web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Mueller Investigation

Mueller Was Pursuing FBI Director Job When He Met With Trump, Contrary to What He Testified to Congress, Admin Officials Say

Westlake Legal Group mueller-house-hearing-2 Mueller Was Pursuing FBI Director Job When He Met With Trump, Contrary to What He Testified to Congress, Admin Officials Say Robert Mueller Mueller Investigation Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI donald trump Congress Allow Media Exception

Former special counsel Robert Mueller, is sworn in before he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

This latest report could spell big trouble for former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Fox is reporting that multiple administration officials are saying that when Mueller met with President Donald Trump in May 2017, he was in fact pursuing the job as FBI Director.

Problem with this?

Mueller denied this under oath when he testified before Congress this year about his investigation. When he testified on July 24, Mueller claimed he thought that he was just being asked by Trump about what was needed in a candidate for the job. “My understanding was I was not applying for the job,” Mueller testified on July 24. “I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job.” Mueller had served as FBI Director under Barack Obama and under George W. Bush.

According to the officials talking to Fox, there are government documents, however, showing he was seeking the job.

There’s more.

According to emails obtained by Judicial Watch, it appears that he may have known he was also being considered for the Special Counsel position if he didn’t get the job as the FBI Director.

“The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions,” then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in an email to Mueller on May 12, 2017. Rosenstein’s boss was then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from the Russia probe, meaning the president would not have known either.

A source close to Rosenstein confirmed to Fox News that he had confidential conversations with Mueller about whether he would be willing to serve in the event he needed to appoint a special counsel. These conversations began on May 12, 2017, prior to Mueller’s meeting with the president on May 16, 2017, the source acknowledged.

Trump has said repeatedly that Mueller interviewed for the job, didn’t get it and therefore it was a conflict for him to be Special Counsel.

According to Fox, Trump has also indicated that there were other witnesses to the meeting including the Vice President, Mike Pence.

“It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Director (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongfully appointed Special Counsel” Trump tweeted the day of Mueller’s Capitol Hill testimony. “Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the interview, including the Vice President of the United States!”

According to Fox, John Dowd, the president’s attorney, blasted Mueller, calling his conduct “most dishonorable” he had “ever witnessed” because he knew as he was being interviewed that if he didn’t get the job he was going to investigate Trump.

Mueller has gone back into private practice, rejoining his old firm, WilmerHale.

But it will be interesting to see what if anything Congress does in response to this report.

The post Mueller Was Pursuing FBI Director Job When He Met With Trump, Contrary to What He Testified to Congress, Admin Officials Say appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group mueller-house-hearing-2-300x153 Mueller Was Pursuing FBI Director Job When He Met With Trump, Contrary to What He Testified to Congress, Admin Officials Say Robert Mueller Mueller Investigation Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI donald trump Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

BIG: James Clapper Admits He Was Following Orders From His ‘Commander-In-Chief, President Obama’

Westlake Legal Group james-clapper-620x465 BIG: James Clapper Admits He Was Following Orders From His ‘Commander-In-Chief, President Obama’ Special Counsel Rush Limbaugh President Obama Peter Strzok Mueller Investigation Lisa Page Liberal Elitism jim sciutto James Clapper Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption collusion cia Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

 

In the transcript and the video below, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, speaks to CNN’s Jim Sciutto and makes the stunning admission that he’d been following Obama’s orders – and he says it twice.

This is very big news because it’s the first time a member of the deep state has admitted that President Obama was not only aware of the investigation, but was issuing orders to his team. “What were we supposed to have done…blown off what the then commander-in-chief, President Obama, told us to do?” And, as if we missed it the first time, he says it again. “It’s kind of disconcerting now to be investigated for, you know having done our duty and done what we were told to do by the president.”

Jim Sciutto: As you know, the President has members of this government, you have the Attorney General traveling the world now meeting with U.S. intelligence partners trying to find out, in his view, whether they participated in some sort of Obama administration led effort to undermine President Trump in the last election here. You also know that John Durham who is a prosecutor here, a senior justice department official, he’s pursuing his own investigations on the origins of that probe. Are you concerned that Barr’s or Durham’s investigation will find wrongdoing and seek to punish former intelligence officials?

James Clapper: Well, I uh, I don’t know. I, I, I don’t think there was any wrongdoing. I think at the time all of us were trying to navigate a very, very difficult, politically fraught, highly charged situation. I know, for my part, my main concern was the Russians, and the threat posed by the Russians to our very political fabric. The message I’m getting from all this is, apparently what we were supposed to have done was to ignore the Russian interference, ignore the Russian meddling and the threat that it poses to us, and oh, by the way, blown off what the then commander-in-chief, President Obama, told us to do, which was to assemble all the reporting that we could that we had available to us — and put it in one report that the president could pass on to the Congress and to the next administration. And while we’re at it, declassify as much as we possibly could to make it public, and that’s what we did.

Jim Sciutto: One issue I’m — (crosstalk)

James Clapper: It’s kind of disconcerting now to be investigated for, you know having done our duty and done what we were told to do by the president.

Clapper makes these statements in such a deadpan voice, we don’t realize at first the gravity of his words. But this is the first time a deep state insider has connected Obama to this travesty.

Rush Limbaugh was over the moon as he read this transcript to his listeners on Monday. He said:

I’ve been waiting for this. A lot of people have been waiting for this. Here’s Clapper saying, “I didn’t do anything wrong! We didn’t do anything wrong, ’cause we were doing what Obama told us to do.” The question he was asked is (summarized), “Are you worried about this investigation that Barr and he’s team’s running against you? Are you worried? You, Clapper and Brennan, are you guys worried?” (muttering) “Oh, no. Of course not. Why? (muttering) The president told us to do all that! (muttering) Obama was the president of the United States. Uhhh, the chief executive, uh, commander-in-chief told us to do all that.”

Really?

Folks, can you say in any other time and place “bombshell”?

In a text message dated September 2, 2016, from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to fired FBI official Peter Strzok, she wrote: “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” The two were putting together a list of talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey who was scheduled to meet with Obama.

I suppose we’ve just heard Clapper’s defense. I was just following orders.

I’ve heard that’s what the Nazi’s said at the Nuremberg trials.

I’m willing to bet that wherever Obama is right now, he’s not too happy!

