Federal Judge Accuses Mueller's Team of 'Lying,' Trying To Target Trump: 'C'mon Man!'


 

 

By Jake Gibson
Fox News

A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."

Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought.

The hearing, where Manafort’s team fought to dismiss an 18-count indictment on tax and bank fraud-related charges, took a confrontational turn as it was revealed that at least some of the information in the investigation derived from an earlier Justice Department probe – in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Manafort’s attorneys argue the special counsel does not have the power to indict him on the charges they have brought – and seemed to find a sympathetic ear with Ellis.

The Reagan-appointed judge asked Mueller’s team where they got the authority to indict Manafort on alleged crimes dating as far back as 2005.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

MONUMENTAL: The Naked Truth About Robert Mueller


By Rep. Louis Gohmert

Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people. His many actions are a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.

I do not make these statements lightly. Each time I prepared to question Mueller during Congressional hearings, the more concerned I became about his ethics and behavior. As I went back to begin compiling all of that information in order to recount personal interactions with Mueller, the more clearly the big picture began to come into focus.

At one point I had to make the decision to stop adding to this compilation or it would turn into a far too lengthy project. My goal was to share some firsthand experiences with Mueller -- as other Republican Members of Congress had requested -- adding, “You seem to know so much about him.”

This article is prepared from my viewpoint to help better inform the reader about the Special Prosecutor leading the effort to railroad President Donald J. Trump through whatever manufactured charge he can allege.

Judging by Mueller's history, it doesn't matter who he has to threaten, harass, prosecute or bankrupt to get to allege something or, for that matter, anything. It certainly appears Mueller will do whatever it takes to bring down his target -- ethically or unethically -- based on my findings.

What does former Attorney General Eric Holder say? Sounds like much the same thing I just said. Holder has stated, "I've known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years; my guess is he’s just trying to make the case as good as he possibly can."

Holder does know him. He has seen Mueller at work when Holder was obstructing justice and was therefore held in Contempt of Congress. He knows Mueller’s FBI framed innocent people and had no remorse in doing so.

Let’s look at what we know. What I have accumulated here is absolutely shocking upon the realization that Mueller's disreputable, twisted history speaks to the character of the man placed in a position to attempt to legalize a coup against a lawfully-elected President. Any Republican who says anything resembling, “Bob Mueller will do a good job as Special Counsel,” “Bob Mueller has a great reputation for being fair,” or anything similar; either (a) wants President Trump indicted for something and removed from office regardless of his innocence; (b) is intentionally ignorant of the myriad of outrageous problems permeating Mueller’s professional history; or (c) is cultivating future Democrat votes when he or she comes before the Senate someday for a confirmation hearing.

There is simply too much clear and convincing evicdence to the contrary. Where other writers have set out information succinctly, I have quoted them, with proper attribution. My goal is to help you understand what I have found.

Robert Mueller - Background

In his early years as FBI Director, most Republican members of Congress gave Mueller a pass in oversight hearings, allowing him to avoid tough questions. After all, we were continually told, “Bush appointed him.” I gave him easy questions the first time I questioned him in 2005 out of deference to his Vietnam service. Yet, the longer I was in Congress, the more conspicuous the problems became. As I have said before of another Vietnam veteran, just because someone deserves our respect for service or our sympathy for things that happened to them in the military, that does not give them the right to harm our country later. As glaring problems came to light, I toughened up my questions in the oversight hearings. But first, let's cover a little of Mueller's history.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Questions for Special Counsel Mueller

Turning the tables on President Trump’s interrogator-in-chief.


By Lloyd Billingsley
FrontPageMag.com

Special Counsel and former FBI boss Robert Mueller is on record that President Trump is not a target of his investigation, yet the questions he wants to ask the president have now been leaked to the media. Since the questions are fully predictable and totally without significance, President Trump should not waste his time. On the other hand, the president, and all Americans, might pony up a few questions for Herr Mueller his own self. 

Investigations normally pursue a crime. What crime, exactly, are you investigating? Given the time and money you have put in, the people have a right to know.

