By Sara Carter
SaraCater.com

Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes called Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report  is a “fraud” citing the investigators conveniently left information out of the report to make it appear President Trump’s counsel may have been obstructing justice.

The newly released transcripts were from a voicemail message left by Trump’s former lawyer John Dowd to National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s lawyer Robert Kelner.

Mueller’s team made it appear in the Special Counsel’s report that Dowd was asking for a “heads up” if Flynn planned to say anything damaging about Trump, alluding to possible ‘obstruction’ by his counsel. However, now that the full transcripts have been formerly released by a court order it appears to be all-together different. In fact, it appears that Mueller weaponized the transcript. What I mean is that Mueller left out the most significant parts of the message to make it appear that Dowd (who represented Trump) was attempting to obstruct the investigation.

Mueller had redacted two significant portions of the voicemail message transcript, which according to numerous critics, reveal there was no intention of obstruction. In fact, as Trump’s attorney Dowd was only doing his job.

Nunes tweeted a side-by-side comparison of the Dowd transcript text Saturday and the Mueller report text. It shows that the Mueller report did not disclose Dowd’s full message.

When special counsel Robert Mueller formally closed the Russia investigation on May 29th, he opened the door to wide-ranging speculation as to the intent behind his statement. In the eyes of Former Texas Prosecutor Sidney Powell, Mueller’s words stood the rule of law and the presumption of innocence on their heads.

By Jonathan Turley
TheHill.com

In that twinkling zone between man and myth, Robert Mueller transcends the mundane. Even in refusing to reach a conclusion on criminal conduct, he is excused. As Mueller himself declared, we are to ask him no questions or expect any answers beyond his report. But his motivations as special counsel can be found only within an approved range that starts at “selfless” and ends at “heroic.” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) defended Mueller’s refusal to reach a conclusion as simply “protecting” President Trump in a moment of “extreme fairness.”

Yet as I noted previously, Mueller’s position on the investigation has become increasingly conflicted and at points unintelligible. As someone who defended Mueller’s motivations against the unrelenting attacks of Trump, I found his press conference to be baffling, and it raised serious concerns over whether some key decisions are easier to reconcile on a political rather than a legal basis. Three decisions stand out that are hard to square with Mueller’s image as an apolitical icon. If he ever deigns to answer questions, his legacy may depend on his explanations.
 

Refusal to identify grand jury material

One of the most surprising disclosures made by Attorney General William Barr was that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly told Mueller to submit his report with grand jury material clearly marked to facilitate the release of a public version. The Justice Department cannot release grand jury material without a court order. Mueller knew that. He also knew his people had to mark the material because they were in the grand jury proceedings.

Thus, Barr and Rosenstein reportedly were dumbfounded to receive a report that did not contain these markings. It meant the public report would be delayed by weeks as the Justice Department waited for Mueller to perform this basic task. Mueller knew it would cause such a delay, as many commentators were predicting Barr would postpone the release of the report or even bury it. It left Barr and the Justice Department in the worst possible position and created the false impression of a cover-up.

Why would a special counsel directly disobey his superiors on such a demand? There is no legal or logical explanation. What is even more galling is that Mueller said in his press conference that he believed Barr acted in “good faith” in wanting to release the full report. Barr ultimately did so, releasing 98 percent of the report to select members of Congress and 92 percent to the public. However, then came the letter from Mueller.
 

Newt Gingrich says former special counsel Robert Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey look at themselves as statesmen. In reaction to Mueller's press conference on Wednesday, the former Speaker of the House said Comey is "scared to death" of what Attorney General Bill Barr will uncover and warned "a lot of stuff is going to become public" that makes Comey look "really, really bad."

"He had two full years," Gingrich said of Mueller's Russia probe. "He had a huge team. They wrote a report. Now if they can't get their report right, I don't know why they're coming back later to tell us what it is that they wish they might have said. And I think Mueller is better off frankly, just, it's over. Go home. Relax. In Comey's case, I think he's scared to death of what Attorney General Barr is doing. The fact that a lot of stuff's going to become public that's going to make Comey's directorship look really, really bad."

Tucker Carlson said former special counsel Robert Mueller falls into the category of people “you sort of admire from afar” but the “more you learn it turns out that they are sleazy and dishonest.”