The post BIG: James Clapper Admits He Was Following Orders From His ‘Commander-In-Chief, President Obama’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group james-clapper-300x225 BIG: James Clapper Admits He Was Following Orders From His ‘Commander-In-Chief, President Obama’ Special Counsel Rush Limbaugh President Obama Peter Strzok Mueller Investigation Lisa Page Liberal Elitism jim sciutto James Clapper Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption collusion cia Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Docs Include Rosenstein Email to Mueller: ‘The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions’

Westlake Legal Group ap-rod-rosenstein-620x413 New Docs Include Rosenstein Email to Mueller: ‘The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions’ Special Counsel Russia Rod Rosenstein Robert Mueller President Trump Mueller Investigation Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

Deputy Attorney General-designate, federal prosecutor Rod Rosenstein, listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 7, 2017, during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

Watchdog group Judicial Watch released 145 pages of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s communications on Thursday. No one will be surprised to learn that he was indeed a creature of the deep state.

Over a year ago, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking, “Any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017.”

Here is a timeline of events from that period:

May 8, 2017: Rosenstein wrote the memo in which he made the case for then-FBI Director James Comey to be fired.

May 9, 2017: President Trump fired Comey.

May 12, 2017: Rosenstein sent an email to then future Special Counsel Robert Mueller telling him, “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.” This email tells us all we need to know, and had long suspected, about their relationship.

May 16, 2017: Rosenstein  emailed former Bush administration Deputy Attorney General and current Kirkland & Ellis Partner, Mark Filip writing, “I am with Mueller. He shares my views. Duty Calls. Sometimes the moment chooses us.

May 17, 2017: Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to the Special Counsel.

During this time, Rosenstein was “in direct communication with reporters from 60 Minutes, The New York Times and The Washington Post. In an email exchange dated May 2017, Rosenstein communicated with New York Times reporter Rebecca Ruiz to provide background for this article about himself. Ruiz emailed Rosenstein a draft of the article, and he responded with off-the-record comments and clarifications.” Judicial Watch reports:

In an email exchange on May 17, 2017, the day of Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein exchanged emails with 60 Minutes producer Katherine Davis in which he answered off-the-record questions about Mueller’s scope of authority and chain of command:

Rosenstein: “Off the record: This special counsel is a DOJ employee. His status is similar to a US Attorney.”

Davis: “Good call on Mueller. Although I obviously thought you’d be great at leading the investigation too.”

On May 17, 2017, in an email exchange with Washington Post journalist Sari Horwitz and the subject line “Special Counsel” Rosenstein and Horwitz exchanged:

Rosenstein: “At some point, I owe you a long story. But this is not the right time for me to talk to anybody.”

Horwitz: “Now, I see why you couldn’t talk today! Obviously, we’re writing a big story about this. Is there any chance I could talk to you on background about your decision?”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “These astonishing emails further confirm the corruption behind Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller. The emails also show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media reporters.”

Last month, Judicial Watch obtained a copy of a two-page memo written by then acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on May 16, 2017. This memo was McCabe’s “contemporaneous recollection” of the infamous meeting held in then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s office during which Rosenstein had allegedly proposed wearing a wire to record the President. McCabe wrote:

As our conversation continued the DAG proposed that he could potentially wear a recording device into the Oval Office to collect additional evidence on the President’s true intentions. He said he thought this might be possible because he was not searched when he entered the White House. I told him that I would discuss the opportunity with my investigative team and get back to him.

In September 2018, The New York Times reported on this meeting. Their article said this group had allegedly discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. In addition, Rosenstein said he knew of one or two members of Trump’s cabinet who might be on board with such a plan.

Rosenstein has publicly maintained that he was being sarcastic when he made this comment. But nothing in McCabe’s memo suggests this to be true. Rather, McCabe wrote he told Rosenstein that he would “discuss the opportunity with my investigative team and get back to him.”

I’ve never understood why Rod Rosenstein, who has played such a pivotal role in the investigation of President Trump has received so little scrutiny. The matter of whether or not he volunteered to wear a wire is only part of what he must answer for. He needs to be asked why he appointed a Special Counsel when the FBI had no evidence that Trump had colluded with Russia in May 2017. We know this for a fact because, during her Congressional testimony last summer, FBI attorney Lisa Page admitted it.

So, why did Rosenstein do it? He needs to be questioned under oath.

Why did he allow Mueller to expand the scope of the investigation? What, if any, evidence did Rosenstein require from Mueller to expand the scope? Was there ever a Mueller request that Rosenstein said no to?

It was Rosenstein’s role to supervise the activities of the Special Counsel, and his apparent submission to Mueller suggests that Mueller was actually driving the bus.

Think about this. For over two years, we’ve been learning information about the activities of the deep state and all of it has corroborated the theory that this group has deliberately sought to destroy first candidate Donald Trump and following his surprise victory, President Donald Trump. No contradictory evidence has been presented. As hard as they’ve tried to cover up their complicity, somehow, albeit painfully slowly, the truth has come out.

The post New Docs Include Rosenstein Email to Mueller: ‘The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-rod-rosenstein-300x200 New Docs Include Rosenstein Email to Mueller: ‘The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions’ Special Counsel Russia Rod Rosenstein Robert Mueller President Trump Mueller Investigation Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Resume of Inspector General Behind ‘Whistleblower’ Tells Us All We Need to Know

Westlake Legal Group michael-atkinson-620x353 Resume of Inspector General Behind ‘Whistleblower’ Tells Us All We Need to Know Ukraine Mueller Investigation Michael Atkinson Mary McCord Julie Kelly John Carlin Impeachment of President Trump General Michael Flynn Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats Carter Page Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020

Michael Atkinson. IC IG. CREDIT: ODNI/Cropped

 

The mainstream media has portrayed Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson in glowing terms.

“The intelligence community’s chief watchdog, Michael Atkinson, is known to his peers and colleagues as a highly cautious ‘straight shooter’ who tends to keep his head down,” writes Politico reporter Natasha Bertrand.

If only he had kept his head down.

American Greatness’ Julie Kelly took a peak at Atkinson’s resume and it tells us everything we need to know. Kelly notes that in July 2016, Atkinson became “the senior counsel to John Carlin, the head of the National Security Division. Carlin was Robert Mueller’s chief of staff when he ran the FBI and was appointed NSD chief by President Obama in 2013.”

Carlin played a role in both the framing of Trump’s National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn, as well as the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. In her testimony before Congress last summer, FBI lawyer Lisa Page told lawmakers that “Carlin was briefed regularly by former deputy FBI Director Andy McCabe on the Trump-Russia collusion probe.”

With full knowledge that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was not a “Russian spy,” that he had actually done undercover work for the FBI, Carlin prepared the FISA Court application for a warrant to spy on him. Shortly before the application was submitted, Carlin abruptly resigned under controversial circumstances in October 2016. (He is now a CNBC contributor – surprise!)

He was replaced by Mary McCord who, according to Conservapedia, was complicit in the surveillance of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and surveillance of Trump Campaign. Atkinson served as McCord’s senior counsel.

