|Home Front: Politix|
|Joe diGenova shares conspiracy theory about FBI using Mueller phone to secretly record Trump|
|[Washington Examiner] Attorney Joe diGenova amplified a conspiracy theory about special counsel Robert Mueller during an interview Wednesday on Fox Business.|
On Lou Dobbs Tonight, diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, referred to an interview Mueller had with President Trump in May 2017 about taking over as FBI director after James Comey was fired.
"Something very interesting that hasn't been written about occurred," diGenova told guest host Gregg Jarrett. "Bob Mueller went into that meeting with [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein, and it was just three of them in the Oval Office, and Bob Mueller had a telephone, a cellphone," diGenova told Jarrett.
"He left that cellphone in Oval Office after the meeting. And it is now believed by many people that cellphone was used to broadcast the meeting between the president, Rod Rosenstein, and Bob Mueller, back to FBI headquarters, where they recorded the conversation with the president," diGenova said, before adding that Mueller likely left the phone there to "record what happened after they left."
Talk of Mueller leaving behind his cellphone in the Oval Office began with a book written by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He only mentions the phone off-hand and makes no assertions about clandestine surveillance.
"Mueller had gone in for an interview with Trump, and left his phone there, and then the phone had to be retrieved," McCabe wrote in The Threat: How the F.B.I. Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump.
Speculation about the FBI recording the president has ensued on right-wing blogs and social media and now has been given a voice on cable television. DiGenova's claim was not contested by Jarrett.
|-Lurid Crime Tales-|
|All Dots Connected…Clintons, Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, Learner, plus secret guests … Lets PLAY FOLLOW THE TRAIL…|
|[Republic Broadcasting] Let’s follow the trail......|
Here’s what it looks like when all the pieces are sewn together. It smells like conspiracy and treason. Everyone needs to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because it’s very important......
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
A Grand Jury had been empanelled. Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton Foundation were declared.
Hmmm, now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.
Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can’t guess. None other than James Comey. Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?
Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine, Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.
Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it? It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it? Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame?
I know, it’s a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances, but it was Robert Mueller.
|-Lurid Crime Tales-|
|3 Times Media Falsely Claimed Russiagate Transparency Would End The Republic|
|[The Federalist] On Thursday, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum directing the intelligence agency heads to comply and cooperate with "a review of intelligence activities relating to the campaigns in the 2016 Presidential election." The memorandum also gave Attorney General William Barr the authority to declassify information pertaining to the investigation.|
For several years, government officials from the Obama administration had alleged in anonymous leaks to friendly reporters that Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. After nearly a year of investigation at the FBI, which included the use of wiretaps, national security letters, and overseas intelligence assets deployed against the campaign, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein launched a special counsel to further investigate the claim.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller ended his nearly two-year probe with a determination that neither Trump nor his campaign ‐ and indeed no Americans at all ‐ had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. That probe, whose overwhelmingly Democrat participants bristled at the charge they were engaged in a "witch hunt," did attempt to show that Trump’s complaints against the false smear were tantamount to "obstruction of justice," but was unable to do so.
Media who are implicated in perpetuating the false allegation that Trump was a traitor reacted poorly to the news that Barr was given authority to bring some transparency to the Russia collusion narrative that had been effective precisely because it was shrouded in secrecy.
As bizarre as it is for journalists to fight transparency ‐ MSNBC’s Trump-bruised Joe Scarborough said declassifying documents is what an "autocrat" does ‐ it matches the talking points of those inside the agencies who worry about their activities being exposed. With the implosion of the Russia collusion theory, neither the sources nor their compliant journalist buddies who promised "bombshell" after "bombshell" are covered in glory.
|-Lurid Crime Tales-|
|Behind the FBI's witch-hunt targeting Donald Trump|
|[Washington Times] In the burgeoning controversy about the FBI investigation of Donald Trump, one thing is clear: The decision by Andrew McCabe as acting FBI director to open a counterintelligence probe targeting Mr. Trump after he fired FBI Director James Comey was based on false pretenses.|
In his book "The Threat," Mr. McCabe says he opened that investigation and urged Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel based almost entirely on Mr. Trump’s comment to NBC’s Lester Holt that he thought about "this Russia thing" when he decided to fire Jim Comey as FBI director in May 2017.
