ACTION

COUP D'ÉTAT: DOJ, FBI OFFICIALS ON MUELLER’S RUSSIA TEAM IN COVER UP OF MUELLER’S, CLAPPER’S, AND BRENNAN’S SURVEILLANCE ‘HAMMER’ THAT SPIED ON TRUMP, STRZOK-PAGE TEXT SHOWS - The American Report

Robert Mueller Of The FBI Is A Traitor

Robert Mueller not only needs to be immediately fired from the FBI, but prosecuted as a traitor to his country.

Read at: http://fbi-federalbureauofinvestigation.com/fbi-director-robert-mueller-is-a-traitor

Robert Swan Mueller III is a traitor.

In March of 2004, FBI Director Robert Mueller, along with Acting Attorney General James B. Comey, offered to resign from office if the White House overruled a Department of Justice finding that domestic wiretapping without a court warrant was unconstitutional. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft denied his consent to attempts by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to waive the Justice Department ruling and permit the domestic warrantless eavesdropping program to proceed. On March 12, 2004, President George W. Bush gave his support to changes in the program sufficient to satisfy the concerns of Mueller, Ashcroft and Comey. The extent of the National Security Agency's domestic warrantless eavesdropping under the President's Surveillance Program is still largely unknown.

In March of 2012, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was not sure if it was illegal or unconstitutional to kill American’s without arrest or trial. He went on to say he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency’s budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.

“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting. Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”

“I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice,” Mueller replied.

In other words, Robert Mueller in his official capacity as Director of the FBI wouldn’t exclude assassinating American citizens within the United States of America. This clearly makes him a traitor, for he must know the so called legal framework Eric Holder laid out for doing so is unconstitutional.

UPDATE: June 16, 2013

To Hell With Justice.

FBI Director Robert Mueller is in no hurry to get to the bottom of the IRS’s multi-year abuse of conservative groups, despite Obama and his administration’s promise to investigate.

Attorney General Eric Holder promised in mid-May 2013 that the FBI would get to the bottom of the IRS’s behavior by opening a criminal investigation.

“I can assure you and the American people that we will take a dispassionate view of this,” Holder told congressional investigators on May 15 2013. “This will not be about parties, this will not be about ideological persuasions. Anybody who has broken the law will be held accountable.”

But in separate testimony before congressional investigators June 13, 2013, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed completely unaware of the progress of any such investigation.

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan lit into Mueller for his lack of knowledge during a House judiciary committee hearing.

“This is the most important issue in front of the country in the last six weeks, and you don’t know who the lead investigator is?” Jordan asked, sounding shocked.

“At this juncture, no I do not,” Mueller responded.

“Do you know if you’ve talked to any of the victims?” Jordan went on. “Have you talked to any of the groups that were targeted by their government? Have you met with any of the tea party groups since May 14, 2013?”

“I don’t know what the status of the interviews are by the team that’s on it,” Mueller said.

To put it simply, FBI Director Robert Mueller and the Obama cult have again lied and refused to abide and enforce Constitutional Law.

Robert Swan Mueller served as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2001 to 2013.

In 2017, Mueller from within the United States Department of Justice Office became head of the Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters.

However, Mueller's investigation is an outright farce. It's real purpose is an attempt to gather false testimony and information so the Democrats can treasonously impeach President Trump. They are attempting to do this by targeting specific people in digging up unsubstantiated “crimes” to prosecute them for under the blatant double-standard by which the full weight of the law is hoisted on Republicans while Democrats seemingly escape justice.

Mueller’s investigation is blatantly biased, for Mueller’s team is largely composed of several individuals known to be “major Democratic donors” and operatives, but “no Republicans.” It should be further noted that 14 of the 17 special counsel prosecutors were registered Democrats, while not a single one was a registered member of the GOP.

Mueller is not even trying to appear fair, and it’s no wonder that from the very beginning, this investigation has centered around one man, and one man only, and that’s your president, Donald Trump.”

Without question, this is a team of “angry Democrats” that Mueller has assembled around him in retaliation for the Republicans winning the presidential election in 2016.