Shortly after Trump took office, “McCord accompanied acting Attorney General Sally Yates to a meeting with White House counsel Don McGahn. The purpose of the meeting was to warn the White House that Mike Flynn may have violated an arcane federal law and was at risk of being “blackmailed” by the Russians.”

McCord resigned from her post in May 2017 under conditions similar to Carlin’s.

According to CNN, both Carlin and McChord still speak highly of Atkinson.

Shortly after the story of the whistleblower complaint broke last week, McChord, who is now a senior litigator at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, spoke to CNN. She said, “As soon as I saw that he [Atkinson] had recommended it be sent to Congress, that’s all I needed to know it was legit.”

Carlin was also contacted by CNN and said, Atkinson is  “someone who is very deliberate, thoughtful and tries to carefully review facts … not someone who seeks attention.” (Carlin now is a CNBC contributor.)

Kelly reports:

Under questioning by Rep. James Jordan (R-Ohio) last year, one of Carlin’s top aides confirmed that Carlin notified him in August 2016 that the FBI had opened an investigation into the Trump campaign and that a team of NSD officials worked with the FBI on the case.

In his testimony, George Toscas, former deputy attorney general for the NSD, referred to unnamed lawyers who attended various briefings with the FBI in 2016. He did not mention Atkinson’s name—although several names in the transcript are redacted—but it stretches credulity to think that the senior counsel to the division’s chief would have been unaware of such an explosive and unprecedented investigation.

Further, the National Security Division chiefly is responsible for the Justice Department’s oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The NSD “closely coordinates with the FBI and other Intelligence Community agencies on . . . matters relating to FISA and other national security laws.”

That means Carlin’s shop was involved in handling the FISA warrant on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The original FISA warrant, signed by former FBI Director James Comey and Carlin’s colleague, former deputy attorney general Sally Yates, used the bogus Steele dossier as evidence to obtain the FISA court’s permission to spy on Page for one year. The warrant accused Page of being a foreign agent yet he has never been charged with a crime.

Was Atkinson one of the unnamed lawyers? It’s highly likely. He was the senior counsel.

In any case, it defies belief that the senior counsel for both Carlin and McChord had no knowledge of what they were involved in. Can you imagine the atmosphere inside the offices of top level NSD officials as the campaign to destroy Trump was ramping up?

All is not as it seems.

The post Resume of Inspector General Behind ‘Whistleblower’ Tells Us All We Need to Know appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group michael-atkinson-300x171 Resume of Inspector General Behind ‘Whistleblower’ Tells Us All We Need to Know Ukraine Mueller Investigation Michael Atkinson Mary McCord Julie Kelly John Carlin Impeachment of President Trump General Michael Flynn Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats Carter Page Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

If This Article is Correct, Republicans May be Disappointed with the IG’s FISA Abuse Report

Westlake Legal Group horowitz-620x326 If This Article is Correct, Republicans May be Disappointed with the IG’s FISA Abuse Report President Trump Peter Strzok Paul Sperry Mueller Investigation Lisa Page Kevin McCarthy james comey Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story elections donald trump DOJ IG Michael Horowitz' report democrats corruption Chris Swecker Abuse of Power 2020

 

Last week, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News‘ Maria Bartiromo, “I do not believe that Jim Comey will get off.” All of us long-suffering Trump supporters were pleased to hear that.

Unfortunately, Real Clear Investigation’s Paul Sperry published an article on Monday which suggests that DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s alleged FISA abuse may disappoint.

According to Sperry, skeptics are saying that despite the fact that Horowitz, an Obama appointee, is highly respected, he is, at heart, a Democrat. He is “more political than widely believed, and may be naturally inclined to protect the FBI and the DOJ. Their main complaint is that he pulls his punches…His work has long been hampered by biases, conflicts and a tendency to play favorites.”

As an example, they cite his conclusions in the June 2018 report on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State. Horowitz, who worked under James Comey in the SDNY in the 1990s, found that while “many of Comey’s explanations for his dubious actions were “unconvincing,” he stopped short of saying that Comey had lied to investigators.” Specifically:

Comey asserted implausibly that he delayed acting on a mountain of new Clinton email evidence discovered on a laptop in New York because he was never briefed about it until nearly a month after his top aides found out about it in September 2016.

In probing whether Comey illegally leaked classified information to the New York Times, Horowitz in the end accepted his argument that the memo of a conversation with President Trump was sensitive but “not classified” – even though the memo contained information about the FBI’s ongoing counterintelligence investigation of the president’s national security adviser.

Sperry spoke to Chris Swecker, a 24-year FBI veteran, who said, “I see a pattern of him pulling up short and trying to be a bit of a statesman instead of making the hard calls…I’m afraid he’s going to do the same thing with the FISA report – a finding that sounds tough, but in the end, ‘No harm, no foul.’”

They also cite his work as a campaign volunteer for Democratic candidates in college and several subsequent campaign contributions to Democrats. Horowitz’ wife is “a former political activist who helped run campaigns for liberal Democrats before producing programming for CNN out of its Washington bureau.”

Sperry interviewed several former inspectors general, and none of them expect Horowitz will issue a criminal referral against Comey. They also pointed to a law which requires an inspector general to “report evidence of potential violations of federal criminal law to the Attorney General as soon as it is uncovered, rather than deferring such action until the completion of their report.” If I recall correctly, Horowitz issued a criminal referral for Andrew McCabe to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions months before his report was released.

Sperry and his team, aided by “seasoned federal investigators, deconstructed previous probes by his office, combing through the footnotes and appendices of his reports. RCI found numerous instances in which Horowitz stopped short of pursuing evidence and was content to take high-level officials at their word, even in the face of conflicting evidence.” They “uncovered [Horowitz’] tendency to defer to those in authority.”

During his investigation into Clinton’s use of a private server, “Horowitz relied on key Clinton aides produce evidence on their own.”

He repeatedly declined to use his subpoena power, trusting key players to produce evidence on their own. He allowed the two lead FBI officials who ran both the investigation of Clinton and the probe of the Trump campaign — FBI Counterintelligence Chief Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page – to decide which communications on their personal devices and email accounts were FBI “work-related” and which were “personal,” according to footnotes and Strzok’s testimony. Both claimed they couldn’t find any work-relevant evidence to hand over, even though text message exchanges between them on their FBI phones indicated they had discussed FBI meetings in private Gmail accounts and iMessages.

Horowitz subsequently learned through interviews that Strzok drafted classified investigative documents and communicated with Page about them on their private email in violation of department rules, which require officials to communicate through government channels — the same basis for the Clinton email probe. Yet neither was compelled to turn over the emails.

“The inspector general and I arranged an agreement where I would go through my personal accounts and identify any material that was relevant to FBI business and turn it over,” Strzok said in testifying before Congress. “It was reviewed. There was none. My understanding is the inspector general was satisfied with that action.”

