Investigative Report with a little bit of opinnews By Super Kiki
:Read The Full Barr Letter HERE:
"The Report does not recommend any further indictments nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments."
"The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump Campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or associated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."
"...despite multiple offers by the Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump Campaign."
So what does this all mean?
Well one thing it does indicated, is that the over 88,000 sealed indictments/court cases that do exist aren't connected to Trump Russian Collusion.
SEALED INDICTMENTS MARCH 2019
The Folly of the Mueller Investigation
After an exhaustive 22-month investigation, Mueller found that there was no criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. This was already manifest to anyone who had closely followed the investigation — anyone, that is, who had taken note that no predicate crime was specified when Mueller was appointed (the special-counsel regulations require one), or anyone who had read the indictments Mueller filed, which demonstrated that Russia’s operations predated Trump’s entry into the 2016 campaign, that some of them were actually anti-Trump in nature, and that Russia (which is notoriously adept at espionage) neither needed nor sought American collaborators. “There is no allegation,” observed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in announcing charges against Russian operatives brought by the special counsel he had appointed, “that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity.” Never was such an allegation even hinted at against the president, nor against any of his associates, a handful of whom were charged either with crimes that had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign or with process crimes (mostly lying to investigators) that were not committed until after the campaign was over.
Mueller was even arguably needed to answer only one question: Did President Trump obstruct justice? On that, Mueller abdicated, refusing to render a prosecutorial judgment. This dereliction of duty in his final act further elucidated that there was neither a legal basis nor a practical need for the appointment of a special counsel.
As we go to press, Mueller’s report has not yet been released. As is called for by regulation, the special counsel has submitted a confidential report, outlining his charging decisions and the rationale for them, to Attorney General William Barr.
The bottom line, however, is not going to change: There never was a Trump–Russia conspiracy.
“Collusion” was the discordant mood music of Russiagate, but it was an overwrought obstruction allegation that triggered Mueller’s installation on May 17, 2017, by the order of Rosenstein (acting as attorney general because then-AG Jeff Sessions was recused). By then, the FBI had already been investigating Trump–Russia ties for more than ten months (exactly when, how, and why the investigation commenced remain unanswered questions).
Comey, despite repeatedly telling Trump he was not a suspect under investigation, stunningly announced in March 2017 congressional testimony that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for possible “coordination” in Russia’s cyber espionage. Increasingly frustrated by Comey’s refusal to state publicly the assurances he’d given Trump privately, the president fired the FBI director on May 9.
When Trump ousted Comey, Democrats posed as apoplectic. Trump clumsily tied Comey’s firing to his conduct of the Russia investigation in statements in an NBC News interview and (appallingly) during a White House visit by Russian diplomats. The president clearly meant that Comey had been falsely depicting him as complicit in Russia’s perfidy, but Democrats pounced, spinning Trump’s statements as admissions that Comey had been removed to impede the Russia investigation — notwithstanding that Trump never shut the probe down and even told NBC he wanted it done properly. The heat intensified when, based on a leak from Comey, the New York Times reported that Trump had leaned on the FBI to drop an investigation of former national-security adviser Michael Flynn.
:Read the rest of this great article HERE:
Ep. 952 How Many Times Have They Tried This? The Dan Bongino Show 4/5/2019
From Dan Bongino's Web Site:
- Here is the definitive list of all of shady Adam Schiff’s collusion lies.
- The scandal surrounding the targeting of Lt. General Mike Flynn is getting uglier.
- Andy McCarthy’s terrific piece describes the folly of the Mueller probe.
- This Margot Cleveland piece addresses stunning information about Mifsud’s role in the Spygate scandal. Listen to this episode where I discuss the footnote.
- The real collusion and obstruction story is the one involving Joe Biden and his son Hunter.\
Schiff’s memo repeats the myth that it was George Papadopoulos responsible for sparking the FBI’s investigation into the Trump team. He also (falsely) claims that Steele’s research didn’t even reach the FBI until seven weeks after they opened their investigation.
[Nunez Memo]
[Democrat Rebuttal Memo] = LIES
We’ve been manipulated! Our emotions have been messed with daily for what? CNN's ratings? Who do these people think they are? We are suppose to trust them to tell us the truth?
How do you feel now you know that Congressman Schiff has been lying to you? He's been telling you that he has "significant evidence of collusion," since 2017! If the evidence exists, then where is it?
