By Nicholas Stix
“Washington (CNN) – The Justice Department on Wednesday named Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the department's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The former FBI director has a long history with investigations and prosecutions.”
[“Who is Robert Mueller?” by Tal Kopan, CNN, Updated 3:28 A.M. ET, Thu May 18, 2017.]
So, the original reason for the FBI investigation into the election, was “Russian meddling,” or as Democrats usually put it, Russia “hacking the election.”
Or was it the Trump campaign’s possible “collusion” with the Russian government? I’ve heard that claim frequently given for the investigation.
After the FBI went almost one year without turning up any evidence against candidate, President-elect, or President Trump, before and during such time it never had probable cause in the first place, once President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Democrats immediately screamed, “Obstruction of justice!,” and demanded and got from the DOJ the appointment of Robert Mueller as independent prosecutor, who has now leaked, or so says the Washington Post, that he is investigating the President for “obstruction of justice.”
Why has the DOJ gone from an investigation without any probable cause or evidence into “collusion” into one of “Russian meddling,” and now one into “obstruction of justice.”
As I said, the seditionists are seeking to fabricate crimes. Who at justice are their conspirators? Not AG Jeff Sessions. Next on the list is Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who is an Obama appointee, and who argued for sacking Comey.
I don’t think I ever heard of Rosenstein, until the dismissal of Sally Yates. It will have to be determined who Obama’s DOJ operatives are, before they sink Trump. they will need to fired and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like Reality Winner.
Republicans on the hill are also going to have force Mueller to track down and do likewise with the leakers within his own “investigation,” assuming he is not the leaker. If necessary, they will have to force his ouster.
Washington Post operatives Devlin Barrett, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Sari Horwitz write below—echoing their DPUSA comrades on CNN and elsewhere—as if this were a criminal investigation. It is not. President Trump cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice. If the Democrats can find enough treasonous Republicans, they can draw up articles of impeachment in the House, and try the President in the Senate. A conviction in the Senate would force him from office.
When Trump fired Comey, I argued that the President’s real motive was simply to assert his prerogative as President against his enemies, who were acting as if he were not president, and was their prisoner or slave, until which time they would kick him out of office in disgrace. If the Washington Post story below is true, Robert S. Mueller III is acting on behalf of those seditionists, and telling the President of the United States, “You are not the President, and thus had no right to fire my good friend Jim Comey, and I am going to destroy you, for trying to act like one.”
Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say
By Devlin Barrett, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Sari Horwitz
June 14 at 6:21 P.M.
Washington Post
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.
The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.
[WP: Here’s what we know so far about Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests]
Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing.
Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.
A guide to the five major investigations of the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia View Graphic
A guide to the five major investigations of the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia
The NSA said in a statement that it will “fully cooperate with the special counsel” and declined to comment further. The office of the director of national intelligence and Ledgett declined to comment.
The White House now refers all questions about the Russia investigation to Trump’s personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz.
“The FBI leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal,” said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz.
The officials said Coats, Rogers and Ledgett would appear voluntarily, though it remains unclear whether they will describe in full their conversations with Trump and other top officials or will be directed by the White House to invoke executive privilege. It is doubtful that the White House could ultimately use executive privilege to try to block them from speaking to Mueller’s investigators. Experts point out that the Supreme Court ruled during the Watergate scandal that officials cannot use privilege to withhold evidence in criminal prosecutions.
The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller’s office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.
[Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey]
The interviews suggest that Mueller sees the question of attempted obstruction of justice as more than just a “he said, he said” dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said.
With the term whirling around Washington, a former federal prosecutor explains what to know about the criminal charge of obstruction of justice. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
[Former federal prosecutor Barak Cohen’s (not to be confused with Barack Obama) definition of “obstruction of justice” is circular: “It’s impeding or otherwise obstructing an official proceeding…”
One cannot define a term with the term itself. Thus, Cohen would have had to say something like, “It’s impeding an official proceeding…”
I was glad to see him cite Woodward and Bernstein’s conspiracy to obstruct justice during the Watergate investigation. They conspired with their editors at the Washington Post, by the way.
Note, too, that the speaker talks as if this were a criminal matter. It is not. It is a political matter, except for the conspiracy to overthrow the Trump presidency. That is a criminal matter.]