Horowitz never referred Strzok for criminal sanctions for maintaining court-sealed documents on an unsecure computer. Strzok was nonetheless fired last year by the bureau for misconduct. He is now suing the department for unlawful termination.

The IG also failed to demand access to Comey’s private Gmail account, even though he, too, used it for official FBI business.

Horowitz is widely credited with uncovering biased texts sent by Strzok and Page, who were also having an extramarital affair, on their bureau-issued phones. In those texts they rooted for Clinton to win the 2016 election and promised to “stop” Trump – at a time when they were supposedly investigating the presidential candidates. But Horowitz found those messages only after congressional Republicans pressed him to recover several months’ worth of Strzok-Page texts the FBI claimed were missing from its archives. The inspector general brought the texts to the attention of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who’d retained the two agents for his investigation, on July 27, 2017. But he kept the explosive information from Congress for the next five months, and shared it with legislators only after the media found out about it.

The inspector general still has not recovered all the missing texts. It appears he has given up trying, having accepted the FBI’s explanation that the records were lost in a technical snafu the bureau blames on the IT vendor that wrote the software for its archiving system.

The report rebuked Strzok and Page over their political bias, however, he did not believe that their bias influenced their investigative decisions. The report said that they “exercised extremely poor judgment.”

Swecker told Sperry that “Strzok’s state of mind was clear. That his bias was coming into play was an easy call to make, but Horowitz danced around it.”

Horowitz found that Clinton had been “extremely careless” but not “grossly negligent.”

Sperry cites at least a dozen more instances in which he believes Horowitz gave the benefit of the doubt to the various subjects of his investigations. He also discusses Horowitz’ past praise of Comey, his experience working under then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her then-deputy, Eric Holder and finally his leniency on then-Attorney Eric Holder in the Fast and Furious case.  (Here is the link.)

It should be noted that any officials who are mentioned in an IG report are offered the opportunity to “make changes, reviewing it for accuracy.” That means that Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Page and several others will take a whack at it before it’s released. This often has the effect of “watering down” the report. (Why wasn’t Trump availed a chance to review the whistleblower’s complaint for accuracy before it was made public?)

I clearly remember the anticipation of Horowitz’ June 2018 report on Hillary Clinton’s email investigation. We all had high hopes for that, but in the end, we were let down.

It’s frustrating to think that, after working on this investigation for 18 months, Horowitz might not deliver the goods for us.

Still, Horowitz did issue a criminal referral for Comey in July for mishandling sensitive information. The fired FBI Director had given memos he’d written after each meeting with President Trump to his law professor friend with instructions to leak them to the New York Times. He had hoped that once the Times reported the story, then-acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would appoint a special counsel. As we all know, Comey’s plan worked. The DOJ chose not to pursue the IG’s criminal referral because there was too much uncertainty about Comey’s intent. Many of us believe that the DOJ has their sights on Comey’s “bigger crimes.”

Rumor has it that Horowitz found that the FBI’s FISA applications for the original Carter Page warrant and three subsequent renewals were obtained fraudulently. I don’t see how he could conclude anything else. In any case, we’ll find out soon.

In the meantime, Attorney General William Barr and prosecutor John Durham have been hard at work on their deep dive into the origins of the Russian collusion investigation. Unfortunately, we have a long wait before that probe is completed.

Swecker points out, “Durham is serious and he has indictment authority.”

The post If This Article is Correct, Republicans May be Disappointed with the IG’s FISA Abuse Report appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group horowitz-300x158 If This Article is Correct, Republicans May be Disappointed with the IG’s FISA Abuse Report President Trump Peter Strzok Paul Sperry Mueller Investigation Lisa Page Kevin McCarthy james comey Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story elections donald trump DOJ IG Michael Horowitz' report democrats corruption Chris Swecker Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rush Limbaugh: America is in the Middle of a ‘Cold Civil War’

Westlake Legal Group civil-war-fighting-SCREENSHOT-620x333 Rush Limbaugh: America is in the Middle of a ‘Cold Civil War’ william barr Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Rush Limbaugh Rudy Giuliani progressives President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mueller Investigation Joe Biden Impeachment of President Trump hunter biden Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news eric swalwell corruption Congress collusion cia Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

 

What does a country do when an entire political party refuses to accept the results of a fair presidential election? Since before President Trump was elected, the Democrats decided to cultivate an alternative set of facts intended to frame him for a crime(s) he did not commit. They have sustained this false narrative on a daily basis for over three years, all the while aided and abetted by a compliant media.

Their hatred of Donald Trump and everything he stands for goes without saying. But that’s no longer their only problem. Their immense campaign to first undermine his campaign and their efforts to force him from office have left behind a trail of evidence. Countless government officials and bureaucrats have acted unethically, illegally or both. So, the invention of one crisis after another has become a desperate bid to avoid exposure and possible prosecution. With the IG report due any day now, and the knowledge that prosecutor John Durham’s team has been working hard since the spring to dig up how it all started, they’re in panic mode.

On his radio show last week, Rush Limbaugh made the case that, although no shots have been fired, America is in the midst of a Cold Civil War. Limbaugh told his listeners:

It’s about making sure the American people do not learn the extent of the corruption in the Obama administration and the Democratic Party at large, and particularly among these people in the deep state who did what they did to deny Trump his election victory.

And that’s why Pelosi’s out there today saying that Bill Barr has gone rogue. If you need any evidence that they’re scared to death of what Barr and his team are investigating as to the origins of all of this, Pelosi out of the blue saying that Barr has gone rogue, they are doing everything they can to destroy everybody on the other side of this.

It encompasses overturning the election results of 2016, it is also about protecting and defending the deep state, the Washington establishment going forward. Their careers, their fortunes, their corruption. There are terribly big stakes involved here for these people. And Trump is on the cusp of overturning it and exposing it. They cannot allow that to happen.

The whistleblower complaint is the latest stage of the war. Limbaugh correctly notes that it is manufactured political opposition research, just as Christopher Steele’s dossier was. And the entire Democratic Party, including the media, is acting as if it’s real.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) appeared on Fox on Friday morning and said, “Well, the president’s confessed.”

Asked what Trump has confessed to, he replied:

Well, he’s confessed to trying to hide the information in the whistleblower report! Well, look what Trump did. Trump took the transcript of the phone call and he put it over here in this secure area.”

He’s clearly hiding it. That’s a political move. The president’s ashamed. It’s the same as confessing that he’s guilty. We must move forward with impeachment.

The truth is that storing calls with foreign leaders has become standard operating procedure for the Trump administration. Shortly after he took office, the contents of his conversations with leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked to the media. Ever since, they have stored all of his calls with world leaders in a secure area, out of necessity.