Mueller’s team is investigating Trump and his various associates in search of crimes, even creating “process crimes” to charge them with when no real crimes could be found. It is worth noting that none of the crimes found — or created — have anything to do with alleged collusion during the 2016 election.

As a history reminder, the communist Soviet Union used to investigate specific people to find crimes for which they could be charged, the opposite of how America is supposed to operate (we investigate specific crimes and attempt to find the responsible perpetrator, not the other way around).

This is a “disgusting, despicable, two-tiered system of justice” in which Republicans like Trump and his associates are “aggressively pursued for months on end” for prosecution while Democrats accused of committing crimes are allowed to “get away scot-free.”

Every American should be very concerned and worried by what is a completely unfair precedent in this country.

UPDATE: December 3, 2018

A new report by journalist Paul Sperry says Robert Mueller withheld evidence from the court that would exonerate President Trump from the latest accusations of Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

In other words, Dirty Cop Robert Mueller LIED to the court by withholding information that would exonerate President Trump.

Via Real Clear Investigations:

If justice is still alive in America, then at the very least Robert Mueller should be tossed in prison for lying,

UPDATE: December 3, 2018

Now this…

Author Jerome Corsi filed a criminal complaint against Special Counsel Robert Mueller for his attempts to seek false testimony against President Trump.

Conservative author Jerome Corsi on Monday filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, accusing investigators of trying to bully him into giving “false testimony” against President Trump.

The complaint, which Corsi had threatened for days, is the latest escalation between Mueller’s team and its investigation targets.

The 78-page document, asserting the existence of a “slow-motion coup against the president,” was filed to a range of top law enforcement officials including Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, D.C.’s U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and the Bar Disciplinary Counsel.

“Dr. Corsi has been criminally threatened and coerced to tell a lie and call it the truth,” the complaint states.

Corsi, who wrote the anti-President Obama book “The Obama Nation” and is connected with political operative Roger Stone, has claimed for the past week that he was being improperly pressured by Mueller’s team to strike a plea deal which he now says he won’t sign.

According to Corsi’s complaint, they wanted him to demonstrate that he acted as a liaison between Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on one side and the Trump campaign on the other, regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

The complaint states that Mueller’s office is now “knowingly and deceitfully threatening to charge Dr. Corsi with an alleged false statement,” unless he gives them “false testimony” against Trump and others.

The purported threat of a false statement charge, according to the complaint, pertains to a July 2016 email from Stone asking him to “get to” Assange and get the pending emails.

Corsi’s complaint says he was unable to initially give “accurate” testimony on that point, until he could reload emails on his laptop. The complaint says he later amended his answers. In an interview last week with Fox News’ "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Corsi said Mueller’s team “was happy” with his answers until he couldn’t “give them what they wanted.”

Asked about Monday's complaint, Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said they would decline to comment, as did a Justice Department spokesman.

As part of the complaint, Corsi’s legal team included a draft court filing from Mueller’s team to be used for Corsi to plead guilty to making false statements.

That document includes an Aug. 2, 2016 email between Corsi and Stone, where Corsi references Assange and the forthcoming release of hacked emails.

“Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” Corsi wrote to Stone, about 10 weeks before Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails were released.

In the complaint on Monday, Corsi’s lawyers denied that Corsi had inside knowledge and was colluding with Assange. Instead, they make the argument Corsi “logically concluded” more emails would be released.

“Employing his professional skills and considerable experience as an analyst and investigative journalist, Dr. Corsi logically concluded that WikiLeaks would release Podesta’s emails soon in a second round ‘data dump’ from the same group of DNC emails stolen on July 5, 2016,” the complaint reads.

Corsi, the onetime Washington bureau chief of the right-wing website Infowars, told host Tucker Carlson last week that he has had "no contact with Julian Assange whatsoever."

The complaint is the latest sign of turbulence between Mueller’s team and investigation targets and witnesses. The team recently accused ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of breaching his plea deal by lying to investigators.

