By Robert Barnes
LawAndCrime.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign? Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian trolls claimed their social media political activity was criminal because: they were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission.

First, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal: first, he is a foreign citizen; second, he tried to influence an election, which he received payments to do (including from the FBI itself); and third, he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. Also, according to the FBI, along the way, Steele lied…a lot, while the dossier he disseminated contained its own lies based on bought-and-paid for smears from foreign sources reliant on rumors and innuendo.

Second, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make FusionGPS a criminal co-conspirator: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission.

Third, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make PerkinsCoie a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its receipt of payments from the Clinton campaign as a “legal expense.”

Fourth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make the DNC a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its payments to Steele as laundered legal expenses to a law firm.

Fifth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make the Clinton Campaign a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its funding of payments to Steele laundered through a law firm as a “legal expense.”

Don’t expect such an indictment. Mueller chose his targets because he knows they will never appear in court, never contest the charges, and cannot be arrested or extradited as Russian citizens. Mueller’s unprecedented prosecution raises three novel arguments: first, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; second, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission; and third, that mistakes on visa applications constitute “fraud” on the State Department. All appear to borrow from the now-discredited “honest services” theories Mueller’s team previously used in corporate and bribery cases, cases the Supreme Court overturned for their unconstitutional vagueness. The indictment raises serious issues under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law.

By Allen West

“See something, say something” – that’s what they tell us to do, but the question now becomes do they really want us to? And, when we do, they do really act upon it?

I want to take the time to articulate the real concern we should have in the aftermath of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting that tragically claimed the lives of 17 Americans, and other wounded…not to mention the trauma that many may experience for years to come.

It now appears that all of this could have been prevented. We now know that just in January there were warning signs, and information provided to the FBI. This came after the tips from a gentleman after seeing very disconcerting social media posts by one Nikolas Cruz referencing shooting up schools. What’s even more concerning is that the progressive socialist left doesn’t EVER allow facts to materialize. Instead, they immediately rush to their preconceived talking points and judgement.

The legal possession of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle by law-abiding citizens such as myself has nothing to do with what happened at Stoneman Douglas. And if we are to be adults, we need to analyze this episode, as well as others, and find trends enabling us to develop solutions to rectify this issue. However, it would seem some have no interest in conducting the meticulous mature analysis and assessments, as they prefer the insidious regurgitation of their assigned ideological rhetoric and talking points.

Besides better security for our schools, greater parental engagement and involvement, and dealing with mental illness, what I find most troubling about this shooting is why wasn’t it prevented? And this isn’t by any means a criticism of the FBI, but rather an assessment of very perplexing trends. Instances taken alone cause concern, but when aggregated cause major alarm.

Let’s consider some perplexing trends.

First, let’s look at the case of Nidal Hasan, an Islamic jihadist now serving life imprisonment in Ft. Leavenworth — where Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning should be. Hasan was assigned as a psychologist at Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC. There had been several complaints about his radical proselytizing of our Soldiers who were there to receive counseling. This was known, as well, Hasan had associations with the radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki — who by the way led prayers on Capitol Hill. Why was Nidal Hasan allowed to be transferred to Ft. Hood Texas? Why wasn’t he investigated, and subsequently separated from the U.S. Army…not to mention queried by our law enforcement agencies for his associations? Hasan referred to himself as a “soldier for Allah” and we know the rest of the story. Soldiers whom he was supposed to have been treated and coworkers say something, and said something, but their concerns were dismissed. As a result, 13 Americans lost their lives, and 31 Americans were wounded due to his actions. The issue was not gun control.

Omar Mateen had been referred to the FBI for investigation. He also resided in South Florida. There were no follow-ups and surveillance done on him. And the Islamic center he attended had some concerns as well. Mateen went under the radar and planned his nefarious action that targeted the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando…Fifty-plus Americans were killed, countless others wounded. Someone had seen something and said something, but there was no follow-up surveillance of said individual. The issue was not gun control.

Sayed Farouk and Tashfeen Malik carried out an Islamic jihadist attack at an office Christmas celebration in San Bernardino, California. California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in our Republic. But what’s more concerning is the fact that Tashfeen Malik entered the United States on something called a “fiancée visa.” Who knew, lo and behold, she provided false information on her entry application that was never checked or verified. Neighbors living near Farouk’s residence did see something, but due to our overly sensitive politically-correct fears of “Islamophobia,” those neighbors said nothing. Fourteen Americans were killed, and another 22 were wounded. The issue was not gun control.

A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, under the authority Special Counsel Robert Mueller, approved charges Friday against 13 Russian nationals for offenses related to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.
The defendants are all alleged to be part of the “Internet Research Agency,” a company the indictment alleges is based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and operates through a number of front organizations with the aim on influencing American elections, Breitbart reports.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees Mueller’s special counsel investigation, announced the indictment at the main Department of Justice building in Washington, DC.

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,” Rosenstein said. “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”

Special Counsel’s Office spokesman Peter Carr described the indictment as covering “13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities accused of violating U.S. criminal laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes.”

