Mueller Probe Is A Continuation of Democrat Lawfare Against Republicans

Mueller Firing Would Trigger Constitutional Crisis. However, There Is An Alternative Way Out for the President.

 

By: Perry Hicks, Private Investigator (Retired)    Special to GCN   3/21/18

 

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”- Rahm Emanuel

 

As revelations spill- not leak- spill from Robert Mueller's so-called Russian Collusion probe, the public should by now be cognizant that our representative democracy is in as grave a danger as the president is himself. As writer Lee Smith summoned it up in his March 13th tabletmag.com article, Mueller's investigation is "... confirming what many Americans already believe: We are all not equal under one law."

 

Smith's theory is that the Mueller probe is actually a coverup for the Obama Administration's deployment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process against its political opponents. While that is certainly true, it is also much more.

 

The political left has long employed “lawfare” to overturn elections and obstruct both the executive administration of government and the legislative process of making law.

 

Take, for example, Scott Walker, 45th governor of Wisconsin. In 2012, he was subjected to a contentious recall campaign over his stance on the budgetary impact of state employee collective bargaining. While Walker did prevail in the recall, the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill had passed the legislature and was signed by Gov. Walker, Democrats went to court to prevent the bill from being published, effectively preventing the passed and signed legislation from becoming law.

 

Getting the bill published took a sleight of hand. While a court did order the Secretary of State to not publish the bill, the court failed to include any other government entities, such as the Legislative Reference Bureau, which also publishes bills. Ergo, the bill became law saving Wisconsin taxpayers billions.

 

Sarah Palin, former Republican governor of Alaska (2006-2009) and 2008 Republican Vice Presidential candidate for Senator John McCain, was literally driven from office by incurring $500,000 of legal debt. She had to shoulder the personal cost of  defending herself from repeated ethics charges. At that time, Alaskan law did not provide for state reimbursement for a governor's legal expenses, even if the allegations on which they were charged were ultimately proven to be untrue.

 

Lawfare waged against Republicans took a dark turn toward  criminalization in late 2013 when then Virginia Governor Robert (Bob) McDonnell (R) and his wife, Maureen, were indicted on Federal corruption charges by then US Attorneys Dana Boente and Michael S. Dry.

 

In order to better understand Mueller's methodology, the Trump administration would do well in studying the McDonnell case.

 

Boente and Dry not only charged the McDonnells with bribery without evidence and under a grossly stretched interpretation of Federal law, Maureen, then merely the wife of the governor, was ludicrously charged as a "public official."

 

What is even more outrageous was how the presiding judge, then Senior Federal District Court Judge James R. Spencer, having a conflict of interest of a very personal nature, still assigned the case to himself.

 

The bribery matter had effectively originated  in the Richmond City Circuit Court of Spencer's wife, Judge Margaret P. Spencer, when she presided over the embezzlement trial of then Executive Mansion Chef, Todd Schneider. He was accused of making off with $2500 of mansion foodstuffs (his claim in barter for rendering the mansion material services,) a felony. In exchange for dirt on the McDonnells, Schneider was offered a misdemeanor plea deal with no further jail time.

 

James Spencer's hearing the case immediately raised questions of impropriety because seventeen years prior, then Delegate McDonnell had opposed wife Margaret's appointment to  the Supreme Court of Virginia. It has also been alleged to me that Spencer had been having in-chambers ex parte meetings with locally influential Democrats.

 

The source for this allegation, in the past having always been 100% accurate, also alleged that copies of the courthouse sign-in sheets had been copied by an alarmed, but now retired, courthouse protective agent. Those sheets should be recoverable by Federal law enforcement.

 

This allegation is included, even though here is no  law enforcement authority to confirm it, for the singular reason it comports with the Michael Flynn case described below.

 

Spencer's jury instructions were disturbingly unconstitutional. He assured conviction by issuing the directive that the government need not prove its case in order for the jury to render a guilty verdict- an instruction they dutifully followed.

 

Spencer's jury instructions were also eerily similar to that of the Arthur Anderson trial also mentioned further down. Therein, the presiding judge told the jury that even if Andersen had indeed believed its conduct to be lawful, a guilty verdict could still be rendered.

 

The reader should gather that multiple judges have discarded the Constitution and are now just making up “law” out of whole cloth.

 

The McDonnell conviction roiled some quarters of Virginia politics and the case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. There, the conviction was unanimously overturned with the court opining that “tawdry tales” of Ferraris and Rolexes aside, the prosecutor's “boundless interpretation” of “official acts” would cast a “pall of potential prosecution” over such routine official interactions as arranging meetings for constituents and contacting other officials.

 

As to the unconstitutional jury instructions, SCOTUS also asserted that “we cannot conclude that the errors in the jury instructions were “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

The court's ruling did permit Boente and Dry to refile charges if they could present evidence within the new proscription. However, they could not and the McDonnell's ordeal ended along with their marriage. The McDonnell's defense cost upwards of $10 million.

 

It is rare for individuals to prevail against Federal charges regardless of prosecutorial overreach or even misconduct. With the help of coercive plea bargaining and a deficit of defendant resources, the government wins 97% of the cases they bring.