Special Counsel Mueller, if you operate in search of collusion, what statute, exactly, would you use to prosecute collusion? Please supply the numbers in the U.S. code.

Special Counsel Mueller, you have been called a man of great integrity. Why did you front-load your investigative team with highly partisan supporters of Hillary Clinton? Were independent, non-partisan lawyers not available? 

If your target is Russian influence in general, Special Counsel Mueller, why are you not investigating the Clinton Foundation and its dealings with Russia? Have you consulted the book Clinton Cash? 

Special Counsel Mueller, what is your understanding of Fanny Ohr? She is the Russia expert, wife of demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS on the Steele dossier. In your expert opinion, why might Fanny Ohr have acquired a short-wave radio license about that time? Was it to communicate with Russian contacts and avoid detection? Did the FBI monitor any of Ohr’s communications?

As you know, Peter Strzok was formerly FBI counterintelligence boss, a very important position. Why was agent Strzok unable to detect the work of the Democrats’ IT man Imran Awan, who had no security clearance but gained repeated unauthorized access to computers of the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees? Was that because agent Strzok was busy exonerating presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her destruction of evidence, including more than 30,000 emails.

Agent Strzok changed “gross negligence,” which was a crime, to “extremely careless,” which was not, and FBI boss James Comey repeated that change. What is your take on that? Did you ever exonerate a suspect before you even talked to them? 

In your view, former FBI Director Mueller, what was all that business with Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton out on the tarmac? Was it just to exchange pleasantries? Given the time and money you have put in, the public has a right to know. 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: 'An Unaccountable Bureaucrat': DiGenova Slams Rosenstein for Slow-Walking Russia Docs

'He created the original sin: an investigation of no crime.'


Former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has "disqualified" himself from continued service with the Department of Justice.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus have drafted articles of impeachment against Rosenstein, calling it a “last resort” if the Justice Department continues “slow-walking” its response to document requests related to the Russia investigation.

Speaking at an event in Washington on Tuesday, Rosenstein accused caucus members of not being able to “resist leaking their own draft,” adding that DOJ “will not be extorted.”

On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," diGenova said Attorney General Jeff Sessions should berate Rosenstein for comparing Congress' constitutional right of oversight to extortion.

"That statement by a constitutional officer like Rod Rosenstein is disgraceful, it's an embarrassment to the department," diGenova said. "But it is of a pattern of what Mr. Rosenstein has done there since he arrived."

He pointed out that Rosenstein was the one who appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the one who's overseeing the Russia investigation, which Trump has long labeled a "witch hunt."

"He is resisting all of this because he created the original sin: an investigation of no crime," diGenova said, slamming Rosenstein as an "unaccountable bureaucrat."

 

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Kevin Shipp – Civil War Between Dark Side & Constitution Side


Former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp says, “There is essentially a civil war involving parts of senior management and upper parts of our government that is occurring in the United States. It’s between the ‘Dark’ side and the ‘Constitutional’ side. There has never been anything like this in history. . . . People need to understand that the Democrat Party today is not the Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy. The Democrat Party with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is more Marxist than anything else. They think the Constitution should be a ‘progressive’ document. In other words, the Constitution is outdated and should be redone. They are both directly connected into George Soros, who wants to destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. government. . . . The Democrat Party is now made up of Marxists and leftists that have penetrated that entire organization. . . . Their entire goal is to change our form of government and destroy our sovereignty.”

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Declassified Congressional Report: James Clapper Lied About Dossier Leaks To CNN


 
A newly declassified report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections reveals that former intelligence chief James Clapper lied to Congress about information he shared with CNN on the infamous Steele dossier.
 

Buried within a newly declassified congressional report on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections is a shocking revelation: former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper not only leaked information about the infamous Steele dossier and high-level government briefings about it to CNN, he also may have lied to Congress about the matter.

In one of the findings within the 253-page report, the House intelligence committee wrote that Clapper leaked details of a dossier briefing given to then-President-elect Donald Trump to CNN’s Jake Tapper, lied to Congress about the leak, and was rewarded with a CNN contract a few months later.

“Clapper flatly denied ‘discussing[ing] the dossier [compiled by Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists,'” the committee found.