The disconnect between the whistleblower complaint and the actual conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is breathtaking. Here is the relevant portion of the call. President Trump said:

Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.

We have Biden on video telling an audience he did this. Then, when he’s called out on it, he spreads the lie that the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was corrupt. The opposite is true. Biden may want to read a sworn affidavit in an EU court in which Shokin describes the reality of the situation.

Trump’s request to find out more about Shokin’s investigation of Burisma and by extension, Biden’s son and Biden’s efforts to leverage U.S. aid to protect his son is perfectly legal.

Former President Bill Clinton signed the “Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters” in 1999. This treaty calls for cooperation between the United States and Ukraine in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. Given the questionable judgement and actions of Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden’s admission that he forced the country to fire Shokin, this is exactly the type of situation this treaty was intended to address.

Certainly, the Democrats realize this is a very shaky foundation on which to build a case for the impeachment of a President. Their manufactured outrage makes them look hysterical, desperate and disingenuous.

Still, Trump has been forced to defend himself against these allegations. Meanwhile, the lies are repeated on an endless loop by the mainstream media which is, unfortunately, where many Americans get their news and on it goes.

Limbaugh continued:

All we have is a deep state leaker probably related in some way to John Brennan. The New York Times already outed the guy as a disgruntled CIA person, and the guy simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a “whistleblower” for the protections that it offers! You watch. Every other future leak of major consequence like this is all of a sudden gonna be called “whistleblower” because of the statutory protections that are granted to whistleblowers.

I can’t emphasize enough that there isn’t anything real about any of this like there wasn’t anything real in Trump-Russia collusion. Let me clarify. There was a lot real in Trump-Russia collusion, but it was all the things committed by Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Obama, McCabe, Strzok Smirk, and that whole cast of characters. That was real. That effort to undermine Trump — to spy on Trump, to get the election result overturned — all of that stuff was real.

The things they were alleging Trump did, none of it happened. They’re still lying about the Mueller report. Democrats are out there saying the Mueller report proves that Trump colluded, 16 different times now. No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t say that at all. The Mueller report concludes that there wasn’t any collusion between Trump and Russia. But the Mueller report was written as a pre-impeachment document anyway. The Mueller report was written to be used as it is.

It was written with all the footnotes and the careful sentence structure to be able to be cited the way the Democrats are citing it. “Robert Mueller found collusion 16 different times!” No, he didn’t. “Well, right there it is: The president probably… The president might have this and that… Somebody here said…” It’s nothing but hearsay. There’s nothing. But the sheer power of the ruling class is what is on display here, and their literal panic and fright over having it all upended.

I agree with Limbaugh that the country is engaged in a Cold War. Americans haven’t been this divided since the actual Civil War. The Democrats have declared war against President Trump and those who support him. Instead of bullets, they use lies.

It is also similar to what Americans faced at the time of the Revolution in that this is a fight against tyranny. We are fighting an enemy who seeks power over us. If the Democrats should prevail, America as we’ve known her, will cease to exist.

The post Rush Limbaugh: America is in the Middle of a ‘Cold Civil War’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group civil-war-fighting-SCREENSHOT-300x161 Rush Limbaugh: America is in the Middle of a ‘Cold Civil War’ william barr Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Rush Limbaugh Rudy Giuliani progressives President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mueller Investigation Joe Biden Impeachment of President Trump hunter biden Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news eric swalwell corruption Congress collusion cia Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Chapter 2: An Anonymous Whistleblower Complaint Replaces the Steele Dossier

 

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-1-620x317 Chapter 2: An Anonymous Whistleblower Complaint Replaces the Steele Dossier Yuriy Lutsenko volodymyr zelensky Viktor Shokin. U.S. Embassy in Kiev President Trump Obama Administration Mueller Investigation Marie Yovanovitch John Solomon Joe Biden Impeachment of President Trump hunter biden Hillary Clinton Hillary Cinton George Soros George Kent Front Page Stories donald trump dnc democrats Dan Bongino corruption Congress collusion Campaigns Barack Obama Allow Media Exception Alexandra Chalupa Abuse of Power 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., departs the Capitol en route to a speaking event in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019. Pelosi will meet with her caucus later as more House Democrats are urging an impeachment inquiry amid reports that President Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Some of us are old enough to remember the Looney Tunes classic series, “Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner.” In every episode, Wile E. Coyote has a new idea for how he will finally catch Roadrunner, but the bird is simply too fast and the Coyote never succeeds. Most of the time, the plan backfires and leaves the Coyote wounded and angry. But that doesn’t stop him from trying again.

This morning, the whistleblower’s complaint was released. Given that the transcript of the actual conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, seemed quite benign, the seriousness of the allegations and the tone of the complaint came as a surprise. Our whistleblower has managed to extract an extraordinary amount of material from a pretty mild phone call.

To me, the past week feels eerily similar to the beginning of the Russian collusion investigation. The allegations in the whistleblower’s complaint  are difficult to believe. Instead of Russian collusion, it’s become Ukrainian collusion. And an anonymous whistleblower complaint has replaced the Steele dossier.

The whistleblower wrote that “over the course of four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts.” Okay, so the whistleblower submitted his complaint on August 12th and had worked on it for four months.

That would take us back to the first half of April.

On April 1st, The Hill’s John Solomon broke the story about Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings. He wrote:

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.

Until this time, no one had tied Joe Biden’s boast about threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless the Ukrainian President fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, to his son’s involvement with Burisma.

Note: Solomon appeared on “Hannity” last night and said he has obtained 450 pages of documents from “the State Department and Hunter Biden’s “legal team” demonstrating that the attorneys were working to stop an investigation launched by then-Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin into principals of Burisma.” He will present his story tonight on “Hannity.”

In March, Solomon interviewed Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who replaced Shokin, and came away with extraordinary stories of corruption within the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, originating from the State Department.

In April 2016, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s office was investigating a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC). This organization was co-founded by the Obama administration and George Soros. The concern was that $4.4 million the U.S. had sent to help fight corruption in Ukraine had been improperly diverted.

Shortly before Lutsenko took office, then-U.S. Embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Prosecutor General’s office asking them to end the investigation. Kent made it clear that “U.S. officials had no concerns about how the U.S. aid had been spent.”

Soon after taking office, Lutsenko was summoned to the U.S. Embassy to meet the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. According to Lutsenko, Yovanovitch handed him “a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The embassy, of course, responded that the claim was a fabrication and a sign that corruption is alive and well inside Ukraine. (I posted about this story here.) Solomon wrote:

But Kent’s letter unequivocally shows the embassy did press Ukrainian prosecutors to back off what normally would be considered an internal law enforcement matter inside a sovereign country. And more than a half-dozen U.S. and Ukrainian sources confirmed to me the AntAC case wasn’t the only one in which American officials exerted pressure on Ukrainian investigators in 2016.