Mr. McCabe interpreted those meandering words to mean that Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey because the director was pursuing the ongoing FBI investigation into interference in the election and Mr. Trump wanted to stop it. But as noted in my book "The Trump White House," Mr. Trump went on to say twice to Mr. Holt that he recognized that by firing Mr. Comey, he was probably prolonging the investigation and that he wanted it "to be absolutely done properly." It was the exact opposite of attempting to obstruct an investigation.
If Mr. McCabe had cited the rest of what Mr. Trump said, he would have exposed as baseless his own rationale for starting an investigation of Mr. Trump. But Mr. McCabe did not. Instead, in his book Mr. McCabe deliberately and dishonestly omitted the rest of what Mr. Trump said to Mr. Holt about his dismissal of Mr. Comey probably lengthening the Russia investigation.
Mr. McCabe went on to cite parenthetically the fact that in a "demeaning and dismissive way," Mr. Trump had referred to the ongoing FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election ‐ which included the possibility of collusion by the campaign ‐ as a "witch-hunt." So now defending yourself is reason to open an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against you.
|-Lurid Crime Tales-|
|Checkmate. How President Trump's legal team outfoxed Mueller|
|[Human Events] When the Mueller Report was released on April 18th, most commentators focused on the "explosive" factual allegations. But other than the shocking revelation that the President once used an expletive in private, very few of those facts were novel; most were leaked long ago.|
At the end of Volume II of the Mueller Report, however, there were 20 pages of genuinely new material.
There, the former FBI director turned Special Counsel Robert Mueller defended his "Application of Obstruction-Of-Justice Statutes To The President." These overlooked 20 pages were dedicated to defending Mueller’s interpretation of a single subsection of a single obstruction-of-justice statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).
That’s quite strange, but you know what’s stranger still?
In June 2018, Bill Barr, then in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, wrote a detailed legal memorandum to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This memo came to light in December, when Barr was nominated for Attorney General.
The subject was Mueller’s interpretation of the aforementioned 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).
When Barr’s memo first appeared, prominent liberal legal commentators were perplexed. Georgetown Law professor Marty Lederman wrote at Just Security:
|Home Front: Politix|
|Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein resigns|
|[NYPOST] Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein submitted his resignation letter to President Trump on Monday, ending his tumultuous career at the Justice Department.|
Rosenstein ‐ who was formerly the senior Justice Department official in charge of the special counsel’s probe into Russia ‐ offered his gratitude in the letter obtained by the Wall Street Journal.
"I am grateful to you for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education and prosperity," Rosenstein wrote.
|-Lurid Crime Tales-|
|Carter Page Is Mr. Clean By Eric Felten|
|[NR] However implausible it may seem now, there was a time when Carter Page was treated like a dangerous character. So much so that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was specifically tasked with investigating the onetime foreign-policy adviser to candidate Donald Trump.|
Once his placement and access was lost, he was free to go.
After naming Mueller special counsel, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein penned two secret memoranda detailing Mueller’s powers and focus. Rosenstein told him he "had been authorized since his appointment to investigate allegations that three Trump campaign officials ‐ Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and George Papadopoulos ‐ ’committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.’" Page was not just tagged as an explicit target of Mueller’s probe; he was first on the list. Given what soon befell Manafort and Papadopoulos, one might have expected Page to be wearing the new black. And yet, not only is Carter Page a free man, Mueller never even managed to get him on an overdue parking ticket. The question isn’t so much what happened as what didn’t.
Poor form, arresting your own sources. Who knows what they may say in their own defense.
If anyone should have been prosecutable, it should have been Page ‐ if he had committed any crime, that is. For starters, the FBI had Page under surveillance and all of his communications in their possession for a full year. How many political players could survive such colonoscopic scrutiny?
