Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Mueller's Witch hunt: Shut it down!

Recommended Posts

TRUMP GOES on the OFFENSIVE (at last!)


There is not, & never was evidence against Trump

- Mueller's witch hunt was illegal


Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign.

But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????


Donald Trump has gone on a Twitter offensive after two of his election advisers were indicted in charges arising from the special investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and a third aide pleaded guilty to meeting senior Russians to get ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton.

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former presidential campaign chief, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on a host of charges including conspiracy against the United States and money laundering (from events of 2005-2009, years before Trump's election campaign.)

. . .

The President distanced himself from investigation, saying the the accusations related to events ‘years ago’ and claiming that ‘crooked Hillary’ should be the person under investigation.




It's Time to fire Mueller perhaps.

There's little doubt (in my mind) that the actual crimes of Hillary and/or the Podesta's were far worse

than what Manafort has been accused of - a thorough investigation of THEIR crimes is now needed,

and Mueller is too close to many who need to be investigated, ie Comey, Hillary, etc

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake News


The (allegedly) pedo-laden BBC tries to make a mountain out of an ant hill


Paul Manafort charged with US tax fraud over Ukraine work - BBC News


No special investigation should have been started - since there was never any actual evidence of Russia/Trump collusion

- only the fake dossier, illegally financed by Hillary Clinton's losing campaign.

Her attempted cover-up and her ongoing blame game is now an epic fail !

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller's case may be over-egged and full of holes


Lawyer: 'Novel Theory' Used to Prosecute...
REPORT: FBI Reliance on 'Russia Dossier' Threatens Prosecution...
Manafort's Constitutional Rights Violated?


A federal judge on Monday ordered former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to be placed under house arrest after Manafort's plea of "not guilty" in response to a 12-count indictment in federal court related to money laundering and foreign lobbying contracts.

Manafort's longtime associate Rick Gates was also indicted on identical charges, which stem from special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Calling both defendants a flight risk because of their connections to foreign governments, a federal judge also required that they surrender their passports and that Manafort post a $10 million bond. Gates' bond was set at $5 million.

Manafort and Gates stand accused of conspiring to conceal tens of millions of dollars in undisclosed payments for lobbying work they performed on behalf of a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine. The bulk of this lobbying work occurred between 2012 and 2014, two years before Manafort joined the Trump campaign.

Following Manafort's appearance Monday in federal court in Washington, his lawyer, Kevin Downing, spoke to reporters outside the courthouse, where he called the charges against his client "ridiculous."

"There is no evidence that Mr. Manafort or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government," said Downing, adding that the goal of Manafort's work on behalf of a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine was to "further democracy and help Ukraine come closer to the United States and Europe."

Downing said that Manafort would address the charges Tuesday.

. . .

Paul Manafort judges: Who are Deborah A. Robinson and Amy Berman Jackson?


An artist's rendering shows Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, left, and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

(SJW Judges? seems so.)

. . .

Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s case is in danger of being thrown out of court when the FBI is forced to admit FISA court authority to conduct electronic surveillance on former Trump campaign Paul Manafort was based on the fraudulent Fusion GPS “Russia dossier” that the FBI, the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic National Committee paid to be produced.

On Sept. 19, 2017, CNN reported that U.S. investigators conducted electronic surveillance on Manafort both before and after the election under a FISA court warrant.

The CNN article cites only unnamed sources, strongly suggesting the leak was based on an illegal leak to the press that could end up being traced back to the FBI, to Mueller’s Special Counselor office, or to both.

Under the “fruit of the poison tree doctrine” established by the Supreme Court in Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure cases, the FBI and/or Mueller may have compromised their entire investigation of Paul Manafort by either using the fraudulent “Russia dossier” paid for in part by the FBI, or by illegally leaking information derived from the FISA-authorized electronic surveillance to CNN and other mainstream media publications known to be partisan “Never Trump” mouthpieces.

. . .

