Court Filing: From Day #1 Mueller Special Counsel Was Constructing “Obstruction” Case…

On January 22nd, 2018, eleven months prior to the mid-term election, lawyers from the special counsel’s office told Judge Boasberg in a sealed-courtroom why they needed to keep James Comey’s memos from being released.

Special Counsel Attorney Michael Dreeben informed the court the special counsel was charged with investigating an obstruction case against President Trump from the beginning. President Trump was the target of their investigation from the outset.

The previously sealed court transcript was released today – SEE HERE

Despite Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller assuring the President and his lawyers he was not the target of the investigation, they were lying.

As soon as the court was told Trump was the target (hearing January 22, 2018) the court agreed to seal everything relating to the journal of James Comey. [BACKGROUND]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, Spying, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

263 Responses to Court Filing: From Day #1 Mueller Special Counsel Was Constructing “Obstruction” Case…

  1. bkrg2 says:

    WTF?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. JimWVa says:

    Sundance: Thanks for tracking this case docket. Mr. Dreeben’s speech to Judge Boasberg says to me that Comey was assigned to investigate President-elect Trump and President Trump many months before Comey’s firing on May 9, 2017. This transcript also proves false McCabe’s story that the FBI obstruction investigation of President Trump opened on May 10, 2017. Besides the date of opening of the Russian conspiracy investigation, this transcript raises the questions: Who, when and what evidence formally “opened” the FBI obstruction investigation of which citizen Donald J. Trump was the subject? My guess for an answer: Late evening on Election Day, November 8, 2016.

    Liked by 8 people

    • California Joe says:

      Didn’t McCabe tell Reince Pribus that President Trump wasn’t under investigation for Russian collusion? Why would President Trump be obstructing an investigation if he was told by the FBI he wasn’t even being investigated????

      Liked by 11 people

    • Brian Baker says:

      “Who, when and what evidence formally “opened” the FBI obstruction investigation of which citizen Donald J. Trump was the subject? My guess for an answer: Late evening on Election Day, November 8, 2016.”

      I believe the Mueller report confirms this.

      Look at the ten “results of the obstruction investigation” listed by Mueller. It’s absurd, but this is the first cited example of possible obstruction:

      “The Campaign’s response to reports about Russian support for Trump.
      During the 2016 presidential campaign, questions arose about the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump. After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expresses skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information [Harm to Ongoing Matter] about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow. After the election, the President expressed concerns to advisers that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election”

      Liked by 2 people

      • David A says:

        Lots of people looked for information about future wiki-leaks. This is obstruction how?
        Expressing rational doubt concerning Russian as the wiki source is obstruction? How? Having decided not to pursue a potential business deal in Russia is evidence of neither obstruction or collusion. Expressing concern that the the Russian collusion fraud, proved to be false, known by Trump to be false, obstructed exactly what, how?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Rob says:

          It was not obstruction, as Bar and Mueller has already concluded. The purpose of what was written was to get Congress to push for further investigations in order to try and get Trump impeached. But i’m sure you know this already.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Rudolph says:

        It sounds like the SC was tasked with the job of media/public relations fact checker for the DNC. The media always “fact checks” Republicans as liar, liar pants on fire while declaring Democrat’s statements as gospel. They should be embarrassed to put their name on this report.

        Like

    • TarsTarkas says:

      IMO it goes back to ‘first we f**k Flynn. Then we f**k Trump’. When Trump supposedly asked (according to lyin’ Comey’s notes)’ the FBI director to ‘go easy’ on Flynn, the Tall Weasel decided to treat that suggestion as an direct order to do something ‘unlawful’ and voila! A ready-made OBSTRUCTION case whenever it was needed!

      Comey wanted to be the next J Edgar. The power behind the Presidency. Using the powers of the FBI to bend Trump to his will. Stupid Weasel. Thinking he was dealing with a blackmailable politician. A business executive cannot allow his subordinates to be insubordinate, much less try to boss it over them, or he’s no boss.

      Liked by 4 people

      • sat0422 says:

        Why am I having a vision from my youth showing a white man and an Indian taking a knife and each cutting their hand and then clasping them together to become “blood brothers?”

        I see Andrew Weissmann and James Comey doing the same thing.