Meanwhile, the special counsel’s office stunned Washington with the revelation last week that it had struck a plea deal with former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen, who is speaking to investigators about Trump’s real estate pursuits in Russia among other topics.

While Trump maintained his stance that there is no collusion and blasted Mueller’s investigation in stark terms last week, the developments showed the probe focusing more closely on Trump himself.

Corsi is represented in his complaint by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer who founded Judicial Watch and is known for filing lawsuits against former President Bill Clinton. In the complaint, Klayman argues that the activities of Corsi, as an "investigative journalist," are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Read more at: http://www.patriotortraitor.com/robert-swan-mueller-iii/

Trey Gowdy’s Recent Activity Highlights Deep State Action Against Devin Nunes…

Something has become increasingly weird about the DOJ and FBI intransigence at releasing the two-page “Electronic Communication” (“EC”) that was written by CIA Director John Brennan to initiate the July 2016 FBI Counterintelligence operation against the campaign of presidential candidate Donald Trump.

The weird something is: According to CIA Director John Brennan’s May 2017 testimony he personally briefed the Gang of Eight members, including Devin Nunes, “individually” in 2016, on that origination document.  As such, in 2018 Devin Nunes would only be seeking a review of a document he was already briefed on.

                              ANOTHER HILLARY MOLE INSIDE MUELLER PROBE EXPOSED 

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

How objective can an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email investigation be when the FBI agent who played a lead role was removed from it this summer for texting his pro-Hilary and anti-Trump sympathies?  And why does House Intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes have to read about it in the New York Times and the Washington Post? As Byron York reports in the Washington Examiner:

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.

Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller's investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI's Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was transferred to the FBI's human resources office — an obvious demotion -- in July.

Are we to believe that Strzok was diligently and impartially examining evidence related to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Er, matters while being unable to contain his anti-Trump bias? Is he the only Hillary mole? Just look at Robert Mueller’s staff and James Comey’s exoneration of Hilary Clinton after the infamous tarmac meeting between AG Loretta Lynch and unindicted conspirator in Uranium One William Jefferson Clinton. Stop when  you detect a pattern.

This news comes as House Republicans, tired of leaks and finding out about things in the legacy media are moving to find both the FBI and the DOJ in contempt of Congress for failing to provide requested material:

U.S. House Republicans are moving to bring a Contempt of Congress resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray for stonewalling the production material related to the Russia-Trump probes and other matters.

According to Bloomberg, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other Republicans decided to move against Rosenstein and Wray after the New York Times reported Saturday about the removal of a top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the alleged Russia-Trump election collusion had been removed from the investigation.

If its hurtful to Team Trump, it gets leaked. If its damaging to Team Hillary, its treated like the gold at Fort Knox. That’s not really surprising in a probe where Michael Flynn gets dinged for making false statements to the FBI, the same crime committed by famous Russian colluder Martha Stewart, but Hillary Clinton is not. But then Hillary was never put another oath in an interview which was not conducted under oath and for which no notes were taken, unlike former FBI Director James Comey’s meeting with President Trump  Comey did not attend that meeting, nor was a grand jury convened.  And where are the Podesta indictments, pray tell?

Comey had the fix in for Hillary We now know why the FBI made the absurd claim that it would not release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation for alleged lack of public interest. The FBI was covering up its obstruction of justice in the, er, “matter” knowing full well that former Director James Comey had already exonerated Hillary Clinton before the alleged investigation was complete and all witnesses had been interviewed and months before Comey falsely claimed in his announcement that no competent prosecutor would take Hillary’s case.

In withholding the files sought under Freedom of Information Act requests, the FBI forgot that it and former Secretary of State Clinton are and were employees of the American taxpayer, taxpayers who have a right to know whether justice is being served or denied.  Claims that Hillary had privacy rights that trumped the public interest were absurd:

The FBI is declining to turn over files related to its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by arguing a lack of public interest in the matter.

Ty Clevenger, an attorney in New York City, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation….

In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey famously called Clinton’s email arrangement “extremely careless” though he decided against recommending criminal charges….

On Aug. 8, the FBI asked Clevenger to detail why the public would be interested.

