Posted on 11/06/2017 8:18:43 AM PST by Golden Eagle
Legal experts are becoming increasingly concerned over the professional conduct of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team...
Last week, Paul Manafort and his former business associate and protégé Rick Gates were told to surrender to federal authorities, making them the first to be charged by Special Counsel Mueller and his team. The indictments, which were leaked by the special counsel to CNN the Friday before, were secured and unsealed in a manner that raises questions over whether the special counsel was trying to divert attention from several damning reports...
Only days before the indictment, it was revealed the campaign for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid for the infamous debunked Steele dossier. The discredited opposition research not only appears to have been used by the FBI as justification to spy on Trump campaign associates, but also was the catalyst for accusations of collusion.
Reports also implicated the Justice Department (DOJ) and the FBI under Mr. Mueller in a scheme to coverup potential crimes resulting from the controversial Uranium One deal. the FBI uncovered a massive bribery, corruption and racketeering scheme before the Obama Administration approved a nuclear deal that put 20% of U.S. uranium resources under the control of Moscow.
The Trump DOJ cleared a confidential informant for the FBI, lifting an unprecedented non-disclosure agreement. He will now be allowed to testify before Congress about what he witnessed undercover surrounding Russia’s efforts to corner the global uranium market. The witness has long-wanted to tell the American people about his knowledge of the corruption, but was gagged by the Obama Administration.
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for another special counsel to investigate the controversial Obama-Clinton era deal, particularly given Mr. Mueller’s role in the cover up of the investigation...
(Excerpt) Read more at peoplespunditdaily.com ...
Grassley is powerless to appoint an independent counsel because the independent counsel statute expired in 1999 and has not been renewed since then.
Only the AG can appoint independent counsels. And, it appears that only the AG can fire them.
Those accused of Witchcraft were thrown into a Well.
If they drowned, they obviously were not Witches. If they didn’t drown, they were put on Trial, found Guilty and burned at the Stake.
Mueller is standing at the Well holding a Book of Matches.
1. It’s pretty well established by the special counsel order, that only the special counsel members would have known about actual indictments, as they have legal authority to submit them themselves. The only other person that may have known is Rosenstein, but there are reports that Mueller didn’t have to even have his approval before proceeding.
2. PPD is reporting on what the apparent leaks to other organizations were. And they have been everywhere the last few days. No where does PPD claim to have received any leaks themselves.
3. I cannot vouche for PPD, I had never even heard of them until LS started referencing their editor in chief as support for the theory that Mueller is working for Trump, which this article appears to blow completely out of the water in the way it is slanted.
Baloney. A Federal court building has people working there who are involved with processing an indictment. Do an internet search and find a copy of the actual indictment documents.
1. The indictment was stamped with a date of 10/27/17. Do you think Mueller or his staff stamped this?
2. The case was assigned Docket Number 1:17-cr-00201. Do you think Mueller or his staff assigned the docket number?
3. The case was assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Do you think Mueller's team is responsible for determining which judge gets assigned a case in the Washington D.C. district of the Federal court system?
I am always reminded of the idiotic news stories from the independent counsel proceedings during the months leading up to Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998. The mainstream media was filled with stories about grand jury proceedings that were "leaked" to the media, along with predictable howls of outrage from Clinton's sycophants over these criminal leaks from Ken Starr's team. It turns out the "leaks" actually came from people inside the Clinton team, and many of them were fabricated stories about the questions they were allegedly being asked in their grand jury testimony.
Based on the information that has been presented up to this point, none of what you're reading here from PPD is any more credible than a fake news story from CNN or the Washington Post.
The indictments were sealed. See this definition of sealed indictments:
https://legalbeagle.com/6790439-sealed-indictment.html
Sealed Indictments
Sealed indictments are issued by magistrates presiding over felony cases. A magistrate who orders an indictment to be sealed demands that it be kept secret until a specified time. Only those responsible for issuing a warrant against a suspect are made aware of an indictment while it is sealed.
He’s not working for Trump so please get over that fantasy.
______________________________________________
He sure ain’t doing Trump any harm, so why the hate on Mueller?
p
Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country -- let alone the branch of agency of government -- with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.
Nobody who reported on this statement could ever remember another time when the DOJ released something of its kind.
