Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Collusion...where's the beef?

from Real Clear Investigations:
Republican lawmakers allege Special Counsel Robert Mueller may have perjured himself before Congress in his sworn testimony last month, when he gave what they say were incomplete answers regarding why he held an earlier press briefing.

Recently released court documents suggest Mueller may have made his surprise appearance before the press in Washington on May 29 as damage control after a federal judge privately threatened to hold his team in criminal contempt of court over what she called misleading language in his final report about Russian government interference in the 2016 election.

Under oath, Mueller denied the judge’s action had anything to do with his holding the press conference.

In the hastily arranged 9-minute press conference, Mueller announced that he was ending his investigation -- which was not news -- and concluded it without taking any questions. He made a point, however, to stress that the Russians he had indicted were “private” entities and "presumed innocent."

What Mueller didn’t tell the country was that the day before, his case against two Russian internet “trolling” firms had taken a sudden turn for the worse. It was a key part of his narrative that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.

On May 28, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich called attorneys prosecuting the case into her courtroom for a closed hearing. Although no reporters were allowed inside, it is now known that Friedrich agreed with one defendant’s claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by Moscow. News organizations had seized on the highly suggestive wording in his report to report they were part of a Kremlin-run operation.

Concerned that Mueller’s words could prejudice a jury and jeopardize the defendants' right to a fair trial, Friedrich ordered the special prosecutor to stop making such claims and “to minimize the prejudice moving forward” — or face sanction.

“The government shall refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government,” Friedrich stated in her ruling, which was private at the time. “Willful failure to do so in the future will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.”

The judge explained that Mueller’s report improperly referred to the defendants’ “social media operations” as one of “two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections” carried out by the Russian government. She also pointed out that he also referred to their Internet trolling as “active measures” — a term of art that typically includes operations conducted by Russian intelligence to influence international affairs. She said this was a departure from the government’s original February 2018 indictment, which “does not link the defendants to the Russian government" and “alleges only private conduct by private actors."

Friedrich further directed the prosecution to make clear that its allegations are simply that and “remain unproven.” She also admonished Mueller’s team from expressing "an opinion on the defendant’s guilt or innocence."

The next day, May 29, Mueller's statement at the Department of Justice press podium apparently mollified the judge. In a recently unsealed July 1 opinion, Friedrich wrote that Mueller had “demonstrated” the government had complied with her order with his May 29 statements to the media.

“In delivering his remarks," she said, "the special counsel carefully distinguished between the efforts by 'Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military' and the efforts detailed ‘in a separate indictment’ by ‘a private [italics in original] Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens [italics in original] posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.’”


In other words, Mueller's hastily assembled appearance in the press briefing room helped head off a public rebuke by the judge hearing one of the signature indictments of Mueller’s 22-month investigation.

At the time, the public was unaware that any of this legal drama was taking place behind the scenes. The judge did not unseal the May 28 hearing transcripts or her orders until later in July.

When Mueller testified before the House Judiciary Committee on July 24, a Republican member of the panel — Tom McClintock of California -- asked him about his puzzling press conference, pressing him on whether the real reason he called it was to “retroactively” soften allegations he made in his report to comply with Judge Friedrich's demands a day earlier.

In spite of documentary evidence suggesting otherwise, Mueller flatly stated that the court order had nothing to do with his calling the news conference, implying that the timing was just a coincidence.

Here is a transcript of their exchange, which has received little media attention:
McCLINTOCK: Your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet at a hearing on May 28 in the Concord Management-IRA [Internet Research Agency] prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated you and [Attorney General William] Barr [who publicly recited Mueller’s claims from the report] for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when in court you've been unable to produce any evidence to support it?

MUELLER: Well, I am not going to get into that any further than I -- than I already have.

McCLINTOCK: But -- but you -- you have left the clear impression throughout the country, through your report, that it -- it was the Russian government behind the troll farms. And yet, when you're called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.

MUELLER: Well, I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that -- in that proceeding.

McCLINTOCK: In -- in -- in fact, the judge considering -- considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off, only after your hastily called press conference the next day in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms. Did your press conference on May 29th have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the evidence?

MUELLER: What was the question?

McCLINTOCK: The -- the question is, did your May 29th press conference have anything to do with the fact that the previous day the judge threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for misrepresenting evidence?

MUELLER: No.
McClintock and other Republican lawmakers question the truthfulness of the former special counsel's denial.

“It certainly doesn't pass the smell test,” McClintock told RealClearInvestigations in a statement.

The congressman suspects that Mueller knowingly gave Congress a false statement under oath, and he wants to see the former special counsel’s sworn testimony referred to the Justice Department for investigation of possible perjury -- a charge for which Mueller has sent Trump associates to prison. Most of them were prosecuted for lying to federal agents, but Mueller busted Trump lawyer Michael Cohen specifically for lying to Congress last November.

“If he lied, he’s guilty of perjury and lying to Congress,” McClintock said, adding that “I think this would be of interest to the U.S. attorney investigating misconduct in this matter and the inspector general’s office.”

McClintock, though, doubts the Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary Committee will refer the matter to the Justice Department.

“The committee is run by Jerry Nadler and the Democrats, so I suspect the answer is ‘No,’” he said.

Neither Mueller spokesman Peter Carr nor Nadler responded to requests for comment.

17 comments:

  1. Since when do guilty parties ever say, "yeah, you got us. We did it"? The Putin Puppets continue to fight back and deny their crimes. What a surprise. BTW, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. NOT no doubt what-so-ever. Your oranges investigation (the "big ugly" you believe will include charges for "deep state" folks like Mueller, Hillary, Obama, etc) won't be successful. We should all certainly pray that the hoax the Putin Puppets are trying to perpetrate fails. Given the fact that a successful oranges hoax would be a victory for our enemies and a defeat for America.