When I asked State to explain the letter and inclusion of the Soros-connected names during the meeting, it demurred. “As a general rule, we don’t read out private diplomatic meetings,” it responded. “Ambassador Yovanovitch represents the President of the United States in Ukraine, and America stands behind her and her statements.”

Second, the AntAC anecdote highlights a little-known fact that the pursuit of foreign corruption has resulted in an unusual alliance between the U.S. government and a political mega-donor.

If this account is correct, the Obama administration pressured a foreign government to drop an investigation into an organization they had co-founded along with activist George Soros. They were interested in preventing American taxpayers from learning how their tax dollars were being spent as well as concealing their collaboration with Soros. But, above all, they were each doing their part to insure that Hillary Clinton won the presidency.

The most serious corruption of all involved pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians and the DNC. Fox News contributor and author Dan Bongino and Solomon stand out for their ability to recognize the coordination between corrupt pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians and the DNC. Although Clinton lost the election, the effects of their interference can still be felt today. Especially for Paul Manafort.

To gain a better understanding of what happened, it’s helpful to know the backstory. No one does a better job of this than Bongino in his book “Spygate,” which was published in the late fall of 2018. He lays out the story of the real election interference that took place in 2016.

This story starts with the targeting of Paul Manafort by a pro-Western Ukrainian lawyer and activist named Alexandra Chalupa. This woman had worked as a consultant for the DNC and for Democratic politicians including several Clinton campaign officials. Between 2004 and 2016, she had earned $412,000 from the DNC, but left to focus on researching or rather “destroying” Manafort. Chalupa had “watched him since 2014.”

According to Bongino:

The moment Manafort joined the Trump team, Chalupa alerted the DNC of the “threat” of Russian influence. Chalupa’s sister, Andrea, spread the word on a Ukrainian television show calling Manafort’s hiring a “huge deal” and describing him as the “puppet master of some of the most vile dictators around the world.” His hiring, she said sent a “very, very, very, very, very serious warning bell going off.” This fear was rooted in the belief that Manafort was the mastermind behind Yanukovych’s corruption.

Chalupa was a woman on a mission. Determined to broadcast her message to the world, she began by enlisting the help of journalists. Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff came on board and began writing a series of articles which portrayed both Manafort and the Trump campaign in a rather nefarious light. Her strategy was quite effective.

Chalupa’s smear campaign involved journalists and diplomats as well as contacts inside the DNC. She obviously had many contacts from her years in Washington and her message was easy to sell.

Bongino reported on the infamous black ledger and the role played by pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians in Paul Manafort’s downfall.

Politico writers Kenneth Vogel and David Stern interviewed Alexandra Chalupa for their January 2017 article. She told them she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. She also said that Ukrainian government officials gave her information to pass along to the DNC. She later denied both of these statements.

Recall that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had previously bailed out the DNC financially and essentially controlled it.

The scope of the Democrat’s interference in the 2016 was breathtaking and beyond the scope of this post. I wrote in detail about this here.

Another piece of the puzzle involves Nellie Ohr who worked for Fusion GPS along with Christopher Steele. During her testimony last summer, she told lawmakers that a major source of the information she provided to the FBI was a Ukrainian official.

Suffice it to say that, by the spring of 2019, a pretty clear picture of the Democrats’ collusion with Ukrainians to tip the election to Clinton had formed.

The Mueller report hadn’t produced the result Democrats had anticipated. William Barr had appointed John Durham to open an investigation into the origins of the bogus Russian collusion probe. And, at the time, it was thought that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on alleged FISA abuse by the FBI, would be released imminently.

Hence, ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the Ukrainian Collusion Scandal.

Could this be the Democrat’s newest plan to finally catch that damn bird, once and for all?

The post Chapter 2: An Anonymous Whistleblower Complaint Replaces the Steele Dossier appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-1-300x153 Chapter 2: An Anonymous Whistleblower Complaint Replaces the Steele Dossier Yuriy Lutsenko volodymyr zelensky Viktor Shokin. U.S. Embassy in Kiev President Trump Obama Administration Mueller Investigation Marie Yovanovitch John Solomon Joe Biden Impeachment of President Trump hunter biden Hillary Clinton Hillary Cinton George Soros George Kent Front Page Stories donald trump dnc democrats Dan Bongino corruption Congress collusion Campaigns Barack Obama Allow Media Exception Alexandra Chalupa Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Read the Shakedown Letter Three Dem Senators Sent to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General

Westlake Legal Group MENENDEZ-CRYING Read the Shakedown Letter Three Dem Senators Sent to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky President Trump Patrick Leahy Mueller Investigation John Solomon Front Page Stories Featured Story Dick Durbin democrats corruption Congress Christopher Murphy Bob Menendez Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez becomes emotional as he speaks to reporters in front of the courthouse in Newark, N.J., Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. The federal bribery trial of Menendez ended in a mistrial Thursday when the jury said it was hopelessly deadlocked on all charges against the New Jersey politician and a wealthy donor. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig;

 

After reading the transcript of President Trump’s July 25th telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday, the repellent chair of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-CA) said, “This is a classic Mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader.”

As the Democrats and the mainstream media spiral out of control over President Trump’s July 25th telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr, two exchanges between Democratic senators and Ukrainian officials involving actual quid pro quo have surfaced.

In May 2018, Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (NJ), Dick Durbin (IL) and Patrick Leahy (VT) sent a letter to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko pressing his office to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Two days before the senators wrote this letter, the New York Times reported that Ukraine had frozen investigations related to the Mueller probe.

The senators remind Lutsenko of everything the U.S. has done for his country and essentially tell him, it would be a shame if that were to end.

The letter begins with the senators expressing their “great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of United States Special Counsel Robert Mueller.”

It discusses the progress Ukraine has made with U.S. support and tells Lutsenko they are “disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these principles in order to avoid the ire of President Trump.”

The senators note that by freezing the investigations, Ukraine is “thereby eliminating scope for cooperation with the Mueller probe into related issues…If these reports are true, we strongly encourage you to reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation. As strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine, we believe that our cooperation should extend to such legal matters, regardless of politics.”

They end by demanding requesting information about Ukraine’s dealings with Trump administration officials.

Trump attorney Jay Sekulow spoke to Sean Hannity on Wednesday night and said, “That’s a quid pro quo. You do this. We’ll do that.”

Several days ago, the Hill’s John Solomon reported a little known story about Sen. Christopher Murphy’s (D-CT) bipartisan meeting with Zelensky in Kiev several weeks ago. I posted about this here.

Following the meeting, Murphy spoke to reporters. He said he pointed out to Zelensky that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but wouldn’t it be a shame if something were to happen to it but if he chose to “investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden’s family,” he runs the risk of losing Democratic support going forward.