The group is alleged to have spent years, back to at least 2014, building a social media following of hundreds of thousands by playing off of existing divisions and sympathies in the American political landscape. When 2016 rolled around, the groups operatives are alleged to have disparaged Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, and used its influence to support Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

As Rosenstein explained, the goal of the alleged conspiracy is not as simple as supporting one candidate. The conspirators are alleged to have held rallies for and against president-elect Donald Trump on the same day in November, 2016.

“After the election, the defendants allegedly staged rallies to support the president-elect, while simultaneously staging rallies to protest his election,” Rosenstein told reporters. “For example, the defendant organized one rally to support the president-elect and another rally to oppose him, both in New York, on the same day.”

The indictment strongly implies links to the Kremlin. Over $1 million in rubles is alleged to have been funneled into the conspiracy through sources like “Concord Catering,” a company with significant contracts with the Russian government. http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...

Editor's Note: What does this tell you about the piece of crap Mueller? Knowingly forcing Flynn to plead guilty to something he didn't do just to create the appearance of some progress in going after Trump. The ONLY REASON Flynn plead guilty was to protect his son, who Mueller used to coerce the guilty plea and because Mueller was bleeding him dry financially. Sickening.

by Byron York
The Washington Examiner

In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed a number of Capitol Hill lawmakers on the Trump-Russia investigation. One topic of intense interest was the case of Michael Flynn, the Trump White House national security adviser who resigned under pressure on Feb. 13 after just 24 days in the job.

There were widespread reports that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about telephone conversations that he, Flynn, had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in late December 2016. On Jan. 24, 2017, two of Comey's FBI agents went to the White House to question Flynn, and there was a lot of speculation later that Flynn lied in that interview, which would be a serious crime.

"The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy," the Washington Post reported in February. "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."

There was also a lot of concern in Congress, at least among Republicans, about the leak of the wiretapped Flynn-Kislyak conversation. Such intelligence is classified at the highest level of secrecy, yet someone — Republicans suspected Obama appointees in the Justice Department and intelligence community — revealed it to the press.

So in March, lawmakers wanted Comey to tell them what was up. And what they heard from the director did not match what they were hearing in the media.

According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that Jan. 24 questioning.

What happened? With Flynn awaiting sentencing — that was recently delayed until at least May — some lawmakers are trying to figure out what occurred between the time Comey told Congress the FBI did not believe Flynn lied and the time, several months later, when Flynn pleaded guilty to just that.

None of those congressional investigators has an answer; they're baffled by the turn of events. But they know they find the Flynn case troubling, from start to finish.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo for an extensive interview discussing the ongoing investigation into the DOJ, FBI and State Department; and their collaboration with the Hillary Clinton campaign to weaponize political opposition research in the 2016 election.

Chairman Nunes describes how the Democrats on the HPSCI put classified information into their memo intentionally in an effort to create political benefit; and now refuse to redact and release their own work product.

Chairman Devin Nunes keeps a big picture focus while also describing how corrupt officials within the DOJ and FBI continued to use the “Title-1” surveillance warrant in 2017 to monitor and track all of the communication between Carter Page and congress. In essence, the ‘small group’ within the DOJ and FBI were likely spying on the congressional investigation into their own unlawful activity. 

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released a majority staff report Wednesday titled “The Clinton Email Scandal And The FBI’s Investigation Of It,” along with text messages between two agents that shed light on the investigation. The report details the congressional investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s involvement with their investigation of Secretary Clinton’s private server.

The report outlines how information available to the committee at this time raises serious questions about how the FBI applied the rule of law in its investigation. The majority staff report found that:

• The FBI did not use a grand jury to compel testimony and obtain the vast majority of evidence, choosing instead to offer immunity deals and allow fact witnesses to join key interviews.

• There were substantial edits to former FBI Director James Comey’s public statement that served to downplay the severity of Secretary Clinton’s actions, and that the first draft of the memo was distributed for editing two months before key witnesses were interviewed.

• Director Comey stated that he had not consulted with the Justice Department or White House, when text messages among FBI agents involved in the investigation suggest otherwise. Two key investigators discuss an “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency, and “OUR task.”

• Messages discuss “unfinished business,” “an investigation leading to impeachment,”

• and “my gut sense and concern there’s no big .” The messages strongly underscore the need to obtain still-missing text messages and other information regarding the FBI’s actions and investigations into the Clinton email scandal and Russian involvement in the November 2016 election.there there

• Senior FBI officials—likely including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe— knew about newly discovered emails on a laptop belonging to former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner for almost a month before Director Comey notified Congress.
•  

The full report can be found here.

The FBI text messages can be found here.

The letters Chairman Johnson has sent to various agencies and source documents can be found here.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett and former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova reacts to newly released FBI text messages on 'Hannity.'

This is a very concise and clear explanation of the implications of the Nunes FISA memo.

Download the 4-Page Nunes FISA Memo.

Download the 99-Page FISA Court Memorandum and Order which is the document that provides the basis for the 4-Page Intel Committee Meno.

A controversial memo that shows alleged U.S. government surveillance abuses is a "devastating blow" to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, according to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The memo, which was released on Friday by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, contains a number of allegations, including that the FBI and Justice Department relied on the infamous anti-Trump dossier to secure FISA surveillance warrants to spy on at least one member of the Trump team.

On "Outnumbered Overtime," Fitton said if that's true, then that means there would be no Mueller investigation without the unverified dossier, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.