Three key things to know about the Mueller Special Council

2
Donald Trump, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey & Robert Mueller.

Much has been made of the fiasco that has been the Special Council investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government assets, but in order to cut through much of the nonsense there are three key elements that everyone should understand from the outset before getting into some of the finer details of, what can only be described as an unbridled miscarriage of justice.

1. There is evidence that Operatives of the Russian Intelligence services launched psychological warfare operations during the 2016 Presidential elections. Intent however, is unclear.

This is a no brainer. There’s simply no point for a nation to have an intelligence service if they don’t launch operations into adversaries that weaken their power and influence. It’s far less costly than waging an actual war. On top of that, the Russians have been waging high quality Disinformation campaigns since Catherine the Great. Intelligence operatives from MI5 and the CIA – Peter Wright and James Jesus Angleton respectively – have gone to their graves in with the unwavering belief that their services had been infiltrated by Soviet agents at the very highest echelons. It stands to reason that the Russian Intelligence services were carrying out their role during the 2016 election, as discovered by the CIA’s counter intelligence and FBI cyber security agents while conducting their examinations of digital traffic, deciphering codes and the like. It’s likely that the Chinese, the Iranians, the Israelis and others would have had their own operations to influence the outcome also. It is however, believed that in the case of the Russian intelligence agencies, their operations were not intended to see Donald Trump ascend to the Presidency, rather it was to cause division and confusion among the voting populace and make them lose faith in their political establishment. Not a particularly difficult task.

The most serious issue in acknowledging Russian meddling that its often used as an excuse for the monumental defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton. As if the 64 million Americans voting for Donald J Trump were somehow hoodwinked and that their views had nothing to do with Clinton’s bungling of Benghazi, the Uranium One deal, the seriously shady misconduct of the Clinton foundation in Haiti, the leaked video of her during her days as a criminal lawyer laughing about how she got a child rapist off the hook, an appallingly lazy campaign, insulting the American public, knifing Bernie Sanders etc. The list is extensive, notwithstanding a solid 33,000 emails that she had one of her minions bleach bit after receiving an FBI subpoena to search through a server that she was never authorised to use. This was the chief of all US foreign affairs, in and out of foreign lands roaming around with the nation’s top intelligence on capability and diplomacy on her Blackberry phone. Clearly this is somewhat of a deal breaker for most Americans when it comes to choosing a worthy Commander-In-Chief.

2. Collusion is not an indictable offense.

There is no such thing as collusion in the world of criminal law. There is however, conspiracy. The key question is, conspiracy to do what? In the case of President Donald Trump, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was tasked with finding evidence that would prove that the Trump campaign committed conspiracy with a foreign power to influence an election by means of information sharing, hacking, leaks etc. Obsession with the word ‘collusion’ with all of it’s insidious and criminalistic undertones, gained public appeal when Senate minority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, made public his correspondence with James Comey. In a letter sent to Comey, Reid insisted that an investigation into the Trump campaign be launched due to what he described as:

‘(E)vidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign’.

Reid cited no evidence and it was clear that the intent was not to urge Comey to open an investigation. This would have simply been impossible since Reid must have known that there already was an investigation underway over such matters. There are reports that two days prior to Reid’s inflammatory accusations he was visited by CIA Director john Brennan who told him that “the Russians were backing Trump”. Reid’s public letter gained little traction in the media at the time of release, however a second attempt made just ten days before the Presidential election, at a time of uncertainty, provided a much better political climate for the fraudulent media to take advantage of the unfounded accusation. As Gregg Jarrett notes:

“This time, several news organizations ran with the story. The Washington Post called it a “brazen claim… even for a man known for bare-knuckle politics”. But the newspaper once again described the invidious term “collusion”. And with that, the word seemed to take on a life of its own”.

The long and short of it is this; the crime of collusion does not exist. It is nothing more than an immaterial sound byte utilised by a fraudulent media to create an imaginary crime which has been blown out of proportion with such magnitude that it beggars belief. The fact that large amounts of the population have swallowed this narrative whole, reinforces the manner in which the mainstream media truly have become a threat to national security.