The so-called conspiracy against the United States mainly involves Manafort’s and Gates’s alleged failure to file Treasury Department forms required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Specifically, Americans who hold a stake in foreign bank accounts must file what’s known as an “FBAR” (foreign bank account report) in any year in which, at any point, the balance in the account exceeds $10,000. Federal law also requires disclosure of foreign accounts on annual income-tax returns. Manafort and Gates are said to have controlled foreign accounts through which their Ukrainian political-consulting income sluiced, and to have failed to file accurate FBARs and tax returns. In addition, they allegedly failed to register as foreign agents from 2008 through 2014 and made false statements when they belatedly registered.
. . .
In the money-laundering conspiracy, they are alleged to have moved money in and out of the United States with the intent to promote “specified unlawful activity.” That activity is said to have been their acting as unregistered foreign agents. On first glance, Mueller’s case, at least in part, seems shaky and overcharged. Even though the Ukrainian money goes back to 2006, the counts involving failure to file FBARs (Counts Three through Nine) go back only to 2012. This is likely because the five-year statute of limitations bars prosecution for anything before then.
. . .
From President Trump’s perspective, the indictment is a boon from which he can claim that the special counsel has no actionable collusion case. It appears to reaffirm former FBI director James Comey’s multiple assurances that Trump is not a suspect. And, to the extent it looks like an attempt to play prosecutorial hardball with Manafort, the president can continue to portray himself as the victim of a witch hunt.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Jones' headline:

Desperate Mueller Indicts Manafort In Hopes Of Covering His Own Crimes



"Nothing to do with the purpose of the investigation," says Anne Coulter


Mueller is FOOLING himself! Ann Coulter REACTS to Paul Manafort's ARREST


"Everything Manafort was doing, he was doing in conjunction with Podesta"


JW - points out WHO Manafort was working with in those days (Podesta)


Inside Judicial Watch News Brief: The Manafort Indictment

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT A BUNCH of childish idiots are the Reporters at the WH Briefing


Sarah handles them, as the children they are...


Sarah Sanders Heated Press Briefing on Paul Manafort Indictment, Papadopoulos Guilty Plea 10/30/17


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

TUCKER NAILS the Real Story here - out of control lobbying on behalf of foreign govts


And the next target? = Podesta Group


Tucker Exclusive: We Uncover Manafort - Podesta Link, Podesta Threatens Us!




Kelly Fawcett :

podesta going down. trump is clean and in the clear. Hillary on the other hand is gonna feel the wrath for being the actual Russian traitor

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

With Hannity : Gorka and Jarrett on Today's Events!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manafort Indictment: Mueller’s Desperate Attempt To Stay Relevant!

Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

(WSJ wants it shut down)


Begging Your Pardon, Mr. President How Trump can shut down the special counsel probe and leave the Russia investigations to Congress.


Oct. 29, 2017

The Trump presidency has been consumed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s efforts to uncover collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Mr. Mueller reportedly has secured one or more indictments that he will announce Monday. Some Republicans now seek a new special counsel to investigate if the Clinton Campaign “colluded” with Russians to smear Candidate Trump, along with other aspects of the Clintons’ relationship with Russia and Russian nationals. But one special counsel already is one too many.


Clockwise from top left, Presidents Ford, Washington, Lincoln and Carter all used the pardon power in politically charged cases. Photo: White House Collection/White House Historical Association

During the 1980s and ’90s, American politics was repeatedly distorted, and lives devastated, through the appointment of independent counsels under the post-Watergate Ethics in Government Act. These constitutionally anomalous prosecutors were given unlimited time and resources to investigate officials, including President Clinton, and scandals, such as Iran-Contra. Once appointed, almost all independent counsels built little Justice Departments of their own and set out to find something—anything—to prosecute. Hardly anyone lamented the expiration of this pernicious law in 1999.


But special counsels, appointed by the attorney general and in theory subject to Justice Department oversight, haven’t proved any better in practice. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has already morphed into an open-ended inquiry. It is examining issues—like Donald Trump’s private business transactions—that are far removed from the Russian question. It also has expanded its focus beyond the original question of collusion with the Russians to whether anyone involved in the Russia investigation has committed some related offense. That is evident from investigators’ efforts to interview White House aides who were not involved in the 2016 campaign, and from leaks suggesting that Mr. Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey might have “obstructed” justice.


That claim is frivolous, and it damages America’s constitutional fabric even to consider it. A president cannot obstruct justice through the exercise of his constitutional and discretionary authority over executive-branch officials like Mr. Comey. If a president can be held to account for “obstruction of justice” by ending an investigation or firing a prosecutor or law-enforcement official—an authority the constitution vests in him as chief executive—then one of the presidency’s most formidable powers is transferred from an elected, accountable official to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and judges.