I don't know about you but I'M PISSED OFF! I have friends and family members that won't talk to me, because they think I support a traitor to my country! Congressman Schiff has directly affected my personal life with his lies.
All along, I knew he was lying, because I've been reading all of the documents and transcripts that have been released However I will refrain from saying I told you so.
As Reported March 24, 2019 by Fox News:
Attorney General William Barr on Sunday, (March 24, 2019,) released the "principal conclusions" of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's completed Russia probe in a bombshell four-page letter to Capitol Hill lawmakers....
Barr said Mueller's team "thoroughly" investigated allegations that Trump's team sought to conspire with Russians or obstruct investigators. The Special Counsel "issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses," Barr wrote.
Barr's disclosure was a capstone moment following the 22-month investigation that ensnared six former Trump advisers and associates -- but resulted in no indictments related to collusion with Russia.
Think about it. If an innocent witness revealed something that could affect their personal life or cause them to become a target of public scrutiny, then it needs to be redacted in order to protect that person. That’s just one example, but you get the idea.
April 3, 2019 the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing and voted to subpoena the DOJ for the Mueller report.
As Reported April 3, 2019 By SaraACarter.com
The vote was 24-17, with all Democrats supporting and all Republicans opposed.
The committee also approved subpoenas for a number of former White House aides who Democrats said were relevant to an investigation into possible obstruction of justice, abuse of power and corruption.
As Reported April 3, 2019 by The Daily Caller:
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nalder said he would give Attorney General Bill Barr “time to change his mind” about releasing the full report to Congress, but added “if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials.” The subpoena is particularly noteworthy because it also encompasses all the underlying evidence that special counsel Robert Mueller used to write his report.
The subpoena is likely to set the stage for a high-profile battle between Congress and the Justice Department over whether a fully redacted version can be turned over. Barr has not yet indicated how he will respond to the subpoena but it is unlikely that the full request will be honored.
Barr previously told Congress that he would provide a redacted copy of the Mueller report by mid-April and that the White House would not get a chance to publicly review it. “With assistance from the Special Counsel Mueller on redactions for a version of the Mueller report to be released, progress is such that I anticipate we will be in position to release the redacted report “by mid-April, if not sooner,” Barr wrote.
As Reported April 4, 2019 By The Hill's John Solomon:
I’ve covered the Justice Department for three decades, and seldom have I seen a story like the one published in The New York Times this week under the headline, “Some on Mueller's Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed.”
What concerned me most is that the story’s anonymous allegations reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role prosecutors play, including special counsels such as Robert Mueller.
The job of prosecutors is not, as the Times headline suggested, to pen “damaging” narratives about people they couldn’t indict. And it’s not their job to air those people’s dirty laundry, or that of suspects outside of a grand jury room or a courtroom.
Mueller concluded there wasn’t evidence President Trump colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election, and therefore no indictment was warranted. And he punted on the question of obstruction, leaving his bosses — Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — to determine that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict the president on that charge.
And, most significantly, there were no other people charged. That means Trump legally could not be named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an obstruction plot.
At that point, no federal prosecutor has the right to impugn an uncharged investigative target’s reputation through anonymous leaks or literary reports. They are not allowed to anonymously inject into the court of public opinion any “damaging” information about what they couldn’t succeed at offering in a court of law as proof of criminality.
Prosecution isn’t a game of horseshoes or hand grenades where prosecutors get to score points or inflict damage without indicting the target. In fact, the Founding Fathers built a legal system specifically to avoid the tarring of citizens when there wasn’t enough proof to meet a criminal charge.
And nowhere is that intention to protect the citizenry more clear than in the rules governing grand juries. The federal justice system created grand juries so that evidence that was embarrassing or damaging to defendants could be weighed behind closed doors but never released if it did not rise to the level of provable criminality.
The Justice Department rules threaten any law enforcement officer or prosecutor with prosecution if they leak any proceeding that occurred before a grand jury. And the Justice Department rules governing grand juries unequivocally talk about the sanctity of protecting citizens who end up not being charged.
“The prosecutor must recognize that the grand jury is an independent body, whose functions include not only the investigation of crime and the initiation of criminal prosecution but also the protection of the citizenry from unfounded criminal charges,” the Justice Department rules say.
We know from statements the Justice Department made Thursday that grand jury subpoenas and testimony were so essential to the Mueller probe that nearly every one of the 400 pages of his final report contained some form of grand jury or classified information that needs to be redacted — i.e., protected from being used to level “unfounded criminal charges” against those not indicted.