I call this a "remarkable" story because I speculated at the time that Rosenstein was giving an indirect message to President Trump, telling him not to post outlandish Twitter messages in response to media stories about the Mueller investigation that were 100% bullsh!t.
So how many people would this be? Isn't it possible -- if not likely -- that the news of the indictments came from someone working in the magistrate's office?
What exactly would anyone on Mueller's team gain from leaking the news about sealed indictments that were going to be unsealed three days later?
Are you for real? How about him indicting Trump's campaign manager? Would you have called that no harm to Clinton, if her campaign manager got indicted? How about the reports he may have gotten a Trump associate to wear a wire, so he can find any little piece of dirt he can on Trump or his people? Not to mention the media frenzy to impeach that is being whipped up over these indictments, do you really not think that's potentially harmful, either?
The OBVIOUS question is, why so much love for Mueller form those who supposedly support Trump? Since they can't seem to answer that, we just have to assume they've chosen their side?
Agree with you. The Uranium One story actually looked like it was getting traction. So Mueller leaked his indictment story and Uranium One has been sidelined ever since.
That was answered directly in the article, as well as my excerpt of it. The purpose was clearly to knock the stories about Mueller and Rosenstein being involved in Uranium One off the front page. The article even had statements from experts indicating the indictment looked rushed, starting with the fact Mueller's team didn't even get the Ukrainian President's name correct.
Please read the full article before commenting further. Thanks!
Some of us don't "love" Mueller at all, but can look at this whole story objectively and ignore bullsh!t media reports from unattributed "sources."
The OBVIOUS question for me is: Why so much loyalty for a former Trump campaign manager who was the subject of an FBI investigation for years before he was hired to lead Trump's campaign?
He wasn't indicted for anything related to the Trump campaign, was he?
Do you think President Trump lost a minute's sleep over the Manafort indictment? I don't.
It was Trump’s FORMER campaign manager. Who was accused of dealings before he was Trump’s campaign manager. And this lame-ass indictment mentioned Trump a total of zero times.
How do you not know this?
Every day that Mueller is on the job is another good day for our side. Either he will leave in disgrace finding nothing or he will (as I predict) do his job and will return numerous indictments and charges against the Clintons, Comey, et al.
The article even had statements from experts indicating the indictment looked rushed, starting with the fact Mueller's team didn't even get the Ukrainian President's name correct.
The indictment was most likely rushed because they were coming up against statutes of limitations on some of the charges. The evidence for this is that the indictment documents describe allegations of mortgage fraud and tax fraud against Manafort that were not included among the charges. Since Manafort's dealings with Trump go back to the mid-2000s when he bought a condo in a Trump building, it's likely that the Federal statute of limitations on those charges (I believe it's five or six years) had already expired.
Liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who likened the special counsel investigation to Stalin’s secret police, said Mr. Mueller is ignoring crimes committed by Democrats, which are the “mirror image” of what they have alleged of Team Trump. Recalling his experience with Mr. Mueller, he tells a very disturbing story that paints the former FBI head as the perfect person to lead a political witch hunt.
“’It’s a non-starter to talk to me about FBI misconduct or prosecutorial misconduct,’” Professor Dershowitz claimed Mr. Mueller once told him. “It’s a non-starter. He doesn’t want to hear about that. He is in the business of protecting the FBI, protecting prosecutors, at all costs.”
Professor Dershowitz would be a better choice for head of DOJ than Sessions.
Well the whole story, with no bias at all, is limited to Trump people being raided by SWAT teams, Trump associates being indicted and possibly wearing wires to dig up dirt on other Trump associates, and Trump decrying it all every day on Twitter and in interviews. Those are the facts without bias.
Yet for some reason, some who claim they support Trump see no problem at all, and want the rest of us to back off of Mueller and his investigations. Forget it. We see what appears to be going on, plain as day starting with the reactions to Mueller from Trump and Kelly and Conway and Hannity and Bannon etc. So my side is chosen, and doesn't need any further explaining if you ask me.
Bookmarked.
I'll always remember what may have been the defining quote about Donald Trump from the 2016 election campaign:
"The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." -- Salena Zito, The Atlantic (9/23/16)
Every Freeper should be asking themselves a simple question: Are you taking him seriously, or literally?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.