WaPo Report: Robert Mueller Investigating “Obstruction of Justice” Claims…

According to a Washington Post report, based on two more unnamed “officials”, special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating President Donald Trump for ‘obstruction of justice’ presumably based on the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

This report/outcome is not unexpected as it would be part of Mueller’s investigative duty to follow-up on any assertions made in this regard regardless of merit.

(Washington Post) […] Trump had received private assurances from former 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 requests, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Adm. Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’ 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’s unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

…The obstruction of justice investigation into the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller’s office has now taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.

The interviews suggest Mueller sees the attempted obstruction of justice question as more than just a “he said, he said” dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said.” (link w/ paywall)

It would appear the FBI and Robert Mueller’s team are still leaking information as noted by President Trump attorney:

“The White House now refers all questions about the Russia investigation to Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz. “The FBI leak of information regarding the President is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal,” said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz.”

As we previously discussed – The risk represented by Robert Mueller is not connected to or about anything surrounding the Russian Conspiracy Narrative; the legal risk is within ‘the leaking‘ of classified intelligence information to undermine the administration, the potentially illegal ‘unmasking‘, and now adding an obstruction of justice angle.

If we avoid all the shiny things, ignore the shell game and reset our frame of reference to the only illegal activity currently known, the leaking; the main illegal activity visible is the illegal leaking of classified intelligence information.

Despite his earnest efforts, there is clear and mounting evidence that former FBI Director James Comey was the primary source of leaked information to the media.  The latest Washington Post report is yet another example.  The reporter for the Post article is one of a limited number (25) people whom James Comey follows on Twitter.

The risk to Comey from his media leaking continues to explain everything James Comey has recently done, said and advanced.

If the evidence of James Comey being the source of multiple FBI leaks reaches the primary artery of investigative sunlight, who inside that investigative and prosecutorial decision making process becomes the risk? Answer that question and you discover the angle Comey is playing to cut off their ability to hold him accountable.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Asst AG Rod Rosenstein et al are the people Comey needs to worry about, isolate and control. It is not coincidental that Comey is setting up the future action of these participants to be politically motivated.

James Comey’s layer of innuendo against Jeff Sessions is an obvious strategy toward that end.  If Comey can frame Sessions as retaliatory against him, he would position any legal action as retaliation.

Anyone who is buying into the story of James Comey leaking the memos to his friend, Daniel Richman, to get a special prosecutor appointed is falling for the shell game constructed entirely by James Comey. More than likely this is the explanation he has already given to Robert Mueller, hence his motive to state within his testimony.

It is important to remember that James Comey told congress he previously met with Robert Mueller to discuss his testimony prior to appearing before congress.

James Comey admitted to this specific “leaking”, because the justification to ‘get a special counsel appointed‘ is the explanatory storyline James Comey wants to present in public.

The alternate reason for leaking, the political motives, are much more damaging to him.

James Comey benefits two ways from his explanation. First, he justifies terrible behavior through a prism of his honor could find no other way (his status remains). Secondly, he sets up special counsel Mueller as fruit of a poisoned tree leading to voices calling for Mueller’s removal. Win/Win. Comey also benefits from calls by his political opposition to eliminate Robert Mueller who is investigating the leaking.

However, if you accept the full hindsight of now identified FBI leaking, the greater likelihood is that Comey didn’t leak the memo to get Mueller appointed, he leaked the memo (May 16th) as an afterthought to cover for the leak mentioned by President Trump (May 12th), of a private conversation, that appeared in the New York Times on May 11th.

Remember, James Comey’s counter-intelligence investigation could have asked for a special counsel at any time. Asst. AG and Interim AG Sally Yates was part of that investigative leadership team. If Comey wanted a special counsel, Comey could have asked DOJ to appoint a special counsel any time he wanted.

He didn’t.

Comey didn’t request appointment of a special counsel because the special counsel would only prove there’s nothing there. However, fast forward to now and the real investigative risk is in being “a leaker”.

How quickly everyone forgets those admitted conversations by James Comey friend at Lawfare blog Benjamin Wittes:

“I did not know this particular fact, but it doesn’t surprise me at all. The principal source for the rest of this story is, well, me—specifically a long interview I gave to reporter Michael Schmidt on Friday about my conversations with FBI Director James Comey over the last few months, and particularly about one such conversation that took place on March 27 over lunch in Comey’s FBI office.” (link)

Benjamin Wittes admits that FBI Director James Comey specifically discussed with him the overall content of private communications with President Trump.

When you take the Wittes outline in conjuction with Comey’s admitted leaks to his other friend Daniel Richman, Comey is transparently in a position of being fingered as the source of multiple media leaks to NYT reporter Michael Schmidt.

That is the current risk for James Comey. The discovery that Comey was the leaker is the risk now represented by Robert Mueller and is inherent in Comey’s need to control the framework of his leaking activity.

James Comey was part of the political apparatus that constructed the “muh, vast Russian conspiracy” narrative and carefully nurtured it for over 8 months – even keeping congress in the dark on the entire matter. From James Comey perspective, the problem, the illegality, is now the leaking – NOT the original issue of the Russian election hacking narrative.

