Judiciary Chairman Nadler Claims He is Negotiating for Mueller to Testify. Here’s Why He’ll Never Let Mueller Appear…

Elder Patriot’s Opinion | To fully understand what is infolding in House, you have to understand the political motives of the Democrats.

Every accusation, every move, every legal maneuver has, as former Federal Prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy concluded, after an exhaustive reading of the Mueller Report, is part of “an exquisitely planned political campaign”:

Russiagate has always been a political narrative masquerading as a federal investigation. Its objective, plain and simple, has been twofold: first, to hamstring Donald Trump’s capacity to press the agenda on which he ran (immigration enforcement, conservative judicial nominees, deregulation, and a military build-up, along with skepticism about military interventions, free trade, and NATO); and ultimately, to render him unelectable come autumn 2020.


The Russia counterintelligence probe, based on the fraudulent projection of a Trump-Putin conspiracy, was always a pretext to conduct a criminal investigation despite the absence of a predicate crime. The criminal investigation, in turn, was always a pretext for congressional impeachment chatter. And the congressional impeachment chatter is a pretext for the real agenda: Making Trump an ineffective president now, and an un-re-electable president 18 months from now.

They try to make it look like law. It has always been politics. (read the entire article)

So, while the Mueller Report, with all its unproven innuendo and legal dead ends, is central to maintaining the dishonest and destructive media blitz against President Trump – for the reasons McCarthy states above – that is precisely the reason Nadler will avoid bringing the former special counsel before the committee he chairs.

Nadler understands that the ongoing anti-Trump narrative, that is fueled by the distortions presented within the Mueller Report, cannot withstand scrutiny.

Putting Mueller before the Republicans, many of whom are experienced prosecutors, is a certainty to expose the corrupt intel community’s actions underlying the scheme.

In an earlier column, McCarthy outlined the preposterous hoops the FBI, and more significantly the special counsel, jumped through to present bits and pieces of evidence in a manner necessary to create the illusion of collusion.

The Mueller Report conflates George Papadopoulos’ words to create (the FBI) and then perpetuate (Mueller) the impression that Papadopoulos knew the incriminating evidence the Russians possessed against Hillary Clinton were in the form of emails.

Further, Mueller goes to great lengths to keep alive the lie that Joseph Mifsud, the academic that Papadopoulos is said to have gotten that information from, is a Russian asset.

Other than Papadopoulos’s own word, there is no evidence — none — that he was told about emails by Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic whom the FBI and the Mueller investigation deceptively portrayed as a Russian agent. As I’ve previously detailed, because the investigation could not establish that Mifsud was a Russian agent, Mueller’s charge against Papadopoulos is artfully framed to obscure this weakness. Carefully parsed, Mueller allegation is that Papadopoulos had reason to believe Mifsud was a Russian agent — not that Mifsud actually was one.  (read the article)

We’ve held, since May of 2018, that Mifsud was a Western asset.

Last week, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Central Intelligence Agency Director Gina Haspel, National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone and FBI Director Chris Wray requesting answers as to who Joseph Mifsud was working for in order to expose this fact.

This is a critical point.

Nadler, and his fellow Democrats, must not permit Republicans an opportunity to question Mueller about Mifsud’s intelligence ties, lest the entire corrupt construct to justify ongoing surveillance abuse of the Obama administration’s’ political enemies, crumbles before it gets started.

This explains the Democrats, and their media sycophants, consternation with Attorney General William Barr’s use of the word “spying” during a recent Senate hearing.

“I think spying did occur.  Yes, I think spying did occur.

“The question is whether it was adequately predicated.  I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.

“I think it is my obligation.”

Barr’s answer, “The question is whether it was adequately predicated,”  explains their desperation in trying to create a narrative on which to impeach Barr.

More to come…