Elder Patriot – It now appears that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed with specific orders to build/create an obstruction of justice case against President Trump.
The Russian collusion investigation was began as an attempt to entrap Trump and members of his administration so the FBI always knew there would never be any evidence.
It was always about goading President Trump into committing some act that investigators could conflate into an obstruction charge in order to provide Democrats with an impeachable offense when/if they regained control of the House.
The special counsel’s staff leaked unsubstantiated “discoveries” about President Trump and his associates to the willing and complicit mainstream media to spread as facts to maintain the Russia-collusion narrative for two reasons:
- The Trump-Russia collusion story was a means to help Democrats win the 2018 election. Without control of the House there could be no impeachment.
- Second, it bought time for Robert Mueller to create an obstruction case, proof of which came in the draconian manner he used against those he targeted.
Here’s what we know:
There never was any collusion between Donald Trump, or members of his campaign, and Russia.
It now appears that the FBI investigation began following an electronic communication from Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey and a letter from then-House Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to Comey following a “briefing” by Brennan.
In hindsight, Comey’s decision to conduct the investigation within FBI headquarters rather than assign it field agents suggests he knew from the outset that this was a political operation and not a serious attempt to find substantiating facts because he knew it was a product of CIA spycraft from the beginning.
If this wasn’t known to those conducting the investigatigation at the beginning it was clear to them two days after Mueller was appointed as this text from lead investigator Peter Strzok acknowledges. Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017. Strzok’s text came on May 19, 2017.
It was clear to President Trump that “there was no there, there” because he knew he had done nothing wrong. But it goes even further than that.
In one of his memos (written before his May 9, 2017 firing), Comey acknowledges that Trump actually says the president wanted to know if anyone within his orbit had done anything wrong:
He said that if there was “some satellite” (NOTE: I took this to mean some associate of his or of his campaign) that did something, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything, and hoped I would find a way to get out that we weren’t investigating him.
Keep in mind Comey had told the president he wasn’t a target of the investigation meaning Trump was concerned about what was taking the Bureau so long in identifying any possible rogue members of his team.
Eventually President Trump concluded that Comey was playing him. The investigation had been going on long enough that even the most junior agents would have made the case, if there was a case to be made.
It’s likely that led Trump to ask Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself on all things Russia – what the hell was taking so long. Trump expressed his concern that his ability to move his agenda was being severely compromised.
AG Rosenstein likely felt pressured to find another way to maintain the shade being cast on the Trump White House. On May 9, 2017 Rosenstein took action.
He wrote a memorandum under the banner “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI” that left President Trump with no choice but to fire Comey.
President Trump fired Comey later that same day. The obstruction trap was sprung.
Text messages between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok on May 9th and 10th would appear to confirm the obstruction plan had already been readied:
Whatever could be behind that redaction? “on POTUS” perhaps? Why in the name of Sam Hill is that word or name even redacted if not by someone reviewing these texts who sought to hide the damning evidentiary nature of it?
A redaction for that reason would be illegal according to Executive Order 13526 that Obama signed in 2009. The EO details reasons for prohibiting classified documents:
Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall
information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail
to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.
Now Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation the next day. That was on Wednesday May 10th when he met with Rosenstein to map their strategy going forward.
McCabe was missing only one thing – a predicate. He admitted that the president had not obstructed in any manner in answers to multiple questions from senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee the very next day – May 11, 2017.
Senator Marco Rubio: “Has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?”
Acting Director McCabe: “So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”
McCabe was asked about obstruction a number of times by a number of senators about a number of possible scenarios. In all cases McCabe said there had been no obstruction. (Full Transcript here.)
The next day, May 12, 2017, McCabe and Rosenstein met again having found themselves out of bullets. In February of this year, McCabe wrote about that meeting:
“He [Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.”
McCabe wrote that he and Rosenstein again discussed the appointment of a special counsel on Monday, May 15, 2017.
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017, Rosenstein brought Robert Mueller to the White House to talk with President Trump. It’s believed that Trump was told by Rosenstein he should consider Mueller as the next FBI director.
More likely, Rosenstein was giving Mueller an opportunity to take the measure of the president while probing Trump’s hot buttons.
The next day, on May 17, 2017 Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel.
- Tuesday, May 9, 2017 – Comey Fired;
- Wednesday, May 10, 2017 – McCabe launches criminal ‘obstruction’ case;
- Thursday, May 11, 2017 – McCabe testifies to Senate that Trump had made “no effort to impede”;
- Friday, May 12, 2017 – McCabe and Rosenstein consider appointing a special counsel:
- Monday, May 15, 2017 – Rosenstein likely commits to the special counsel;
- Tuesday, May 16, 2017 – Rosenstein gives Mueller a chance to interview President Trump;
- Wednesday, May 17, 2017 – Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as special counsel with the understanding he was to construct/create a case for impeachment based on obstruction of justice
Eventually Mueller had to admit there was no evidence to support a charge of obstruction. Sort of.
When Mueller ran the white flag up the flagpole, it was to dismiss the collusion charge, outright. No duh. He could have done that on May 17, 2017.
But, he wasn’t about to give up total control of the narrative when it came to obstruction.
Knowing he would be laughed out of court had he charged obstruction, Mueller left that open for Barr to dismiss, fully aware that House Democrats would pick up the narrative – Barr is compromised, Barr is Trump’s hand-picked AG, Barr is biased having previously written an op-ed on the lack of obstruction in this case.
Remember, it has been about controlling the narrative since Brennan and Reid first gave Comey the green light to begin investigation and Hillary Clinton went “live” with the accusations during a presidential debate.
These same investigators who failed to make their case after more than two-and-a-half years, yesterday wrote in the New York Times:
At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.
They must’ve realized how ridiculous they sounded because not one of them had the cojones to identify themselves.
Now it’s our turn which means this is going to get real interesting, real soon.