        Never forget the Andrew Weissmann’s fingerprints are all over Muller’s work.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Sassy says:

        The filing says that there’s more detail in the memos than what Comey said in his statement for the record and orally to Congress, which raises the question: What details may be in the memos that contradict what Comey said in any sworn statement, stated to the FBI or any other investigator, or testified to Congress and the public, which may explain why they want to keep the memos sealed: to protect Comey from potential perjury allegations. They need to release the memos, so we can compare everything in them to his statements.

        Liked by 2 people

    • The Demon Slick says:

      Dreeben was one of his first hires, and an obvious tell. Dreeben invented the legal theory of obstruction of justice without intent.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dr.Jay says:

      Or they lied to the court in this case about the actual date of opening the obstruction investigation. Shouldn’t surprise me, they do what they like, whenever they like, no consequences whatsoever.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Mark McQueen says:

    Drip, Drip, Drip? I think it’s starting to rain.

    Liked by 9 people

  4. schizoid says:

    So the FBI’s position is if they make the President the target of an investigation, he is no longer their boss and they don’t have to answer to him? Article II of the constitution says all executive power is vested in the President. If they are not working for the President, where does their authority come from?

    Liked by 20 people

    • WSB says:

      Conundrum for them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • MaineCoon says:

        One would think, but inreality it wasn’t really a problem for them. There has to be major, major jail time. Life without parole, in the very least.

        Liked by 8 people

        • oldumb says:

          I agree, but just don’t see it. I see 36 months type of shite. Did you hear Michael Cohen prison allows for “occasional trips home”? WTH? Pansy Prison.

          Liked by 3 people

        • CHenie says:

          @maineCoon-That should be what happens-but REALITY CHECK: No one is going to jail.

          I know, I know-I’m being a Negative Nellie-but I prefer to characterize myself as a Realist Ronnie.

          By the time they soft land this puppy you won’t even know who should go to jail-and likely won’t care. It’s all part of the plan.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Rob says:

            That might work for some instances of corruption, but this is too big to sweep under the rug. Nobody is going to let this go until people go to jail.

            Liked by 2 people

            • MelH says:

              “too big to sweep under the rug” because Our Lion hits back! He and his Family will not take this lying down. President Trump has a HUGE heart. Comey has a black and evil heart and if NOBODY else gets charged, COMEY must go to GITMO!

              Liked by 1 person

          • Jederman says:

            Your theory is sound but this is uncharted territory and beyond the scope of ANYTHING we’ve experienced in American politics before.

            This is a straight up third world, in your face attempted overthrow of a fairly elected president of the opposing party by the outgoing admin.

            Obama went there. Not being a man of courage, he went there only because he is certain he can’t be touched, or will be protected. Cause he’s black and all, and we don’t go after the previous admin in this country, even if they attempt a coup?

            The race card isn’t big enough to cover that poseur this time.

            Liked by 2 people

    • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

      Their twisted logic figures that “since the current president is illegitimate” their loyalty still lies with the previous president. Their authority comes from the ValJar command bunker in DC not far from the White House.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Perhaps I belabor M Glennon’s Double Govt formulation, but…

        The Trumanite Network’s unwritten Constitution permits them to deny recognition of duly elected tho unvetted Madisonian WH occupants (of which Trump is the least palatable in the WW2 era; JFK, Reagan and Carter being others whom the Trumanites managed to turn/expropriate in varying degrees). Obama is still their POTUS. The Rice letter sought to straddle this distinction. They did not recognize the written Constitution’s transfer of power.

        Liked by 2 people

    • grlangworth says:

      Good question: no answer.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TarsTarkas says:

      Tall Jimmy’s ‘A Higher Power’.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dutchman says:

      And WHO, exactly is their BOSS, if NOT the POTUS?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dr.Jay says:

      Double secret investigation.
      It is opened against you, but you are not told, in fact you are told that it’s not the case.

      Yet they do want to claim you obstructed before being notified that you need to preserve records, or something …

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Heika says:

    I know we all already know this, but here it is … finally becoming more public

    The FBI deal not to examine Clintons emails. I mean we know they made the deal NOT to examine the DNC server. What is the point of the FBI? And Wray is trying to cover this stuff up? WHY? How is anything fixed by covering it up, the wanka

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-reached-agreement-with-clinton-lawyers-to-block-fbi-access-to-clinton-foundation-emails-strzok-says

    Liked by 9 people

    • Cheesehead54016 says:

      I think we will be hearing more about the Weiner laptop again soon. It would appear that Crooked Cops Mccabe and Comey either chose to or were ordered to not investigate / search that laptop fully.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dr.Jay says:

      The most idiotic agreement they made was that they agreed to not examine Clinton emails which were sent to or from the Clinton Foundation, despite the fact that the whole case was opened BECAUSE of an email sent to a Clinton Foundation employee, Sidney Blumenthal,..

