Roger Stone was pressured by Mueller team to lie about president Trump

Sadly, this is not unbelievable.  There are a lot of revelations in the recent Hannity interview but top among them are the pressure on Stone to lie and that Stone believes he could have proven that Russia never hacked the DNC.

Supreme Court 1 - Congressional Democrats 0

Democrats want more impeachment.  They want the Mueller Grand Jury documents to try again. By a 9-0 vote the Supreme Court said NO.

FBI was out to get Flynn

This was, and is reprehensible.  Heads at the FBI should roll.

Disgruntled Mueller did not get the job

President Trump points out that Mueller did not get the FBI Director job he clearly applied for (and lied about under testimony).

Must See: "Mueller Report meets the Rule of Law"

Sidney Powell is the author of License to Lie, the most widely read book on institutional and individual corruption at the US Department of Justice. She is a writer, commentator and former Assistant United States Attorney with inside knowledge and experiences of how the US Department of Justice actually operates. Licensed to Lie is a frightening story of how “justice” is really delivered by the federal government’s most important and most powerful law enforcement agency.

Deep State Exposed

Judge Jeanine: "If you questioned the deep state's existence, you just saw it".

What Mueller got horribly wrong

Mueller's report was a partisan hit piece lacking substance.  The result, a laughable report that flouts the Constitution.

Mueller testimony was horrible

Robert Mueller was unable to answer a lot of Republican questions.  He came across as an out of touch figurehead in the investigation which ergo, was run by Clinton supporting lawyers.

Here's just one example of him not being able to justify what went on as Rep. Jim Jordan decimates the obvious bias present in the investigation:

Mueller didn't even seem to understand the make-up of his own investigative team.  Here's one just one example:

Mueller subpoena is a mistake for Democrats

Geraldo Rivera of all people points out how bad the Mueller subpoena will be for the Democrats.  I contend that it won't change much for the Democrats - most voters are now entrenched in one camp or the other - but it will be bad for Mueller and probably others involved in the prosecution of the president process.

If it turns out that it damages Democrats, good on them.  They have been playing a dangerous self-serving game that has damaged the Republic for the purpose of political gain.  They deserve the fallout, I just don't see much of, no matter how badly this plays out for them.

Brandon Tatum: Mueller got Trump re-elected (+ more)

Brandon Tatum nails it on the Mueller new conference clown show.  If Mueller could not indict the president then why produce a report?  Why even have an investigation?

Mueller's a clown show

Mueller's parting shot trying to re-ignite ambiguity about his report was an amateur hour clown show. It proves he was not the right choice for the job.  Don't take my word for it, listen to these experts.

Alan Dershowitz, no fan of president Trump had this to say about Mueller's parting shot at the president:

The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then-FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings.

...No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.

Joseph diGenova had this to say at Fox News:

While he made it clear that his investigation is closed, the main takeaway from outgoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s surprise farewell statement to the media Wednesday is that he desperately wanted to take down President Trump, but simply couldn’t find a way to do it.

In a parting shot to cap off two years of outrages, Mueller tried to convince the American people that their duly elected president is a criminal who couldn’t be charged due to a technicality, and therefore it’s up to Congress to impeach him.

If not for a flimsy piece of paper that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) compiled long ago, Mueller suggested, the president of the United States would be in the dock for “obstructing” an investigation into a conspiracy theory about his campaign and the Russian government.

This is so ridiculous that Mueller didn’t even dare to say it plainly. Instead, he fell back on the convoluted language in his report, hoping to obfuscate an issue that Attorney General William Barr had previously clarified by determining that the special counsel’s investigation did not produce sufficient evidence to justify charging President Trump with obstructing justice.

And American Greatness reminds us of the close friendship between Comey and Mueller:

Most Americans are unaware of the long history of comradeship and chicanery between Special Counsel Robert Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey. For nearly two decades, the pair have held the same jobs, earned the same foes, and swaggered in the same rarified sphere of political prestige and privilege.

This week, the country has been treated to another reminder of how often the twosome operates in tandem.

In fact, their prior relationship should have disqualified Mueller from overseeing an investigation into one of Comey’s fiercest critics and the man who fired him, President Donald Trump. Without Comey helping to fabricate the Trump-Russia collusion narrative in 2016, there wouldn’t have been a Mueller investigation into fabricated Trump-Russia election collusion.

You have to wonder if Mueller's parting shot was strictly a defensive play, given that the investigators are being investigated.

Issues and Insights asks the questions that need to be asked regarding Mueller, and it makes it seem all the more self-serving and defensive.

...This starkly politicizes presidential investigations going forward and indicts, if we may say so, the already-dubious system of weaponizing a lawyer with a blank check, no deadline, and an open-ended mandate for him to fish where he likes with minimal oversight.

