Elder Patriot – Back in August of 2017 we asked a simple question:
If seventeen separate and highly-respected intelligence agencies spent an entire year investigating Donald Trump, including conducting unlawful surveillance on his campaign team, and had drawn a blank then where was the special prosecutor going to find the evidence that President Trump’s was guilty of wrongdoing?
The fact that the intelligence community hadn’t found a trace of illegal behavior on Donald Trump’s part should’ve been enough to end the investigation, at that time. The law governing the appointment of a special counsel is clear.
28 CFR 600.1 – Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and –
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
Emphasis was added to highlight the fact that without prior evidence of a crime it was inappropriate, perhaps even illegal, to have appointed a special counsel in the first place.
But, that’s not how the Swamp protects itself. Instead, under the guise of protecting our democracy, and with the constant drumbeat from corrupt politicians and the mainstream media, they set out to destroy a true American hero.
Essentially, the Swamp has hired a team of “hit men” to get President Trump. That is not the job that honest men take on but Robert Mueller and his lead attorney, Andrew Weissmann have proven they are not honest men.
Mueller and Weissmann are not the choirboys that the media have made them out to be. They are connected to some of the biggest scandals in F.B.I. history.
When Mueller tapped Weissmann to join the special counsel’s team he was serving as the head of the Department of Justice’s criminal fraud section. At that time enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing at the Justice Department had already surfaced to eliminate Weissmann from consideration.
Under what pretext could a corrupt department be expected to properly investigate itself? Worse, under what pretext could a prosecutor with a history of corrupt prosecutions be expected to conduct the prosecution of a duly elected president without severe political ramifications and possibly, armed insurrection?
Sara Carter discovered that Weissmann had been “reported to the Department of Justice’s Inspector General by a lawyer representing whistleblowers for alleged “corrupt legal practices” more than a year before the 2016 presidential election and a decade before to the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
David Schoen, a Civil rights and criminal defense attorney said that prosecutor – Andrew Weissmann – withheld exculpatory evidence in multiple prosecutions of the Columbo crime family.
The judge in the case, Judge Charles P. Sifton reprimanded Weissmann for withholding evidence from the defense.
Carter recalls what happened as a result of Weissmann’s violation of court rules:
“The defendants in the Colombo related cases, who went to trial after the evidence that Weissmann and his team had withheld was disclosed, were acquitted. There were 16 defendants in front of 48 different jurors and 4 different judges. Three others had their convictions overturned. Two men convicted without the evidence having been revealed remain in prison, serving life sentences.”
Weissmann had used a corrupt FBI agent, who had a criminal relationship with one of Columbo’s underbosses, to testify against the defendants. In one instance, Weissmann and his co-counsel expressly vouched for the integrity of the corrupt agent. They went so far as to instruct the jury that if they had any reason to believe the agent lied about anything they should acquit the defendant.
Last October we reported that Weissmann has a history of winning high profile cases only to have them overturned on appeal because of his penchant for prosecutorial misconduct. These included:
- He destroyed the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and with it the 85,000 jobs. On appeal the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court a few years later.
- He concocted a criminal a transaction between four Merrill Lynch executives and Enron, the mass of which was reversed by the Fifth Circuit on appeal. But, only after the defendants spent a year in prison.
Weissmann either resigned or was removed from the Enron investigation after that, just before the judge in that case began upbraiding Weissmann and his team for prosecutorial overreach.
Special counsel Mueller’s past is equally clouded with a history of corrupt investigations:
- In 2001, he became so focused on pinning the anthrax letters on Steven Hatfill that he resorted to using tactics that literally destroyed Hafill’s life. After seven years of teetering on the edge of suicide, Hatfill was completely exonerated of any involvement in the anthrax attacks and was awarded $4.6 million by the government.
- He had served as an assistant US attorney and then as the acting US attorney in Boston during which time he essentially installed Whitey Bolger as the most powerful mafia kingpin in Boston by allowing Bolger to commit murder in exchange for serving as a confidential informant against other crime families. Kevin Cullen reported extensively on the facts about Mueller’s misconduct.
- Mueller was the F.B.I. director when the Obama administration approved the sale of 20% of the U.S. weapons grade uranium to a company directly controlled by Vladimir Putin.
At the time, Mueller was sitting on enough information to squash the deal based on evidence of extensive illegalities by the Russians but he chose to squash the F.B.I. investigation, instead.
Consider the implications of that decision in light of James Comey’s testimony before the Senate in June of 2017:
Senator Mazie Hirono: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice oppose a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose.
The appointment of Mueller and his appointment of Weissmann can lead to only one conclusion – The Swamp is desperate to eliminate Donald Trump by any means necessary. It matters little to them if the president is later exonerated as long as he no longer controls the levers of government with which to expose their corruption and eliminate them from positions of power.
The Swamp is so desperate in fact that they don’t even care about the civil insurrection that will result if they are successful. Perhaps that is why they are so intent on ending our Second Amendment protections.