Investigating Trump for possible crimes is a complicated affair, even if convincing evidence of a crime were found. The Justice Department has long held that it would not be appropriate to indict a sitting president. Instead, experts say, the onus would be on Congress to review any findings of criminal misconduct and then decide whether to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Comey confirmed publicly in congressional testimony on March 20 that the bureau was investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Comey’s statement before the House Intelligence Committee upset Trump, who has repeatedly denied that any coordination with the Russians took place. Trump had wanted Comey to disclose publicly that he was not personally under investigation, but the FBI director refused to do so.
Soon after, Trump spoke to Coats and Rogers about the Russia investigation.
Officials said one of the exchanges of potential interest to Mueller took place on March 22, less than a week after Coats was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official.
Coats was attending a briefing at the White House with officials from several other government agencies. When the briefing ended, as The Washington Post previously reported, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials. Coats later told lawmakers that he never felt pressured to intervene.
A day or two after the March 22 meeting, Trump telephoned Coats and Rogers to separately ask them to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.
Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the president’s requests, officials said.
It is unclear whether Ledgett had direct contact with Trump or other top officials about the Russia probe, but he wrote an internal NSA memo documenting the president’s phone call with Rogers, according to officials.
As part of the probe, the special counsel has also gathered Comey’s written accounts of his conversations with Trump. The president has accused Comey of lying about those encounters.
Mueller is overseeing a host of investigations involving people who are or were in Trump’s orbit, people familiar with the probe said. The investigation is examining possible contacts with Russian operatives as well as any suspicious financial activity related to those individuals.
Last week, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he had informed Trump that there was no investigation of the president’s personal conduct, at least while he was leading the FBI.
Comey’s carefully worded comments, and those of Andrew McCabe, who took over as acting FBI director, suggested to some officials that an investigation of Trump for attempted obstruction may have been launched after Comey’s departure, particularly in light of Trump’s alleged statements regarding Flynn.
“I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work towards, to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that’s an offense,” Comey testified last week.
Mueller has not publicly discussed his work, and a spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.
Accounts by Comey and other officials of their conversations with the president could become central pieces of evidence if Mueller decides to pursue an obstruction case.
Investigators will also look for any statements the president may have made publicly and privately to people outside the government about his reasons for firing Comey and his concerns about the Russia probe and other related investigations, people familiar with the matter said.
Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that he was certain his firing was due to the president’s concerns about the Russia probe, rather than over his handling of a now-closed FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, as the White House had initially asserted. “It’s my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey said. “I was fired, in some way, to change — or the endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted.”
The fired FBI director said ultimately it was up to Mueller to make a determination whether the president crossed a legal line.
In addition to describing his interactions with the president, Comey told the Intelligence Committee that while he was FBI director he told Trump on three occasions that he was not under investigation as part of a counterintelligence probe looking at Russian meddling in the election.
Republican lawmakers seized on Comey’s testimony to point out that Trump was not in the FBI’s crosshairs when Comey led the bureau.
After Comey’s testimony, in which he acknowledged telling Trump that he was not under investigation, Trump tweeted that he felt “total and complete vindication.” It is unclear whether McCabe, Comey’s successor, has informed Trump of the change in the scope of the probe.
Read more:
‘I expect loyalty,’ Trump told Comey, according to written testimony
Top intelligence official told associates Trump asked him if he could intervene with Comey on FBI Russia probe
Devlin Barrett writes about national security, homeland security and counterterrorism for The Post. He joined the newspaper in 2017 after 15 years with The Wall Street Journal and the AP. His first newspaper job was as a copy boy at the New York Post, and has covered law enforcement – from local cops to global manhunts - for more than 20 years.
Follow @DevlinBarrett
Adam Entous writes about national security, foreign policy and intelligence for The Post. He joined the newspaper in 2016 after more than 20 years with The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, where he covered the Pentagon, the CIA, the White House and Congress. He covered President George W. Bush for five years after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Ellen Nakashima is a national security reporter for The Washington Post. She focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties.
Follow @nakashimae
Sari Horwitz covers the Justice Department and criminal justice issues nationwide for The Washington Post, where she has been a reporter for 30 years.
Follow @sarihorwitz
3 comments:
But even though Trump fires Comey,the investigation(by FBI agents)into Russian collusion does not stop.Therefore you cannot charge obstruction,imho.
--GRA
Mexico and Israel are the countries that have interfered with US elections for years now and not a word about that. Barry Soeteros and his cohorts were all criminals and Hillary is a thug through and through and not a word about these criminals. We the people cannot allow what this corrupt organization is doing to a duly legally elected president.
This was all thought through BEFORE Trump even took the oath of office.
Post a Comment