      Liked by 2 people

  6. WSB says:

    “Despite Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller assuring the President and his lawyers he was not the target of the investigation, they were lying.”

    Can these people be indicted for lying to their boss, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States?

    Asking for quite a few friends,

    Liked by 4 people

    • These people either don’t understand that they are hurting their own country, and in that case they are just dumb, Or they do understand everything, and that means that they are dangerous and unscrupulous.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • oldumb says:

      They say no, the were operating according to procedure. IF he WAS a traitor/ they should not inform him. So…..it will boil down to a judgment call of were they honestly fooled by the “evidence”. Murky waters in the swamp.

      Liked by 3 people

      • WSB says:

        The time line of the surveillance does not allow for the murkiness, though.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Will Hunt says:

        Exactly. This has been my contention for some time now. The tactic for Comey, McCabe et al will be to “spin” this down to a judgement call based on spurious evidence. Unless I’m misjudging Mr. Barr, he’ll scoff this off. He’s seen many criminals and felons in his career that have tried this or similar tactics to avoid accountability. I don’t think it’ll work with him.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Jederman says:

      It’s been written previously that since this was a CI investigation and PT is the target they don’t have to be truthful with him vis a vis information regarding the investigation.

      Where I’m now confused is if mueller/RR were trying to establish an obstruction trap from the get go, they had already determined there was no CI threat, no crime.

      How could he then legitimately be the target of anything (that they were trying to get him to obstruct)?

      Liked by 2 people

  7. k4jjj says:

    The FBI is a rogue organization, not accountable to the American people. The FBI needs to be disbanded. They all think they are not subject to presidential control. They are out of control and dangerous. They need to be de-funded, disarmed and disbanded. They are vastly overrated and spend most of their time protecting themselves. They cannot be trusted and need to be stripped of all power.

    Liked by 3 people

    • oldumb says:

      Everyone keeps saying that, but it will not happen. There are trillions of dollars invested into this venture and they will NOT just scrap it. They will try to reform it of course.

      Liked by 1 person

      • CHenie says:

        @olddumb Please allow me to add to your comment-

        After the soft-landing has descended to the runway of No One Held Accountable, the FBI/DOJ will SAY they are trying to reform their-selves, at the cost of millions of dollars, via bias/ethics/procedural training that will force people that are actually doing something to sit through hours of banal BS produced by multiple contractors.

        I worked for 40 years as a GS’er in the heart of the DC swamp. I’ve seen this movie dozens of times.

        Liked by 3 people

  8. Daniel says:

    The judge has to be corrupt to allow this. Cases of obstruction are typically secondary charges added on to the primary charges. It’s just like “resisting arrest” charges. If there was no reason for an arrest, an arrest is not made and thus no resisting arrest charge.

    To have obstruction as a primary charge is pretty outrageous. The arguments supporting obstruction claims were pretty absurd and by that argument, firing an FBI director for cause (or no cause) is within the powers of the president. And he was told he was not under investigation (lie or not) one could not reasonably argue that he was knowingly obstructing ANYTHING by firing Comey and obstruction requires intent.

    A judge would know all of this. To agree to that makes me think the judge was corrupt as well.

    Liked by 4 people

    • oldumb says:

      There are other reason to obstruct – other than guilt of the stated charge. That is what they are selling.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Guffman says:

        That’s like selling a bridge. Utter nonsense.

        Liked by 1 person

        • oldumb says:

          No, it is real. There ARE several reasons to obstruct other than guilt.
          1) Hiding guilt of a loved one/friend
          2) Not wanting embarrassment uncovered
          3) Hiding other crimes.

          I am not saying ANY of these happened with POTUS, I am saying -what I said – there are other reasons to obstruct even if innocent of the charges.

          Liked by 2 people

          • graphiclucidity says:

            That’s basically what got President Nixon.