3. Robert Mueller’s Special Council was NOT legally sanctioned.

As Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Alan Dershowitz notes, if there was any serious concern in Russian meddling in the 2016 US election then why did Congress not authorise the creation of a “nonpartisan commission of objective experts to investigate the entire issue of Russian involvement in the election”? Instead, the Department of Justice launched a targeted investigation into the Trump campaign and no-one else. The Special Council into the Trump campaign was illegal because of three key factors:

  1. There had already been a counter intelligence preliminary inquiry into the matter which found no evidence that the Trump campaign had acted in any manner that was unlawful;
  2. a key document that assisted the launch of Mueller’s probe and the subsequent FISA warrant was nothing more than a hit piece full of unverified third party claims paid for by the DNC;
  3. and when acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein launched the probe, there were incredible conflicts of interest which should have seen Robert Mueller recuse himself and be nowhere near the case.

In order for the Special Council to be legally sanctioned new evidence would have had to be presented to the FBI from where the initial counter intelligence investigation left off. Nothing of any substance was ever disclosed that could have met the criteria and facilitated further investigation. The Steele dossier which was also used to justify the FISA warrant was paid for as opposition research by the DNC in the lead up to the 2016 US Presidential election. On that point alone, it is unworthy of being a basis on which a Special Investigation could be launched, notwithstanding the fact that Christopher Steele’s alleged Russian sources were never given any robust examination with the exception of two sources that were questioned by the FBI. What came of their testimony is unclear. Steele himself certainly did not go to Russia to conduct any interviews as his diplomatic immunity had been revoked since his retirement from the British Intelligence services. At the time that the Steele dossier was released, Steele was working for the commercial research and strategic intelligence firm, Fusion GPS. It needs to be stated that though the entirety of the Mueller investigation did not hinge solely on the Steele dossier, it was a key factor in setting the tone, depth and ferocity of the Mueller probe.

Lastly on this point, acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has never fully explained how exactly Robert Mueller’s appointment to head of the Special Council was justified in defiance of the law governing the Special Council, 28 CFR 600.7, which dictates the terms of conflict of interest. This section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states:

No employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

  1. Any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation; or
  2. Any person which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

It is well known in Washington that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein were not just close acquaintances but good friends who had worked closely together for a number of years. In his book “The Russia Hoax”, Greg Jarret takes aim at this blatant disregard for Federal Regulation, noting that:

“The fact that all three became involved in the investigation of Trump after the president fired one of them calls into serious question their objectivity. It is quite a cozy arrangement. As such it is saturated with conflict of interests”.

Nothing in recent history has more clearly illustrated the astronomically high level of government and DOJ corruption more than the clearing of Hillary Clinton and the illegally launched witch hunt into President Trump’s Presidential campaign. The firing of General Michael Flynn, Jeff Session’s unnecessary recusal, the inconsistencies of Andrew McCabe’s Congressional testimony, Mueller’s insanely partisan investigation team comprised of hard-line Democrat loyalists like Lisa Page and Peter Strzork, all indicate just how spectacularly corrupted the Washington establishment has become. This is something that must not be left alone and forgotten. This was a highly partisan, orchestrated, insidious deflection of justice away from the numerous crimes of Hillary Clinton and Obama’s DOJ with the full weight of the law contorted and then thrust upon the duly elected President of the United States. A counter investigation must be launched against all those involved in this hoax if the FBI and the DOJ wish to retain any semblance of fidelity.

—–

Samuel Medici has done a deep dive into this topic and is willing to let XYZ readers elect an area of focus for the next article. Topics are:

  1. John Brennan. The Partisan who conspired to thwart the will of the American people.
  2. The unlawful firing of General Michael Flynn and unnecessary recusal of Jeff Sessions.
  3. The Steele Dossier which led to an illegally launched investigation and subsequent FISA warrant for surveillance.
  4. The insidious, partisan love circle: Rod Rosenstein, James Comey and Robert Mueller