Remember, it was in FEBRUARY when the FBI (McCabe) went to President Trump’s Chief of Staff privately and told Reince Priebus there was no truth to media reports, based on FBI leaks, of FBI evidence showing Trump campaign officials involved with Russian officials regarding the 2016 election. It was all a complete nothingburger.

Details – On February 15th while discussing another issue FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe asked Reince for 5 minutes alone after the meeting. At the one-on-one meeting McCabe told Priebus the New York Times Russia and Trump campaign story was a “bunch of BS”.

Priebus asked McCabe if McCabe would be able to say that publicly and get the media off his back about a ridiculously false narrative. Asst. Director McCabe said he would check with his boss, FBI Director James Comey. Later, McCabe called back and said he couldn’t issue a statement about it.

reince-preibus-mccabe

Reince Priebus was simply asking for the FBI to give truthful information about the false reports to the public. The White House was asking Comey to deliver transparency.

Quote from the FBI to Priebus: “We’d love to help, but we can’t get into the position of making statements on every story”…

In hindsight, from current appearances, those February leaks (mentioned above) that drove the New York Times February report were actually leaks coming from James Comey.

Stop and think about it. McCabe was telling chief-of-staff Reince Priebus not to worry about a NYT report based on leaks coming (first, second or third-hand) from James Comey himself. Priebus asks McCabe for help, James Comey then tells McCabe the FBI cannot publicly refute the story which is based on Comey’s leaking.

If everyone associated with this line of inquiry can stop themselves from following the shell game constructed by Comey, and avoid the distractions he is laying down (Lynch), they’ll eventually find a way to point this out.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, FBI, Jeff Sessions, media bias, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

591 Responses to WaPo Report: Robert Mueller Investigating “Obstruction of Justice” Claims…

  1. Wink says:

    According to Mr. Dershowitz, there is no obstruction of justice, since the President legally open or close investigations. How can it be a crime, if it’s perfectly legal?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Wink says:

      Here’s a youtube that explains it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ15ymETv-s

      Like

    • Sherlock says:

      The answer to your question is: Yes, Dershowitz is right as far as he went, and his conclusion that there is no obstruction in this case based upon what is out there from Comey is sound.

      But here’s an example to make the point that I used a few days ago to answer this same question. Assume that a year ago Obama was shown to have accepted a million dollar bribe to shut down the Clinton investigation, and thereafter did so. Would you suggest that “Well, no crime, because the president can shut down any investigation?” Of course not.

      The key is that a president can shut down an investigation under his position of the head of a unitary executive, he cannot violate some OTHER law in the process. I offer this only as a demonstration that Dershowitz wasn’t writing a legal treatise, just trying to explain generally the president powers, and it is CERTAINLY true that merely shutting down an investigation, without a lot more evidence of corrupt action or a corrupt motive (like bribery, for example) is not close to being criminal.

      Liked by 1 person

      • paris23 says:

        If Trump was not even under investigation — and had never been found guilty of any crime, which he had not — then how could firing Comey be classified as “obstruction of justice” or somehow criminal? It was within his power as president to fire Comey and he had been told he was not under investigation. Trump understood that Comey was running a political witch hunt in order to undermine his presidency and our democracy. He did what was necessary under the circumstance. Where is the crime? Trump’s only “crime” was in doing what the Democrats did not want him to do. Now they are threatening him about Mueller: fire Mueller and we will impeach you. They are trying to deny him his authority as president. This is how they hold onto power without actually having any.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Sherlock says:

          There is no crime, as I clearly stated above. I was merely responding to the question as to whether Dershowitz’s statement, as reported, was a COMPLETE statement of the law. It wasn’t, for the reason I stated, and hopefully the hypothetical made that clear.

          As to your points, they are different, and have to do with the facts of this particular case.
          You are right on on the great bulk of them, as far as I’m concerned. I’d add this:
          There was ample reason to fire Comey exclusive of any “Russia” consideration whatsoever, as set forth in the public record and in the statements of Rosenstein and Sessions, obviously given great weight by Trump. They were not, as suggested by the jackals, “sham” reasons at all.

          In addition, even if Trump said “Yes, I was thinking of Russia…” etc. when firing Comey, I believe a reasonable and certainly completely lawful read of that statement is: “I had been told I was not under investigation and wanted that fact known so I could do my JOB. Comey gave no satisfactory reason for not doing so, and in fact promised to “get back to me” and did not do so. He was dodging a good faith inquiry, and though that incident was only tangentially involved in my thinking and was not at all the deciding factor, honesty compels me to admit that I thought it. FURTHER, I in fact agreed with Comey that if others were involved, the investigation would find them so we could deal with them. I never asked him to shut down the Russian investigation. Why would I, I was completely happy with its negative result vis a vis ME, and happy to see it continue if necessary as to others. Further, it appeared to me that Comey’s public statements that he saw no problems with his handling of the Clinton matter, and his inability to admit his own wrongdoing and violation of DOJ policy, further cemented my views. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but as time passed it became obvious that he didn’t like me, didn’t trust me, and could not do the job fairly and without political involvement.” Period.

