GCN Analysis


Obstruction of Justice




The Russian Interference Report Was Written To Extricate Mueller From Between A Rock And A Hard Place. It Took 18 Months Not Because of Thoroughness, But Because A Cascade Of Public Revelations Made Mueller's Position Untenable And He Could Not Complete The Original Plan. 


By Perry Hicks- Private Investigator (retired) -Special to GCN   4/21/19


As GCN opined back in “Mueller's Minefield,” criminally charging the president with obstruction of justice could- and certainly would- blow the deep state conspiracy wide open. Since then there has been one bombshell report after another doing just that; some brought about by the disgraced former FBI director, James Comey, himself. Whether they wanted to or not, these major media reports exposed the FBI's perfidy further complicating Special Counsel Robert Mueller's life.


The 24/7 vitriol brought forth by both media and even late night “comedians,” such as CBS's Stephen Colbert, didn't help Mueller, either. Rather than shrink back, President Trump capitalized on it by labeling the Left's best hope, Mueller's handpicked prosecutorial team, “13 angry Democrats.”


DOJ policy 28 CFR 600.1 states that independent counsel will be appointed when the DOJ itself has a conflict of interest. Oddly enough, Mueller's team was assembled from the top echelons of the DOJ rendering the appointment both legally and ethically questionable.


For comparative purposes, American Bar Associations Rules state that if one attorney in a law firm is compromised then every lawyer in that firm shares that conflict of interest: See ABA Rule 1.8 (k.)


The ethics of some of Mueller's team was also rightly questionable. Mueller's top prosecutor, Andrew Wessmann, was reported by the Washington Times as having “intimidated witnesses in the Enron case by threatening indictments” and even coerced one defendant into pleading guilty to a non-crime.


It should be noted that there is no American Bar Association Rule against attorneys using threats of criminal prosecution to gain an advantage in a civil matter. The ABA dropped the rule allowing such conduct to fall back under the provisions of extortion. However, the rule still stands in some states, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia, where the state bar continues to have Rule 3.4(i.)


Paul Manafort, President Trump's campaign manager for a brief time, had to be wheeled into a Virginia courtroom owing to “significant” health issues arising from his incarceration. Manafort had been held in solitary confinement ostensibly for his own protection.


It couldn't have been to break him so he'd give/make up dirt on Trump. No way.


Alarmingly, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was tasked to oversee Mueller's probe. I say alarmingly because some such as myself believe him to have been part of the deep state”s coup attempt for his involvement in acquiring the FISA surveillance warrants.


The FISA court(s) were defrauded by the warrant applications, reportedly signed by Rosenstein, because they failed to disclose the now infamous Steele Dossier was an   uncorroborated document paid for Trump's opposition. The dossier was used to justify conducting surveillance on campaign aide Carter Page. Other supporting “evidence” was media reportage prompted by leaks of the dossier and presented as if said reportage was truly independent.


The dossier has since been discredited and its commission known to have been financed by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. As stated above, the disclosure was also denied the FISA court. The conservative Washington Free Beacon has also been reported to have been involved in the early days of the election cycle looking for opposition research on Trump and other Republican primary candidates. Thus, Trump faced a hostile array of both Democrats and Republican “Never Trumpers.” Some of the latter Trump had to weed out of the White House as he sought to secure his footing in the Washington swamp.


Mueller's use of the phrase “obstruction of justice” is curious in that the special counsel was not appointed to investigate a defined crime or crimes. No Federal statute was cited to have possibly been broken (probable cause) making the issuance of search warrants unlawful. Mueller literally was permitted to look for crimes (incidental to his national security intelligence investigation) where no crime was known to have been committed. Hence, his mission established by Rosenstein was a search and destroy one.


Think about it: Knowing that there was no evidence of “collusion,” itself not a crime, Mueller could not expend tens of millions of dollars and nearly two years of investigative effort and come up totally empty handed. Thus, Rosenstein empowered him to quite unconstitutionally come up with something, anything, even if it were only process crimes such as lying to Federal investigators. (18 USC 1001) There are many more obstruction statutes less subjective starting with 18 USC 1501 and going forward, not to mention tax crimes. (It's funny how criminals don't like to pay taxes on their ill-gotten gains.)