“If you seek disclosure of any existing records on this basis, you must demonstrate that the public interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests,” the letter stated. “In this regard, you must show that the public interest sought is a significant one, and that the requested information is likely to advance that interest.”

Say what? ? Did it serve the public interest or James Comey’s interest when he publicly detailed all the reason Hillary Clinton should be criminally charged before saying lack of intent, a criteria which appears nowhere in the law, was the reason Comey was giving Hillary a gt out of jail free card, a judgment he did not have the authority o make? Didn’t his exoneration announcement violate Hillary’s alleged privacy rights by detailing the criminal violations of a subject that was not going to be charged?

If James Comey was seriously looking for evidence of intent he couldn’t have possibly taken a single step without tripping over it. Wasn’t having a private server that contained classified information, multiple devices that were later physically smashed, and using bleach bit to destroy 33,000 emails that were under subpoena sufficient evidence of intent?

Only a corrupt and complicit FBI director, acting as Hillary Clinton’s surrogate campaign manager, who months earlier had decided he would exonerate her, could ignore the damning evidence:

As FBI director last year, James Comey began writing drafts of a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton, even before all witnesses in the investigation — including Clinton herself — had been interviewed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee obtained the Comey memos as part of its investigation into his firing by President Trump, which occurred on May 9.The revelation that Comey had begun drafting memos of his exoneration statement comes from transcripts of interviews given last fall by two FBI officials.

James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff, and Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel of national security and cyberlaw at the FBI, gave the interviews as part of an investigation conducted by the Office of Special Counsel into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.

In a July 5, 2016, press conference, Comey said that he would not be recommending charges against Clinton for mishandling classified information despite her use of a private email server as secretary of state.

While the transcripts of those interviews are heavily redacted, they indicate that Comey started working on an announcement clearing Clinton in April or May of last year, before the FBI interviewed 17 witnesses in the case, including Clinton and some of her top aides.

Having already deciding he would exonerate her regardless of the evidence explains why he did not attended the Jult 2, 2016 interview of Hillary Clinton, did not put her under oath, or ever impaneled a grand jury in, there’s that word again, mater. The fix was in.

Yes, Virginia, this is a witch hunt. Robert Mueller III was appointed special counsel after his friend, the vindictive James Comey, committed a federal crime by leaking a memo which was a government record to the press. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and evn a senior advise to Eric Hiolder. Objective professionals all (snarkiness intended ).

Mueller is in fact colluding with Comey to enact revenge on President Trump for Comey’s firing, something which even Comey said Trump was constitutionally entitled to do. There is no evidence of collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. It is not obstruction of justice for a President to exercise his legal and constitutional authority.

The facts and the lack of an actual crime will not stop Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller is following in the proud tradition of Stalin’s chief of the secret police, Laverentiy Beria. Just show him the man, or woman, and he will show you the crime.

And then there’s Hillary mole Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was in a key position overseeing the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s scandalous and treasonous handling of classified emails on her private server, a position from which he could assist FBI Director James Comey in putting the fix in. As Judicial Watch notes: 

Judicial Watch today released Justice Department records showing that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam.”

While working as Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office, McCabe controlled resources supporting the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. An October 2016 internal FBI memorandum labeled “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office,” details talking points about McCabe’s various potential conflicts of interest, including the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illicit server, which officially began in July 2015:

While at [Washington Field Office] did Mr. McCabe provide assistance to the Clinton investigation?

After the referral was made, FBI Headquarters asked the Washington Field Office for personnel to conduct a special investigation. McCabe was serving as [Assistant Director] and provided personnel resources. However, he was not told what the investigation was about. In February 2016 McCabe became Deputy Director and began overseeing the Clinton investigation.

The Overview also shows if asked whether McCabe played any role in his wife’s campaign, the scripted response was: “No. Then-[Assistant Director] McCabe played no role, attended no events and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind.”

Of course that statement was a lie.  The exposing of Agent Strzok is just another shoe dropping in the course of a  corrupt and criminal enterprise masquerading  as an investigation in which the FBI, the DOJ, and now the special counsel are all involved.