          Bottom line: No obstruction based on the facts as known.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Sherlock says:

            Problem is, Trump speaks in a shorthand manner, as we know, quick answers that do not purport to be complete expositions of his thinking on any matter. People seize on these things and twist them. Plus, he jokes, he pokes, he says things just to rile people up.
            Mueller has no sense of humor, BELIEVE ME. He does not understand Trump, even assuming Mueller is honest. Trump is from another planet to these people. They do NOT read him as we do, do not understand him as we do. And they dislike him….very much.
            That is why I continually harp, ad nauseum, I’m sure, that attorneys must do the public talking now on these matters.

            Liked by 2 people

            • geri670 says:

              You could very well be right, but it won’t matter. There will always be something. They’ll always find something, so it doesn’t matter. They make it up as they roll along. This poor man will ALWAYS be guilty of something. I loathe the Dimms. Every time those pukes attack him, they attack us. To me, it’s personal. Someone suggested each of us donating a dollar for reward money. Signed, From your loyal fans at the CTH.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Sherlock says:

                LOL! I feel like you. But, he is being fought so hard because he scares them to death. If he succeeds in his Presidency, we get our country back from them, and they are awake all night every night trying to think up any sleazy way to prevent that eventuality. We’ll win, and no one ever said it would all be easy. Heck, remember the campaign, every day a new battle to fight! Well, on it goes buddy.

                Liked by 2 people

                • geri670 says:

                  Right on!! The campaign tested nerves I didn’t even know I had. But my gut always told me he would win, and there was never a day where I felt defeated by those tards on the other side. I really do believe in this man. It’s almost a spiritual thing. I agree with you that this is really difficult right now. I just want to bawl my head off sometimes, no kidding! The Dimms never give up, they never back down. But I’m a true believer in PDJT. I find a lot of inspiration here at the treehouse, too. Sundance and the people lift my spirits after some of these trying days, for sure. We’ll just keep on keeping on, buddy! Nice chatting with you 👍👌😀😀

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Mary says:

                    I remember seeing Feinstein in a clip of an interview that Trumps mouth would get him Impeached, that’s why they twist what he says so they can try to impeach him.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  • Mike says:

                    …Feinstein in a clip of an interview that Trumps mouth would get him Impeached,
                    In that direction lies (un)civil war or Jefferson’s Liberty Tree, where traitor dimm’s are going to be fertilizer. After the blatant crimes of the previous 8 – 50 years, Americans are fed up.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  • Sherlock says:

                    You too pal.

                    Like

      • Sylvia Avery says:

        Sherlock, Lou Dobbs had Gregg Jarrett the attorney/journalist on his show tonight talking about that very issue of obstruction of justice. He covered the ground again that there can’t be obstruction of justice because the President is the head of the Executive Branch., UNLESS there is corruption present which is defined by statute as one of 5 things: lie, threat, bribe, and shoot I forget the other two things. Sorry.

        Liked by 2 people

      • john lorenz says:

        at the same time how does one explain the notes made by Comey right after the meeting that suggests in no way whatsoever the President intended (key Comey word for Hillary and Huma) to commit obstruction yet 3 months and one firing later they morphed into it?

        Like

        • whoseyore says:

          I don’t think that those notes were made right after the meeting. I believe he had all sorts of junk stored up in his office, but since he was booted from the FBI and his office simultaneously, while on the west coast, I think he wrote that up to get his story straight when he developed this big scheme that he is the middle of now.

          Like

    • V.Lombardi says:

      Your deep state author on this site says any “assertion” must be investigated. That’s nonsense. He manipulates his readers.

      Like

  2. Sherlock says:

    Jay Sekulow on now (Hannity) just ripping the WaPo article and the 5 “leakers”. Asked “should Mueller go” won’t answer, but sure as heck didn’t say “no”, and talked about the possibility of Special Counsel leaks, etc. Made his feelings quite clear. He also says what many here have said — when they knew they couldn’t make a “collusion” case they pivoted and are moving trying to construct an “obstruction” case.
    Sekulow: “We have a constitution if we can keep it.” Those who wanted to see some “offense” saw it tonight if they watched.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. ray says:

    How can anyone but the AG offer blanket immunity?? Can the POTUS override this abuse?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. SWOhio says:

    Boy, that ‘Unnamed’ fellow sure gets around doesn’t he?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. This is BS. How can there be obstruction of an investigation of a crime that never happened? I’m pissed.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Proud Texan says:

      I haven’t seen it made clear if PDJT is being investigated for obstruction of justice related to Flynn or to Comey firing, if the story is true at all.
      That said, we can’t say for sure no crime was committed.

      Like

      • cozettea says:

        The only crime alleged is obstruction. On that point we can be sure that there was no obstruction. The Flynn investigation never stopped despite Comey saying Trump told him he hoped Flynn didn’t get in further trouble since he’d already lost his job something Trump denies saying. So his comments did not obstruct the investigation into Flynn. Also, firing Comey didn’t stop any investigations either. The only thing Trump obstructed was Comeys leaks and obstruction of justice and his psy op of disinformation to convince America that Trumps a traitor.

        Liked by 1 person

    • OnlyInAmerica says:

      More BS from the swamp media.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Daniel says:

      Why? We don’t even know if it’s 100% true. This is from WaPo. They only publish what they want you to think or believe and omit anything they don’t. Often they print demonstrable lies.

      Getting pissed just lowers your ability to think. So consider the source and file it away in your mind for later.

