Mueller Going too Far?

Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2018 by Post Scripts

by Jack

Remember this story?  “The Justice Department on Wednesday named a special counsel, former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, to take over the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between Russian agents and associates of President Trump.”

Well since then 14 months have passed and there has been no finding of collusion.  But, this investigation continues because Mueller is determined to find something, if not Trump then on one of his team.   The objective seems suspiciously like an effort to  reverse the election results and remove Trump from office.   And this looks like a collusion between Mueller and the DNC, not Trump and the Russians!

When this is over I think Mueller should be investigated.  Because he’s on a fishing expedition.  He was not empowered to seek out just any wrong doing by anyone associated with Trump.  He was selected to determine if there was any collusion between the Russians and the Trump team over an election and after 14 months he’s found nothing.

How would you like to be investigated for cheating on your taxes – then being found innocent it was followed by the government continuing to look into unrelated areas of your life?  How fair would it be for them to go probing for a breach of the law on anything, anywhere at anytime?

This is not how a free society operates and what appears to be going on now is alarming.  Gen. Flynn has been forced to sell his home to raise money to pay his defense lawyers. Flynn is a patriot…but aside from not being totally forth coming about the extent of his contacts with a Russian ambassador, his worst crime was he was connected to Trump.  So now they are treating him quite differently than had he been connected to Clinton.  And what might have been a minor offense is being treated like a major offense because of politics…and that’s my opinion!

This entry was posted in Morals and Ethics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Mueller Going too Far?

  1. Harold says:
    Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:21 am

    ‘So now they are treating him (Flynn) quite differently than had he been connected to Clinton’

    And that’s most likely the probable keystone in all of this investigation “Clinton” and what is stopping Mueller’s investigation of Russian improprieties and election meddling to include that name?

    Reply
  2. Tina says:
    Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:31 pm

    As the Washington Examiner reported at the time Meuller was chosen by Rod Rosenstein. (Recall Sessions recused himself).

    An obscure to me (but informative) website, Liberty Unyielding, explains Mueller’s assignment in this probe:

    The basis of the investigation – the type of investigation it is – is a counterintelligence probe.

    It’s not looking for crimes committed by Americans, as defined by federal statute. It’s a theory in search of evidence – about national security. Here, again, is the scope of the investigation, as laid out by the Justice Department:

    The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

    (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). [The special counsel statute. – J.E.]

    See also Hot Air, quoting the Meuller Special Council order. Meuller is tasked to investigate:

    “…any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump’’ as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation’’ and any other matters that fall under the scope of the Justice Department regulation covering special counsel appointments.

    “If the special counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the special counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters,’’ the order states.

    The statement highlighted by me is very broad and that was done purposely. This investigation could go on for years.

    Deputy AJ Rod Rosenstein, who served under both republicans and democrats, initially appeared to be a nonpartisan servant of the people. His appointment of Meuller was well received. Meuller, who also enjoyed the appearance of being nonpartisan, chose a team of Democrat supporting investigators. One investigator, Peter Strzok, was fired due to discovery about his connections and bias regarding to Hillary and her campaign. His Paramour, Lisa Page was also removed from the team. See here.

    As we’ve discovered over the last year, Rosenstein’s connections to Hillary, including his involvement in shielding her fromm prosecution, place his judgement in severe question.

    Democrats are wily when it comes to manipulating and controlling legal issues. This open ended probe, and it’s abuses, can continue indefinitely which is why a second council to investigate the investigators has been called for by members of the House.

    Reply
  3. Chris says:
    Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 3:25 pm

    t…but aside from not being totally forth coming about the extent of his contacts with a Russian ambassador,

    That is a very politically correct way of saying “lying.”

    Reply
  4. Tina says:
    Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm

    Concerns about lying are big with you, and your party/media, unless it concerns your own.

    Flynn is forced to sell his home to pay his legal bills. He’s said to have plead guilty to avoid a lengthy and costly court battle. He is accused of “willfully and knowingly” making false statements to the FBI.

    FOX:

    According to the charging document, those false statements were that:

    “On or about Dec 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States … to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and FLYNN did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”

    “On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russian Ambassador subsequently never described to FLYNN Russia’s response to his request.”

    We have not heard Flynn’s reasons or explanation. We know he has agreed to cooperate fully. I think we can conclude that he is a responsible and honorable man who might also be the victim of an illegal operation inside the DNC, DOJ and FBI.