Murphy reportedly told Zelensky that U.S. aid was Ukraine’s “most important asset” and if he were to comply with Trump’s request, it would be “disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations.”

Solomon spoke to Murphy on Monday and he said, “I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President’s campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them.”

After the meeting, Murphy had tweeted, “I told him it was best to ignore requests from Trump’s campaign operatives. He agreed.”

This is also a quid pro quo. ‘You want to keep that U.S. aid flowing, you better lay off the Biden family.’

The double standard is breathtaking.

I sure wish the Republicans in Congress would fight back a little harder. Maybe Corey Lewandowski can show them how it’s done.

The post Read the Shakedown Letter Three Dem Senators Sent to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group MENENDEZ-CRYING-300x186 Read the Shakedown Letter Three Dem Senators Sent to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky President Trump Patrick Leahy Mueller Investigation John Solomon Front Page Stories Featured Story Dick Durbin democrats corruption Congress Christopher Murphy Bob Menendez Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

McCabe Memo: Rosenstein Offered To Wear Wire To Record Trump Because ‘He Was Not Searched When He Entered The White House’

Westlake Legal Group ap-rod-rosenstein-620x413 McCabe Memo: Rosenstein Offered To Wear Wire To Record Trump Because ‘He Was Not Searched When He Entered The White House’ Special Counsel Rod Rosenstein President Trump Mueller Investigation Jeff Sessions james comey Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats corruption Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

Deputy Attorney General-designate, federal prosecutor Rod Rosenstein, listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 7, 2017, during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Judicial Watch announced today they had obtained a copy of a memo written by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on May 16, 2017. This memo is McCabe’s “contemporaneous recollection” of the infamous meeting held in then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s office during which Rosenstein had proposed wearing a wire to record the President.  (The document, which is lightly redacted, is printed below.)

In addition to Rosenstein and McCabe, Deputy Assistant AG for Intelligence Tashina Gauhar and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Jim Crowell attended the meeting.

McCabe touched only briefly on Rosenstein’s idea of wearing a wire. Although it was brief, for Rosenstein, it was damning. He wrote:

As our conversation continued the DAG proposed that he could potentially wear a recording device into the Oval Office to collect additional evidence on the President’s true intentions. He said he thought this might be possible because he was not searched when he entered the White House. I told him that I would discuss the opportunity with my investigative team and get back to him.

In September 2018, The New York Times reported that during this meeting, the group had supposedly discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. In addition, Rosenstein allegedly offered to wear a wire to record his conversations with Trump and said he knew of one or two members of Trump’s cabinet who might be on board with such a plan.

McCabe makes no mention of the 25th Amendment, likely because the idea was preposterous and he may have assumed his memo might be referenced in the future.

Rosenstein has publicly maintained that he was being sarcastic when he made this comment. But nothing in McCabe’s memo suggests Rosenstein was being sarcastic. Rather, McCabe wrote he told Rosenstein that he would “discuss the opportunity with my investigative team and get back to him.”

The fact that Rosenstein had gone as far as thinking about practical details such as ‘I am not searched when I enter the White House’ indicates his seriousness. This remark shows that Rosenstein had at least given the idea some thought.

The idea of wearing a wire comes up in the middle of the meeting, but the group discussed other topics as well.

McCabe began by telling Rosenstein that he “approved the opening of an investigation of President Donald Trump … to investigate allegations of possible collusion between the president and the Russian Government, possible obstruction of justice related to the firing of FBI Director James Comey, and possible conspiracy to obstruct justice.”

He told Rosenstein that the predication for his investigation was based on Trump’s interview with NBC’s Lester Holt and “concurring statements” from Comey’s memos.

McCabe expressed concern that Rosenstein, “as a result of his role in the matter, I thought he would be a witness to the case.” (If Rosenstein had been considered a witness in the case, he would have had to recuse himself from overseeing a potential special counsel investigation as then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had already done.)

Rosenstein then recounted his Oval Office meeting with Trump, Sessions and then-White House Counsel Don McGahn about Comey’s imminent firing. He said the President asked him to write a “memo explaining the reason” for Comey’s firing.

Rosenstein told McCabe he had a “credibility problem.” One of Rosenstein’s staffers had shown him photos of McCabe wearing his wife’s campaign t-shirt after “assuring” the DOJ he played no role in her campaign.

They discussed the possibility of appointing a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation. Rosenstein said he already had two candidates in mind and that one could start right away. In fact, on May 17, 2017, the very next day, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to the Special Counsel.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “This incredible memo details the conflicted and conniving coup effort against President Trump. It is astonishing and shocking McCabe thought he could have the FBI conduct a ‘counterintelligence’ operation on the president and Rosenstein thought it would be appropriate to wear a wire to secretly record President Trump in the Oval Office. That the DOJ and FBI sat on this smoking gun for a year shows the need for urgent housecleaning at those agencies.”

I’ve never understood why Rod Rosenstein, who has played such a pivotal role in the investigation of President Trump has received so little media attention. The matter of whether or not he volunteered to wear a wire is only part of what he must answer for. He needs to be asked why he appointed a Special Counsel when there was no evidence of collusion in May 2017. FBI attorney Lisa Page admitted during her Congressional testimony last summer that the FBI had no evidence as late as May 2017 that Trump had colluded with Russia. Why did he do it?

Why did he allow Mueller to expand the scope of the investigation? What, if any, evidence did Rosenstein require from Mueller to expand the scope? Was there ever a Mueller request that Rosenstein said no to?

It was Rosenstein’s role to supervise the activities of the Special Counsel, and his apparent submission to Mueller suggests that Mueller was actually driving the bus.

His role must be examined.

Here is the full text of the redacted McCabe memo (via Judicial Watch):

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

At 12:30 pm on 05/16/2017, I met with Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Rod Rosenstein in his office at the Department of Justice. Also present were Tashina Gauhar and Jim Crowell. The following is a contemporaneous recollection of the main topics we discussed.

I began by telling him that today I approved the opening of an investigation of President Donald Trump. I explained that the purpose of the investigation was to investigate allegations of possible collusion between the president and the Russian Government, possible obstruction of justice related to the firing of FBI Director James Comey, and possible conspiracy to obstruct justice. The DAG questioned what I meant by collusion and I explained that I was referring to the investigation of any potential links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. I explained that counterintelligence investigations of this sort were meant to uncover any existence of any threat to national security as well as whether or not criminal conduct had occurred. Regarding the obstruction issues, I made clear that our predication was based not only on the president’s comments last week to reporter Lester Holt (that he connected the firing of the director to the FBI’s Russia investigation), but also on the several concurring comments the president made to Director Comey over the last few months. These comments included the President’s requests for assurances of loyalty, statements about the Russia investigation and the investigation of General Michael Flynn. I also informed the DAG that Director Comey preserved his recollection of these interactions in a series of contemporaneously drafted memos. Finally, I informed the DAG that as a result of his role in the matter, I thought he would be a witness in the case.

