Well, it seemed like they were just waiting for the next one. You know them all, slang and urban lingo. Using the lingo made one seem popular or cool.

One of the things some of those trendier people would do is travel to another area and use their newly slung slang to others there to see if it was popular, and so it could hopefully be picked up as cool. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. Sometimes people looked at them and said “what did you say?” Language is like a joke, if you have to explain it then it’s a dud and falls flat.

Comey is like one of those guys trying to set a trend. Get everyone to repeat something, whether they know the meaning of it or not. This would prove him hip and popular. He is desperate. He wants to be right even when he’s wrong – a thinker and an artisan.

Seems to me mainstream media is a lot like that too. Just get everyone repeat a bunch of nonsense so it can seem like a popular thought or idea. And that does work many times. Minions repeat the talking points of the Left with amazing clarity and regularity, right to the phraseology. Well, it is almost a dialect.

But then eventually one learns that the language is not really the thing to control, the dialogue is. Whoever controls that wins the game.

When Comey was pondering “so many questions,” he insinuated that there were so many questions to be asked. But not any we didn’t already know the answers to. The only relevant questions left were “why aren’t people in jail and why are these corrupt people still in their top tier jobs?” We wanted to know who was doing this witch hunt “investigation” and why? The who is almost easier than the why.

So many questions.

Other than that, we didn’t want to know about some setup meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian who was collaborating and working with Simpson – months before the election. We weren’t asking what Flynn was doing before or after Trump took office? Those were planted questions. We weren’t hanging on the edge of our seats wondering who spoke to a Russian and exactly what they said, word for word?

We might have long wondered that if all this was going on since 2014, then what did that last president do about it? If he did nothing, why not? What was he waiting for? What was the answer to the probing Russia problem? If all these officials had a degree of certainty what was going on, then what did they do and/or why didn’t they do something? You know, those kind of pertinent questions. And we didn’t need all the drama about the inner workings of Trump’s campaign about what they were doing.

Do you smell the deflection and diversion?

Well, only if this entire thing was a setup from the beginning, aimed at Trump, would we need to know all that. We should have wondered what Obama did to stop it, or why not? We should have wondered what did Obama know and when did we know it? See, so many things just don’t make sense like a language barrier.

A naïve person may wonder why such a barrier exists?

But most of us know, because they want to rearrange our language and thoughts about it. In other words, they want to change our perception of events. Normally that is called revision, only they were trying to do it in real time. Before we could know or understand events as they happened, they wanted to train our thoughts to see them in another way, through an alternative reality. And they wanted us to believe it and not what we were seeing or what we already knew. It does sound a lot like Benghazi too.

See, Obama was already skilled in the art of controlling the dialogue or manipulating events for his benefit. In fact, there was a certain pride in being able to do that. To this day, if you mention Benghazi or Hillary’s servergate, you get the same tired response from the left. “Oh, there were multiple investigations about that and it found nothing.” Nothing? Really? People died and yet there was no problem with it and nothing sinister. With Hillary they say “but you cannot let it go. She was investigated and cleared of any wrong doing.” Right, cleared? Remember how the video caused Benghazi, a spontaneous attack?

Notice what they did in both those cases. They immediately began to try to control the narrative, since narrative is all that matters. They substitute an alternate narrative and spread it far and wide. The saturation point is when someone mentions the event and hoards of people immediately respond with the same promoted answer.

So Comey now says, “so many answers.” Naturally that is what he sees, answers to what happened, when it really gives you none. What we got were alternative sound bites substituted for answers that tell you nothing. But yet they are not done because they tell us they are going to continue this investigation, now in Congress. They call the Mueller Report a “roadmap for Congress”. Was that how it worked for Hillary or Benghazi? Of course not. The investigation was supposed to be the definitive end.

Answers, Comey? McCabe also did his first interview, since his book, on MSNBC. He said the same thing, agreeing that Mueller’s Report was a “roadmap” for congress to use and follow. A roadmap to where? Yes, we know that too. Another answer it provided.