As James Comey's long time friend, Mueller's appointment boded ill for Trump as the notion was being floated that the noble Comey was fired expressly to impede the Russian probe.


Well, as it turned out, Comey, by his own admission, wasn't so noble and his higher duty was actually to himself.



During the book tour for his memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey publically admitted that he had leaked his alleged classified post presidential meeting notes to a friend, law professor Daniel Richman of Columbia University, with the expressed intent that Richman would in turn then leak them to the media. The motive Comey said was to create public clamor for the appointment of a special counsel.


Let's follow this line of events:


 Wikileaks released a cache of DNC emails showing that it rigged its own primary against one of its candidates, Bernie Sanders, in favor of Hillary Clinton. Clinton was already taking heat for having maintained a private email server ostensibly to evade FOIA disclosures by keeping her traffic off of the State Department servers. A few are of the opinion, as am I, that the primary purpose was really to facilitate the sale of actionable US developed intelligence via the Clinton Global Initiative, subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation.


As much as a billion dollars is estimated to have flowed into the foundation during her tenure as Secretary of State, at least until her loss to Trump in 2016. Over several decades of fundraising, the total Foundation haul has been estimated to be as high as 3 billion dollars.


Hillary accessed her private home bathroom closet kept server over Russian infrastructure when she visited St. Petersburg Russia in 2012. Further revelations about the server were that it ran wide open for a time without a firewall because her personal IT team couldn't get her server to interface with the State Department's.


Can anyone really believe that Russian Intelligence was not monitoring her presence and didn't peruse through the contents, email contact list, and even download damning evidence- if not everything?


In late June of 2016, Obama's AG, Loretta Lynch, had a private meeting with husband Bill Clinton in her government jet parked on the tarmac of  a Phoenix airport. Just days later Comey, as then director of the FBI, exonerated Hillary and opined that no credible prosecutor would bring charges over the private email server and that Hillary had no “intent” to break the law by keeping classified documents on it.


As we know now, she also distributed said classified documents by virtue that some were later found on a computer belonging to disgraced former congressman, Anthony Weiner, also ex husband to long time Hillary aide, Huma Abedin.


To this day, more than 33,000 emails are missing from Hillary's private account. She claims they were about personal matters such as grandchildren, etc. However, they weren't just deleted; her hard drives were “bleached” and her numerous other devices were physically destroyed, as in smashed to smithereens.


Did she have them destroyed as a matter of routine or was her intent to hide evidence?


This returns us to Mueller's investigative predicament. How could he charge Trump with obstruction when his pal James Comey had given Hillary a pass based on “intent?” Mueller's novel (read flaky) obstruction theory was that a Constitutional executive prerogative, even a responsibility, could be construed as a “crime” based on the president's “intent” in executing it.


This corrupt legal argument, worthy of an Andrew Weissmann, would never have flown in the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such attempt to criminalize the president based on such idiocy would have been overturned had it made it there. Mueller would have been humiliated and the legacy for the 74 year old career prosecutor would have been destroyed.


As it is, we can follow the Russian Collusion crumbs back to both Hillary and Barrack Obama: The Steele dossier provides an opportunity to spy on the Trump campaign and should he become too successful, disgrace him with the smear campaign that Trump had prostitutes urinate on the bed once slept on by the sainted Obama. Oh, the outrage.


In his exchanges with his paramour, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok assured her that “they” wouldn't let Trump win the election. A meeting with an “Andy” was mentioned (Andy McCabe, then deputy director of the FBI?) The operation was even given a name, “Crossfire Hurricane.”


Comey then went out and triggered the execution of the plan by leaking to his friend who then leaked to the media and the Democrats seized on it and demanded an investigation.


The problem was that it all backfired, exposed the deep state conspiracy to first interfere with then overturn the outcome of a lawfully conducted national election.


The question now is will AG William Barr investigate the investigators and bring the whole criminal conspiracy to justice- based, of course, on their “intent?”


By:  Perry Hicks - Special to GCN