Mr. Mueller’s investigation has been widely interpreted as partisan from the start. Mr. Trump’s opponents instantaneously started talking of impeachment—never mind that a special counsel, unlike an independent counsel, has no authority to release a report to Congress or the public. Mr. Trump’s supporters count the number of Democratic donors on the special-counsel staff. The Mueller investigation is fostering tremendous bitterness among Trump voters, who see it as an effort by Washington mandarins to nullify their votes.


Mr. Trump can end this madness by immediately issuing a blanket presidential pardon to anyone involved in supposed collusion with Russia or Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign, to anyone involved with Russian acquisition of an American uranium company during the Obama administration, and to anyone for any offense that has been investigated by Mr. Mueller’s office. Political weaponization of criminal law should give way to a politically accountable democratic process. Nefarious Russian activities, including possible interference in U.S. elections, can and should be investigated by Congress.


Partisan bitterness will not evaporate if lawmakers take up the investigation. But at least those conducting the inquiry will be legitimate and politically accountable. And the question of whether Russia intervened in the 2016 election, and of whether it made efforts to influence U.S. policy makers in previous administrations, is first and foremost one of policy and national security, not criminal law.


The president himself would be covered by the blanket pardon we recommend, but the pardon power does not extend to impeachment. If Congress finds evidence that he was somehow involved in collusion with Russia, the House can determine whether to begin impeachment proceedings. Congress also is better equipped, as part of its oversight role, to determine whether and how the FBI, Justice Department and intelligence agencies might have been involved in the whole affair, including possible misuse of surveillance and mishandling of criminal investigations.

There is ample precedent for using the presidential pardon authority to address matters of political importance. Certainly it is what the framers expected. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69, the pardon power was to “resemble . . . that of the king of Great Britain.” In Federalist 74, he observed that “there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to . . . insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.”

Securing harmony in the body politic was President Washington’s motivation when he offered amnesty to participants in the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s, and it was President Lincoln’s motivation when he issued an amnesty during the Civil War for Confederates who would return their allegiance to the Union. Similar reasons motivated President Ford to pardon Richard Nixon, and President Carter when he offered amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders.

Lincoln’s proclamation of Dec. 8, 1863, is an excellent model of a broadly drafted and complete amnesty: “I . . . do proclaim, declare and make known to all persons who have directly or by implication participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is granted to them . . . upon condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath” of loyalty to the U.S. A similar pardon can be issued with respect to the Russian affair, ending the criminal investigations and leaving the business to Congress.


Permitting the criminal law again to become a regular weapon in politics is more destructive of democratic government than ham-handed efforts by a foreign power to embarrass one or more presidential candidates. It is true that Washington’s Augean stables need periodic cleaning, but it is Congress that should wield the shovels.


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/begging-your-pardon-mr-president-1509302308

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW Ben Shapiro On George Papadopoulos. Breaks it All Down Brilliantly.


Apr. 2017 Key meeting - at about 10 minutes:


"The Russians have DIRT on her... they have thousands of Emails" (but which emails?)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller braces for challenges to his authority


The special counsel has won some early court victories in the Russia investigation, but with charges filed defense attorneys and others are lining up to rein in the probe.



In the Robert Mueller investigation, the probe itself may be ripe for legal questions.



Robert Mueller is on an early winning streak.


Stacked with some of the country’s premier prosecutors, the special counsel has beaten back a pair of preliminary attempts to block his subpoena power and limit who he can question as a potential witness. In July, Mueller’s team also managed to win approval to execute a no-knock search warrant—unusual in a white-collar case.

But as the criminal case against former Donald Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates speeds toward a possible spring 2018 trial, Mueller’s team is bracing for an array of challenges to its authority.

The battle lines are already taking shape.

Kevin Downing, Manafort’s lead attorney, submitted a document Friday indicating that he anticipates filing pre-trial motions that question “the legal basis for and sufficiency of the charges, the suppression of evidence improperly obtained by search warrant, subpoena or otherwise.” Downing also said he may try to prevent Mueller’s prosecutors from presenting some of their evidence during the criminal trial.

Mueller’s team responded to the court Friday with a brief note saying they would need three weeks to present their case, side stepping what will be an intense round of legal jockeying and attempts to undermine the way the special counsel has conducted its investigation.

“’Distort, detract, deny’ is a common playbook for defense lawyers,” said Julie Myers Wood, a former Whitewater prosecutor. “And if the allegations are serious here, I wouldn’t expect the lawyers to sit back or withhold any tool in a quest to undermine the perception of Mueller’s legitimacy.”