Lady justice is not blind here. She has been bound and gagged and held for ransom by Robert Mueller and his political cronies.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publication

                         HILLARY’S ELECTION RIGGING WARRANTS SPECIAL PROSECUTOT

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

And don’t forget Uranium One, Fusion GPS, keeping classified emails on an iunsecured private server, deleting 33,000 emails under subpoena, and, well, you get the idea. Unfortunately our AWOL AG Jeff Sessions, whose face was last seen on the side of a milk carton, does not. So we are left with the absurdity of a spcial prosecutor looking into Trump-Russia collusion where there is none while overlooking the multiple Clinton elephants in the room.

The revelation that both the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign were funneling money through a law firm to Fusion GPS to produce a slimy and fake dossier on Trump culled from foreign sources was bad enough. Now we find, courtesy of the one truthful and remorseful Democrat on this planet, former DNC Chairperson Donna Brazile, that the DNC was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, who probably violated multiple FEC campaign laws in rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders and shifted cash around in a manner that could only be called, what’s the word Robert Mueller would use, money-laundering:

In an excerpt from her upcoming book, Brazile says she discovered a document that explained why the Clinton campaign had such a stranglehold on the DNC. It was published in Politico Thursday.

“When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard,” she wrote, “I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.”

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias — specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

Hillary Clinton staged a political coup worthy of a banana republic. Brazile has confirmed what the Sanders campaign claimed as early as May of 2016, charges that Hillary Clinton was engaging in money-laundering to help her campaign:

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, on Monday criticized a Hillary Clinton campaign fundraising scheme that state party leaders told Politico has been used as a self-serving “money-laundering” conduit.

Despite Clinton’s pledges to rebuild state parties, Politico found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Victory Fund has stayed in the state parties’ coffers.

“Secretary Clinton is looting funds meant for the state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign,” Weaver said. “We think the Clinton campaign should let the state parties keep their fair share of the cash.”

Sanders’ and Clinton’s primary campaigns both raised about $26 million in April, but Politico documented how the Hillary Victory Fund, a supposedly joint fundraising committee, has been exploited to inflate her presidential primary campaign.

“Secretary Clinton has exploited the rules in ways that let her high-dollar donors like Alice Walton of Wal-Mart fame and the actor George Clooney and his super-rich Hollywood friends skirt legal limits on campaign ontributions,” Weaver added. “If Secretary Clinton can’t raise the funds needed to run in a competitive primary without resorting to laundering, how will she compete against Donald Trump in a general election?”

Turns out that even with money-laundering, Hillary couldn’t win. On a receny edition of Fox News Sunday. House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, notes that in addition to laundering her campaign cash through her wholly-owned subsidiary, the DNC, Hillary Clinton used a law firm to funnel cash to Russia-linked Fusion GPS:

Gowdy said, “I’m not an election law expert, but the good news is you don’t have to be too understated the absurdity believing you can just launder all of your campaign money by just hiring a law firm. Imagine if you and I were running for Congress, and we just hired a law firm and said ‘Hey, you go to all the opposition, you go buy all the television, you go buy all the bumper stickers, you go higher all the experts, and we will launder all of this through a law firm. I can’t think of anything that defeats the purpose of transparency laws more than that.”

He continued, “I am interested in that, and I am also interested in sharing some memory tricks with folks at the DNC because no one can remember who paid 10 million dollars to a law firm to do oppo research. I find that stunning. $10 million and no one can remember who authorized it, who approved it. So you’ve got two issues, a memory issue and then the lack of transparency by laundering money through a law firm.”

And did we forget the Clinton Foundation? As Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett notes, it was used in an influence peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons and advance their political ambitions, colluding with the Russians to, among other things, sell 20 percent of our uranium supplies to interests and donors aligned with Moscow:

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.”  The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.  It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121).  This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained.  In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that’s not all.  Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.  Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.   

