Comey and Mueller

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Jun 9, 2017.

  1. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Comey and Mueller: Russiagate’s Mythical Heroes
    Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.

    Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited plain vanilla incompetence.

    TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a “bombshell memo” to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller’s having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001.

    Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the 9/11 Commission eventually concluded, “that the system had been blinking red.” Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI agent witness termed “criminal negligence” in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner. (Some failures were never fixed at all.)

    Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to “roll out” their misbegotten “war on terror,” which only served to exponentially increase worldwide terrorism.

    Unfulfilled Promise

    I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI’s pre 9/11 failures.

    A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney’s ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer, emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney’s claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email.

    Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the “post 9/11 round-up” of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI “progress” in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists.

    A History of Failure

    Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller’s role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI’s illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other “top echelon” informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.

    Current media applause omits the fact that former FBI Director Mueller was the top official in charge of the Anthrax terror fiasco investigation into those 2001 murders, which targeted an innocent man (Steven Hatfill) whose lawsuit eventually forced the FBI to pay $5 million in compensation. Mueller’s FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of “national security letters” to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating “terrorism.”

    For his part, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and torture of captives. Comey also defended the Bush Administration’s three-year-long detention of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.

    Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room, both Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo’s singular theories of absolute “imperial” or “war presidency” powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a “state of emergency.”

    The Comey/Mueller Myth

    What’s not well understood is that Comey’s and Mueller’s joint intervention to stop Bush’s men from forcing the sick Attorney General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment. A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing board to draft new legal loopholes to continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.

    The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller did something significant and lasting in that hospital room. They didn’t. Only the legal rationale for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.

    Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any “war crimes files” were made to disappear. Not only did “collect it all” surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller’s (and then Comey’s) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

    Neither Comey nor Mueller — who are reported to be “joined at the hip” — deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like “G-men” with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George “Slam Dunk” Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along with official incompetence.

    It seems clear that based on his history and close “partnership” with Comey, called “one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen,” Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

    Mueller didn’t speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn’t speak out against torture. He didn’t speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn’t tell the truth about 9/11. He is just “their man.”

    Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI’s pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine’s “Persons of the Year” in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to launching the Iraq War is archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled “Questions for the FBI Nominee” was published on the day of James Comey’s confirmation hearing. This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley’s Huffington Post page.
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Byron York also addressed this issue --

    " ..... Which brings up an intriguing legal question. Comey is a good friend of special counsel Robert Mueller — such a good friend, for about 15 years now, that the two men have been described as "brothers in arms." Their work together during the controversies over Bush-era terrorist surveillance has been characterized as "deepening a friendship forged in the crucible of the highest levels of the national security apparatus after the 9/11 attacks," after which the men became "close partners and close allies throughout the years ahead."

    Now Mueller is investigating the Trump-Russia affair, in which, if the increasing buzz in the case is correct, allegations of obstruction against the president will be central. And central to those allegations — the key witness — will be the prosecutor's good friend, the now-aggrieved former FBI director.

    Is that a conflict? Should a prosecutor pursue a case in which the star witness is a close friend? And when the friend is not only a witness but also arguably a victim — of firing — by the target of the investigation? And when the prosecutor might also be called on to investigate some of his friend's actions? The case would be difficult enough even without the complicating friendship....."
  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    IMO, it's not a close call. Over the years, I conflicted myself out of several cases that landed on my desk because I saw a name I knew or maybe a business or property. When you see it, you shut the file immediately and walk it back to the boss. My sections chiefs were always grateful for the heads up. And then whoever got the case, you never discussed it with them.

    In the article above, York asked this conflict question of "lawyers in private practice, on Capitol Hill, in think tanks, some of them veterans of the Justice Department."

    From the article, from another Justice Department veteran:

    I think it raises a serious conflict of interest that would normally require the prosecutor to recuse himself from the case.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    From a Capitol Hill veteran now in private practice:

    "They [Comey and Mueller] have a mutual admiration society. Mueller should hire another prosecutor to deal with Comey. But Comey is central to their case, so it infects the whole prosecution. Could [a close colleague] investigate me? No, he would recuse. But Mueller's stature is great, and he may be able to overcome it."
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    "This is very odd," said one big-firm lawyer and Justice Department veteran Sunday:

    An ordinary prosecutor would turn this over to someone uninvolved, and there would be lots of candidates. That is particularly so here where Comey is not just the star witness but a potential target. That said, I doubt anyone outside can or should do anything here. Mueller should resign, but if he chooses not to — either on the theory he can handle the conflict, or on the theory it is such a mess he should just persevere — the attorney general should not fire him. As to how Mueller might handle, he could announce that the Comey part of the case will be handled by someone else within his office, but that is complex and not very satisfactory.
  6. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    And finally, from another Hill lawyer:

    It's somewhat ironic, no? I mean, the whole purpose of the special counsel is to have a prosecutor from outside the government and outside of the normal chain of command because inherent conflicts render the Justice Department incapable of handling it. So, now the special counsel is a close friend (mentor/mentee relationship) with the star witness, who by his own admission leaked the memos at least in part to engineer the appointment of a special counsel. Only in Washington. You can't make this stuff up.
  7. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    One more good piece on this
    By Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist -- Gives a review of some of the more recent high profile cases in which Comey may have/probably did cross the lines

    "James Comey Has A Long History Of Questionable Obstruction Cases" From Martha Stewart to Frank Quattrone to Steven Hatfill, former FBI director James Comey has left a long trail of highly questionable obstruction of justice cases that he used to make a name for himself.
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  9. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Like Like x 1
  10. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Lovely --

    Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors

    "....... Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump's 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

    One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist's attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity....."
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  11. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    To Dems, the Constitution is merely a speed bump
    Congress can't "appoint" anyone. It has no power of appointment.
    Schiff is constitutionally illiterate. Ranking Member of the House "Intelligence" Committee - lol

    • Like Like x 1
  12. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Facts be damned, as usual.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    Good work Joe Fan. I wasn't familiar with the relationship between Comey/ Mueler.
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The Trump organization has clearly left their stamp on their strategy to confront the Russia meddling investigation...attack any and all investigators, regardless of merit and or credibility. At this point, it's becoming more an more clear that Trump may in fact be hiding something. Trump first or America first? Their actions are certainly pointing to the former. Comey's testimony about the lack of inquisitiveness by Trump about the actual Russia meddling is pretty damning.

    This is the guy that either Trump or his surrogates will try to defame:

    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  16. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Here, Louie Gohmert calls on Robert Mueller to recuse himself

    Hard not to agree -- Mueller's first act was to bring Clinton lawyers into the mix. That's crossing a red line.

  18. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Putin: Russia Ready to Grant Asylum to Comey if He is Persecuted in US
    "He said he had recorded his conversation with President [Donald Trump] and handed over this recording to mass media with the help of a friend. This sounds strange. When a special service head records a conversation with the commander-in-chief and then gives it to the media through his friend. What is then the difference between the FBI director and [Edward] Snowden? Then he is not the head of a special service, he is a human rights activist defending a certain stance. If he [Comey] is persecuted, we are ready to grant him political asylum in Russia, he should know about it," Putin said.

    On June 8, Comey appeared for testimony on the Trump-Russia probe at the US Senate Intelligence Committee. He explained why he recorded his private talks with the US president, saying that he was afraid Trump might "lie" about them. However, he said that Trump did not directly order him stop investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

    Following the revelation, Trump's lawyer Marc Kasowitz called for finding out whether by leaking sensitive information the ex-FBI head violated the law.
    In May, Trump fired Comey over what he believed was poor handling of the investigation into the Hillary Clinton private server and email scandal. However, many believe that the decision is connected with the probe into alleged ties of Trump's campaign team to Russia, as Comey reportedly was seeking funding to extend the bureau’s inquiry.

    Russia has repeatedly denied claims of meddling in the US political process, calling such allegations absurd. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow had no official contacts with Trump's team during the presidential campaign.

    "I am not familiar with the testimony given by Comey, the former head of the FBI, but I know some things, of course. What thoughts do I have about this? The first thing that I noticed, the former FBI director said that he believed that Russia's interference in the election process [in the US] took place, he did not provide any evidence in this case yet again. But, as he said, the influence on our [US] minds, and on how we should act, took place," Putin said.

    The president questioned if it was any different around the world.

    "And the constant US propaganda, the constant supply of NGOs oriented toward the US, and money is allocated directly for this, is this not an influence on our minds and not an attempt to influence how we should act during the election campaign? Yes, it continues from year to year. Take the globe, spin it around, poke with a finger in any place, there would be the US interests and there would definitely be their interference. I know this from conversations with almost all the heads of state. They just do not want to quarrel with the US side, no one directly talks of this," Putin added.

    The Russian president noted that according to Comey there was no evidence that Russia meddled with the vote count in the United States.

    "Thank God, this is something, this is good," Putin said.
  19. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    In his comparison of Comey with Snowden, Putin failed to point out one big difference. At least Snowden provided proof in hard data to support his accusations. Comey has not.
  20. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    Not to you or me. There's not telling what Mueller has or what the IC has. And, he's not sharing it with the Keebler elf.
  21. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Why would Comey supply the "hard data" in an active investigation? He was pretty clear when confronted in various hearings that he wouldn't do that. Now it's on Mueller's shoulders and I sincerely hope his team is better about limiting leaks although the leak that Trump is now being investigated for "obstruction of justice" is disconcerting. For now I'll give the special counsel the benefit of the doubt though.
  22. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    If hard data existed, it would have been leaked like everything else long ago... and Trump would be history already.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Kinda funny but he does have a point -- they are both leakers
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Here is Adam Gingrich on Mueller --

    "How dangerous is the Mueller investigation getting to our constitutional stability as a nation of laws? So dangerous he is leaking details of his investigation before it even starts. Mueller is a serious man, maybe, and this is definitely a serious issue. Right now, though, his credibility is about as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, and that is devastating to his mission. In the military there is an old line of reasoning for things like this: Send a good man on a bad mission, and you lose the man and the mission. Mark these words: Mueller and his team of Clinton-tethered lawyers are each carrying a bucket of paint, and believe me when I tell you there’s only corner left......"
  25. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Here's what makes millions sick and underscores why so many are disgusted with this crooked investigatory bs that's gone on for years.