When you see the rules by which prosecutors must abide, and compare it to the anonymous narrative in the Times article, one can see a real reason for concern.
Going to the court of public opinion to state there was “damaging” information in a probe that failed to prove criminal charges violates the letter and the spirit of the Justice Department manual. It also offends the essence of American justice that one remains innocent until proven guilty.
:Read the rest of this brilliant article HERE:
Bombshells dropped by John Dowd regarding the Mueller investigation
FULL INTERVIEW: Ep. 6: The Man Who Defended Trump
https://ricochet.com/podcast/byron-york-show/the-man-who-defended-trump/
Dowd is a former attorney for the United States Department of Justice, and former Marine Corps JAG. He was appointed by Major League Baseball (MLB) to lead the special counsel in multiple investigations with the organization in the 1980s and 1990s involving sports betting and bribery, the most notable investigation being the Dowd Report in 1989, which resulted in Pete Rose being banned from baseball for life.
From June 2017 to March 2018, Dowd was a legal advisor to President Donald Trump. On March 22, 2018, Dowd resigned as Trump's lead counsel in the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference and possible ties to Trump associates.
Key points to the Byron York interview of Attorney John Dowd:
- "Russians" tried to penetrated the Trump Campaign on several occasions but were never able to.
- Dowd knows all the evidence, testimony and documents and there was no evidence to start the investigation in the first place.
- The Trump legal team were never surprised over leaks, because they were beautifully prepared by doing their own thorough investigation themselves.
- The team would tell "reporters" that things were not true and they would go ahead and print them anyway. (The leaks were real, but the news was fake?)
- President Trump was completely transparent.
John Dowd Said: "I challenge anyone to find a president that was so fully cooperative and transparent. I must say, particularly, the intimate notes of his counsel and senior staff that we produced.
They are the realtime comments and thoughts of the President in conference with Don McGahn and other lawyers etc."
- President Trump was worried about setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
- The Trump legal team had a deal with Bob Mueller that they would get him every single document as soon as possible, in full cooperation, if he promised to conduct the investigation as fast as possible. He knew there was no evidence of collusion by the end of 2017. but he dragged it out and didn't hold up his end of the deal.
- Dowd asserted that there couldn't possibly be anything Mueller could ask President Trump, because he had EVERYTHING.
- The Trump legal team had a deal with Mueller that they would provide the meeting notes under executive privilege, only as long as they were not made public without first asking the White House. This is one of the problems that Barr is having with redactions. AG Barr has already said he will not be going to the White House for anything regarding the Mueller report, as to not seem as though they are trying to hide anything. Private meetings with the President can not be publicly disclosed with out the President's permission.
- There are three obstacles regarding redactions:
1. Grand Jury Testimony
2. Classified information
3. Executive privileged notes
- None of the witnesses that the White House provided went in front of the Mueller Investigation's Grand Jury...
- Mueller couldn't prove to the court that there was any crime so he couldn't subpoena President Trump.
- Every witness was truthful and didn't lie. (Then why were their people indicted for lying?)
- The investigation was never about collusion, it was about trying to get POTUS for obstruction of justice. Obstructing an investigation of a crime that never happened. Even though he told Comey and openly stated that he wanted the investigation to be conducted properly.
(You can't obstruct and ask for the investigation to run properly at the same time.) - President Trump was most worried about how this investigation and collision narrative was affecting foreign affairs. That was a big reason for wanting it to be over as fast as possible.
- While negotiating a critical deal, like getting hostages freed, he would have to deal with the foreign leaders questioning whether he would be sicking around.
How has he been able to keep it together so well, while falsely being accused by millions of people? Tell me again how he's not mentally stable. Could you handle all of that pressure? I didn't think so.
- Andrew Weismann manufactured horrors on Paul Manafort and used solitary confinement to try and break him. He was prosecuted on cases that had been previously declined by the DOJ. The charges are all from many years ago and have absolutely nothing to do with President Trump, or Russian Collusion during the 2016 campaign.
- Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn CLEARLY did not lie. He told the FBI that his conversation was on tape, which should have been the end of the interview. They had what they needed already on tape.
- The media ran with stories about the investigation expanding, although Mr. Dowd says that he had an agreement with Mueller that if it were to do so, they would get a heads up. He never was given a heads up. (More fake news?)