> https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/04/mueller-russia-probe-challenges-244538



"Robert Mueller is on an early winning streak."

Utter bvllsh/t ! from a Fake News media source (politico) - then WHY the Legal challenge?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trey Gowdy Slams Mueller Over Leaks, 1882


Gowdy "can be wrong" - he once called Comey "a man of the highest integrity"



Another day, another potentially illegal leak from special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury investigating Russian election meddling.

NBC News reported Monday that Mueller has “gathered enough evidence” to indict former national security adviser Michael Flynn and his son.
Mueller has enough evidence to charge Flynn in Russia investigation

This followed the earlier leak to CNN — 72 hours in advance — that the grand jury had voted the first indictments in the investigation, later identified as former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates.
And that raises the suspicion that the special counsel may be playing politics with his prosecutions.

True, the leaks may not necessarily have come from Mueller’s office, though the incentive for anyone else is pretty limited. (CNN identified its sources as people “briefed on the matter” and NBC as “sources familiar with the investigation.”)
Yet if the leaks did emanate from Mueller’s office or the grand jury itself, it would be a criminal violation.

And if Mueller is upset about the violations of grand jury secrecy, he hasn’t said anything about it publicly.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, says he specifically warned Mueller about “the importance of cutting out the leaks.”
Indeed, he added on “Fox News Sunday,” “it’s kind of ironic that the people charged with investigating the law and the violations of the law would violate the law.”
Actually, it’s more than ironic. It raises serious questions about the integrity and impartiality of the whole investigation.

Mueller, after all, has been criticized for staffing his probe overwhelmingly with prosecutors who are Democratic contributors.
As Gov. Chris Christie (a former US attorney) notes, with the stakes so huge, the public needs to “have confidence in the fact that the grand jury process is secret and, as a result, fair.”
Which puts the ball in Mueller’s court.
> more: http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/robert-muellers-leak-problem/

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller has expanded on to Turkey-Gate to try and nail General Flynn



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

FBI Whistleblower Exposes Special Counsel Mueller's Conflict of Interest!

By: alexmark
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds exposes Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conflict of interest in pursuing General Michael Flynn’s case due to his direct involvement as former FBI Director and his role in covering up and protecting Gulen Networks’ criminal operations within the United States, and demands that he steps down.
/ 2 /
Robert Mueller Covered Up Islamic Terror Networks

In a stunning interview on The Alex Jones Show, famed FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds completely destroyed special counsel Robert Mueller, laying out a series of facts that paint Mueller as a deep state operative who in the past has actively covered up Islamic terror networks and is now conducting a sort of “new McCarthyism” in his sham investigation into supposed ties between President Trump and Russia.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
It rhymes with Buck-Up
As he investigates Trump's aides, special counsel's record shows surprising flaws
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on Capitol Hill. (Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)

When he was named special counsel in May, Robert S. Mueller III was hailed as the ideal lawman — deeply experienced, strait-laced and nonpartisan — to investigate whether President Trump’s campaign had helped with Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

The accolades squared with Mueller’s valor as a Marine rifle platoon commander in Vietnam and his integrity as a federal prosecutor, a senior Justice Department official and FBI director from 2001 to 2013, the longest tenure since J. Edgar Hoover. He was praised by former courtroom allies and opponents, and by Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

But at 73, Mueller’s record also shows a man of fallible judgment who can be slow to alter his chosen course. At times, he has intimidated or provoked resentment among subordinates. And his tenacious yet linear approach to evaluating evidence led him to fumble the biggest U.S. terrorism investigation since 9/11.

Now, as he leads a sprawling investigation aimed at the White House, Mueller’s prosecutorial discretion looms over the Trump presidency

. . .

At FBI headquarters, protecting the director from embarrassment was ingrained.

A case in point unfolded in 2011 — just as the Senate was considering President Obama’s request to extend Mueller’s expiring term as FBI director by two years.

The FBI’s Inspection Division, a unit that scrutinizes bureau operations, conducted a three-week examination of the Directorate of Intelligence, a unit that Mueller created to carry out the shift in preventing terrorism.

“They inspected it, and they wrote the inspection report and it said the whole thing’s broken — set it on fire and start from scratch,” said a former official familiar with the report. Another ex-official confirmed the account.

Mueller’s top aides saw peril in following normal procedure — forwarding the report to the Justice Department’s inspector general for possible follow-up action.