    First off I'll just say the meat of this story is fake news as usual, but must be discussed.

    WaPo's newest post-collusion absurdity quotes five unnamed 'officials' with access to Mueller investigation requests. Meaning officials working in the FBI or other intel agencies receiving the requests. Since they quote several officials, it suggests the latter.

    So right away there are five high clearance intel officials leaking classified information to the press. The article claims in detail how they say the investigation now focuses on DT obstruction and Mueller is interviewing for this purpose.

    IMHO, I'm sure the requests to interview these key figures were made. The investigation is meant to determine Russia's interference in the election. A special counsel is not gonna pick up where the last investigation left off. He's going to go back over the entire process under his own guidance and collect information according to his methods.

    By all means he certainly would interview the intel heads on this matter. They're the ones who have the relevant info. And it's also not out of bounds to ask each if DT ever ordered them to stop any investigation, which most have testified never happened.

    So WaPo takes the illegally leaked interview requests and paints this detailed narrative of how it's all targeting DT obstruction...blah blah blah.

    Collusion is dead despite the countless fake claims and 'unnamed source' stories now debunked. So it's time to create outrage and hysteria over obstruction.

    Regardless if the false elaborations on the reason for the interviews is true or not, where the f*ck is the investigation to find the five people who just committed actual felonies?

    Instead the public is supposed to accept countless leaking felonies sliding by with no investigation or punishment, while the supposed target of the investigation is whether or not DT obstructed, a potential crime fishing for proof?

    If the article is true, there's five proven felonies and one potential obstruction. Yet the fishing expedition is the focus and locating high clearance proven criminals isn't?

    So glad the MSM is full of sh*t and spinning lies based off illegally obtained real interview requests which do have relevance to the Russian interference investigation.

    If not and witch hunt focus is true, this would approach the breaking point of corruption.
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2017
  26. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    This whole thing is just a sham. It's no different than someone on the front roll hollering Hallelujah as the evangelist puts his hand on the forehead and heals the demons out of someone.

    Investigate a way. They aren't going to find anything because nothing happened. But it gives the foolish hope I guess. It just keeping us from talking about all the progress and accomplishments this President is doing which is what the Libs want.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    The problem with just letting them investigate away and laughing it off is this leaking tidal wave is a serious deal and should concern every American.

    Their singular goal is to destroy DT by any means necessary. The nature of the information they leak and damage it causes to our country is of no concern.

    As long as DT looks bad, the damage is acceptable. The reality is, no, it's not acceptable. It's not acceptable now and not acceptable when POTUS flips sides.

    Whistleblowing is one thing, which is typically factual reporting of a serious crime. If DT does commit a serious offense and there is real proof, whistleblow away. My loyalty doesn't support one man over the interest of the country.

    Which is opposite for the MSM. Their loyalty is to destroy one man with zero regard for the damage they are causing to the operation of our country and democratic process.
  28. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    I agree with what you are saying "if" DT committed a serious crime then go get him. But this has been going on for months and there isn't a shred of evidence to even suggest there could be. Of course it's mind blowing that there was so much evidence of corruption with Obama and not zilch was done.
  29. 4th_floor

    4th_floor From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.

    Not only that, but the special prosecutor can manufacture crimes and call it obstruction of justice or perjury. Somewhat innocent people (almost all in public life are dirtbags in MHO) can go to jail so the Special Persecutor can prove his worth. Drudge says money laundering is the crime under investigation. Remember that Tom Delay was convicted of phony money laundering charges, before overturn on appeal.

    And since Trump can easily be baited into saying something stupid, he could even be impeached and convicted by the Grand Dirtbag Assembly. Allowing a special persecutor was a stupid mistake on Trump's part.
  30. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    I think the inept MSM is finally starting to learn how to bait DT with success.

    When I read WaPo article about Mueller's obstruction crusade, the trap was obvious. It came off the heels of many articles about Mueller's legal team of Dem loyalists.

    The news cycle had a very strong feel of trying to bait DT to step on his own d*ck. They were provoking him to either piss off Mueller through smack talk, or say something that can legally be used against him.

    It didn't work as strongly as the seeming intent, but he did talk a lil smack about the target of the investigation and give credibility to the Wapo reporting.

    Regardless, his tweeting about the obstruction part of the investigation is a really bad idea. The only part of the investigation that could effect him and they actually have a form of evidence, even if it's Comey spun nonsense with no legal teeth.

    His supporters already understand it's all a witch hunt and the MSM is never to be trusted. Tweeting out the MSM reports and obstruction charges are garbage is not selling us on something we didn't already know. All it's doing is potentially giving ammunition to those shaping the evidence to match their preferred outcome.

Share This Page