When asked directly whether he had ever discussed the dossier with any journalists, Clapper replied that he had not, according to a transcript of the proceedings:

MR. ROONEY: Did you discuss the dossier or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists?

MR. CLAPPER: No.

The former DNI later changed his story after he was confronted specifically about his communications with Jake Tapper of CNN.

“Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,’ and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic,” the report continued. “Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time IC leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on ‘the Christopher Steele information,’ a two-page summary of which was ‘enclosed in’ the highly-classified version of the ICA,” or intelligence community assessment.

The briefing of Trump by U.S. intelligence chiefs was held on January 6. CNN published its story on the briefing, based on anonymous leaks from “two national security officials,” on January 10. BuzzFeed published the full dossier, which was jointly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, minutes after the CNN story was published.

The revelation that Clapper was responsible for leaking details of both the dossier and briefings to two presidents on the matter is significant, because former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director James Comey wrote in one of four memos that he leaked that the briefing of Trump on salacious and unverified allegations from the dossier was necessary because “CNN had them and were looking for a news hook.”

The congressional report on Russian interference noted that it was this very briefing of Trump that multiple media organizations used as an excuse to publish the unverified dossier.

“The Committee assesses that leaks to CNN about the dossier were especially significant, since CNN’s report ‘ that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump’ was the proximate cause of BuzzFeed News’ decision to publish the dossier for the first time just a few hours later,” the report stated. “Until that point, the dossier had been ‘circulating among elected official, intelligence agents, and journalists,’ but remained unpublished. As the accompanying article explained, ‘[n]ow BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of government.”

As The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway noted after Comey’s memos were finally made available to the public, the fired FBI director’s account of the briefing of Trump suggested that the entire briefing was a setup from the beginning, and that it was scheduled and held just so it could be leaked to journalists who wanted an excuse to publish a dossier nobody had verified.

In their coordinated response to the full intelligence committee’s findings, committee Democrats defended Clapper, claiming that he broke no laws while acknowledging that he did leak information about the dossier to CNN’s Jake Tapper.

“Evaluated in context, Clapper denied leaking classified information, while acknowledging that, as DNI, he engaged in legitimate discussion of unclassified, non-intelligence information with Tapper,” they concluded.

Clapper, who previously lied to Congress about whether the U.S. government was electronically spying on millions of Americans, was subsequently hired by CNN just months after his leak. Although he eventually apologized to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for lying to Congress about government mass surveillance of American citizens, he subsequently told MSNBC that the question to which he responded–“Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”–was a gotcha question similar to, “When did you stop beating your wife?”

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Judicial Watch Presents: An Update on 'The Deep State'


Judicial Watch hosted a special educational panel on Tuesday, April 24, from noon to 1 pm ET to discuss “The Deep State Update.” The expert panelists currently include:

  • Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)-Comm  ittee on the Judiciary, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
  • Vince Coglianese -Host “Mornings on the Mall” WMAL Radio, Editorial Director, Daily Caller
  • Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, Vice President for Strategic Coordination and Operations, London Center for Policy Research
  • Michael Bekesha - Attorney, Judicial Watch
  • Moderator:Tom Fitton - President, Judicial Watch

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Rep. Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump


By Jack

The already steaming political world is only getting hotter. Sunday on Fox News, Rep. Devin Nunes dropped a bombshell during an interview with Maria Bartiromo.

“We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department,” Nunes said.

Nunes continued, “This is really important to us because the intelligence investigation uses the tools of our intelligence services that are not supposed to be used on American citizens.

He then went after the Obama DOJ, “So, we’ve long wanted to know what intelligence did you have that actually led to this investigation. So what we found now after the investigators have reviewed it is in fact there was no intelligence. So we have a traditional partnership with what’s called the Five Eyes Agreement…”

Maria Bartiromo followed up to his comments, “Mr. Chairman you’ve got to explain what you just said. I think this is extraordinary. That you’re telling us that in order for the FBI, the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into so-called collusion between President Trump and the Russians there was no official intelligence used. Then how did this investigation start?”

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)