By Greg P.
Twitchy.com

On Friday, the FBI quietly released a trove of new documents on Hillary Clinton and here’s Jordan Schachtel with a great summary of it all.

On this episode of "On Watch," Judicial Watch Director of Investigations Chris Farrell talks about FBI corruption and covering up for Hillary Clinton and falsely framing President Trump over collusion with Russia during the 2016 election.

Chris Farrell on JW’s Deep State panel: Lisa Page was preparing talking points for Comey to brief the president & the message says “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.” That POTUS is Obama. It’s a scandal we’ve never seen before constitutionally.

Chris Farrell on JW’s Deep State panel: Lisa Page was preparing talking points for Comey to brief the president & the message says “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.” That POTUS is Obama. It’s a scandal we’ve never seen before constitutionally. https://t.co/xEqaGv2kbR pic.twitter.com/kgt8HtGQya

— Judicial Watch 🔎 (@JudicialWatch) June 2, 2019

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."

By Bonchie
Redstate.com

Despite Mueller’s ridiculous insinuations and morphing of the rule of law yesterday, one thing was clear. He didn’t want to go to war with Bill Barr and Mueller was sure to not accuse him of anything.

Now it looks like there’s a bit of a further walk back from the former special counsel. The media’s takeaway was originally to foam at the mouth over the idea that Trump would have been charged with a crime if he weren’t President. Honestly, I can’t blame them for running with that line because Mueller’s obfuscation of words and clear insinuations painted that picture perfectly for them.

That appears to not be true though, as it looks like Bill Barr got ahold of him and has him clarifying matters now. This per a joint statement from Barr and Mueller’s respective offices.

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.