Hillary Clinton was the godfather, or is it godmother, that ran multiple criminal enterprises. The existence of a special prosecutor investigating Trump-Russia collusion is based on a fake dossier she controlled the financing of. Paul Manafort and his co-defendants could make the “fruit of a poison tree” argument, that since the dossier that sparked the investigation into collusion and resulting indictments was politically motivated and financed, and its unverified contents may have been used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants, anything that resulted from it should be summarily dismissed.

As for the aforementioned Marc Elias, his involvement in Hillary’s crimes is just one facet of his involvement with the crimes of Hilary and the Democrats. Remember he sat between former DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta as they invoked the Sergeant Schultz (no relation) defense regarding Fusion GPS

Did DNC and Team Hillary attorney Marc Elias lead John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz into a perjury trap? According to CNN, the two testified to congressional investigators that they did not have any knowledge of the funding for the Fusion GPS dossier that prompted an FBI probe into Donald Trump campaign figures.

In recent closed-door interviews with the Senate intelligence committee, Podesta and Wasserman Schultz said they did not know who had funded Fusion GPS, the intelligence firm that hired British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele to compile the dossier on Trump, the sources said.

Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources.

Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta’s attorney and not as a witness.

Whether or not this testimony was under oath, it is a crime to provide false testimony to Congress.

Indeed it is. Add it to the list of crimes that go uninvestigated and unprosecuted as AG Jeff Sessions contemplates his navel. A special prosecutor needs to be appointed and a grand jury empanelled to investigate this list of crimes that would make a mafia don proud. Justice should be blind and not brain-dead. Unless there is a double standard at play here, there is no equal justice under the law and Hillary Clinton was right when she said laws are for the little people.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                                 WHY IS SESSIONS HIDING URANIUM ONE INFORMANT?

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

Perhaps as startling as the revelation that the FBI was investigating the Hillary Clinton/Russia/Uranium One collusion  and that key figures like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe knew about it and said nothing, is the refusal by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to remove the non-disclosure agreement gag order on the FBI informant who arguably could put Bill and Hillary Clinton and a few others in federal prison.

It was said the Jeff Sessions recused himself from all things Russian because of election campaign conflicts but is it really because he thought it would insulate him from having to divulge what he knew about Uranium One and the people who at the very least knew about the deal, some who approved the deal, including past and present members of the FBI, the DOJ, and Special Counsel Robert Miller’s team? Is Jeff Sessions part of the Uranium One cover-up? If not then he needs to explain why he is thus far refusing Sen. Chuck Grassley’s request to lift the gag order imposed by the Obama administration as part of the Uranium One cover-up :

A top Senate Republican is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent “gag order” on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was “threatened” by the Obama administration to stay quiet….

“Witnesses who want to talk to Congress should not be gagged and threatened with prosecution for talking. If that has happened, senior DOJ leadership needs to fix it and release the witness from the gag order,” Grassley said in a statement.

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” that her client has “specific information about contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States.”

She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was “threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department” when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Grassley said such an NDA would “appear to improperly prevent the individual from making critical, good faith disclosures to Congress of potential wrongdoing.”…

The Hill reported earlier this week that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. Grassley on Wednesday released a series of letters he fired off last week to 10 federal agencies, raising the question of whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which approved the uranium transaction was aware of that FBI probe -- and pointing to potential “conflicts” involving the Clintons. The committee included then-Secretary of State Clinton.

So why not just lift the gag order, vacate the non-disclosure agreement, which Sessions has the power to do, and key the informant come forward with information on how and why the Clintons conspired to put 20 percent of our uranium assets under Russian control while lining the pockets of the Clintons and their pay-for-play foundation? As Toensing notes, Sessions could do it, and thereby bring to light the details of this criminal enterprise:

The lead investigators on the case included Rod Rosenstein, who is now the deputy attorney general, and Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director. Rosenstein is the DOJ official who appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate alleged collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the collusion/campaign investigation.  He could waive the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) signed by the informant, said Toensing. "Yes, Jeff could do it," she said. "He is not recused from this matter and should not be."

However, Rod Rosenstein "is conflicted," said Toensing, "because he was the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case involving my client."  Toensing added that she has "asked an oversight committee to pursue the release" of the NDA so her client may testify before Congress about what he knows.