    BTW, the enemies of America include Dotard tRump. If you support Dotard, you stand with our enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. lol! The "standards" for intelligence assessments are not comparable to CIVIL OR CRIMINAL legal standards of "proof" (ie - preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable DOUBT). Intelligence assessments are considered to be truthful if the subject being investigated has the "capability" of performing an action, like influencing an election. Yes, the Russians have that capability. But did they actually "do it" in 2016? Yes, to the miniscule tune of a couple of hundred thousand dollars (vs Hillary Clinton's hundreds of billions" spent).

    The Russian troll farms will be acquitted in court. Because the entire collusion hoax was cr*p.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The new standards of liberal "journalism"...

    ...based upon the movie, "Inception".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your denial of the truth is what is crap. Will the oranges investigation include fabricated evidence by the "dirty cop" Barr? Or will the trumpturds just twist the facts to fit their (false) narrative? Also, "hundreds of billions"???

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hundred's of billions... as Hillary had the whole US Government funding her, State, the IC, DOJ and FBI. John Brennan essentially ran Hillary's Campaign using the foreign intelligence services of the UK, Australia, Italy and the Ukraine.

    "Dirty cop" Barr is going to clean house of Deep State partisans... and that terrifies Democrats. How can they win without the IRS cutting off tax exemptions for GOP donors and IC leaking classified gossip to be taken for truth about Russian pee tapes?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your previous comment is 100 percent nonsense. Presidents, you could argue, have an unfair advantage when running for reelection. Hillary wasn't even Secretary of State any longer when she ran. The IRS gave the tax exemptions. Even though they shouldn't have because the organizations that applied for them didn't qualify for that exemption. And it was the HRC email investigation that was leaked while nobody knew the tRump campaign was under investigation for colluding with Russia until AFTER the election.

    The (likely accurate) info concerning the pee is another example of damaging info the FBI had on tRump that could have been leaked by the "deep state" if it had wanted to hurt tRump's campaign. But nobody in the general public knew about it until after the election. Because there is no "deep state". Comey briefed tRump about the tape after he was "elected". tRump, the moron that he is, thought Comey was threatening him. As opposed to filling him in because he is the president.

    How is it that you are so very misinformed? Too much Fox Nooz?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is Hillary in jail for security violations? That's all the proof needed. Now Epstein is dead...so Bill can continue to molest under age girls.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is Dotard tRump in prison for tax fraud? That's all the proof needed. Now Epstein is dead... so Dotard can continue to molest under age girls. (I don't know how these two things could be connected, but I don't know how your two "facts" could have anything to do with one another either).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is Dotard tRump in prison for tax fraud? Have you gotten his tax returns yet? lol!

    As for my two facts, they had a common name. Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your previous comment contained zero facts. As of right now, only Dotard has an accuser that says she was raped by the orange fake billionaire as a child (13 years old) while Epstein was present (a party at his NY residence). There are zero accusers who say Bill Clinton raped them on Epstein's island, in his plane or at an Epstein property.

    As for Dotard's tax returns, his refusal to show them (because he is clearly hiding something very bad) means he won't even be on the ballot on California and Oregon guarantees his popular vote loss in 2020 will be ginormous. Although the courts should force toady Mnuchin to turn them over before then. Either way the tax returns issue isn't a winner for Dotard.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are zero accusers...

    ...and how many non-disclosure agreements?

    ReplyDelete
  12. btw There are plenty of rape accusations against WJC. Bill just likes the older ones.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm only aware of one. And you admit there is likely no illegal activity involving Epstein likely to be discovered?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Juanita, Eileen, Regina..

    ...and I admit nothing. I haven't a clue as to what will be "discovered" during the investigation.

    I can only point to the man's 17+ long track record... cuz leopards don't change their spots.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rape allegations concerning Juanita Broaddrick and Eileen Wellstone are fake news. Regina Hopper Blakely says she was in a consensual relationship with Clinton. Apparently she claims he forced himself on her once, yet most lists of Clinton accusers don't mention her name. Or, if they do, they say she is being excluded. Quote: "This list does not include women such as Regina Hopper Blakely, Robyn Dickey, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning or Monica Lewinsky with whom he is reported to have had consensual extramarital affairs"... If Clinton was a republican you'd be calling these women "lying whores".

    Katie Johnson was just 13 years old when Donald Trump raped her. Trump has also been accused of rape by Ivana Trump and E. Jean Carroll. And the Trump list of accusers (sexual assault falling short of rape) is longer than the Clinton list.

    Re "leopards don't change their spots"... does this mean you think Dotard continues to sexually assault and rape women (and girls) as predisent?

    ReplyDelete
  16. A husband raping his wife does not exhonorate the crime. And marital infidelity is a just cause in the Courts.

    The point is, that so many women are "lying whores" that the public no longer thinks infidelity or "failed passes" (sexual assaults) are anything "abnormal" or "actionable" anymore. I didn't make it that way. YOU did.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That is an absurd lie. I (personally) nor the Left (as a whole) has ever done anything to help you achieve your goal of making sexual assault and rape not abnormal or actionable - so you and your misogynistic (male) Deplorables can go back to committing crimes against women and not fear repercussions.

    Also, we are moving in the right direction... explaining #MeToo. There is no going back. Despite your desires and best efforts - you will FAIL. And Deplorables are NOT "the public". You are a minority (why HRC won the popular vote).

    ReplyDelete