      Like

    • V.Lombardi says:

      Then I would ask how can the deep state author of this site favor investigating any assertion. Then I would ask why would I read this site.

      Like

  6. Ghostrider says:

    Sure seems like McCabe is doing all he can to manufacture a crime to pin on POTUS.

    Liked by 3 people

    • geri670 says:

      I’m still not understanding why McCabe is still there. Why was’t he removed when Comey was? Can’t they replace Comey with a temp instead?? I’m still bugged about this. He’s another dangerous SOB, Clinton shill.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Sherlock says:

        Yes, I believe the President can and should appoint an interim head, immediately, ending the confirmation of his FBI pick, who won’t be confirmed for months at the rate we’re going. This would divest McCabe of his standing as acting head immediately.

        Liked by 2 people

        • svenwg says:

          I believe that there is going to be a recess of both Houses. It will be the perfect time for President Donald Trump to fill every vacancy with recess appointments. Nes pas?

          Liked by 2 people

  7. ZurichMike says:

    Comment from ZM’s brother:
    President Trump does not care about Mueller. Trump knew before Mueller was appointed that he was in the clear (whether Comey told him or not, though Comey did tell him). So what’s Mueller to really investigate with his team of powerhouse (at least in their own minds) lawyers? What can they do?

    Investigate leaks? That will lead them back to Comey, the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI and Obama’s hacks still in government.

    Investigate Russia even more? That will lead back to Comey failing to notify Congressional oversight committees. And payoffs to the Clintons.

    Investigate obstruction of justice? That will lead back to Comey’s leak, his lies about the leak and his stated reason for leaking (to get a special prosecutor).

    Investigate Trump’s tweet about “tapes”? I wonder what ‘disappointing’ end that will bring? Maybe a too-stoned Obama forgot to clear all the recorders before he left.

    Investigate “unmasking” for political purposes? Well here’s a real crime. Too bad Trump’s people are all victims. Perps are all democrats and RINOs.

    So not really much to investigate where there is any substantial legal jeopardy for the Trump administration. Plenty of jeopardy for democrats. Not to mention emails.

    Now let’s suppose Mueller drills a bunch of dry holes? He reports there is nothing to be found. No prosecutions recommended. No what?

    Here’s what: The DOJ and reconstituted FBI investigate and brings numerous criminal charges against democrats, RINOs and some extra-credit people like Soros.

    And old Bob Mueller looks like a hack as a result. You think he wants to be remembered as a hack? I don’t.

    So that leaves Democrats, RINOs and the extra-credit people in the most peril. The evidence is ripe and bountiful. Deals are cut as Mueller’s machine runs up the food chain. Bob Mueller will be remembered as the man who brought down the Clintons and Obama. He’ll be forever known as “Boomerang Bob”.

    Liked by 9 people

    • geri670 says:

      SpongeBobSquarePantaloons. I’m not trusting this guy, although you make some solid points!

      Like

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      What you say is true, if we go under the assumption that the investigation is conducted in a reasonably fair fashion. Where this goes off the rails is if they start delving into process crimes, which is how they have been trying to get Sessions, and it is how the feds seem to LOVE to work.

      he did it to jail Martha Stewart, they did it to charge Scooter Libby, and if there is so much as a staple in the wrong place on a stupid federal form BOOM! They’ve got you. That is why I worry about having a Special Counsel snooping around.

      I have no fears that there actually is something to find as that they will find some minor technical error that they can use.

      Like

    • 6x47 says:

      Or, Special Counsel Mueller runs interference for the swamp and grants immunity to just enough conspirators to build a firewall blocking all the lines of inquiry that might have led back to the Clintons and Obama.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. carterzest says:

    Wasn’t sessions confirmed on 2-15 as well. Didn’t he almost immediately recuse himself from the MuhRussia sh!tshow? IIRC! He stated that in his testimony. That’s pretty huge. There is no there there.

    Like

    • Kroesus says:

      is testimony Sessions said it was about 2 weeks after his confirmation to recusal but he intentionally avoided briefings and all things Russia in that time

      Like

    • covfefe mariner says:

      That’s what we’ve been told ad infinitum.

      But one thing I learned from Sessions’s testimony is that he recused himself from two items only: improprieties in the Trump campaign and improprieties in the Clinton campaign.

      His recusal was not as broad as most people seem to think.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. evergreen says:

    OK, here’s my take.

    Mueller signed on to investigate a matter involving an acquaintance in the form of Comey. Having headed the FBI himself, and presuming he did not carry on in an unflattering fashion, e.g., leak like a sieve, he probably has a distaste for how the FBI has been scandalized and tarnished these past few years. Sure, Comey may be somewhat close, but Mueller had 12 years with the FBI–I’m going with a hunch here that the FBI is closer to Mueller’s heart than Comey is.

    Per the FBI bio, Mueller is a decorated Marine having volunteered and served in combat in Vietnam. He is to this day extremely highly regarded. I cannot fathom for a moment that he would drop-kick that all away to fall on his sword for someone who has carried on like Comey. Think about it: lifelong lawyer Comey literally whines about his perceived aggrievements whereas Mueller led infantry Marines under fire. No comparison–steel meets marshmallow.