But the real questions still exist, just as they did while they rolled this charade out, but concentrate on their substituted answers. Because the real questions are about them and not Trump. And they are about Obama’s administration.

Well, one can conclude the whole ordeal was used as a coverup, which is still going on, for Obama and Hillary. It was a convenient use of Russia meddling to hang it around Trump and pretend he is the problem, while they wall off an entire warehouse of abuses from the public under Obama’s administration. But this placeholder is wearing very thin. In fact, it is hard to believe they could have kept this entire thing up as long and hard as they have. It is now going into the next election cycle. Of course this Report will also provide opposition material against Trump. But that is what it was all along from the beginning.

Obama found a use for another problem, Russia, to use it against his opponent, and cover up all his other problems. Meanwhile, Obama’s personal records are sealed from public while all Trump’s personal records are to be annexed, and then spread far and wide to the public. Funny how these truth-challenged people don’t care about the real answers.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Great What If?

Just allow Victor Davis Hanson to walk you through a meticulous ‘what if’ scenario of Obama in place of Trump being investigated. The details are chilling.

All one has to do is plug in all the relevant factors and apply them to Obama. It is a laborious task but someone had to do it. Don’t let your jaw fall on the floor.

Should the FBI Run the Country?

By Victor Davis Hanson | January 20th, 2019 | American Greatness

Since the media would doubtless answer that loaded question, “It depends on the president,” let us imagine the following scenario.

Return to 2008, when candidate Barack Obama had served only about three years in the U.S. Senate, his sum total of foreign policy experience. And he was running against the overseas old-hand, decorated veteran, and national icon John McCain—a bipartisan favorite in Washington, D.C.

During the campaign, unfounded rumors had swirled about the rookie Obama that he might ease sanctions on Iran, distance the United States from Israel, and alienate the moderate Arab regimes, such as the Gulf monarchies and Egypt.

Stories also abounded that the Los Angeles Times had suppressed the release of a supposedly explosive “Khalidi tape,” in which Obama purportedly thanked the radical Rashid Khalidi for schooling him on the Middle East and correcting his earlier biases and blind spots, while praising the Palestinian activist for his support for armed resistance against Israel.

Even more gossip circulated that photos existed of a smiling Barack Obama with Louis Farrakhan, the Black Muslim extremist and radical pro-Gaddafi patron, who in the past had praised Adolf Hitler and reminded the Jews again about the finality of being sent to the ovens. (A photo of a smiling Obama and Farrakhan did emerge, but mysteriously only after President Obama left office).

Imagine that all these tales in 2008 might have supposedly “worried” Bush lame-duck and pro-McCain U.S. intelligence officials, who informally met to discuss possible ways of gleaning more information about this still mostly unknown but scary Obama candidacy.

But most importantly, imagine that McCain’s opposition researchers had apprised the FBI of accusations (unproven, of course) that Obama had improperly set up a private back-channel envoy to Iran in 2008. Supposedly, Obama was trying secretly to reassure the theocracy (then the object of Bush Administration and allied efforts to ratchet up pressures to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons) of better treatment to come. The conspiratorial accusation would imply that if Iran held off Bush Administration pressures, Tehran might soon find a more conducive atmosphere from an incoming Obama Administration. …/

Continue reading https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/20/should-the-fbi-run-the-country/

 

Okay, what would happen? Safe to say there would be some reacting going on along with some outrage. For a while, I have been asking one irritating question. Do tell us:

Since they have been busy trying to give us reasons why this investigation took place and attempting to explain that process; then where was the investigation on Obama? Now someone has filled in many of those blanks with this scenario. Does FBI run the country?

Crooked Hillary and the Cabal

Well, someone is doing some writing and reporting of the accumulative events.

2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives

By Lee Smith, RealClearInvestigations
August 13, 2018

The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between high-ranking members of the Republican presidential campaign staff and a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties remains the cornerstone of claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it, is supported by two disparate lines of evidence pulled together for the first time here: newly released records and a pattern of efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia. …/

Continue Reading the damning evidence: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

 

But Mueller could never stumble across that pertinent information. Or the fact that Fusion was working with the Kremlin to overturn sanctions — against the Magnitsky Act. It would be too damning to the Democrats and DNC. ‘Quick, we need a diversion’….. this week if possible. After all, Mueller is tied to this cabal.