The DAG then related his experiences at the White House on Monday, 05/08/2017. He began by stating that he had the feeling that the decision to fire the Director had been made before he arrived. At the White House, he first met with White House Counsel Donald McGahn, who told him that the President had drafted a letter to Director Comey that McGahn did not want the President to send. Shortly thereafter they met with the President and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and possibly others, in the Oval Office. President Trump told the DAG he had written a letter to Director Comey, asked the DAG if he had seen the letter, and instructed McGahn to provide the DAG with a copy. The DAG described the letter to me as being a long list, possibly several pages, of the President’s complaints with Director Comey. Among those complaints was a discussion about the FBI’s Russia investigation, as well as a paragraph about the FBI Deputy Director. The DAG indicated to me that he retained a copy of the President’s letter. The DAG said he told the President [redacted]. The President then directed the DAG to write a memo explaining the reasoning for Director Comey’s termination and that the DAG should include Russia. The DAG said to the President he did not think this was a good idea and that his memo did not need to include Russia. The President replied that he understood, but that he was asking the DAG to include Russia anyway. As our conversation continued the DAG proposed that he could potentially wear a recording device into the Oval Office to collect additional evidence on the President’s true intentions. He said he thought this might be possible because he was not searched when he entered the White House. I told him that I would discuss the opportunity with my investigative team and get back to him.

We discussed the issue of appointing a Special Counsel to oversee the FBI’s Russia investigation. The DAG said he has two candidates ready one of whom could start immediately. [Redacted] The DAG said that he left a copy of the delegation with Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security Dana Boente to execute in the DAG’s absence if the DAG were suddenly removed from his position. [Redacted] He anticipated that he may be terminated when he puts the Special Counsel in place, in light of the president’s anger with AG Sessions when the AG recused himself from the Russia investigation. The DAG further stated that he was told that others heard the President tell the AG “you were supposed to protect me.”

[Redacted]

The DAG related to me that on Sunday, 05/14/17, the AG asked him to participate in the interview of [redacted] for the position of FBI Director. [Redacted].

The DAG told me that he informed the AG that I should remain in my role as Acting Director until the permanent Director was chosen. The DAG opined that my only “problem” was that some people believe that I was involved in my wife’s 2015 campaign for State Senate in Virginia. The DAG said it was a “credibility problem” because after having told him during my May 13 interview that I played no role in her campaign and attended no campaign events, the DAG said a staffer had provided him with a photograph found on the internet of me and my wife wearing Dr. Jill McCabe campaign t-shirts. The DAG suggested that this photograph contradicted my statement that I had not campaigned for my wife. I pointed out to the DAG that the photograph he saw was taken not at a campaign event, but rather at [redacted] I further informed the DAG that I confirmed with my ethics counsel at FBI that the Hatch Act does not prohibit wearing a campaign button or shirt away from the office, and that attending [redacted] wearing such a shirt does not constitute proscribed political activity.

The post McCabe Memo: Rosenstein Offered To Wear Wire To Record Trump Because ‘He Was Not Searched When He Entered The White House’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-rod-rosenstein-300x200 McCabe Memo: Rosenstein Offered To Wear Wire To Record Trump Because ‘He Was Not Searched When He Entered The White House’ Special Counsel Rod Rosenstein President Trump Mueller Investigation Jeff Sessions james comey Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats corruption Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kevin McCarthy Does Not Believe James Comey Will Get Off, It’s The Closest US Has Ever Come To A Coup

Westlake Legal Group trump-mccarthy-620x413 Kevin McCarthy Does Not Believe James Comey Will Get Off, It’s The Closest US Has Ever Come To A Coup william barr Special Counsel progressives President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Kevin McCarthy james comey Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption democrats Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception 2020

President Donald Trump, right, accompanied by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., speaks to members of the media as they arrive for a dinner at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Fla., Sunday, Jan. 14, 2018. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) spoke to Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” on a wide range of subjects. One issue they discussed was DOJ IG Michael Horowitz’ announcement on Friday that he had completed his investigation into the FBI’s alleged abuse of the FISA process. A draft of the report has been delivered to Attorney General William Barr. Before it can be released to the public, the DOJ must redact classified or sensitive information.

McCarthy said, “We came the closest ever to this country having a coup and now we need accountability. I respect this attorney general so greatly, that the way he has handled this, he believes in accountability, but more importantly, he believes in the rule of law.”

They spoke about the legal status of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The news broke on Thursday that the DOJ had rejected McCabe’s appeal which indicated he would likely face indictment for lying under oath to investigators from the IG’s office on three occasions. However, a report in the Washington Post said that a grand jury had met and had declined to indict him. It’s unclear how they would have received information from a grand jury because of the stiff penalties for doing so. It was reported that McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich, sent an email to US attorney Jesse Liu and several other DOJ officials to find out if that was true.

In light of that, Bartiromo asked McCarthy if we will see an indictment for McCabe.

“We will see an indictment here,” McCarthy said.

Bartiromo pressed him on the accountability of former FBI Director James Comey. “So far, anything about Jim Comey. He’s getting off?” The DOJ had declined to prosecute Comey for violating FBI rules and protocols which had been outlined by the IG in a brief report which focused solely on his handling of the President, and his leaking of the memos.

The more comprehensive IG report, which will be released as soon as it undergoes the DOJ’s redaction process, will deal with violations of the law, specifically, the FBI’s allegedly fraudulent application to the FISA Court and three renewal applications. The IG was especially concerned over the fact that the FBI presented the unverified Steele dossier as the basis of their application and used an article written by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff, who had used Steele as his source.

McCarthy replied, “In the end, I do not believe that Jim Comey will get off.”

“A lot of people point to the CIA as being one of the masterminds, John Brennan. Are we going to see John Brennan come back and answer some questions,” Bartiromo asked.

McCarthy answered, “Anyone that has had any association with trying to create this coup should be held accountable.”

I’ve heard a lot of confident Republicans on talk shows echoing McCarthy’s sentiments. Very soon, we’ll know for sure.

 

Watch the video. (The relevant segment begins at 14:00.)

The post Kevin McCarthy Does Not Believe James Comey Will Get Off, It’s The Closest US Has Ever Come To A Coup appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-mccarthy-300x200 Kevin McCarthy Does Not Believe James Comey Will Get Off, It’s The Closest US Has Ever Come To A Coup william barr Special Counsel progressives President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Kevin McCarthy james comey Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption democrats Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com