Image 01 Image 03

Gowdy Grills Deputy Attorney General Over Conflict of Interests in Mueller Investigation

Gowdy Grills Deputy Attorney General Over Conflict of Interests in Mueller Investigation

“Those who are supposed to make sure there are no conflicts of interest seem to have a few of their own.”

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday.

The hearing focused on Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Judiciary Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy grilled Rosenstein over the numerous conflicts of interests within Mueller’s investigation team.

“We don’t like conflicts of interest because it undercuts people’s confidence in both the process in the result,” Gowdy began. “Those who are supposed to make sure there are no conflicts of interest seem to have a few of their own.”

Just imagine the response by the media if it were revealed that numerous individuals investigating Hillary were die-hard Trump acolytes.

Despite Gowdy’s grilling, Rosenstein insisted the investigation remained untainted.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Sound and fury from Republicans in congress, signifying nothing.

It’s too late to defend the integrity of the FBI and DOJ. There’s no integrity left to defend.

Leave the Special Counsel alone — gut the DOJ and FBI.

fbi and doj code of ethics and professional conduct:

Let’s see, I robbed a bank and I have a right to be a member of my jury.

Right !

I wouldn’t do a “Saturday Night Massacre”. I would do a Monday High Noon on camera massacre with plenty of advance warning to the “media”. I would say who and why with Jeff Sessions standing there, Trey Gowdy too as well as a few other Congressmen. Also some Democrats would be there on camera as well.

    “I told Bob Mueller Tuesday that I would never do anything wittingly or unwittingly that veered over into his lane,” Gowdy told a group of reporters on June 23. “His lane is broad and is undetermined at this point.”

    AmandaFitz in reply to Whitewall. | December 13, 2017 at 10:57 pm

    My husband suggested that citizens start filing bar complaints against the lawyers of the FBI and DOJ who are not representing their client, the government.

The most crucial text messages are 1) the one that acknowledges that they do not want their phones traced and 2) the discussion of a meeting Lisa Page and Strozk had with Andrew McCabe in his office at Justice on or around August 16, 2016, wherein they discussed how to keep Trump from winning the election and what actions they could take if, by some strange circumstance, he DID win the election (the “insurance policy” mention).

It certainly appears that upper level management at the FBI and DOJ were guilty of 1) collaborating with an active political campaign to smear its political opponents 2) obstructing justice re. the Clinton email investigation 3) falsifying information to a FISA court in order to obtain warrants against a political campaign, etc. etc.

    regulus arcturus in reply to AmandaFitz. | December 13, 2017 at 4:09 pm


    McCabe was supposed to testify today, but rescheduled due to a “scheduling error.” Sure.

    My expectation is he will be subpoenaed to testify and will be asked the question “From this text exchange, what was the ‘insurance policy’ you discussed with Agents Strzok and Page? Did it have anything to do with surveillance and obtaining FISA warrants using the dossier?”

    McCabe is probably lawyering up, as all Obama and Clinton campaign officials need to do.

    Remember also, the Justice Department and the Mueller investigation did not turn up these clear indications of bias. It was the Inspector General.

    Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Mueller found out.

    “What! Are you telling me the prime mover in the Hillary investigation, who *rewrote* the charges against her from a felony to a slap on the wrist, is the *same* person who was involved in buying the Trump dossier from Russian sources, brought it into the department, used it to obtain a FISA warrant against the political opponent of the administration *during* an election year, and has been a key witness to *every* step in the impeachment investigation?”

    “Sir, we told you that almost a year ago.”

    “Yeah, but now that the text messages and emails have been dug up, I have to practice my Disbelieving Outrage. How did it sound?”

    “Like you’re going to get about ten to twenty.”

    “Yeah, I better practice some more.”

Drain the swamp – fire them all.

This is all a set-up. Gowdy is part of the protect Obama cadre as well. The recent revelations concerning who works in the Mueller SP’s office is causing significant blow-back. It is on the ropes and in danger of being KOed and somebody has to take the blame for that. Gowdy, who has been a steadfast supporter of the SP investigation doesn’t want to be it. So, Rosenstein is now in the hot seat, as he was the instrument by which the Mueller investigation was put in place. And, Rosenstein has close professional ties with Comey, Mueller and Russian investigations. There was a reason why Sessions recused himself from the whole Russia mess and why he appointed Rosenstein to handle it. And, there was a reason why Rosenstein had Comey removed and appointed Mueller. The chickens may be coming home to roost.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Mac45. | December 13, 2017 at 5:30 pm

    So Gowdy is really the insides of the Obama Oreo Cookie….

    Rick in reply to Mac45. | December 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    “I told Bob Mueller Tuesday that I would never do anything wittingly or unwittingly that veered over into his lane,” Gowdy told a group of reporters on June 23. “His lane is broad and is undetermined at this point.”
    This is a better place for Gowdy’s June comment. Sorry for the duplication.