            If Nixon had cut loose, early on, the people in his administration and election campaign who were running “The Plumbers”, he’d have likely made it through his second term damaged but not destroyed. Instead, the former president fought to keep the coverup going in order to protect his close subordinates and long-time aides and ended up giving his enemies the rope to hang himself.

            President Reagan, on the other hand, starting firing people quickly when Iran-Contra got out, and survived it all relatively unscathed.

            The coup plotters against President Trump were counting on him to go the Nixon route.
            They bet wrong.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Elle says:

              “Instead, the former president [Nixon] fought to keep the cover up going in order to protect his close subordinates and long-time aides and ended up giving his enemies the rope to hang himself.”

              ironically, this is exactly what is going to happen to Obama and Clinton. Of course Obama and Clinton only care about themselves to the degree that I suspect they will ultimately sell out all of their subordinates in exchange for their own freedom.

              It be a tempting offer, would it not? We give a few of them exile in exchange for their thick little black books with all the names and phone numbers of all of the baddest of the bad guys, spies, dirty bureaucrats, corrupt politicians, sex traffickers, etc. with whom they have been working with for decades.

              Liked by 2 people

              • rickb928 says:

                That’s not how it works. You start from the bottom, give immunity for testimony, make the case, and offer the top people the option to plead out and take suspended sentences, or fight it out against their underlings.

                Liked by 1 person

            • oldumb says:

              The only difference is POTUS45 did nothing wrong. He is exposing the cover up.

              Like

    • Nowut Ameen says:

      They want to say that Trump obstructed justice without intent. That’s the new “theory”.

      If you drive through an intersection on a green light but this causes a police vehicle to have to stop or swerve to avoid you, this is obstruction without intent.

      This is the same theory as guilt for slavery by being white even if no one related to you owned slaves back in the 1800s.

      So Trump doing his job and saying otherwise unobjectionable things – like “I wish the AG would unrecuse himself” is obstruction without intent. It does not matter if the FBI knew it was “investigating” a hoax. All that matters is that Trump “obstructed” justice by saying or doing something that might have interfered, even if there was nothing to interfere with.

      If you are shadow boxing and your neighbor next door falls as you punch your shadow, is this assault without intent? Maybe, if your neighbor is a lawyer.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Cathy M. says:

    It’s one thing to lie to a target (the President) of an investigation. It’s quite another to lie to Congress while under oath.
    Comey testified to a Congressional committee that the FBI investigations has/had not targeted Trump personally.
    Perjury

    Liked by 4 people

    • Niagara Frontier says:

      Who knows what he might have said in a private session? “I take it back about the President not being a target. I had to say that in the public session because to the best of my knowledge, he still is a target.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rob says:

        One would usually say “I cannot answer that question because of ongoing investigations”, even if it meant the public being able to connect the dots.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. bluebongo says:

    Outrage distraction.

    Law Enforcement officials can lie to anyone under investigation per Supreme Court ruling.

    https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/394-u-s-731-606692502

    However, they CAN’T manufacture evidence.

    http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/1911-lying-to-a-suspect-how-far-can-an-investigator-go

    Liked by 2 people

    • iswhatitis says:

      bluebongo says: “Law Enforcement officials can lie to anyone under investigation per Supreme Court ruling.

      That actually makes sense if one thinks about it.

      For example, there’s the old cliched bit where a shady character asks someone, “Are you a narc?”. If they weren’t allowed to lie – that’s all it would take to stymie an undercover investigation (just ask everyone, “are you a narc?” before doing <i.business with them).

      No outrage from me.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. CopperTop says:

    in re: need to lock [redacted] in a chargeable way

    “Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said [during congressional questioning]: “I know, as a former U.S. attorney, that if, in fact, that’s what happened, I know that whoever is the subject of that case that was opened — now that Andy is acting — and whoever you and Ms. Page talked about needing to be locked in soon in a formal chargeable way, well, they would have had their civil liberties violated. They would have been deprived of due process.”

    Like

  12. Everett Miller says:

    Hey AG Barr,
    Who are you going to arrest today? Tomorrow?

    Like

  13. TwoLaine says:

    Despite Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller assuring the President and his lawyers he was not the target of the investigation, they were lying.

    Correction:

    Despite FBI Director James Comey, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller assuring the President and his lawyers he was not the target of the investigation, they were lying.

    Like

    • Roger Duroid says:

      Everyone of the “GANG” of eight, less NUNES (he got a different briefing), knew this from day 1. They sat and HOPED PDJT would get snared in something from the FBI. Bastages, all of them. Especially RYAN. F him and the camel he rode in on.

