Connect with us

Senator Loses It On Mueller’s ‘Weaponized’ DOJ, Investigation – Calls To SHUT IT DOWN

Published

on

The Daily Caller is now reporting that Republican Senator Bill Cassidy from the great state of Louisiana is now calling for an end to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling during President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. About time!

“Thought provoking piece by [former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy] underscores the need for Mueller to finish up. If there’s no evidence regarding potus, admit it,” Cassidy tweeted. “America’s justice system should not be weaponized — especially with taxpayers footing the bill.”

“Here is more on this breaking news via National Review:

“To date, Manafort, like every other Trump-campaign official, has never been charged with a crime related to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Now, the Steele dossier is not the only “collusion” evidence against Manafort. There has been public reporting that, while he was Trump’s campaign chairman, Manafort furtively offered briefings on the campaign to Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch known to be close to Vladimir Putin (but intriguingly discussed as if he could be, or become, a Western intelligence asset in emails between dossier author Christopher Steele and top DOJ official Bruce Ohr). If true, this claim of Manafort’s offer to Deripaska is unseemly and suspicious, but it does not establish a crime.

Manafort is also known to have been present at the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, arranged by Donald Trump Jr. in hopes of scoring campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. Again, unseemly, but not a crime per se (unless the campaign-finance laws are stretched in a way that would implicate many, many campaigns). No, the only publicly known, unambiguous allegation that Manafort was enmeshed in a criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and Russia is sourced to the Steele dossier.

We know that in June 2017, a month after appointing Mueller, Rosenstein relied heavily on the Steele dossier in approving a FISA surveillance-warrant application (targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page). Is it not reasonable to suspect that, less than two months after signing off on the warrant application, he would again rely on the Steele dossier in amplifying the basis for Mueller’s investigation?

More questions: Did Rosenstein have evidence other than the Steele dossier to support this criminal-collusion allegation against Manafort? Does the deputy attorney general acknowledge relying on the Steele dossier in his memo to Mueller? Are there other allegations in the Rosenstein memo that mirror the Steele dossier’s sensational, uncorroborated claims? Is Donald Trump named in the memo?

Mueller’s Report . . . about What?

The last question is the pertinent one. Reuters reported back in April of this year that Rosenstein assured Trump that he is not a “target” of Mueller’s probe. Even if true, that would not mean the president is not a subject of the probe. If he’s not, why wouldn’t we have been told that? Why hasn’t it been announced that the Trump aspect of the investigation is closed — if, indeed, it was ever open?

We have to assume that Trump is and has been under criminal investigation, even if there is not and has never been a crime.

It is frequently noted that, as special counsel, Mueller is expected to provide a report to Rosenstein, who will then decide what parts of the report to share with Congress and the public. This is said to explain why Mueller is being so thorough: He must be comprehensive even if he finds no prosecutable crimes.

Democrats, of course, anticipate that such a thoroughgoing, narrative report will form the basis for an impeachment of the president. Impeachment does not require proof of courtroom-prosecutable misconduct, but of any misconduct Congress might determine is — or might inflate into — high crimes and misdemeanors. The idea is that, despite the absence of penal offenses, Mueller will find discreditable and erratic behavior, which, post-midterms, a Democratic-controlled House can whip into “collusion” and “obstruction” for purposes of impeachment articles.

We go back, however, to first principles. The way this is supposed to work, the Justice Department must describe the factual basis for specified crimes – not discreditable, erratic behavior; crimes – that the special counsel is authorized to investigate. If the special counsel wants to investigate other crimes, he is supposed to ask for his jurisdiction to be expanded. When the special counsel writes his report, it is supposed to be about why prosecution of those crimes should be authorized or declined. That’s it. Mueller is a prosecutor working for the Justice Department, not counsel for a congressional impeachment committee.

His task is to report his prosecutorial decisions about crimes he has been authorized to investigate because the Justice Department is conflicted; it is not to hold forth on his assessment of Donald Trump’s overall comportment and fitness to be president. That is for voters, or their elected representatives, to determine.

So what are the suspected crimes committed by Donald Trump that Mueller has been authorized to investigate, and what was the factual basis for Rosenstein’s authorization of this investigation?

We still haven’t been told.”

Senator Cassidy is 100% correct on this. There is an investigation going on of our president but no one seems to really know what it’s about. They are fishing for a clue if Trump had anything to do with any Russian collusion, a clue-based only on a fake Russian Dossier which the Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for but has already been proven to be fake.

I have always relished in the fact that here in the U.S. we were above certain banana republic tactic. But the way the FBI has acted towards Candidate and President Trump makes me rethink things.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


Pompeo on Huawei: Won’t put American information at risk

Published

on

Continue Reading

Kamala Just Made Shocking Sudden Border Announcement – Beto & Gillibrand Panicking

Published

on

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: Daily Caller

Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris refuted two of her potential 2020 presidential primary challengers on Wednesday when she stated that she does not agree with their acceptance of open borders.

“No, I believe that we need border security,” Harris told “The Daily Show’s” Trevor Noah when asked how she felt about former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s call to remove the already standing wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We need smart border security. We can’t have open borders, we need to have border security, all nations do,” she continued. “All nations define their borders, but we should not have a policy and perspective that is grounded in keeping people out for the sake of this nationalistic kind of thing this president is trying to push.”

WATCH: 

O’Rourke has long argued against a border wall, despite still claiming to be against open borders. Following President Donald Trump’s executive order in September to erect an 18-foot steel bollard wall to replace the existing pedestrian fencing in El Paso, Texas, the Democrat called the existing chain-link fence “bad enough.”

The failed senatorial candidate later revealed to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that if he could snap his fingers and make his hometown of El Paso’s border wall disappear, he “absolutely” would. O’Rourke insisted in the past that the way to improve border safety and security is to “ensure that we are maximizing the potential from everyone … [and] treating each other with respect and dignity” and referred to Trump’s wall as an “expression of our smallness, our meanness, our fear to the rest of the world.”

Want to build the wall NOW? Follow Amanda Shea on Twitter and Instagram!

Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who launched a presidential exploratory committee in January, signaled her support for tearing down the existing barrier on the border when she was confronted with O’Rourke’s position.

“Well, I’d have to ask folks in that part of the of the country to see whether the fencing that exists today is helpful or unhelpful,” Gillibrand replied in February when asked about O’Rourke’s comments. “But, you know, Democrats are not afraid of national security or border security.”

“And [the wall] is a hateful message. I mean [Trump’s] trying to create a picture of division and hate and derision. And that’s what I’m so offended by — the fact that he’s fused this kind of racism in, ‎in his words and actions is just troubling,” she continued. “So, I could look at it and see which part he means and why and if it makes sense I could support it.”

Neither Gillibrand nor O’Rourke have officially entered the 2020 presidential race.

Want to build the wall NOW? Follow Amanda Shea on Twitter and Instagram!

Read more on Daily Caller

Continue Reading
[ifform list="4174" submit="Subscribe"]

Send this to a friend