 

Incredibly, Dana Boente is now FBI General Counsel.

 

As previously stated, there is a McDonnell parallel to the former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn case. Text messages between  FBI Agent and Chief of the Counterespionage Section, Peter Strzok, and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, indicate that Strzok and the presiding magistrate in the Flynn case, US. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, had a personal relationship. The texts also revealed that Strzok and Page conspired to create venues, such as parties, where ex parte encounters with Contreras could evade attention.

 

The Strzok-Page texts also indicated that FBI agents actually didn't think Flynn had lied. None the less, Flynn was charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to the FBI.

 

Facing financial ruin, Flynn subsequently pleaded guilty. It is doubtful that the FBI's true belief of Flynn's innocence was ever communicated to him or his attorneys.

 

Contreras had been appointed to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC.) by former President Barack Obama. Under increasing scrutiny from congress, Contreras' personal relationship to Strzok may have compelled his recusal from the Flynn case.

 

Also implicated is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who may be directly involved with the infamous Steele memo that was the impetus for James Comey's original Russian collusion probe; the Nunes memo accuses former Director of National Intelligence under Obama, James Clapper, of leaking classified information from the Steele dossier to CNN, thus giving the collusion story legs; now fired former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe who is alleged to have had a meeting with Strzok to discuss “an insurance policy” in the unlikely event of a Trump victory.  Strzok has since clarified this “policy” as the Russian collusion investigation.

 

There are still others, such as former UN Ambassador under Obama, Samantha Power, who was accused of having made 260 unmasking requests. She testified before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee claiming others had made many of those requests in her name. Many of those outed, such as now AG Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn, were part of President Trump's transition team.

 

Hence, Trump's campaign claim that Obama had been “wiretapping” (an analogous term for surveilling) him is literally true.

 

The president and his family are clearly in jeopardy. Mueller assembled a formidable cadre of Clintonista lawyers to conduct the Russian collusion probe, an investigation that so far has uncovered no collusion- at least with Trump. Ironically, what has been revealed is the real collusion goes back to Hillary and Bill Clinton vis-a-vis the Uranium One deal. The misuse of the NSA, CIA, FISA courts, and the IRS trail back to Obama's top officials.

 

As to “obstruction,” on which Mueller is now focusing, that also goes back to the Clintons with the infamous tarmac meeting between then AG Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, followed by Comey's overstepping his authority to give Lynch cover while he infamously announced “no credible prosecutor” would charge Hillary.

 

If Federal prosecutors were so ethical, perhaps Mr. Mueller should justify to congress   why former Enron and Arthur Anderson prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann has been  so  prominently ensconced on his team.

 

Weissman has a history of intimidating witnesses, withholding exculpatory evidence, and even charging defendants with fake crimes. As reported by the Washington Times, Weissmann even bullied a terrified defendant into pleading guilty to a wire fraud “crime” that the astonished judge even said “did not exist.”

 

That is the quality of “ethical” prosecutors Mueller has assembled.

 

Having no “collusion” evidence to report, Mueller has shifted his focus from money laundering- a very difficult crime to prove- to “defrauding the US Government, to now “obstruction of justice.

 

What Mueller is actually endeavoring to do is maneuver the president into executing his constitutional power of pardon to protect his loved ones; likely Jared Kushner, Ivanka, or most likely, both. Such a parental act would ignite a constitutional crisis as is Mueller's want to criminalize an enumerated constitutional presidential power, and so give congress a “high crimes and misdemeanor” pretext for impeachment.

 

Extant are precedents for this: We have already seen this tactic used to get the courts to deny the president his lawful power to regulate immigration, based not on statutary authority, which he has, but on Trump's supposed “intent.”

 

So much for coequal branches of government.

 

The president need not be boxed into a canyon where he must take fire from the cliffs above, and be afforded only one way out: impeachment. There is an alternative.

 

Trump could frustrate the left's plans by first appointing a special prosecutor to investigate this orchestrated coup attempt, the cover up of Hillary's 33,000 missing emails, the content of said emails, her exposing classified documents (and presidential correspondence,) stored on her wholly unprotected private email server, when she accessed it through Russian (St. Petersburg RU) infrastructure in 2012, her pay-for-play approval for the Uranium One deal after husband Bill was paid a reported $500,000 for a single speech, and, yes, the supposed third rail, the highly suspicious Seth Rich murder.

 

Particularly, the Clinton Foundation would be ripe for an IRS forensic audit.

 

In my opinion, such an investigation would ensnare many in Mueller's team and expose his investigation for what it is: A criminal- read RICO- conspiracy to defraud the United States by unlawfully removing a duly elected president via fraud on the courts.

 

Using a martial analogy, Mueller and the Democrats should find themselves taking “incoming” and so have to dive for cover. Under this alternative, they would be in no positon to be pointing their boney fingers at Trump or being able to justify his impeachment.

 

The president would be best to be aware of past Federal prosecutorial abuses, especially in the McDonnell and other cited cases, and take swift action before it is too late. There is extant ample evidence to fire all of the bad actors seeking glory in removing President Trump from office.