“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime,” Mueller said. “We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

What kind of strange new standard is Mueller setting here?

Mueller had all the time and money he could want, recorded countless hours of testimony, compiled a mountain of documents, got multiple plea deals, chased down out every conceivable lead, and then says he couldn’t prove the president didn’t commit a crime.

Since when is the job of prosecutors to determine innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? And, short of that, feel free to dump all the evidence that didn’t lead to a criminal charge, but that makes the defendant look a suspect nonetheless.

How would the average American citizen like this said of him or her after a couple of years of 18 prosecutors scrutinizing his or her affairs? After reviewing all the evidence, we don’t have enough evidence to say that John Doe robbed that store. But we can’t say definitively that he didn’t rob that store, so here’s a bunch of embarrassing revelations about him that we uncovered along the way. Have fun.

Exactly.  Mueller does not deserve anyone's respect after this.  He didn't beforehand either, but this third-rate, amateur hour clown show of his, cements it - he's no more than a self-serving con man.

LOL: The impeachment talk is distracting from every issue

It's almost June. The year is approaching the half way mark a lot faster than anticipated for a lot of people. Quite a bit has happened this year, except from Democrats on Capitol Hill.  While they are stuck on impeachment delusion, the country continues to prosper, and geopolitical threats continue to exist.

China for example is talking about withholding rare earth metals in the continuing trade war with America.  Is that a sign they may not be willing or able to sell their U.S. treasuries (their nuclear option) despite some tough talk from the Chinese?  It's hard to say, but if you ask Democrats you'd probably get a confused look because impeachment sucks up so much oxygen in their world, there's no room for anything else.

Iran is saber rattling big time.  While the Washington Post and others might be disparaging the president's policy on the issue as incoherent or blusterous (it's neither, but that's for another day), Democrats are getting serious about the issue.  Wait, no they're still only talking impeachment.

Venezuela is trying to extract itself from the grips of a socialist driven starvation and poverty in an admirable exercise in attempted self liberation. The president is trying to help.  Democrats are talking about impeachment and subpoenas. 

The border crisis is ongoing.  Democrats are mustering their courage to begin impeachment proceedings.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Luckily, this will lead to Democrat electoral defeats across the board in 2020, because voters see a booming economy and real existential issues that still need to be confronted, both at home and abroad. Democrats only see impeachment. The singular focus of the Democrats is myopic and ultimately self-destructive.  In that light you have to wonder if A.G. Barr and president Trump knew that letting Mueller loose to repeat what he had already said, and (maybe) hint at congress to impeach the president would ultimately work in the president's favor.  I'm betting they did.

A couple more Mueller statement reactions

Newt Gingrich:



Ben Shapiro (the short version):

Reactions to Mueller's statement

Mueller's statement to the press should have been redacted except for the part where he was resigning.

Here are a few reactions:

Mueller statement nothing burger - unless you are a Democrat

Ugh, this garbage again.  Mueller's self-interest knows no bounds.  

Nothing new from Mueller. Democrats are frothing at the mouth to try to file for impeachment. But the impeachment talk will only hurt the Democrats.

Mueller's futile attempt to remain relevant

Gateway Pundit's must read summary on the Mueller Russia investigation is highlighted by this excerpt

With the seven Russians indicted today (three of which were previously indicted), the corrupt Mueller team has now indicted 35 individuals and 3 companies, with more than 80% of the indictments related to Russians who we really don’t even know if they are real or whether they did anything to interfere in our 2016 election. These indictments today only diminish the validity of the ‘witch hunt’ by adding more ‘fake indictments’ to the already pitiful list...

...Today the DOJ on behalf of the Mueller team announced that they have charged seven Russian GRU officers with crimes. The officers will likely never be tried in the United States and three of the men were already charged back in July in connection to the Mueller witch hunt.

It sounds a lot like Mueller is disappointed that the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Senate Hearings have taken him out of the headlines and is trying his level best to remain relevant. The thing is, the longer this drags on the more effete and incompetent Mueller will look to liberals and the more partisan and ulterior-motive he will look to conservatives.

Charging Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom is a convenient way to seem like he is making progress, without having to actually produce results, or go to court.  It's the only card Mueller seems to have left, which the Gateway Pundit article summarizes very effectively.  Give it a full read, it's worth your while.

Mueller Indicts More Russians. But Yawn.

While president is meeting with Russian dictator Putin, Mueller tried to grab some headlines and I'm sure CNN will greedily consume and repeat the story ad infinitum.

But, there's this truth:

NEW: White House responds to Russian hacking indictments. pic.twitter.com/rtj16iq7yR

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) July 13, 2018

Former Clinton aid says Mueller probe is absurd.

