March 28, 2019
Victoria Toensing: Mueller’s investigation was deeply flawed
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been described as a public servant carrying out his final assignment for the United States by investigating allegations of "collusion” between Russia and the Trump Campaign.
In reality, Mueller’s prosecutorial history is deeply flawed, marred by a series of failures resulting in injustice to those he targeted. Like his previous work, his last labor is rife with errors in judgment and government overreach.
An example of just one of his victims involves the 2001 anthrax mailings. Shortly after Mueller became FBI director, he personally directed the investigation of who mailed anthrax to government officials, killing five and injuring others. Despite relying on what was later deemed unreliable evidence, the FBI fixated on one suspect, leaking his identity to the media. The person was wiretapped and his home searched. The unjustly accused man even lost his job. He was later cleared and received more than $5 million as a settlement for the Privacy Act violation. The real perpetrator committed suicide in 2008, just prior to the FBI arresting him.
Mueller refused to apologize for ruining an innocent man’s reputation.
Now let’s turn to his latest fiasco: the Russian collusion investigation.
For starters, Mueller loaded his team with Democratic activists — there was nary a Republican among the 19 lawyers.
Andrew Weissmann, who attended HRC’s "victory” party and emailed then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates that he was "so proud’ and "in awe” that she had defied President Trump’s travel ban order, was the worst of the bunch. In 2011, a federal appellate court found Weissmann’s team of prosecutors had "plainly suppressed” evidence favorable to the defense when it prosecuted Enron accounting firm Arthur Andersen.
Recently unsealed documents reveal that his misconduct in the Enron case went even further. FBI agents working under Weissmann’s supervision warned potential witnesses against helping the defense by suggesting they might be indicted if their testimonies conflicted with other witnesses. His modus operandi is to threaten witnesses and their families with indictments unless they swear to information he wants.
Just ask Jerome Corsi, who was so threatened when he "couldn’t tell the special prosecutor what he wanted to hear.” Corsi went public with his charges against the Special Counsel, a clever move that apparently thwarted indictment.
Another biased investigator, Jeannie Rhee, has represented not only the Clinton Foundation, but also Hillary Clinton herself during a 2015 lawsuit regarding her private emails. Can you imagine the outcry if a lawyer investigating Hillary Clinton had represented Donald Trump and the Trump Foundation?
And then there is the Mueller Report itself. When Mueller could not get witnesses to allege untrue facts he was forced to clear the President of "Russian collusion.”
The other issue was obstruction of justice. Mueller claimed there were arguments on both sides of the obstruction issue, and left it up to the Attorney General to make the call. We do not yet know what acts could possibly amount to obstruction of justice. It could not be President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, because Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would surely be a co-conspirator, having penned a memorandum recommending the firing.
Yet, former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe claimed it was Comey’s firing that triggered the need for a Special Counsel because it raised concerns that the President was trying to obstruct justice.
But wait — Rosenstein did not even mention the firing of Comey in his document appointing Mueller. Justice Department Regulations creating the position require that the Special Counsel "be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Firing Comey was not on the list. Moreover, contrary to the Regulations, Rosenstein specified no criminal conduct in the appointing document, broadly directing Mueller to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated” with the Trump campaign — a counter-intelligence matter, not a criminal investigation. We now know that Rosenstein had not one iota of evidence to justify that directive.
And so forth. The end of the article strikes home, as far as I'm concerned. With my emphasis added.
Mueller claimed he could not "exonerate” the president of obstruction. But prosecutors never exonerate. It is not a phrase an honest prosecutor without an agenda would use. Prosecutors simply decide whether or not to indict. The exoneration statement was Mueller’s (and probably Weissmann’s) final poke in the eye to President Trump and a consolation prize to Democrats, who can now claim that because the President was "not exonerated,” he must be guilty.
Entire article here: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victoria-toensing-muellers-investigation-was-deeply-flawed
Let us pray that his abusive Special Counsel investigation is the last "service” Mueller is allowed to perform for our country.
35 queries taking 0.2998 seconds, 113 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.