      Liked by 3 people

  14. Bryan Alexander says:

    I was taught from childhood to respect authority, to respect the police. And I still do. But after Waco and Ruby Ridge and TWA800, I began to develop a mistrust of the FBI that I never thought I would have.

    But Clinton Email Scandal and Spy-Gate has taught me at least one absolute truth about the FBI that I NEVER thought I would realize:

    Never talk to them. Ever. For any reason. They absolutely cannot be trusted at all. If for any reason an FBI agent comes to ask me a question, I feel that I am a potential target. I will not give up my 5th Amendment Rights to these folks.

    The current leadership has TOTALLY DESTROYED the reputation and integrity of the FBI.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Danimal28 says:

      I agree, Bryan. I am a longtime soldier/NCO who deeply believes in our systems. However, if I am approached by any federales I mention the 5th and that is it. Key people need hard time to remedy this crap. The good folks doing the good work using investigative tools need these tools to protect us, but leadership needs a serious upheaval.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. fractionalexponent says:

    Isn’t the “dossier” manufactured evidence in an investigation, and therefore illegal?

    Liked by 3 people

    • fractionalexponent says:

      Isn’t falsifying FISA applications ‘manufacturing evidence’?

      Liked by 3 people

      • graphiclucidity says:

        This is perjury (false testimony) and contempt of court.
        The government lawyers swore under oath that all evidence presented to the FISC was verified, true, and correct.

        On the Carter Page FISA, they knew otherwise and lied.
        This is doubly important here as in the FISC there is no defense counsel present to argue facts and evidence before the judge, the court is relying solely on the government to present them with true information under penalty of perjury.

        Liked by 2 people

    • graphiclucidity says:

      Concerning the FBI, technically no, at least not as far as the evidence goes.
      They claim they had nothing to do with the dossier, it was just provided to them by a trusted informant, Steele, and could not be ignored.

      However, if Sundance’s theory is correct that the dossier was sort of commissioned by the CIA/FBI through FusionGPS/Steele to cover up previous unauthorized surveillance, then yes, they have totally screwed the pooch.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Luke of the D says:

    How can an investigation possibly start with “obstruction of justice” before the investigation has identifed a crime? The logic of this is backwards.

    Liked by 2 people

    • graphiclucidity says:

      The “crime” was hacking into the DNC and conspiracy with Russian agents to do so.
      The “obstruction” was firing Comey to prevent the furtherance of the investigation into the hacking of the DNC and determining if there was a conspiracy with Russian agents to do so.

      That’s what they’re trying to sell anyhow.
      And they’ll keep on trying to sell it, no matter how much the end result proves their own gullibility, bias, partisanship, stupidity, and corruption in the process.

      Like

  17. iwasthere says:

    This movie is having the longest trailer ever. Let’s roll Mr. Barr.

    Like

  18. jmclever says:

    I would like to assert that the obstruction of justice case was being framed from the moment that Obama expelled the Russian diplomats. And that the timing on the release of the Mueller report was also planned in advance for exactly when it hit for impeachment proceedings. Everything Mueller “investigated” was to provoke a response from POTUS Trump that would be used as “evidence” to support their bogus claims. This coup attempt is literally classic narcissistic abuse perpetrated by the deep state against Donald J Trump. The abuser spreads lies about their target and then provoke the target in such a way that the target’s response becomes proof of those lies. It works on those with battered conservative syndrome. But not our lion.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. rickb928 says:

    “Despite Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller assuring the President and his lawyers he was not the target of the investigation, they were lying.”

    Of COURSE they lied to the President. If you can get away with it, you do not alert the subject of an investigation to that fact until you absolutely must. The only question about that is whether or not there is policy, regulation, or law, that makes that improper or illegal. Which I kinda doubt.

    And, FWIW, when the FBI questions you, even casually, you assume you are the subject of an investigation. If they don’t tell you so, you either ‘don’t recall’, ‘are unsure’, or ‘just don’t remember at the moment’. If they get insistent. you ask ‘should I have a lawyer for this?’ And you do NOT believe them if they say ‘no’, despite Miranda. Ask if you’re free to go, does this need to continue. If you cannot just leave, and end the questioning voluntarily, you need a lawyer. Trust none of the police.

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s