The Fox News host’s commentary came during a conversation with former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior about Mueller’s Wednesday morning statement.

Prior and Carlson discussed the similarities between James Comey in 2016 and Mueller, when Comey “went out and talked about someone that they weren’t going to charge with a crime, but then continued to say all kinds of information that was derogatory about Hillary Clinton,” Prior said.

Fast forward to DOJ when I was there, and that was a big thing. Especially with the DAG’s office, Rod Rosenstein. We won’t go out there and talk about people that we don’t charge. That’s exactly what we did today. That’s exactly what we did with the report. With a 400-page report that talked about all of this evidence and all these theories on, you know, why the president possibly committed obstruction, but they didn’t charge him. So what have we learned from this whole process? Apparently nothing.

Carlson responded by wondering why Mueller made his statement when he has “nothing else to say.”

“The only thing he added was him going up there and making a statement, which he hadn’t done,” said Prior, who added later his belief that Mueller used “this opinion as an exit ramp” so they wouldn’t have to “conclusively say there is not enough evidence to prove that the president committed a crime.”

By Jordan Schachtel
ConservativeView.com
 

Speaking at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., Wednesday morning, a visibly nervous Robert Mueller told reporters that he found no evidence of collusion with Russia, but then appeared to invent a new, extrajudicial standard for innocence in the United States.

First going through many of the conclusions of his April report on supposed Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mueller then announced that he will be “resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life,” effective today.

He restated his report’s conclusion that there was no evidence to support the collusion narrative.

As for the obstruction case, Mueller stated that his office was unable to charge President Trump.

“Under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he’s in office,” Mueller added, saying that “charging the president with a crime was not an option we could therefore consider.”

In defiance of his prosecutorial duties, Mueller restated the “prove a negative” standard from his report.

“If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said during his appearance at DOJ headquarters.

As I explained last month following the release of the Mueller report:

But the conclusion from Mueller’s prosecutors is largely misleading and it fails the logic test. It was not Mueller’s job to prove a negative – that the president did not commit a crime. His job was to determine whether the president did commit a crime.

Commentators on Twitter seemed baffled by the new Mueller standard of innocence, with many arguing that by bypassing his duties as a prosecutor, he greenlit impeachment for Democrats in Congress.

Former federal prosecutor Fred Tecce on special counsel Robert Mueller's handling of the Russia investigation.

infowars.com

Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz penned a blistering op-ed criticizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s statement implying that President Trump may have committed a crime despite not bringing forward any charges against him.

In an op-ed for The Hill entitled, “Shame On Robert Mueller For Exceeding His Role,” Dershowitz stated that Mueller’s public statement on Wednesday was more irresponsible than fired FBI Director James Comey’s exoneration of Hillary Clinton.

“The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that ‘if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that’ is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign,” Dershowitz wrote Wednesday.

“Comey said in a 2016 press conference, ‘Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.'”

“Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump,” he continued.

“By implying that President Trump may have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.”

By Tom Lifson
AmericanThinker.com

Hold on to your hats.  At last, we are on the verge of getting to the bottom of the weaponization of the nation's top law enforcement and spy agencies to spy on political opponents, and it is far bigger than obtaining bogus FISA Court warrants to spy on Carter Page.  Barack Obama's minions have been spying on his political opponents since before his 2012 re-election, and the entire Russiagate hoax was an effort to cover up that ongoing spying.

As I have stated before, the best sources for understanding the unfolding of the biggest political scandal in American history are D.C. super-lawyers Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing, who have an unmatched track record in explaining the events we see in the media and predicting the forthcoming revelations.  I am not in communication with them, but it does appear they have superb sources — which would not be surprising, given their long history as key conservative players at the highest level of the D.C. legal and political circles.

Yesterday, Joe DiGenova made his customary Monday-morning guest appearance on WMAL radio's Mornings on the Mall radio show.  (WMAL is the premier conservative talk station in D.C.).  The 15-minute segment is jam-packed with must-listen insights.  In addition to his revelations about the true nature of the Russiagate hoax, there is another quiet bombshell he dropped — see the end of this blog post for the tantalizing perspective he revealed.  You can listen on the YouTube version here.

Read more here.