    Knowing that Trump plays it all above board, Comey thrice advised him of being in the clear, Trump-appointed Dep AG Rosenstein hired Mueller, and Comey outed himself as a leaker, I am inclined to think that Mueller, in this time of Fake News, will touch all the requisite bases to establish the facts to his satisfaction in fulfilling his charter as SC. That means he will likely take all of the White House dramas (Flynn, Russia) into account, distill them down to one side of the law or the other, likely finding nothing, close that out, and move on to those laying siege to the White House. That’s where Comey either cops a deal or eats it, because Mueller will see it like Sessions–black and white. There may be mercy (i.e., a deal), but there will be a reckoning. And I would not be surprised if Mueller ends up scrubbing the halls of the FBI, doing some house cleaning…checking those old nooks he knows very well.

    As to leaks about Mueller’s investigation, if they are true, he will probably sympathize immediately with Trump and double his determination not to be beaten and really beat this beast back. I don’t see a guy like Mueller going weak at the knees when Trump “hopes” the Flynn investigation ends. He has to have a masculine sense about him and see it for what it is, unlike Comey. If the leaks are false, he gets to inhale the stench of this dirty job anyway…and look forward to getting it done sooner rather than later. I think he will do this right. For him not to would be a pitiful fall from grace.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sherlock says:

      To know that Mueller is a decorated Marine certainly is a good sign here, and one fact i wasn’t aware of, and one I think entitled to weight. Your analysis seems very well thought out, and Ilke it for several reasons, including that it contains things I had frankly not thought of. We’ll see, because sure as heck this will end at some point.

      Liked by 2 people

      • mccall1981 says:

        I think it’s also worth remembering that the information that we on the outside have available to us is artificially slanted against Trump (negative things for Trump leak, positive things for Trump don’t leak), so our impression of the situation is going to be skewed in a negative way. The reality of the situation is probably likely to be more positive than we think.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Mary says:

          Comey’s mental facilities seem to be rapidly declining. He will unravel under the pressure because, he knows what he is guilty of.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Natalie says:

            Sociopaths don’t have a conscience. Mueller and Comey were not sorry for what they did to Hatfil, the scientist in the anthrax case.Hatfill was ruined and received over $5 million. From the Digenova and toensing interviews it looks like Comey thinks he is the only honest man. Like Hatfill case, once Mueller and Comey thought Hatfill guilty they will find, twist, and even concoct the “evidence” to justify prosecuting. InTrumps case I think they were setting him up because they couldn’t find anything after months of investigating.

            Liked by 1 person

    • A2 says:

      Well said, evergreen. LIKE.

      Liked by 2 people

    • PDQ says:

      Nice. Thanks.
      I am inclind to agree if THEY don’t have anything over Mueller. Extortion, bribery is the fuel for much of the behavior we are seeing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The Boss says:

      Evergreen – You should hang out with Zurich Mike’s brother. Seems you’re both on the same wavelength.

      Liked by 1 person

    • mimbler says:

      Mueller systematically purged the FBI’s ability to investigate anything related to Islam, so I don’t think he is particularly protective of the FBI,
      Mike

      Like

  10. Timmy-the-Ute says:

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Ghostrider says:

    I totally get Sundance’s analysis of Comey. His post detailing Comey’s counter-intelligence angle is thoughtful but I am terribly concerned. Today the left declared war on Trump. One day after Sessions testified before Senate. A Carefully planned attack and executed on his 71st birthday.

    1. Attempted partisan murder on a baseball field. 2. Unabashed law fare: emoluments suit
    3. More leaks. From within the FBI/DOJ where Mueller is investigating Trump on obstruction of justice charges

    I am afraid Sessions is neutered. McCabe and Rosenstein are running the show. I don’t trust McCabe. Never did.

    Like

  12. Piggy says:

    Comey leaking to Wittes really bothers me. Maybe for no reason but cynicism. But Wittes works for Brookings which has a facility in Qatar. I think it’s strange that we have an American think tank located in that country with the business that everyone knows Qatar is part of. Qatar terror leaders/funders would have every incentive to push all this garbage against POTUS. The leaking attacks have ramped up since the Banner mission to Saudi/Israel and Qatars subsequent isolation by surrounding countries.

    This would be Deep State working against us and POTUS to keep the status quo of US dollars funding both sides of a never ending wars. Big money on the line.

    Random statement: I was in Doha in ’01 and helped get the materials and supplies to build Al Udeid. We knew terrorists lived there then and used to joke about it to pretend it wasn’t true. We should not be there.

    Word on the Tweet: Dinah Powell is a major leaker. McMaster and staff leaking to Petraeus.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Sylvia Avery says:

    Here’s a piece of this that puzzles me. According to Gregg Jarrett who was on Lou Dobbs tonight, and he is an attorney as well as a journalist, according to the law regarding the Special Counsel, the Special Counsel SHALL–not may, not if he feels like it–SHALL (must) resign if he has a personal relationship with one of the main figures, even a witness, in the investigation.

    This is not optional. And the law actually defines what is and what is not a personal relationship and Gregg has explained what that is, and that would be Mueller and Comey without any doubt. Rosenstein and Mueller know this, so why did Rosenstein appoint Mueller knowing he CANNOT serve? Why did Mueller agree knowing he SHALL resign? There are legal consequences to Mueller not resigning such as being disbarred.