In case anyone is still keeping Russia collusion score: that puts intel ops, FBI, DOJ, Mueller, Clinton, GPS, Steele, DNC et al on the same side as …..the Kremlin and Putin. Collusion Party anyone? 😎 And I’ll just leave out McCain for now.

With all this known, just what would Hillary have done had she won the election? I don’t think there is much of a question about it, given her character and past.

This was never a Trump issue or scandal, but is yet another Hillary Clinton scandal that she had a whole lot of help with.

Sponsor of DOJ

And now a word from our acting Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein:

“From now on, our Department will not usurp Congress’s job of making the rules. We will stick to enforcing them.”—Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein

Either this is the all-time best spoof on you’ve been pranked. or the guy who gave that speech in Florida is being held somewhere in seclusion against his will.

I have an idea, while we are at it. Hey Government, DOJ and FBI et al, we the people have a taint team that needs to review government documents.(our documents) ASAP.

At the very same time DOJ stonewalls and refuses to cooperate with simple document requests from Congress, they handed off to the Southern District in NY to break in and seize Michael Cohen’s documents. They don’t have any problem with blatant hypocrisy.

Rule of law has sort of a ring to it.

The Post Facto Coverup

I apologize for yet another rant, though I like to call them op-eds on the current state of liberaldom. And the current state is disgusting.

I have a little familiarity with language but that fails when it comes to describing what is going on. As is my usual argument about liberalism, perception is reality — being that perception is what they live in.

I am continually amazed how far they will go to either assert that perception as fact or in denying the reality around them. Such is the liberal animal though, since it is a creature of habit and habitiat, driven by its ideology. The other chief tool is projecting on opponents their own exact faults and abuses. The failures of what they do either do not exist in their minds or are just more opportunities to obfuscate the truth.

You know the saying that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” but there isn’t enough sunshine at the equator to disinfect this corruption from the left. No, I’m not buying that excuse that both sides do it and one side didn’t create all this. We see where the corruption is rolling like a river from.

And you might say, “but you are not being objectively fair.” That’s the problem with the left, I do have a bias for good reasons and don’t pretend to be an impartial tool. And most liberals don’t have an ounce of objectivity. They pride themselves on being biased. They demand objectivity from everyone else.

So we have an investigation into Trump over Russia. But a dossier with information from Russian operatives was assembled to use against him.

Here’s the line the left uses: if Mueller is removed it creates a Constitutional crisis. But the Special Counsel investigation itself created a Constitutional crisis. We don’t have to worry about an investigation getting corrupted, it was born of corruption — what else could it be?

We’re getting to the real point, the obvious mission of the investigation. First, it was started in search of a justification. But that is not the problem now. We see what the whole thing really is: the purpose of the investigation is a cover up for what went on. It is a giant cover up operation for the mass politicization and corruption of the DOJ and FBI.

Now the whole Trump campaign that evolved into the transition of President-elect Trump has been pilfered by Mueller. It is an investigation of the whole apparatus.

Let’s be clear that this is an investigation of a campaign and the election. We have the loser colluding with government against the president — as they did during the campaign. What we had even before the investigation is government targeting a president. And it continues. There is not enough sunlight to sanitize this. We know what is going on, from warrantless searches to surveillance of a candidate/campaign, however falsely they justified it.

Then we have one more interesting thing. I complained back in the campaign about the way they treated Trump. And I was outraged by their branding him with names. Remember former CIA director, Mike Morell went to media to write an op-ed attack on Trump, using his years in intelligence as his credentials for it — to add a certification of legitimacy for his charges. He called Trump an unwitting agent of a foreign government. That was akin to treason. Obama also followed that similar track.

