How Mueller’s Team Twisted And Rewrote The Findings
As many of us saw with the Mueller testimony, one that was of much disappointment to the Democrats, Mueller had no hand in writing the report, had no clue what was even within the final findings, instead under questioning was confused most of the time.
So one has to ask, who wrote this, and the answer to this is rather apparent, his supporting cast of attorneys and federal prosecutors, people who have since been proven to be ardent Hillary supports and rabid anti-Trump activist. Even with this team as set in its ways as it was to get Trump, they still could find nothing that was chargeable, so had to resort to writing a hack job on the report to lay suspicion of guilt.
But what we saw with this was much more sinister, by claiming the “OLC guidance” that prevents the Justice Department from charging a president with crimes while he is in office as a excuse not to prosecute, but what they never stated is that there was no intent, that is a huge problem.
They claimed that Trump asked if he could fire Mueller, asked people not to testify, but at no time did he use executive privilege to prevent anyone from testifying, had everyone, including his chief of staff, go under questioning from Mueller, nor did he force any of the funds earmarked for Mueller to be pulled back. Asking questions is not an obstruction if he had actively engaged to block Mueller it would have been, something even Mueller under questioning admitted he never did.
Asking questions is not hindering or obstructing a investigation, and as we have seen in the above-shown video clip, Mueller admitted as much, so now the left is deciding to ignore that under oath Mueller openly admits that nothing was hindered or obstructed, they are determined to continue to dig, but we must ask, why?
The answer to this is equally obvious, but the ramifications border on illegality and outright sedition. While any citizen is protected from fishing expeditions, turns out the House is ignoring this fundamental right with the president, Cummings and Nadler have both said, they will open every book, turn over rock until they find a crime.
In Mapp v. Ohio, (1961) we have one case where no crime was shown, police raided a persons private holdings, took evidence, it was thrown out. As we can see from this case, and Weeks v. US,232 US 383 (1914), along with Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25 (1949) show that one can not just search to find evidence without any showing of a crime, just dig because you know the person is guilty of something, so we ask, if the president is afforded the same rights, why is Congress getting by with this?
SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
This is what the House is using as their reason to carry on these endless investigations, but does the constitution give them the right to start. As is Stated in Justia: “No provision of the Constitution expressly authorizes either house of Congress to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions effectively and advisedly. But such a power had been frequently exercised by the British Parliament and by the Assemblies of the American Colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution.1 It was asserted by the House of Representatives as early as 1792 when it appointed a committee to investigate the defeat of General St. Clair and his army by the Indians in the Northwest and empowered it to “call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.””
So while the Congress has a right to make an inquiry, they are not now, nor have ever been an investigative branch, that authority is held by the Justice Department, so has to wonder, why aren’t they taken to court and have this curtailed. To say you are suspicious there is a crime, but you can’t name it, that is illegal to dig until you find it, yet this is what the Mueller investigation did.
This is where the whole problem starts; the Mueller team subverted witnesses, charged them with other crimes, then held them to try to force them to testify, some have since said they even demanded they lie in their testimony, which they refused to do. Flynn, Manifort, and others have openly stated such, Andrew Weissmann, who was leading Mueller’s team has been busted for doing this in the past, yet nothing was done other than let the people go whom he had wrongly imprisoned.
The backstory: Defense attorneys say Mr. Weissmann bent or broke the rules. As proof, they point to appeals court decisions, exhibits and witness statements.
They say he intimidated witnesses by threatening indictments, created crimes that did not exist and, in one case, withheld evidence that could have aided the accused. At one hearing, an incredulous district court judge looked down at an Enron defendant and told him he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that did not exist.
And then people wonder why Trump had a problem with the Mueller investigation. But this is not where we are at now, the Mueller investigation showed nothing, so Mueller’s team of Andrew Weissmann and Michael Dreeben, both who are known Democrat supporters, had a hand in the creation of the report, decided to create doubt in section two of the findings.
What is most interesting is when the Democrats tried to get Mueller to say he found reason to presicute and couldn’t, he refused to say he found such a case, further, attempts to get him to contridict fell on its face, so now the Democrats have little choice but to either admit they pushed a false narrative, something that would see mass amounts of them lose the primaries to more radical democrats, or act like the Mueller hearings never happened, the later seems to be the tact they are now taking.
So I ask, what is Congress carrying on about? They have a right to inquire, but that is not what they are saying. Here is Cummings claiming that Trump’s calling him out is a racist, like what he faced in the early 1960’s, that is wrong, instead of playing the race card, clean up your own backyard before you attack others.
And here is he is yelling that he knows Trump should be impeached, but for what?
Here he claims Trump is refusing to honor Congress’s witch hunt; instead, Trump has sued to stop this. Congress has no legal authority to go over Trump’s finances; the IRS already has. As for claims of trampling on the constitution, how has he done this? He claims that they were elected into to impeach Trump, funny, I never heard this. What Trump is saying is he cooperated with Mueller who Congress put in place to investigate Trump, he has done enough.
We see Nadler and the left are unable to show any crimes, so they are now resorting to claims of High Crimes. What is more interesting, when they called up Mueller, he said there was no collusion, nor did he state he would have pressed charges on the president for obstruction, he openly stated, as shown in the first video clip, Trump at no time obstructed or hindered his investigation.
It turns out the Democrats have that they are not interested in justice, rather they are only ridding themselves of Trump, no matter the cost. All we see is Congressional Democrats to present a narrative they want, the truth matter not, nor does justice, now they want to go after Trump even after the American people have shown that public support of impeachment is falling.
The Mueller findings were never about establishing guilt, Mueller’s team saw to that, instead, in part 2 of the findings they sought to keep open a door to allow the Democrats to try to impeach. We now know that Mueller never wrote this, it was written by his team of rabidly anti-Trump activist.
Here is the problem, without majority support, it takes a simple majority in Congress, they have that, but to show a slight majority in the vote would show political bias, worse, it takes 2/3rds vote out of the Senate, something the left knows they will never get.
All I can say is this, “”Democrats, move on at your own pearl!
1 Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 153, 159–166 (1926); M. Dimock, Congressional Investigating Committees ch. 2 (1929).