    These are not stupid people. If this is the law WHY have they done this? I just don’t get it. What is the angle?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. The Demon Slick says:

    Alternatively, McCabe, Mueller and Comey could all be united in a swamp plot to take down President Trump. As more is revealed it will become more clear.
    First McCabe – appointed Mueller as special counsel in violation of the statute that authorized special counsel (The statute requires a crime has occurred, a named statute was broken. It’s not for a “counter intelligence” investigation. In addition, McCabe knew that Comey would be central to the case, and that Mueller and Comey were friends. That violates the statute, and ethics code of conduct from the bar association, as well as several other statutes. McCabe has ties to the Clintons through his wife’s campaign (They were VERY generous) and was part of the team that “questioned” Hillary.
    Next Mueller- He knew Comey was central to the case as a witness or a possible subject of investigation AND HE STILL ACCEPTED. The conflict of interest is appalling. He is obligated by the statute to resign but he hasn’t yet. In fact the conflict of interest means he was statuatorly prohibited from accepting the position and from continuing in the position. If he’s so upright and honorable, then wtf is he doing? In addition he’s hired Rhee, a former Clinton foundation lawyer, and Dreeden, who pioneered the novel legal theory of obstruction of justice without intent. No joke, he argued that in front of the Supreme Court, and was only narrowly beaten back.
    Third is Comey. You already know that he’s a dirty swamp bastard.
    So again I say Muellers next moves will reveal much to us all. I’m leaning heavily towards Mueller is Evil. However, I would surely like to be wrong…

    Liked by 3 people

    • Natalie says:

      Mueller was Comey’s mentor. Ray McGovern has an article saying Mueller is a “deep state Thug”. Reading Lockerbie case with new evidence coming out. The plane data mueller presented was faked and blamed Libya. The anthrax case with ruling Hafill (he wine over $5 m damages) is another.

      Mueller is brought in on historically big ones. It could be to blame Russia as public is very skeptical. Or could be to bring down Trump. There’s a lot going on in DHS to federal involvement in election “infrastructure”. And Russia will be sanctioned and senate rules passed to block Trump from being involved in the russia sanctions.

      Like

      • 6x47 says:

        My fear is that Mueller and Comey are cut from the same cloth. They both detest Donald Trump. And Mueller what are sure his place in history if he was the first special counsel to bring down a president.

        Call I’m afraid that Sundances faith in Mueller’s integrity is naïve.

        Like

    • 6x47 says:

      McCabe didn’t appoint Mueller: Rosenstein did.

      It is baffling, and while I’m very doubtful about Mueller I can’t discount the fact that President Trump had to be involved in selecting and hiring him.

      If you want to clean up the FBI no better man than the former Director.

      Like

    • FH says:

      If the statute REQUIRES a crime, then this entire affair is illegitimate.

      Rosenstein specifically said, “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

      Again, for emphasis, “…not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination”.

      Like

      • Kaco says:

        It’s a witch hunt. President Trump himself called it a witch hunt and he was not happy about this Special Counsel, whose job is not counter-intelligence, but to find whatever dirt he can pin on Pres Trump. Guilty until proven innocent. “Due to public interest”? Really! It’s THE SWAMP’s interest.

        Like

      • amber says:

        The President needs to get rid of Rosenstein as soon as the Special Counsel investigation is over.

        Like

  15. Joshua2415 says:

    Let’s not forget thank Katica for minding the social media front for those of us that don’t have the stomach for it.
    Love ya girl, and thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Digleigh says:

    Sundance:: I see and understand your theory on Comey manuvering to save his b–t. The problem I have with it, is that you seem to assume Mueller will NOT go along with the “take Trump down” plot, nor will McCabe?? By our actions, we are known. Mueller’s past, his Plame shenanigans, his new appt. of Clinton Foundation person, Clinton operatives, etc. are alarming.. McCabe’s close ties to dirty operative McAuliff and Clintons, etc. Why would dirty swamp folks do anything righteous? Just wondering why you think so, and why you think the “fire Mueller” choir is falling for what deep state wants?

    Like

    • 6x47 says:

      My position from day 1 is “a Special Counsel is like a golem”. A entity that is inherently malevolent and impossible to control, and will turn against its maker.

      I find Sundance’s faith in Mueller inexplicable. Mueller and Comey are two birds of a feather. All indications are that Mueller detests Trump as much as Comey did, and I cannot discount the allure for Mueller to be standing in the well of the Senate delivering an impassioned argument for the conviction of President Trump at his impeachment trial.

      Bringing down a president- the first time in history – the name “Robert Mueller” would be immortal.

      If you doubt the venality of high officials just consider the travesty of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Obamacare case. Or any of the horrendous decisions against Trump executive orders. “Surely, a federal judge has the intelligence and ethics to decide a case based on the law”.

      Guess again. Mueller, in my opinion, has one objective: To right the terrible wrong of 2016 and remove that horrible Donald Trump from the White House.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ncpatriot123 says:

        My discouragement is that for ALL the reasons Mueller should not be there, why is nothing being done about it? I love Trump, but I believe he and his staff are much too trusting of swamp dwellers that have one objective-Remove him from office.

