Someone from Robert Mueller's team of Democrat partisans likely leaked a lengthy list of questions the special counsel wants President Trump to answer. The disclosure appeared in the New York Times, which labeled the queries "tantalizing" and hinted at a widening probe of obstruction.
Democrats cheered the unauthorized leak from a supposedly secret investigation. They are convinced Mueller's final report will lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings against the president. Democrats have made no secret this is part of a scheme to overturn the election results.
While the special prosecutor runs amok, the Times and other media have never raised a single question about Mueller's ethical conduct or his prosecutorial tactics. However, at least two federal judges recently scolded Mueller for his unethical handling of the ever expanding probe.
In the interest of fair play, Congress should issue its own list of questions for Mueller, who has strayed far afield from his mandate to expose Russian election collusion. Here are some suggestions for areas of interest to infuriated Americans who are watching Mueller's investigation with dismay:
1. How much has your investigation cost American taxpayers? The Justice Department has refused to release the amount. Only when a watchdog group sued the DOJ did Americans learn that in one five-month period in 2017 (May 17-September 30) the price tag was more than $1 million per day.
2. Why did you launch your investigation of Russian interference in the election three months before you received a memo outlining the scope of your probe from the Department of Justice? Why hasn't the DOJ publicly released an unredacted copy of the memo? What is the DOJ hiding?
3. Why did you indict former Trump campaign member Paul Manafort on 12-year old fraud charges totally unrelated to Russian collusion or the election? A judge chided you for lodging the indictment simply to force him to rat out the president. Does this constitute unethical prosecutorial conduct?
4. Why have so many leaks appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post when your refuse to publicly answer any Congressional questions about the investigation? Are you using your position to malign the president in the media because you have no proof of collusion?
5. Some leaked information suggests you are concerned about why President Trump fired your long-time friend and confidant James Comey as director of the FBI. Do you realize that under the Constitution the president can fire anyone who works for him without cause? This is not a crime.
6. Did the DOJ sanction your role in the FBI raid on the offices and hotel room of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen? Why did you turn over the investigation to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York? If this was unrelated to Russian collusion, why were you involved?
7. Was it ethical for a throng of FBI agents with guns drawn to raid the home of Manafort in the middle of the night? Had Manafort refused to allow a search of his premises prompting the midnight attack? Judges have reprimanded prosecutors for a lot less.
8. Wasn't Michael Flynn the subject of abusive unmasking by the Obama Administration after his communications were unintentionally intercepted as part of a foreign counterintelligence operation? Doesn't this taint your entire probe of Mr. Flynn? Would any judge allow this evidence in court?
9. Did you withhold evidence about the FISA court from the attorneys for Flynn during your prosecution of the former National Security Adviser? Was Flynn advised that a Democrat paid-for dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to eavesdrop on his communications?
10. Recently-fired deputy head of FBI counterintelligence Peter Strzok was unceremoniously dumped from your investigative team in July of last year yet you waited until December to disclose his departure. Was this part of a cover up to protect Strzok from being fired by the FBI?
The current special counsel's inquiry has far reaching constitutional repercussions. Unless Mueller is held to account for his deportment, it will set a precedent for out of control, never ending investigations of sitting presidents. Is that any way to run a Democracy?
Democrats thinly veiled coup attempt is destined to fail. When it does, it will be interesting to watch if the party changes its tune if a future Democrat president must deal with a special counsel probe. Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz has sounded an alarm on the use of special prosecutors.
Speaking to an audience in Dallas, the former Harvard law professor said: "They (Western Democracies) don't appoint a special counsel and tell them 'Get that guy...that's what they did in the Soviet Union."
America doesn't need an unelected outsider to police our Democracy against collusion with foreign governments. Congress, the CIA, FBI and DOJ are all charged with that responsibility. The use of a special counsel is a crutch that will cripple Democracy. It's time to end the Mueller debacle.
Showing posts with label Special Prosecutor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Special Prosecutor. Show all posts
Monday, May 14, 2018
Monday, December 11, 2017
Russian Collusion: A Big Fat Nothing Burger
Since November of last year, Democrats and Washington insiders have thirsted for revenge against voters who dared to elect outsider Donald Trump the President of the United States. Their mission, aided by news media saboteurs, is to oust Mr. Trump from office and overturn the election results.
The instrument they have chosen for this subterfuge is Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, who is leading a fishing expedition to uncover evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to influence the election outcome. The usurpers hope the witch hunt will trigger an impeachment.
Mueller, who was anointed on May 17, and his army of 16 lawyers and dozens of FBI agents have produced zero proof of any collusion. The FBI along with House and Senate Committees have reviewed the allegations and have not a shred of evidence that Russia altered the election result.
After spending millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, Mueller's minions have charged a couple of former Trump campaign officials with lying to the FBI. The indictments have nothing to do with Russian collusion, but the coup masters claim the president is in mortal danger of being toppled.
There is no denying the Mueller investigation has strayed far from its original mandate, an indication the empty suits are desperate to justify their jobs. It also is clear Democrats concocted a Russia boogieman as an excuse for Hillary Clinton's defeat and as a way to delegitimatize President Trump.
Ironically, Mr. Obama knew in 2016 that the Russians were planning to interfere in the election. However, he did nothing. Why? The answer is he believed Ms. Clinton would win and thought Russian intervention would have no material impact. The tune changed after Mr. Trump's victory.
The impetus Democrats needed to launch the investigation came after Mr. Trump fired bungling FBI Director James Comey. In retaliation, Comey engineered a behind-the-scenes plot to appoint a special prosecutor. His choice was Robert Mueller, who has close professional ties with Comey
Mueller stacked his "independent" team with many attorneys with professional conflicts because of their ties to Democrats. (One conflict that has never been mentioned is that Mueller's former legal firm also employed lawyers for both Jared Kushner and ex-campaign chair Paul Manafort.)