In lifting the gag order, Sessions might have to explain the real reasons behind his recusal and why people who knew of actual collusion between Russia and the Clintons were silent, only to reappear to investigate and pursue prosecution of non-existent collusion between Russia and Team Trump. He might have to explain why Mueller, McCabe, Rosenstein and other were allowed to hide the truth from the American people and why they should not be summarily fired. As Grassley notes, neither Sessions or anyone in the Justice Department has the authority to block the informant from testifying before Congress or issue non-disclosure agreements to thwart Congressional oversight:

“The Executive Branch does not have the authority to use non-disclosure agreements to avoid Congressional scrutiny," Grassley wrote. "If the FBI is allowed to contract itself out of Congressional oversight, it would seriously undermine our Constitutional system of checks and balances. The Justice Department needs to work with the Committee to ensure that witnesses are free to speak without fear, intimidation or retaliation from law enforcement."

Again, perhaps the reluctance of Jeff Sessions stems from the web of deceit and complicity that ensnares many in the FBI and the Justice Department. As Fox News analyst Gregg Jarrett notes on the Uranium One scandal:

It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”…

But why has there been no prosecution of Clinton?  Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret?  Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency?  Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?

The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact.   Who are they?

Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.  Since the FBI reports to him, he surely knew what the bureau had uncovered.

What’s more, Holder was a member of the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” which approved the uranium sale to the Russians in 2010.  Since the vote was unanimous, it appears Holder knowingly and deliberately countenanced a deal that was based on illegal activities and which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium assets.

It gets worse.  Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.  Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.  There is no indication that any of these men ever told Congress of all the incriminating evidence they had discovered and the connection to Clinton.  The entire matter was kept secret from the American public.

It may be no coincidence that Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.

Boom. The question is now whether Jeff Sessions wants to help President Trump to drain the swamp be vacating the gag order and letting evidence come forth proving the Clintons orchestrated the greatest criminal conspiracy in U.S. history at the expense of American national security or whether he is just another swamp thing committed to clogging up the drainage pipes. Justice may be blind, but it should never be gagged.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                                           ROBERT NUELLER ADOPTS STALIN TACTICS

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

We may be thankful to Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School, for reminding us of the delicious irony of an investigation which began with “reports” of collusion with the Russians by Team Trump and charges of Russian hacking of our elections, noe reverting to the tactics of Russia’s most murderous tyrant, Josef Stalin. As Dershowitz writes in the Washington Examiner:

Special counsel Robert Mueller was commissioned to investigate not only crime but the entire Russian "matter." That is an ominous development that endangers the civil liberties of all Americans.

Federal prosecutors generally begin by identifying specific crimes that may have been committed — in this case, violation of federal statutes. But no one has yet identified the specific statute or statutes that constrain Mueller's investigation of the Russian matter. It is not a violation of any federal law for a campaign to have collaborated with a foreign government to help elect their candidate….

One does not have to go back to the Soviet Union and Lavrentiy Beria's infamous boast to Stalin, "Show me the man and I will show you the crime," in order to be concerned about the expansion of elastic criminal statutes. There are enough examples of abuse in our own history.

From McCarthyism to the failed prosecutions of Sen. Ted Stevens, Rep. Thomas DeLay, Gov. Rick Perry and others, we have seen vague criminal statutes stretched in an effort to criminalize political differences.

Indeed, now we here reports that Mueller’s investigation will range anywhere from Jared Kutchner’s finances to perhaps any unpaid parking tickets Sean Spicer may have. To paraphrase the boast of head of Stalin’s secret police ,  show Mueller the man, and he will find a crime, just as Mueller’s best friend, James Comey, found with Martha Stewart.

There too we see a vindicative prosecutor in search of a crime and it doesn’t have to be the original charge, if there is an original charge. As the Daily Caller reported:

FBI Director James Comey declined to recommend criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified material Tuesday. But back in 2004, he led what legal observers call a “petty and vindictive” prosecution against interior design icon Martha Stewart for a lesser offense.