    Its not unusual for members of an incoming president’s team to speak to foreign governments, including through back channels. Obama did it as a candidate in 2008:

    …mid-2008 has the distinction of being the time at which candidate Barack Obama reportedly opened a back channel to Iran, conveying to the mullahs that, in Michael Ledeen’s words, “he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies.”

    During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

    Claiming that Ambassador Miller confirmed these conversations is not something Ledeen could (or would try to) get away with, if it weren’t true. Beyond that, however, Ledeen’s 2014 post had a larger thesis that the Obama administration wasn’t dithering or incompetent, but acting from a strategy of “détente first”: ceding U.S. interests at the outset in the hope of a “full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa.”

    As an instance of this “détente first” strategy, Obama’s back-channel opening to Iran, while he was still an unelected candidate, would have been indisputably at odds with the policy of Bush administration.

    Writing for the Washington Times in 2015, James Lyons put it even more trenchantly:

    Mr. Obama’s game plan on how to negotiate with the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had its genesis in the summer of 2008. According to scholar and author Michael Ledeen, around the time when candidate Barack Obama received the Democratic Party’s nomination, he opened a secret communication channel with the Iranian theocracy. The go-between was Ambassador William G. Miller, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who spoke fluent Farsi from his previous tours of duty in Tehran.

    The message was, “Don’t sign an agreement with the Bush administration. Wait until I am president — you will get a much better deal! You will like my policies. I am your friend.”

    No investigation by the FBI ensued.

    No illicit dossiers were created.

    Zero opportunities to “not being totally forth coming” materialized.

    No FISA warrants were obtained.

    Who knows how many lies might have been told to the FBI by his campaign had there been a probe into Iranian collusion or the obstruction and undermining of a sitting president’s policy.

    Who knows how many lies might have been obtained had there been a secret FBI/DOJ team working against Obama!

    The rot in DC needs to be fully exposed and eradicated.

    We won’t know what exactly has gone on in the Flynn case until all of this is resolved.

    Reply
  5. Tina says:
    Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 8:42 pm

    Must read to understand how broad the scope of this investigation is at PJ Media, “Robert Mueller and His ‘Vacuum-Activities,'” by Roger Kimball.

    To appreciate what a wide mandate Robert “straight-arrow” Mueller has been given, just cast your mind back over the nearly twenty people he has indicted so far, and consider especially what they have been indicted for. The stated rationale for this investigation, remember, was possible “collusion” — it was the word of the moment several months ago — between Donald Trump (or at least his campaign) and Vladimir Putin (or at least nefarious Russian actors standing in for Putin). But so far, we have:

    General Michael Flynn, President Trump’s first national security advisor, who was indicted for lying to the FBI during a set-up interview even though the agents conducting the interview concluded that he was telling the truth. That indictment is now under review.

    George Papadopoulos, a young policy advisor to the Trump campaign, who was also indicted for lying to the FBI. Before he was associated with the campaign, Papadopoulos had encountered a Russian professor who told him the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, something he boasted about to an Australian diplomat (one with ties to the Clintons, as it turns out) during a night of drinking.

    Then there was Paul Manafort, briefly Trump’s campaign manager, and his associate Rick Gates. They were indicted for money laundering and related activities that took place long before the 2016 campaign. (“Any other matters,” you see.)

    Then there are the 13 Russian nationals who bought Facebook ads, set up bogus Twitter accounts, etc., in order to sow confusion and division during the 2016 campaign. Some of their activities were aimed at Hillary Clinton, some at Bernie Sanders, some at Donald Trump and other candidates. Their aim was the same as in previous elections going back to the 1920s: to create doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the democratic process.

    Finally (well, not “finally,” really, but finally to date) there is the case of George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman with ties to the United Arab Emirates whom Mr. Mueller and his pack of prosecutors (16 at last count, all Democrats) are questioning about “any possible attempts by the Emiratis to buy political influence by directing money to support Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign.”

    Reply
    • Peggy says:
      Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:29 am

      Also, the UAE meeting took place in Jan. 2017, either just before of after Trump’s inauguration and long after the election in November, when the campaign ended.

      It is the normal duties of a new administration to meet with leaders of other countries and their reps, right?

      Wasn’t Obama guilty of the Hatch Act. violations with all of his pre 2008 election meetings with all of those foreign leaders? Remember he went on a world tour meeting and making promises when Bush was still president.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.