Update, the same Mike Morell comes out to apologize for getting it wrong saying they reacted badly. Sorry, not really! It was the half-hearted dance the liberal bastards do when their heads are in a vice. See how he morphs a feigned apology into pointing the finger of blame… but on Trump: The Hill

Michael Morell, the former Acting Director of the CIA, recently confessed that maybe it was a mistake for himself, the former chief of the CIA and NSA, Gen. Michael Hayden, and the then-Director of the CIA, John Brennan, to criticize candidate Donald Trump. He admitted that he failed to understand how Trump would interpret their campaign criticism, which is pretty damning coming from someone who briefed presidents on how foreign leaders think.

Of course, Morell didn’t cop to his behavior, saying, “So, I don’t think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn’t think about at the time … I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.” [more]

Wait, he does not apologize saying it was “not a mistake”. Mike just didn’t “think through the implications” — the implications of politicizing intelligence and calling someone a traitor. The problem is he knew exactly what he was doing then. But the new revelations of biases would taint what he did so he’s trying to duck and cover it.

He didn’t know how Trump would respond to that? I don’t know, how do you respond to be called a foreign agent of an enemy? How do you respond to government and intelligence conspiring against you? If Hillary would have won, that would be the end of it. Success. No need to ever mention it again. Don’t even pull the knife from the victim, just let him lay there. I have a special contempt for Morell after what he did. So the problem was how Trump interpreted it?

But what Morel took part in, and helped cause, was real damage. Even apologizing now would never undo any of that. In fact, they get to have it both ways — just like Clinton defenders — because they got to do their political attacks and benefited from them. Now they are still reaping all the benefits of the false attacks. Except they want to be excused for what they did.

That brings it back to the investigation. Never mind the faulty premises or the conflicted political biases, or the illegalities involved. Never mind spending a year beating on the results of the election with a sludge hammer. Never mind what the last administration did, or what the other candidate did in the process of “democracy.” Never mind the sheer corruption and bias involved across government.

Finally, never mind that this whole thing has been a cover up and a diversion from focusing on the real corruption that ran rampant for 8 years. They needed a scapegoat and a whipping post. Never mind what this cover up of corruption does to democracy. Yet they had the nerve to complain that Trump was somehow threatening or destroying democracy, “as democracy was under attack.” There is no undoing what they did, or turning back.

Right Ring | Bullright

Holder calls for protests against Trump

Some things defy words. So here is Exhibit A of the resistance – opposition operation. First, Eric Holder claims to represent the vast majority of Americans.

Then he goes all in on resist and sedition.

Since when does Eric Holder “speak on behalf of the vast majority of Americans”??? Who elected Holder? NO ONE! Not a single person went to a poll and voted for him, much less elected him.

Yet he is organizing calling for protests against a sitting president. Former AG calls for protests? Are these elitists or what? Who are the people that take marching orders from Eric Holder? Obamfiles are radicals, pure radicals.

Now a word from Reality, not resistance

US Engulfed in the Most Corrupt Event in History and All Roads Lead Back to Former President Obama

Gateway Puntdit | December 8, 2017 by Jim Hoft

While the mainstream media (MSM) focuses on the fake news Trump-Russia collusion farce, the US is engulfed in the most corrupt event in its history and all roads lead back to former President Obama.
As a matter of fact, the fake Trump investigation is a major piece in the attempted coup d’état currently in place and the MSM’s fake news reporting is part of the Coup.

Just this past week former UN Ambassador John Bolten stated that this is the “First Attempted Coup D’état in US History” –

More: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/us-is-engulfed-in-the-most-corrupt-event-in-its-history-and-all-roads-lead-back-to-former-president-obama/

——————————————————————————————————————-

As a bonus prediction,  I’d say if it is Friday, then it is time for some sort of leak on Trump/Russia from the Mueller Special Counsel, planted in media, meant to drive the weekend anti-Trump narrative. I could be wrong but…. And all of it intentionally looking at the wrong people and events. Guess who they aren’t investigating?

Searching for a reason

What happened today was not earth shattering, even if they hyped the possibilities all weekend. No. What really happened today was Mueller attempted to justify his Special Counsel’s existence. Never mind that even this flimsy justification falls short.