Add to this that Page behaved in ways that would have made it easy for any aggressive prosecutor to go after him. He allowed himself to be interviewed by the FBI repeatedly. He testified before a grand jury. He not only raised red flags, he waved them: Having been excoriated for his July 2016 trip to Moscow, where he gave a Putin-friendly speech, he went back to Moscow in December and tried to drum up some business. He appeared before Congress and made bold claims under oath.
Consider his opening statement before the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017: "Whereas I have never done anything wrong in Russia, no documents, records, electronically stored information including email, communication, recordings, data and tangible things could reasonably lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly announced parameters as it relates to actions by the Russian government." If Mueller had anything at all on Page, nothing would have been easier than to add a lying-to-Congress charge to the indictment.
Hey, I reported all my foreign travel and contacts. I provided you copies, remember? I have no intention of losing my clearance.
Nor is Page the sort of evil genius who would be needed to outwit some of the DOJ’s top lawyers. Read the transcript of Page’s House testimony and you’ll be struck by the witness’s odd and awkward responses. Trying to be his own lawyer, he keeps making legalistic distinctions, such as whether his contact with someone had been a "meeting" or a "greeting." Page makes the mistake of talking about being careful rather than actually being careful. Being a careful deponent is rather like being a pilot with the right stuff. If you talk about having the right stuff, you don’t have it; if you testify that you’re being cautious with your answers, you’re not being nearly careful enough.
The perfect beltway-insider 'wannabe' source. Hey watta ya want me to do ....."wear a wire."
Even the Republican members quickly lost patience with Page: "You seem to draw a distinction between a meeting, a greeting, a conversation, and you hearing a speech," said Representative Trey Gowdy. "So to the extent you may have said that you have met with senior members of Russian Government or legislators in Russia, were those meetings, greetings, conversations, or were you sitting in the audience listening?"
Gowdy was referring not only to Page’s reliance on inconsequential legalisms, but also to his unfortunate habit of self-puffery. Page would take information he heard in a speech and present it to the Trump campaign as though he had learned it in a private conversation. For example, as Mueller puts it, "In communications with Campaign officials, Page also repeatedly touted his high-level contacts in Russia and his ability to forge connections between candidate Trump and senior Russian governmental officials." Talk up your "high-level contacts in Russia" enough and people might just start to suspect that you’re a little too tight with Russian officials. Well, that, or a certain sort of political operative might get the idea to spread suspicion about you.
I find the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind.
Page was in a bad enough position: Abandoned and shunned by Team Trump and annoying to Capitol Hill Republicans, Page was short on allies to help him contend with the Mueller squad. So what did he do? He painted a prosecutorial target on his back by refusing to accept Mueller’s enterprise as legitimate. Loudly and relentlessly he declared that the entire investigation was the outgrowth of a fraud perpetrated by Clinton operatives. Page demanded that what he calls the "dodgy dossier" itself be investigated.
Potentially having only limited knowledge of the extent of the Deep State operation, it is likely Page at some point, had a 'woke' moment.
|-Lurid Crime Tales-|
|Rod Rosenstein defends Barr's 'integrity' ahead of Mueller report release|
|[Washington Examiner] Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said "the rule of law is secure" with a Justice Department led by Attorney General William Barr.|
Rosenstein's brief profile of Barr appeared in Time's 2019 list of 100 most influential people, published online just one day before Barr's redacted release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report is expected to spur a fierce partisan battle over transparency.
"The enthusiasm in and around the Department of Justice was palpable when President Trump announced his nomination of Attorney General William Pelham Barr," Rosenstein wrote. "A brilliant and principled conservative lawyer, Barr brings unique experience to the challenge of working at the intersection of law and politics."
|Home Front: Politix|
|‘Keep your mouth shut': Dems erupt over Barr's Mueller report rollout|
|[Politico] House Democrats exploded in anger Wednesday over Attorney General William Barr’s plans to roll out special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, accusing the Justice Department of trying to spin the report’s contents and protect President Donald Trump.|
Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will hold a news conference at 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning to review the report, which will include redactions. Reports that DOJ officials have already discussed Mueller’s findings with the White House only further inflamed tensions.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Barr had "thrown out his credibility & the DOJ’s independence with his single-minded effort to protect @realDonaldTrump above all else."