“It was, ‘The director will get skewered. We’ve got to protect him, and we can’t issue this,’ ” the former official recalled.

The aides kept the report in-house, the former official said, by tweaking its language.

“Anywhere it said, ‘inspection,’ they changed it to ‘review.’ And said this was a review, not an inspection, and therefore they didn’t have to issue it to … the inspector general.”

Two years later, Mueller — without citing the inspection — informed Congress that he had restructured the Directorate of Intelligence “to maximize organizational collaboration, identify and address emerging threats and more effectively integrate intelligence and operations within the FBI.”


> http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-record-20171122-story.html

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good guy at FBI -- at last?

"I am not faint of Heart"


Christopher Wray --- has reportedly "decided to clean house"

Time to ready the Noose for Hillary and her team of Cover-up agents?


Christopher Asher Wray (born December 17, 1967) is an American lawyer currently serving as the eighth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

From 2003 to 2005, Wray served as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division in the George W. Bush Administration. From 2005 to 2017, he was a litigation partner with the law firm King & Spalding.

Wray was born in New York City. His father, Cecil Wray, was a graduate of Yale Law School and worked as a lawyer at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York. His mother, Gilda Wray, earned her Master of Arts in International Affairs from Columbia University.He attended the Buckley School in New York City and the private boarding school Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts.[11] In 1989, Wray graduated cum laude from Yale University, and earned his J.D. degree in 1992 at Yale Law School. While at Yale, Wray was the Executive Editor of the Yale Law Journal. Wray spent a year clerking for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

. . .

FBI Director

Wray being sworn in as FBI Director by Attorney General Sessions

On June 7, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Wray to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, replacing James Comey, who was fired by Trump on May 9, 2017. Trump interviewed Wray for the vacant FBI Director job on May 30, 2017, according to Press Secretary Sean Spicer. Wray's Senate confirmation hearing commenced on July 12, 2017. Among other testimony, when asked if he believed that the investigation into Russian election interference and possible links to Trump's campaign is a "witch hunt", he stated that he did not.

On July 20, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously recommended to confirm Wray as the next Director of the FBI. Wray was officially confirmed by the Senate with bipartisan support on August 1, 2017; the vote was 92–5. He was sworn in by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a private ceremony on August 2, 2017.Wray was formally sworn in on September 28, 2017, which was not attended by President Trump, marking the first time an FBI director has been sworn in without the attendance of the President who nominated him attending the ceremony


> wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray


New FBI Nominee Christopher Wray with Judge Nap!

Wray was interviewed by Trump, not Sessions


Exclusive: FBI Director Preparing To Drop The Hammer On Mueller, Comey, And The Clintons

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Depends on who is reporting


Randall Eliason, Washington Post

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller Removes Top Aide on Russia Probe After Anti-Trump Texts...
Role in Clinton email investigation under review...


The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent this summer from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department’s inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter.

The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton had mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.

But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.

“Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the special counsel’s office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation,” said a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, Peter Carr.

. . .

While Strzok’s removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad "personnel" grounds.

When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday



House Republicans Prepare Contempt Action Against FBI, DOJ...


  • Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, FBI Director Wray named
  • ‘It all starts to make sense,’ Trump says of Russia probe

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other committee Republicans, after considering such action for several weeks, decided to move after media including the New York Times reported Saturday on why a top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russia-Trump election collusion had been removed from the investigation.

Republicans, including the president, pointed to the reports as evidence that the entire probe into Russian meddling has been politically motivated.

. . .

“In light of today’s press reports, we now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make Deputy Director McCabe available to the Committee for an interview,” Nunes said.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” he said.

Nunes, in the statement, said the committee will move on a resolution by the end of the month unless it demands are “fully met” by the close of business Dec. 4.

. . .

If Nunes and Republicans do follow through with the contempt action, it would be a latest blow against bipartisanship on a committee that had until recently been one of the last bastions of comity in a polarized House. Democrats complain Republicans are increasingly shifting attention and limited resources in the Russian investigation away from a main focus of election interference and potential Trump campaign collusion.

The committee’s infighting has stepped up since October, coinciding with Democratic complaints that Nunes has returned to a more active capacity for Republicans in the committee’s Russia investigation.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The head of FBI Agents Association fired back at President Trump’s comments

© Getty Images

The head of FBI Agents Association fired back at President Trump’s comments against the FBI Sunday, saying any suggestion that agents aren’t dedicated to their jobs “is simply false.”