Stewart served a five-month prison sentence in 2004 at the Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia, also known as “Camp Cupcake,” for lying to federal investigators about possible insider trading. In the years since the case, there is a consensus in the legal community that Comey’s prosecution was overzealous and vindictive.

The Cato Institute’s Gene Healy condemned Comey’s actions as temperamental and political in a 2004 column. Healy argued that Stewart’s indictment was largely possible because the sheer volume of federal laws makes it possible to indict almost any individual on some basis — reasonable or unreasonable. Quoting former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Healy wrote prosecutors “will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”His Cato colleague Alan Reynolds argued Comey prosecuted Stewart for “having misled people by denying having committed a crime with which she was not charged.”

We saw this Stalinesque persecution in the case of Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Libby was convicted, again of lying to the FBI, because he misremembered events under relentless questioning. He was charge long after prosecutors knoew it was Richard Armitage who leaked the name of CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame to the press. Instead of dropping the investigation at hat point, prosecutors persisted, knowing they had to find a crime committed by someone somewhere to justify their existence.

Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff when he was charged with obstruction of an investigation into the “outing” of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. Plame was in fact a desk jockey at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, not a secret agent in harm’s way. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:

Remember the alleged outing of the already known CIA officer and desk jockey Valerie Plame? We were told then that the Vanity Fair cover girl's 15 minutes of fame jeopardized our national security even if everybody already knew who she was.

"Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, went to jail because his memory of events and who said what to whom regarding Plame differed from the recollections of others, particularly news reporters.

Yes, Virginia, this is a witch hunt. Robert Mueller III was appointed special cunsel after his friend, the vindictive James Comey, committed a federal crime by leaking a memo which was a government record to the press. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and evn a senior advise to Eric Hiolder. Objective professionals all (snarkiness intended ).

Mueller is in fact colluding with Comey to enact revenge on President Trump for Comey’s firing, something which even Comey said Trump was constitutionally entitled to do. There is no evidence of collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. It is not obstruction of justice for a President to exercise his legal and constitutional authority.

The facts and the lack of an actual crime will not stop Robert Mueller. Just show him the man, or woman, and he will show you the crime.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

   Obama uses Executive Orders to Strip Gun Owners of

            legal Constitutional Gun  Weapons Rights

Where do you draw the line in the sand in defense of your life, your family and your community? What happens when the President of the United States, determines that it is illegal for you to use the very guns which are constitutionally protected because he issues an executive order against ownership? What alternative are you left with, and who can you turn to?

Your weapons which are constitutionally protected may need a local sheriff who will stand against the federal tidal wave of unconstitutional White House directives to protect gun rights!

States and local sheriffs in several jurisdictions are leading a resurgent awakening in the nation in protecting the gun rights of citizens from being quashed by federal edicts. In fact, some of these states which are considering legislation to criminalize efforts of federal employees that attempt to enforce gun control executive orders. Some of these states considering legislation action include Alabama, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming, among others.

Reaction to the proposed legislative edicts by President Obama for a reinstated sticker assault-weapons ban and a 10-round limit on magazines is raising concerns by local law enforcement officials. According to CNS News, Oregon, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller has already told Vice President Biden in a letter, that he will not enforce any recommended gun laws he deemed unconstitutional.

Another sheriff has joined the growing effort to prevent the assault on legal law abiding citizen’s Second Amendment rights in the state of Kentucky. According to Breitbart, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky stated recently, “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold."

A state legislative leader in Texas is tackling this gun control overreach by the Obama administration and gun control advocates. Rep. Steve Toth (R) is planning legislative action to make it illegal for the state of Texas to enforce any federal laws that restrict the constitutional rights of its citizens to own semi-automatic firearms or the size of gun magazines.

Is this not the legal obligation of all local sheriffs and state legislative officials to uphold the dictates of the U.S. Constitution as well as their own state constitution? Is this not their oath of office? In fact, it makes perfect sense that every county, parish and borough in America has a sheriff or law enforcement officials who has taken such an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

( Click to read more )