When a former Hillary and Bill Clinton aide says the Mueller probe is absurd, you know the slime in Washington D.C. has hit the high water mark. Mark Penn spells out what's wrong with the foundation of the Trump-Russia investigation:

Quick Hit: Mueller has nothing, but you wouldn't know it

The Mueller investigation apparently doesn't currently hold the president as a criminal  target of it's investigation.  The media hasn't really mentioned that much. In fact, the Washington Post which reported it yesterday, are holding out hope that he could still become a target.

Nevertheless, there are some important considerations as Johnathan Turley at The Hill points out:

That Mueller does not believe there is “substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime” would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition. However, there has been a disturbing lack of objectivity in the coverage of this investigation from the start. Throughout it, some of us have cautioned that the criminal case against Trump was far weaker than media suggested. Fired FBI Director James Comey himself told Congress that Trump was not a target of his investigation. Indeed, Trump was reportedly upset with Comey largely because Comey would not say that publicly.

When Trump fired Comey, I supported the call for a special counsel, and I still support Mueller in completing his investigation. However, the case of criminal conduct by Trump has not materially improved over the last year. Last October, Mueller brought the first indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Richard Gates. Notably, none of the indictments were linked to the campaign, let alone Trump. When that obvious point was raised, we were told that it meant nothing and Mueller was likely holding back the really damaging indictments while pressuring Trump aides. Commentators continue to announce “bombshell” disclosures against Trump on a daily basis, with experts alleging clear cases for treason to obstruction to witness tampering and other crimes.

But time and again, evidence continued to indicate that chances of president trump becoming a target were evaporating.

Then, in November, came the disclosure of plea agreements with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. However, these pleas were for making individual false statements to federal investigators. Neither the charges nor the narratives in the filings tied Trump or his campaign to any criminal act. Later indictments involving lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and internet operator Richard Pinedo involved a false statement and a single count of identity fraud, again unrelated to Trump or his campaign. Nevertheless, commentators insisted Mueller was just laying the groundwork for his major filing.

In February, Mueller handed down indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for election-related crimes, from hacking to identity fraud. Not only did these charges not implicate Trump or his campaign, but the filing expressly stated that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly engaged Russians in these efforts. Now, Mueller reportedly has said he does not consider Trump a “target” of the criminal investigation. Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target.

And yet, the mainstream media continues to be purveyors of self-deluded Trump-prosecution porn:

Still, some analysts immediately denied that Mueller’s disclosure was anything but bad news for Trump. On CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin insisted that “being a ‘subject’ is a very serious thing” and a “very significant designation” because it is clear “the FBI is investigating the president.”

The only outstanding question is when will Mueller wrap up his investigation.

Manafort pleads not guilty to latest charges

The Mueller probe into the Russia collusion on the election, already reaching well beyond the scope of it's mandate, leveled new charges against Paul Manafort in an effort to to squeeze him on the Trump campaign.  In addition to the charges laid by the Mueller team so far being predominantly against Russians, it's another sign that the prosecutor, really has nothing and is on a fishing expedition.

That's because Manafort is pleading not guilty, and apparently is not succumbing to the pressure to make a deal:

Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman accused of laundering $30 million to support a lavish lifestyle, pleaded not guilty in his first court appearance since Special CounselRobert Mueller unveiled two new indictments against him last week.

Manafort, 68, entered his plea in federal court in Washington, where he was initially indicted in October withRick Gates, his longtime business associate and deputy on the Trump campaign. Manafort previously denied those charges. Now Mueller has intensified the pressure on Manafort by winning a guilty plea and cooperation deal with Gates and filing the new charges against Manafort.

It also proves that the investigation is succumbing to the rules of bureaucracy, which is to say, it's driven by self-preservation: it has to justify it's existence by delivering something...anything. The probe is now interested in primarily one thing: it's own survival. That manifests itself in a relentless pursuit of president Trump, regardless of how far afield they have to go from their original mandate.  They are looking at things that go well beyond the scope of the Russia collusion investigation.  Things that happened longer before there was a Trump campaign. Why would they do that?  In order to find things on the people in the administration, or associated with the campaign so that they have leverage to coerce people into divulging what they think they will find about the Trump campaign.

More charges against Manafort means Mueller has not gotten what he wants out of the investigation or what he thinks Manafort has the ability to divulge.  That Manafort is pleading not guilty, means that Manafort is not intimidated by the Mueller team. All of that adds up to the likely conclusion that this is nowhere near finished.  That isn't what president Trump wants (sure the not guilty makes sense but the ongoing unrelated charges being laid just drags out the probe and delays an exoneration).  It's not what the Democrats want (they'd like an October conclusion that indicts the president to help them win in the midterms).  Bur for the Mueller team, it's exactly what they want as it ensures a longer window, and continued existence.