American Human | December 13, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Rosenstein obviously believes that Congress and the American people are grotesquely stupid.
He actually stated, under oath, that the investigation was untainted.
This is what I mean when I say that no one will ever be held to account unless
1 – They are Republicans
2 – They are a member of “The Unwashed Masses”
How far has our Republic fallen when this type of thing happens right in front of our faces in plain view and not even being hidden because it doesn’t really have to be hidden because no one will do anything about it.

Watch the sunuvabitch Rosenstein while Gowdy is nailing him and his department.

READ HIS DAMN BODY LANGUAGE! I was in business a long time, and I had my share of conflicts with people. When someone turns his/her head like that and looks around and doesn’t even pretend to make eye contact, it’s a sure sign that that person doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you’re saying. Rosenstein could care less what Gowdy’s saying. Why? Because he knows all of this stuff already; he knows about the rot; he knows about the YUGE conflict of interest problem in his supposedly non-political agency.

He also knows that the wagons will be circled, and no one will find out the truth. The damn Inspector General, with all his staff and all his budget, is as political as the rest of them. There main focus is NOT to ensure that the FBI is absolutely clean as it can be. No, their focus is on making sure no one finds out how dirty it was, is, and will be in the future.

Just the other day, there was a school shooting In Arizona. Turns out the FBI knew about the guy who killed the people. But let him keep going. No recriminations, no punishments, no fault-finding. Sorry we missed that whacko murderer; Have a nice day.

When the FBI is corrupt and the DOJ is corrupt and they’re both inept, you’ve lost everything.

Subotai Bahadur | December 13, 2017 at 5:13 pm

Forgive me if I am less than impressed by the concept Trey Gowdy grilling any enemy of the Constitution. Based on past results, it is smoke and mirrors.

Rosenstein supposedly had a good rep as U.S. atty in balto but is really a dem mole for Schumer and Ben Cardin.

the mueller investigation at this point is a total disaster for trump. Just like your boy roy last night.

So moral / question – does prez have anyone even half smart, sure not Gowdy, advising him or having his back.

I am reminded of my INITIAL reaction to the charge that the IRS was acting as a political arm of the Obama Administration- at first, I denied the possibility and said to myself, “Oh, surely not!” Then it became more and more obvious that the IRS was hell bent on destroying the Tea Party groups and I had to admit to myself that I had been naive. Then, there was the testimony of Catherine Englebrecht and I finally understood how right the allegations were, when she talked about being a free-born American citizen and that the Obama Administration had weaponized federal agencies against her- including the FBI, as I recall.

Yes, Virginia, the agencies of our government which we have held in high esteem are now nothing more than politically motivated weapons of the Democrat Party.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 13, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Uh Oh, more Democrat/Bureaucracy conflicts of interest and some have already called it stalking….

Manu RajuVerified account
Senior Congressional Correspondent, @CNN. Prowling the Capitol halls, covering the Hill and politics.
” Manu Raju
Twits the following
“Don Jr been behind closed doors with Senate Intel staff for nearly seven hours – and no end in sight yet”

The Last Refuge
Twits the following
“Go back through my weekend timeline, you’ll see what the risk is to Raju. Trust me, Adam Schiff is telling Raju to find out everything/anything he can and report back.

[Both their butts are inside the conspiracy net]”

Appoint a special counsel to investigate the special counsel. As well as Obama/Clinton/DNC collusion with the press (e.g. witch trials), intelligence assets (e.g. prejudice/bigotry), and foreign governments (e.g. social justice adventures/abortion fields/immigration reform/diversity) to influence the election, deny civil rights, compensate for selective/recycled-child, and exploit the taxpayers.

    J Motes in reply to n.n. | December 13, 2017 at 11:57 pm

    My concern about appointing another special counsel for anything is that, no matter how neutral the person chosen for the position is said to be, he will turn out to be a Democrat operative and/or seriously biased against the right in general and Trump in particular and/or compromised in ways that prevent him from standing up against the left. Consider Jeff Sessions. Consider Rod Rosenstein. Consider Bob Mueller. Consider Chief Justice John Roberts. They, and many others, were presented to us as something quite different (“impeccable integrity”) from what they turned out to be. I shudder to think what a new turncoat special counsel could do to make our position even worse.

This is just the predicate. It looks like the very type of bad behavior that our conflicts of interest rules seek to present, actually happened.

The FBI may have been caught planning an investigation of Trump since BEFORE he was elected, purely as an “insurance policy” in case he came into office

I would add also that it is some justification for paychecks, budget, and other favors.

This behavior on the part of the FBI is unacceptable.

    Valerie in reply to Valerie. | December 13, 2017 at 8:07 pm

    Prevent, not present.

    But, I bet you all knew that.

    regulus arcturus in reply to Valerie. | December 13, 2017 at 8:44 pm

    In context, Strzok & Page seem to be discussing Trump winning the election prior to the election, so the insurance policy likely refers to some preventive action – like a surveillance program and FISA warrant using the dossier – they were planning to take before the actual election.