“Every day, FBI Special Agents put their lives on the line to protect the American public from national security and criminal threats. Agents perform these duties with unwavering integrity and professionalism and a focus on complying with the law and the Constitution,” FBIAA head Thomas O’Connor said in a statement.

”This is why the FBI continues to be the premier law enforcement agency in the world. FBI Agents are dedicated to their mission; suggesting otherwise is simply false.”

Trump tweeted earlier Sunday that the FBI’s reputation was in “tatters” after being lead by former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired in May.


“After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation (and more), running the FBI, its reputation is in Tatters - worst in History!

But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness,” Trump tweeted.


> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363048-fbi-agents-fire-back-at-trump-saying-fbi-isnt-dedicated-is-simply

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Stop blocking Congressional probes!

Devin Nunes FBI & DOJ Need Investigation, 1923


/ 2 /

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies. The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements. Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A PARTISAN Witchhunt"?

Tucker in rare form today!

Tucker Carlson Tonight 12/4/17 | Fox News



Tucker believed it was a fair investigation - and now it is "getting harder to believe it was not partisan"

"In effect, Stroch exonerated Hillary in the midst of an election campaign"


What exactly did Stroch say? The FBI will not tell us.

"Not just infuriating, it is illegal"

"Nobody elected Peter Stroch to anything. You elected Congress. Stroch is giving the people the finger"

"The FBI is out-of-control... It considers itself above the law"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller’s Deputy Gushed over Sally Yates’ Refusal to Enforce Trump Travel Ban

‘I Am So Proud’


The prosecutor now serving as FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s top deputy praised then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to enforce Trump travel ban.

"I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects,” gushed Andrew Weissman in an email obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Yates became a darling of the anti-Trump left when she refused to implement Trump’s original executive order which limited immigration from a number of terror hot spots — including Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Critics claimed it was a Muslim ban and therefore unconstitutional, as it discriminated on religious grounds.

Weissman was not the only official to breathlessly praise Yates — who would eventually be fired for her refusal to obey the president.

“You are my hero,” said then-U.S. Attorney for Maine Thomas Delahanty, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group.

“Thank you AG Yates. I’ve been in civil/appellate for 30 years and have never seen an administration with such contempt for democratic values and the rule of law,” wrote DOJ Civil Division Appellate Attorney Jeffrey Clair. “The President’s order is an unconstitutional embarrassment and I applaud you for taking a principled stand against defending it.”

Weissman’s email is the latest serious blow to the credibility of the Mueller probe.


/ 2 /


Deep State Pawn Sacrifice

Report: Strzok Shielded Hillary in FBI Probe… Acceptable to Mueller Team Until He Became a PR Problem

Former FBI investigator Peter Strzok, who was pulled from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team after it was revealed he exchanged text messages mocking President Trump, was reportedly behind the decision to change then-FBI Director James Comey’s description of Hillary Clinton’s email use from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”

CNN reported Monday that Peter Strzok not only led the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state but was also partly behind the change in Comey’s draft language to the “extremely careless” phrase which was seen as a damning indictment of Clinton’s behavior—even though Comey decided not to recommend charges when he made the announcement in July 2016.

Clinton, then in the midst of a bruising presidential campaign fight against then-candidate Trump, was perhaps fortunate to escape without a charge recommendation. However, the phrase “extremely careless” was featured in most news reports on her email usage, and rang in the ears of voters all the way to Election Day.

Yet, the phrase “grossly negligent” would have almost certainly been more powerful, and also carries connotations of criminal activity. CNN notes that federal law has criminal penalties for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified material.

Many opponents of Clinton, including President Trump, have implied or stated outright that they believe Clinton got away without being charged due to her status as a high-profile Democratic politician.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strzock's Huge Bias noted by Tucker today


Tucker Carlson Tonight 12/5/17 | Tucker Carlson Tonight Fox News


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller speaks

(unsurprizingly, he sounds like "an old Princeton guy")


Remarks from Robert Mueller III

Published on Jun 20, 2014

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller speaks at the Ethos and Profession of Intelligence conference.


Lots of words. Not much actual intelligence

"possible cyber-attack... You need to do this, you need to do that."

He put me to sleep

"the culture of the FBI is one that should not change"

He ruined the place, when he engineered the cover-up of 9/11 Crimes

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this