ELDER PATRIOT – Why was a Special Counsel appointed?
Ostensibly it was done to investigate Russia’s involvement in our electoral process though that doesn’t appear now to be the real reason.
Following the election congressional Democrats went on the offensive against President Trump charging him with colluding with Russia to “hack the election.”
The charge of colluding with Russia to undermine the sanctity of our electoral process is a serious one and on that basis Democrats argued that it warranted further investigation by a special counsel.
Why did congressional Republicans to this?
Remember, a large number of Republicans never wanted Donald Trump – or any outsider – to be president. During the campaign many denounced Donald Trump with a good number claiming they’d be voting for Hillary Clinton or just not voting for president at all.
Why would so many leading Republicans do that?
Because Trump promised to drain the swamp and the swamp is deep and the longer any politician is exposed to it the more likely they wind up swimming in it. Leading Republicans are the ones who spent the longest tenures exposed to the swamp.
Is there any evidence that candidate Trump actually colluded with Russia, or that his campaign staff did?
No. The F.B.I. has been investigating Trump for more than 11 months and the other 16 intelligence agencies for more than 7 months without finding any evidence to support this claim.
As late as mid-October, then President Obama told the American people that there was no serious person who believed that our elections could be hacked.
What is this about then?
Special counsels can be given broad investigatory powers. Robert Mueller was.
These broad powers allow Robert Mueller to investigate virtually anyone who has ever shaken President Trump’s hand. This can take years.
There’s a second reason as well. As long as the special counsel is investigating President Trump he won’t be investigating Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or anyone else on the other side of the aisle.
If all of these intelligence agencies haven’t found any evidence implicating Donald Trump or any members of his campaign, why would there be a call for a special counsel?
There are multiple reasons for this. The broader the investigation is the longer President Trump’s enemies can dominate the news cycle making it far more difficult to for him to move the agenda he was elected to.
There’s another, more sinister reason as well. Testimony given before a special prosecutor or any of his team is given under oath and often about events that they may be unaware of or have hazy memories about. If an answer is later found to be incorrect it is a crime.
This is called a process crime meaning that while no underlying criminal activity had taken place the deponent is guilty of perjury. This is what Democrats attempted to charge Attorney General Jeff Sessions with when he answered a series of questions about his campaign involvement in the context of the Russia investigation.
The Democrats claimed he committed perjury when he said he had no such contact. Within the context of the campaign he hadn’t. As a U.S. Senator he had some minor contact in the course of discharging his duties. This is how easy it is for a special prosecutor to destroy a person’s life.
Why would a special prosecutor want to destroy someone’s life?
Generally, they don’t but politics is a dirty business and in many ways politicians behave in a manner much like any other criminal syndicate. Just ask Seth Rich. If it becomes a case of destroying the lives of a few people to preserve the corrupt Washington political syndicate that oversees a $4 trillion empire, well these are the “tough” decisions that have to be made. Nothing personal.
What would be gained by doing this?
At this point any criminal prosecution would be damaging to President Trump, both politically and because patriots will be dissuaded from joining his team knowing the same fate could await them.
With such broad powers it seems essential that a person of impeccable credentials be appointed to that position. Is Robert Mueller a man of such integrity?
The more we examine Mueller’s past his integrity comes into question for a number of reasons.
1. The Clintons had been spinning their web of corruption since they first arrived in Washington in 1992. Mr. Mueller served as the F.B.I. Director for twelve of those years, from September 4, 2001 until September 4, 2013. After so long a period he never found a reason to investigate the Clintons’ criminal ways or for that matter any other member of the Washington swamp.
Even if we give Mueller the benefit of the doubt and proceed under the notion that until Hillary’s email scandal nothing was known, he was the F.B.I. director when the Obama administration began ignoring the FISA court by conducting unlawful surveillance of private citizens private. Mueller had to have had full knowledge of these unlawful acts but did nothing to stop Obama from violating the court.
2. So far special counsel Robert Mueller has brought 13 lawyers on board to handle the Russia investigation, with plans to hire more. Mueller has made no attempt to balance the objectivity of his team. They all are partisan Democrats including Jeannie Rhee who defended Hillary Clinton from FOIA requests related to her private email server.
This is extremely troubling because it now appears that Mueller is intent on doing the same thing he did as F.B.I. director, protecting Team Clinton and the swamp she presided over from prosecution.
3. Mueller’s integrity comes under further question because of his relationship with a central figure in his investigation and the man who succeeded him at the F.B.I., James Comey.
Section 28 CFR 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or politicial relationship of the Code of Federal Regulations requires Mueller to recuse himself from the Comey part of the inquiry because Mueller has a well established longstanding “personal relationship” with Comey.
This would allow Mueller to hand off the investigation of Comey to the partisans he chose to assist him in the first place and who have their past and current clients’ agendas to consider.
Why is all of this troubling?
The special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the election. The truth in exposing this should be of concern to all Americans but if there has been no evidence forthcoming from the 17 intelligence agencies what can Mueller be expected to do to further the investigation?
He has neither the resources nor the authority to conduct an investigation into the intelligence community to find out if and why they actually failed to protect the electoral process.
However, he has been given the authority to give the final word on this investigation making his role a political one more than anything else.
Judging by the team he has assembled to assist him it appears that he not only understands this but that he is preparing to do everything possible ignore other political figures’ involvements with Russia, like Obama, Clinton, and Podesta.
Aside from the team he has put together is there any other evidence to support allegations that Mueller doesn’t intend to search for the truth wherever the investigation leads him, including into Democrats’ possible roles in the Russian matter?
Special prosecutors and members of their team must have no political or professional affiliations whatsoever:
§ 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
This would include lawyers who have either directly represented potential deponents (both Hillary and Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, etc.) or whose law firms have.
What does this mean?
The restrictions placed on Mueller and his team under § 45.2 leads one to conclude that Mueller has no intention of widening the Russian investigation to include any Democrats.
Why might it be important to depose Democrats?
Obama was president during the entire period when any Russian hacking might’ve occurred. Any investigation that doesn’t include deposing the Democrats who were in charge during that time can’t be seeking to provide the whole truth to the American people.
For example, Hillary Clinton admitted using an unsecure server illegally. That server was connected to the DNC and DCCC servers that were allegedly hacked by Russia. Did Hillary’s server serve as the entry point into a wider grid for the Russian hackers?
If it did was it with Hillary’s knowledge?
We also know that Seth Rich was murdered and had been working on registration lists that conceivably could’ve been connected to the hacked voter registration lists in several states that Reality Winner recently leaked proof of from NSA files..
It’s hard to fathom a serious investigation into the depth of Russian involvement without deposing those who were responsible for guaranteeing it couldn’t happen.
In light of congressional Democrats’ rabid determination to pin this on Donald Trump it would be important to determine why they are so aggressively pursuing the current president over what appears to have at least some of their fingerprints on it? They protest too much. What are they hiding?
Is this why Donald Trump called this investigation a Witch Hunt?
Yes. There is just too much evidence to trust Mueller. It seems he is positioning himself to, either, find something to charge Trump with totally unrelated to Russia, impugn one or more of Trump’s associates solely for political purposes, or find nothing at all.
If the purpose of Mueller’s appointment is to determine the cause of Russia’s interference into our elections then he must be prepared to look under every rock not just ones Donald Trump walked past.
To date, all indications are that Mueller is determined to make sure that corrupt Democrats will walk free.
Having your target identified prior to an investigation is the definition of a Witch Hunt. Ignoring the findings of 17 intelligence agencies in addition to the man who was president at the time, only compounds that conclusion.