Assuming this article is correct, we now know not only why Andrew McCabe didn’t show up to congress, but what the IG office thinks of this mess.

“After McCabe’s cancellation the IG office distributed the text messages to the full House.”

Yay, more soundbites without action!

I can’t believe the incredible Mr. Limpett Rosenstein is in such a high position of power 😉

Well, well, well! The New York Times article about this hearing leaves out all the underlying facts, presenting only Rosenstein’s responses and their own opinions.

A defenses always looks stronger when you delete the underlying facts that contradict the defense.

The article, “Mueller, Russia Inquiry Defended — Rosenstein rejects Republican charges probe compromised.” by Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage, is not worth a link.

Any public employee who refuses to testify before Congress should be fired without pension.

Like a headless turkey running around in circles, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation is dead, even if he does not yet realize it. While his investigation stumbles onward, with life support provided by the biased media, from a legal perspective the viability of any criminal case that Mueller could possibly bring has been effectively gutted thanks to the news (suppressed for months by Mueller’s team) that the FBI’s “key agent” in both the Russia investigation and the Clinton email probe was an ardent Hillary supporter with an anti-Trump bias.

Under federal law, a prosecutor is required “to disclose exculpatory and impeachment information to criminal defendants and to seek a just result in every case.” Specifically, pursuant to Giglio v. United States, prosecutors are obligated to provide defendants with impeachment evidence, which includes, according to the DOJ’s guidelines, evidence of a witness’s biases, “[a]nimosity toward defendant,” or “[a]nimosity toward a group of which the defendant is a member or with which the defendant is affiliated.”

As a result, in any prosecution brought by Mueller against a Republican target, defense counsel would be entitled under the Constitution to all evidence in the government’s possession relevant to exploring the apparent biases of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his animosity toward Trump and the Republican Party. This, in and of itself, could be a case-killer because it is very unlikely that Mueller or the DOJ would want defense counsel poring through all the records and documents, emails, and texts in the DOJ’s and Strzok’s possession revealing the agent’s biases since this could fatally undermine any other cases or investigations the agent has worked on—such as the FBI’s decision to recommend charging General Flynn with lying to federal agents even though Hillary Clinton’s besties, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, were given a free pass despite apparently doing the same thing.

Significantly, the fatal damage done to Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation does not only rest in the fact that defense counsel will be able to conduct an unlubricated prostate examination on the FBI’s key agent at trial. Instead, the real reason why Mueller will not risk a criminal trial is the lasting damage that would be done to the FBI’s reputation by having Strzok’s baggage brought into the daylight.

Meet the Staff at Atelier Crenn
How Dominique Crenn’s team has grown — and how they’ve helped her grow, too.

Learn how to be good at life.
Promoted by New York Life
Opt out of Adyoulike ad targeting

To expose the agent’s biases, defense counsel would have the opportunity to cross-examine the agent and his apparent mistress, an FBI lawyer who also worked on Mueller’s investigation and the Clinton email probe, about their exchanged messages showing support for Clinton and hostility to Trump. Additionally, the agent’s wife, a high-profile attorney at another federal agency, apparently was a member of several pro-Obama and pro-Clinton Facebook groups and is a follower of a Facebook page called “We Voted for Hillary.”

One can only imagine the fun that an aggressive defense attorney would have shredding Strzok’s credibility by grilling him to see if he shared his wife’s posted political views.

The prospect of having to reveal to defense counsel and the public the FBI’s dirty laundry concerning Strzok—the former deputy head of the agency’s counterespionage unit—plus having to watch as defense attorneys parade the disgraced agent, his disgraced FBI mistress, and possibly his betrayed wife before the jury to explore the extent of his anti-Trump biases pretty much kills the likelihood of Mueller indicting any other Republicans. There’s simply too much downside.

Undeniably, if Mueller were to proceed with a trial under these tainted circumstances, he would be exposing the country’s vaunted legal system and the agency he once headed, to both national and international ridicule. The FBI’s reputation for impartiality would be forever flushed down the toilet. This price simply is not worth it particularly since he has found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. Indeed, one wonders, cynically, if this realization prompted Mueller to offer a light plea deal to Flynn so that he could quickly sign him up as a cooperator and add the general as a notch on his prosecutorial belt before the DOJ notified the public of the real reason for Strzok’s removal from Mueller’s team? (Arguably, Giglio disclosure obligations only apply after a person has been indicted but not if he pleads guilty pre-indictment.)

Finally, it is worth noting that under principles analogous to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, any FBI agents or officials who worked with Strzok (including James Comey) would be tainted by, and subject to cross-examination to explore, Strzok’s biases and whether he is the type of person who hid from them his biases while making key charging recommendations.

In short, Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation is effectively dead (unless his targets’ lawyers are nincompoops). And, ironically, this is all the fault of Strzok and his mistress who wanted to help “Crooked Hillary” and target Trump. How do you like ‘dem apples?