        Like

      • bookman says:

        No offense, but how exactly is Robert Mueller going to plant evidence of a crime? I read here from some of you that, despite intense scrutiny over everything that has occurred, somehow Mueller is going to be able to commit forgery of the public record in order to frame Trump? I don’t think so.

        Like

    • bigsy says:

      Maybe Trump’s people knew beforehand that Comey trusted Mueller enough to cut a deal, whereas no one else could. Any other reason for a allowing a friend of Comey as SC?

      We have to assume (dangerous, I know) that all knew Comey was guilty going in, and a deal was the best possible outcome for Comey.

      I took the reactions of dems and GOPe after the Comey hearing to be that of, “Well, that’s over with”, and basically admitting there was no Russia collusion to go along with the fact that Comey admitted to leaks. Is that the ‘deal, right there?

      Then Trump’s personal lawyers got involved, hinting that something in Comey’s testimony led them to decide that. The next day or so after that, Trump posted the ‘prevalent leaks’ tweet. I think that tweet caught everyone by surprise.

      If a ‘deal’ were cut, Mueller’s kind of trapped. Resigning would take the calls for obstruction of justice (ala Nixon) if Mueller were to be fired off the table, and, maybe, if a ‘deal’ were cut, it would void or expose the details of the ‘deal’. Mueller entangled himself in the investigation improperly if he brokered a shady ‘deal’.

      So now Mueller goes all in by bringing in big gun dem lawyers. Was he trying to make such obvious moves to force a firing, or maybe, at this point, he needs to use the lawyers to save his own and Comey’s skin?

      Anyway, I think getting fired is the best possible outcome for Mueller and he’s probably stopping at the cathedral during the commute in and out to light a few candles, hoping the ‘big guy’ will assist a little bit.

      TL;DR: Knowing ahead of time that Mueller and Comey would cut a deal, it could be used to show improper activity by the SC and give the Trump guys/girls more leverage down the road.

      Like

  17. 6x47 says:

    While I like your line of reasoning, I have to admit I am very unhappy that this independent counsel has such a broad mandate. They need to narrowly focused him on investigating the leaking, and other illegal activities.

    I believe it is necessary for the independent counsel to complete a preliminary inquiry and this close to the public that there was no collusion, or any other nefarious activities, between the Trump campaign and “the Russians”

    Like

    • 6x47 says:

      Disclose not this close

      Like

    • bookman says:

      A broad mandate can benefit Trump in three ways. First, it will put to bed the ridiculous muh Russia conspiracy theory. Second, it will end the ridiculous obstruction allegation. Third, it will give the SC a free reign to investigate Lynch, Clinton, Susan Rice, Obama, et al.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Realist says:

    So who is LEAKING Muellers info now Washington is not a SWAMP its a SIEVE..

    Like

  19. Anne says:

    Liked by 2 people

    • The Boss says:

      These tweets are directed at the people and the media, not Mueller. If Trump had an issue with Mueller, he’d say so. The “They” he refers to are the Deep State, Globalists and Chamber of Commerce pimps and whores.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The Boss says:

      And the conflicted people are Comey, Brennan, Rice, the DNC, Podesta the Molesta and a cast of hundreds. Paging Dr. Farkas!

      Like

      • benifranlkin says:

        Mueller is conflicted too. He’s been running deep state…like a shark well below the surface. I think Trump and his attorneys are getting close to making changes at the DOJ and the FBI. It will be very soon

        Like

    • Anne says:

      To me, it seems that Mueller is covering-up for his corrupt friend Comey and investigating president Trump instead of investigating the Russia story. There is really a witch hunt.

      Like

    • recoverydotgod says:

      Trump knows how to expose the leakers….just put out tweets like that. I think the difference will be that Mueller will find and fire leakers in his investigation. Comey could not in his.

      Like

    • bookman says:

      Trump is letting them know that though they want to get a “process crime” they are wasting their time.

      Like

  20. Lou says:

    Muller is an old wealthy snob that runs with the Chris Wallace crowd. You can expect him to do anything he can get by with just to please this crowd of old wealthy snobs. None of them think President Trump or the people that voted for President Trump are notable or worthy of making any sort of decision at all that affects the running of ‘their’ Country.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Putin offer Comey asylum.

    “Vladimir Putin trolled the US on Thursday, when speaking in a live call-in show with the Russian nation, the Russian president likened Comey to Edward Snowden, who was granted asylum in Russia in 2013, and scoffed at James Comey’s disclosure of his conversations with U.S. President Donald Trump, saying the move has made Comey eligible for political asylum in Russia.

    “It looks weird when the chief of a security agency records his conversation with the commander-in-chief and then hands it over to media via his friend,” Putin was quoted by Russia’s Tass. “This is strange. What is the difference then between the FBI director and Mr. Snowden? He is not a head of the special services, but a human rights activist.”

    The trolling concluded when Putin said that “by the way, if he (Comey) is subject to any sort of persecution in connection with this, we will be ready to give him political asylum in Russia. And he should know about this.””