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, looked the other way as the special counsel built a jaundiced gang of prosecutors and lawyers. His hit squad included members of the FBI and Justice Department who had worked on the Hillary Clinton email probe.
Constitutional legal scholar and Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz remains appalled. "In a partisan atmosphere like this, you have to be so careful not to give the other side the ability to claim prejudice. And I think they have given the other side the ability to claim prejudice."
As if to underscore Dershowitz's point, Mueller had to part ways with a member of his team who once oversaw the FBI probe of the Clinton email scandal. Peter Strzok, formerly the FBI chief of Counterespionage, was caught texting thousands of anti-Trump rants to his FBI paramour.
Although he knew about the texts in June, Mueller waited months before he jettisoned Strzok. He hid the existence of the obvious bias from Congress, including the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department also failed to disclose the information. Doesn't that smell like collusion?
On the heels of that disclosure, it was learned that one of the attorneys on Team Mueller was a personal lawyer for a top Obama official and also represented the Clinton Foundation. The attorney, Jeannie Rhee, like others was recruited for her Democratic Party loyalty, not legal credentials.
Despite rules that require the special counsel to operate in secrecy, Mueller and his legal squad have leaked stories about progress of the probe to the news media. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, has scolded Mueller for acting unethically by disclosing confidential information.
With the clock ticking on his probe, a vindictive Mueller has let it be known that his lawyerly mob is now trying to pin a charge of obstruction of justice on the president. When Dershowitz heard about that strategy, he had some choice words of warning for Mueller.
"If Congress were ever to charge him (Mr. Trump) with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis," Dershowitz opined. He added that an obstruction case against Mr. Trump was a matter of "hope over reality."
According to Dershowitz, as president Mr. Trump had the constitutional authority to fire Comey and was within the law to ask the FBI director to refrain from investigating members of his own campaign. There is nothing illegal about either action, Dershowitz points out.
Mueller was given the specific mandate to investigate Russian collusion. Unless he can present evidence to substantiate the Democrats' homegrown conspiracy theory, then Rosenstein needs to pull the plug by February. An endless inquiry will produce nothing but more media hysterics.
America's constitution does not sanction a coup d'etat. Democrats had their opportunity to win the White House and failed miserably. They should stop acting like spoiled children while endangering the world's oldest democracy.
There is no denying the Mueller investigation has strayed far from its original mandate, an indication the empty suits are desperate to justify their jobs. It also is clear Democrats concocted a Russia boogieman as an excuse for Hillary Clinton's defeat and as a way to delegitimatize President Trump.
Ironically, Mr. Obama knew in 2016 that the Russians were planning to interfere in the election. However, he did nothing. Why? The answer is he believed Ms. Clinton would win and thought Russian intervention would have no material impact. The tune changed after Mr. Trump's victory.
The impetus Democrats needed to launch the investigation came after Mr. Trump fired bungling FBI Director James Comey. In retaliation, Comey engineered a behind-the-scenes plot to appoint a special prosecutor. His choice was Robert Mueller, who has close professional ties with Comey
Mueller stacked his "independent" team with many attorneys with professional conflicts because of their ties to Democrats. (One conflict that has never been mentioned is that Mueller's former legal firm also employed lawyers for both Jared Kushner and ex-campaign chair Paul Manafort.)
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, looked the other way as the special counsel built a jaundiced gang of prosecutors and lawyers. His hit squad included members of the FBI and Justice Department who had worked on the Hillary Clinton email probe.
Constitutional legal scholar and Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz remains appalled. "In a partisan atmosphere like this, you have to be so careful not to give the other side the ability to claim prejudice. And I think they have given the other side the ability to claim prejudice."
As if to underscore Dershowitz's point, Mueller had to part ways with a member of his team who once oversaw the FBI probe of the Clinton email scandal. Peter Strzok, formerly the FBI chief of Counterespionage, was caught texting thousands of anti-Trump rants to his FBI paramour.
Although he knew about the texts in June, Mueller waited months before he jettisoned Strzok. He hid the existence of the obvious bias from Congress, including the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department also failed to disclose the information. Doesn't that smell like collusion?
On the heels of that disclosure, it was learned that one of the attorneys on Team Mueller was a personal lawyer for a top Obama official and also represented the Clinton Foundation. The attorney, Jeannie Rhee, like others was recruited for her Democratic Party loyalty, not legal credentials.
Despite rules that require the special counsel to operate in secrecy, Mueller and his legal squad have leaked stories about progress of the probe to the news media. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, has scolded Mueller for acting unethically by disclosing confidential information.
With the clock ticking on his probe, a vindictive Mueller has let it be known that his lawyerly mob is now trying to pin a charge of obstruction of justice on the president. When Dershowitz heard about that strategy, he had some choice words of warning for Mueller.
"If Congress were ever to charge him (Mr. Trump) with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis," Dershowitz opined. He added that an obstruction case against Mr. Trump was a matter of "hope over reality."
According to Dershowitz, as president Mr. Trump had the constitutional authority to fire Comey and was within the law to ask the FBI director to refrain from investigating members of his own campaign. There is nothing illegal about either action, Dershowitz points out.
Mueller was given the specific mandate to investigate Russian collusion. Unless he can present evidence to substantiate the Democrats' homegrown conspiracy theory, then Rosenstein needs to pull the plug by February. An endless inquiry will produce nothing but more media hysterics.
America's constitution does not sanction a coup d'etat. Democrats had their opportunity to win the White House and failed miserably. They should stop acting like spoiled children while endangering the world's oldest democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)