- Bloomberg’s Dirty Deutsche Bank Scoop was false and Mueller stepped up to verify that it was. They did not subpoena Deutsche Bank!!!
- President Trump's interview with Lester Holt was wildly misrepresented. When he said he fired Comey over Russia, it was taken out of context in editing. He meant because Comey wouldn't say publicly that he wasn't a target in the Russia investigation. However, Mueller didn't care about the interview, because the President can fire the FBI director for any reason he wants. That is the Constitutional Right of the POTUS.
- Rod Rosenstein appointed the special counsel without telling anyone including AG Sessions who was mortified and offered his resignation over it.
- Still no one knows what is in the redacted scope memo, or what they are actually suppose to be investigating. (A Scope Memo outlines the target and objective of the investigation.)
- It's still unknown why President Trump would interview Mueller for the FBI director position the day before Rosenstein appointed him, even though Mueller had already served his full term limit, plus two years as FBI director. (Note: Rosenstein was in the meeting with POTUS and Mueller as well.)
- John Dowd wrote a letter to Special Counsel asking to have Jim Comey investigated as the main accuser of the Trump Administration, but it was brushed off by Mueller and Rosenstein.
:Link to full interview:
Let's take a walk down memory lane......
As Reported March 25, 2019 ByThe Daily Caller:
THE MEDIA’S RUSSIA ‘BOMBSHELLS’ LOOK EVEN WORSE NOW THAT MUELLER FOUND NO COLLUSION
The obsession to prove collusion has dampened the media’s journalistic abilities, leading to a seemingly endless list of corrections, retractions and apologies.
In light of Mueller concluding his investigation, we’ve compiled a list of some of the worst media screwups in the history of Russia theories.
1. CNN Accuses Don Jr. Of Wikileaks Collusion
2. ABC Tanks Stock Market With Fake Flynn News
3. The Mooch Is NOT Under Investigation
4. Bloomberg’s Dirty Deutsche Bank Scoop
5. Sessions Exonerated
6. Russians Aren’t Just Hacking The Election — They’re Hacking Our Power Grid
7. Republicans Funded The Dossier!
8. CNN Gets Comey Prediction Wildly Wrong
9. The ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie
10. Manafort Notes Are A Nothing Burger
11. NBC Issues Cohen Correction
12. Did Cohen Go To Prague?
13. Busted BuzzFeed
14. Lanny Davis Obliterates CNN’s Trump Tower Story
15.NPR Accuses Don Jr. Of Perjury
16.Mic Claims Russian Spy Infiltrated The Oval
Update April 9, 2019
Attorney General Barr testified in front of Congress
As Reported April 9, 2019 By Fox News:
Attorney General William Barr testified before a House subcommittee Tuesday, marking his first appearance before lawmakers on Capitol Hill since releasing his four-page memo on the key findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The official purpose of the hearing, which was conducted by the House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, was to discuss Barr's fiscal year 2020 spending request for the Department of Justice. However, top Democrats grilled the attorney general on his Mueller report summary.
Barr indicated that a redacted version of the Mueller report would be made available "within a week.
THE A-TEAM: @david_avella @EmilyCompagno @ThirdWayMattB reacted to AG Barr's hearing on Capitol Hill today #nine2noon pic.twitter.com/6ZjEcjT0G1
— America's Newsroom (@AmericaNewsroom) April 9, 2019
The redactions are also being made in cooperations with the Mueller Team.
This way the opposition of President Trump will not be able to claim that redactions were made to hide criminality.
However, we all know they will find something. They always do.
As Reported April 9, 2019 by Market Watch:
Democrats including Rep. Nita Lowey of New York pressed the attorney general including over redactions, with Barr replying that he will take out items in four areas such as information that would interfere with ongoing prosecutions.
Barr told panel members the redactions made to the Mueller report would be color coded to reflect what category of redactions they are. He also said he wouldn’t initially give lawmakers an unredacted version of the report, but would ask the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees if they “feel they need more information” and see if they could be accommodated.
Less than an hour into the hearing, Barr told lawmakers he wouldn’t discuss the Mueller report any further until it is out. But Democrats kept pressing him.
AG Barr was also pressed on what the Special Counsel meant by their non-conclusion on Obstruction of Justice. In the report from Mueller it said it did not exonerate President Trump nor implicate him. AG Barr said that was a statement from the Special Counsel and he only reported it as one of the bottom line conclusions. He's also not going to discuss it further until the report is all out.
People.... THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION! But that will be in part 6.