You can think of it as a turning point or anything else. Up until now we had this Special Counsel, appointed on specious grounds, doing what it does — expand its power and scope. The last thing it wants, needs or can stand is to have its very existence questioned. And that was its first problem.

Backstory: Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates were already under investigation before this. This whole thing went back almost ten years. But new it wasn’t.

But today Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation brought charges against the two individuals and unsealed its case against a little-known member of the campaign. That person was George Popadopolous. That’s right, they found someone even more irrelevant than Carter Page to the campaign. All of a sudden he is a household name. So he gets his 15 minutes plus. Ah, it is because of questioable connections he had and attempts to contact Russia. Well, surely that is not the whole thing. Basically, it is.

They think George Popadopolous is the person who individually justifies Meuller’s investigation. See they had nothing, started with nothing… not even the grounds to investigate. So he badly needed to show something to justify its existence. In their minds anyway, this case of George admitting to lying to the FBI does that. It is something, the something which should justify further investigation.

Forget for the minute that the whole thing seems to point more at Clinton than Trump.

Usually you have an investigation based on something. There is something to substantiate investigating. But in this case, they jumped 10 paces ahead to appoint the Special Counsel and hopefully fill in the why later, when they found something to substantiate their reason to investigate. From the beginning of the Special Counsel this was its primary mission, to justify its own existence first. Whatever that takes.

Meanwhile, just the anticipation of charges coming down sent talking heads like Douglas Brinkley to say: “this is the beginning of the end” of Donald Trump. He suggested this would distract, taint or undermine everything Trump does from now on. Beginning of the end? So confident aren’t they, for people who have not been able to substantiate this investigation till now? I’m not sure how George Popadopolous does it for them.

They needed it unsealed now because of the latest revelations on Clinton, pay to play, and Russian involvement in her “opposition research.” Quick plant a flag.

And on the Democrats’ side is a dirty dossier, a dirty campaign and a dirty candidate.

What’s even as amusing is Mueller appears to be running this investigation the same way Comey ran the Hillary investigation, like the political cabal it was.

Right Ring | Bullright

Winners and Losers of the week

Fox heavyweight Charles Krauthammer has interestingly called special counsel, Robert Mueller the winner of the week. His loser was McMaster. It’s all in how you see it.

NRO – National Review – had the story:

Charles Krauthammer named H. R. McMaster his “loser of the week” due to his damaged reputation, and then he explained why the winner of the week was Robert Mueller:
My loser: H. R. McMaster, the national-security adviser. On the night of the report of Trump spilling secrets to the Russians, he was one of several trotted out to say the story was false. The next day, he is contradicted by Trump who said he was within his rights to say what he said, implying that he did say it and the story was true. McMaster holds a press conference the next day, where he had to reconcile the irreconcilables. It was a sad sight for a man who spent decades establishing a reputation for integrity and consistency.

My winner is Robert Mueller, who is going to be the chief investigator for the Russia probe. He is now the man who is in charge who has a mandate to investigate essentially anything and is politically untouchable, cannot be fired. Technically he can; politically he can’t. He’s the most powerful man in Washington.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447818/robert-mueller-russian-probe-special-counsel-most-powerful-man-washington

 

If Mueller is the latest standard, allow me to write the new definition for Webster’s:
Winner in that you get an unlimited appointment with an unlimited mandate, and then get get to move your entire law firm into it. – Winning.

And winning is when your own conflict of interest is irrelevant or ignored unanimously by your peers.

My loser of the week has to be Obama, who was instantly driven further into exile by Trump’s new trip to Saudi Arabia. The country that could not be bothered to roll out the red carpet treatment for Obama is quite relieved that he is gone, and definitely not missed by the Saudi government.

It became even more clear after the arrival how much Obama was despised, a bright red carpet and reception for Trump. It seems to take a real bad thing to recognize a good thing.

Also big losers are those Democrats, media, race baiters and haters who are left in Obama’s vacuum to defend his lousy legacy of lies. Losing.