"The American people deserve the truth, not a sanitized version of the Mueller Report approved by the Trump Admin," Pelosi wrote on Twitter while on an official trip in Ireland.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee hastily convened a news conference for Wednesday night in Chairman Jerry Nadler’s district in New York City to issue similar broadsides against Barr.
"I’m deeply troubled by reports that the WH is being briefed on the Mueller report AHEAD of its release," Nadler tweeted before the press conference. The New York Democrat added that DOJ informed him that Congress would not receive the report until around 11 a.m. or 12 p.m. Thursday. "This is wrong," Nadler added.
"HEY! We control the narrative here! Don't confuse us with facts!"
|-Lurid Crime Tales-|
|Top FBI Lawyer Testified Rosenstein Discussed Removing Trump From Office|
|[The Federalist] James Baker, the former top lawyer of the FBI, testified to members of Congress last fall that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and other FBI officials discussed wearing a wire in meetings with President Trump and removing him from office, according to a transcript of Baker’s testimony released on Tuesday.|
In a joint committee on October 3, 2018, Baker was questioned in a closed-door interview on his knowledge of the Christopher Steele dossier, classified information leaked to the media, and invoking the 25th Amendment against President Trump.
Baker’s testimony confirmed what former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe previously said about national security officials strategizing to remove President Trump from office. Baker said Rosenstein made a serious suggestion to wear a wire when near the president in order to collect evidence that the president obstructed the investigation on Russian collusion. Baker also said he suspected Rosenstein was acting in response to the firing of James Comey, and that he felt he had been "used" by the president in his justification for firing Comey.
|Home Front: Politix|
|The Folly of the Mueller Investigation|
|[NR] A hysteria without a cause; a report without a point|
The pointlessness of it all. That is the major takeaway from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s much-anticipated final report on the Trump/Russia probe.
After an exhaustive 22-month investigation, Mueller found that there was no criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. This was already manifest to anyone who had closely followed the investigation ‐ anyone, that is, who had taken note that no predicate crime was specified when Mueller was appointed (the special-counsel regulations require one), or anyone who had read the indictments Mueller filed, which demonstrated that Russia’s operations predated Trump’s entry into the 2016 campaign, that some of them were actually anti-Trump in nature, and that Russia (which is notoriously adept at espionage) neither needed nor sought American collaborators. "There is no allegation," observed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in announcing charges against Russian operatives brought by the special counsel he had appointed, "that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity." Never was such an allegation even hinted at against the president, nor against any of his associates, a handful of whom were charged either with crimes that had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign or with process crimes (mostly lying to investigators) that were not committed until after the campaign was over.
Mueller was even arguably needed to answer only one question: Did President Trump obstruct justice? On that, Mueller abdicated, refusing to render a prosecutorial judgment. This dereliction of duty in his final act further elucidated that there was neither a legal basis nor a practical need for the appointment of a special counsel.
|Home Front: Politix|
|Democrat Hank 'Tip Over' Johnson Suggests Attorney General Barr May Have ‘Obstructed Justice'|
|[Breitbart] Some Democrats in Congress are suggesting that Attorney General William Barr broke the law in announcing the principal conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report last week, according to a report.|
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) ‐ who once asked during a hearing whether Guam could tip over and capsize if more Marines were added, suggested Friday that Barr’s handling of the report may have "obstructed justice."
"If it turns out that he has obstructed justice by how he has handled the Mueller report that will be a deep stain on his legacy," said Rep. Hank Johnson, member of the House Judiciary Committee, according to Politico.
Barr, in a letter to leaders of the Judiciary Committee, wrote that the special counsel did not establish any collusion, conspiracy, or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.
He also said Mueller declined to take a position on whether the president obstructed the investigation, which he said left him to make the decision. Barr said he, in consultation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, concluded Trump did not obstruct the special counsel investigation.
Democrats have slammed Barr’s characterizations of Mueller’s principal conclusions, and demanded that he release the report by April 2. Barr notified them that he intended to release the report by mid-April, if not earlier, as he scrubbed the report of four categories of legally protected information.