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-15/putin-offers-asylum-leaker-comey

    Like

  22. Mike diamond says:

    Comey,let Hillary off,said hum-a abiden didn’t know it was illegal to send classified info to husband computer,so comey says since she didnot know their was no prosecution ! Loretta lynch has private meeting with bill Clinton during the Hillary matter,Loretta says to comey don’t call it a investigation, that right there is obstruction of justice,comey went along with it! Then you have Louis learner pleads the 5th in IRS investigation!comey says he could not find any evidence to make a case,bill Clinton pay for play charity! Benghazi! Yet comey let every body off.! So it should be OK if president trump fires comey ! After all that I just wrote how could any one trust comey ! He did not do his job!!!!

    Like

  23. 4430lacey says:

    Comey gets fired, then the FBI starts an investigation? And the firing is the call for Obstruction of Justice call??
    What’s wrong with that picture…..could it be the FBI starting an investigation AFTER COMEY IS FIRED? SO WHERE IS OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE???

    Like

  24. SPMI says:

    Why do lawyers on the blog take so friggin long to say absolutely nothing. It is maddening.

    Like

  25. dscottv says:

    I hope and pray and look forward to the day Trump is able to get control over this government…stop the leaks and get the whole apparatus moving on his agenda.

    Like

  26. W-D says:

    Comey, both as an acting and now fired FBI Director has been proven to have leaked information to the media which has lead to an attempted overthrow of President Trump. The DOJ should call it treason, charge him, perp walk him in cuffs and shackles, put him on trial and jail him for life.

    It’s time to put the fear of Trump into what remains of Obama’s shadow government that’s trying to overthrow our sitting President. It’ll be the only time in his poor excuse of a career Comey has been good for something.

    Like

  27. Sassy says:

    So despite the so-called policy that the FBI and DOJ have with regard to avoiding one-on-one conversations with the WH, we have at least two instances where FBI “officials” (Comey and McCabe) broke that policy to INITIATE such conversations with Trump and Priebus.

    Comey meets in private with Trump (Comey’s idea) to apprise Trump of the “dossier,” and then McCabe meets in private with Priebus (McCabe’s idea) to apprise Priebus that the allegations are “BS.”

    It seems that in both cases, this was a plan to goad Trump into doing what they wanted him to do: Do or say something that could be spun as an attempt to “obstruct justice,” (to be saved up to use at the opportune moment, should it arise).

    The leaks are all part of the plan to use Trump’s nature and his naivete against him (with regard to, among other things, how devious politicians and DC operators like Comey work). It is and was a set-up–a trap.

    Why in both cases did they speak in private? Why didn’t they want witnesses? Why did Comey take it upon himself to make convenient “contemporaneous” memos and then also to tell his friends about these conversations, these being friends he knew could leak or (in one case) could be urged by him to reliably leak?

    Why did McCabe tell Priebus the allegations are BS but then (with delight?) tell him later on that the FBI had to let the media narrative stand?

    Pulling wings off flies?

    Why did Comey himself, unasked, three times assure Trump that he wasn’t under investigation but then refuse to let the public know? It’s psychological warfare, plain to see. Community organized psychological warfare.

    Once under oath and fearing tapes, Comey had to admit that he told Trump 3 times that he wasn’t under investigation, but as soon as it’s apparent to the public that Trump wasn’t under investigation, they restart the same psychological warfare against Trump, using the same leak method, to imply that NOW, yes, Trump’s under criminal investigation.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. ej says:

    I think our side is overreacting to the Trump is under investigation of “obstruction”. Apparently, Trump was under investigation for obstruction since the day he fired Comey. Mueller now “investigating” actually makes sense, as Mueller would want to ask questions of the same people who just testified in Congress. He is simply doing his job and probably going through the motions to “check a box” and eliminate the “obstruction” as a possible issue.

    This is a nothing burger with a side of fries.

    I still don’t trust him though.

    Like

  29. Some people worth listening to think Mueller might have granted immunity to Comey already.

    Like

  30. StormyeyesC says:

    Special Counsel CAN grant immunity

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/18/what-the-special-counsel-can-and-cant-do-with-his-investigation.html

    “Other investigations are also underway by the Senate Judiciary and House Oversight committees.
    Some Republicans have argued that appointing a special prosecutor would complicate those ongoing investigations, especially when it comes to issuing subpoenas or granting immunity to witnesses.”

    “If Mueller finds incriminating evidence against anyone, he can seek indictments. But it is less clear if he can do this in Trump’s case — presidents hold a certain amount of legal immunity. Mueller could choose to seek the impeachment of President Trump, but that would require Republicans in Congress to turn on their leader. “

    Like

  31. Deeta1234 says:

    You are kidding yourselves – Mueller has already given Comey immunity. The BBFs want Trump and as many associates as possible.

    Like

  32. U.S.A. Citizen says:

    The witch hunt is on. Since James Comey got fired, he is now trying to hurt President Trump. Now James Comey has asked Robert Mueller to be the head of the FBI. Both of these crooks are Democrats, so you know how Robert Mueller will go. He will try and hurt President Trump for James Comey. The evil loser Liberal Democrats are doing everything they can to impeach President Trump even though there is zero evidence, yet they give Hillary Clinton a pass even though there is so much evidence what she did. Anybody that votes Democrat is voting for the DEVIL, because they are a Satanic Cult.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s