Mueller investigation looking more and more like The Revenge of James Comey
Mueller’s friendship with Comey is the Original Sin of the tainted Special Counsel inquisition.
On May 17, 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel, after the firing of FBI Director James Comey amid accusations by Comey, leaked to the NY Times, that Comey had resisted Trump’s desire to “let go” of the investigation of Michael Flynn:
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
It later emerged that the leak came from Comey himself, by providing at least one memo Comey prepared at and then purloined from the FBI, to a Columbia University law professor for the purpose of leaking to the Times. Comey admitted that he leaked the memo to create a public uproar to create public pressure for a Special Counsel:
COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there’s not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night because it didn’t dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might a tape. My judgment was, I need to get that out into the public square. I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons. I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend to do it.
Comey got his wish, and Mueller was appointed.
But Mueller’s appointment was tainted from the start because he had a longtime close friendship with Comey. I wrote that this friendship should have been a disqualifies since Comey was a key potential witness.
On June 11, 2017, I wrote that Robert Mueller should step aside: Friends shouldn’t be investigating friends:
Whether they were just close professional friends, or consider themselves personally friendly, the fact is that they are not at arms length. This relationship, at least as reported, appears to be much more than the routine interactions you might expect two law enforcement officers to have had in the regular course of business.
Something doesn’t seem right here. Comey manipulated the system into getting his friend appointed Special Counsel, and now that friend will be investigating matters in which Comey is a key witness. More than that, Comey’s own actions in leaking government property raise legal issues as to whether Comey himself violated the law.
Even assuming Mueller is able to separate his past with Comey from his present investigation, that relationship damages the whole purpose of having a Special Counsel who is completely independent in fact and appearance.
In a truly independent investigation, friends shouldn’t be investigating friends. Mueller should step aside to remove the taint on the Special Counsel investigation created by friend and witness James Comey.
In the past couple of weeks there have been several developments that cast doubt on whether the Special Counsel investigation has morphed beyond it’s mandate, which was supposed to be Russian interference in the election. With the guilty plea of Michael Flynn to one count of lying about late December 2016 conversations with the Russians, it is clear that Mueller is probing the post-election transition. Which raises the question, Why is Robert Mueller even investigating the presidential transition?
What authority, however, gives Mueller power to investigate the political strategies of the incoming Trump administration long after the election was over? It does not appear that Mueller has that power under the Order appointing him as Special Counsel….
The danger the Mueller investigation’s apparent overreach poses goes beyond the potential harm to individuals under investigation or prosecution.
To the extent Mueller’s team is investigating the political decisions and strategies of the incoming Trump administration during the transition period, it amounts to an interference in the post-election political process and is beyond Mueller’s authority.
Byron York at The Washington Examiner had an excellent column describing in great historical detail how the FBI investigation of Flynn during the transition appeared to be a set up by Obama officials to make a case for a Logan Act violation that, thought it never would be prosecuted, could form the basis for surveillance and obstruction traps. York writes, In Trump-Russia probe, was it all about the Logan Act?
At the time, top Justice officials suspected Flynn of violating the Logan Act, the 218-year-old law under which no one has ever been prosecuted, that prohibits private citizens from acting on behalf of the United States in disputes with foreign governments. Starting in the summer of 2016 and intensifying in the transition period, the Logan Act, while mostly unknown to the general public, became a hot topic of conversation among some Democrats. A number of lawmakers, former officials, and commentators called on the Obama administration to investigate the Trump team for a possible Logan Act violations — and to do it while Democrats still controlled the executive branch.
At the same time, inside the Obama Justice Department, it appears the Logan Act became a paramount concern among some key officials in the critical weeks of December 2016 and January 2017. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has told Congress that the Logan Act was the first reason she intervened in the Flynn case — the reason FBI agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn in the Trump administration’s early days. It was that interview, held on Jan. 24, 2017, that ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea.
In short, there’s no doubt the Logan Act, a law dismissed as a joke or an archaic irrelevancy or simply unconstitutional by many legal experts, played a central role in the Obama administration’s aggressive and enormously consequential investigation of its successor.
Guess who we just found out was a big, big fan of Sally Yates, who lead the Logan Act investigation of Flynn? Andrew Weissman, one of Mueller’s lead prosecutors. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch showed that not long after the Flynn interview, Weisman sent an email to Yates praising Yates’ refusal to enforce Trump’s First Travel Order:
“I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.”
The anti-Trump animus appears to have run deep in the team Mueller assembled, beyond Weissman.
Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok was removed last summer for sending anti-Trump text messages. Mueller, the FBI and DOJ did everything they could until the information was revealed a day ago. Strzok, it turns out, also was involved in the investigation of and interview of Flynn leading ultimately to the criminal charge.
Strzok also was involved in the Hillary Clinton investigation during the campaign, and reportedly was the person who made key wording changes to the FBI’s findings, read by Comey at a July 5, 2016 press conference, which absolved Hillary of “gross negligence” in the mishandling of classified information.
Andy McCarthy makes a persuasive case that Mueller’s investigation always has been about removing Trump from office by providing the fodder for impeachment. It Is Now an Obstruction Investigation – Which means that it’s an impeachment investigation:
The smoke is clearing from an explosive Mueller investigation weekend of charges, chattering, and tweets. Before the next aftershock, it might be helpful to make three points about where things stand. In ascending order of importance, they are:
1.) There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.
2.) For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the “counterintelligence” cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation.
3.) That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation.
Read the rest of McCarthy’s post for more details as to how he reached the conclusion.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes that Mueller has a a Credibility Problem and should step aside:
As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview….
All of this reinforces our doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest….
The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible.
The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.
Where does Mueller’s friendship with Comey fit into this?
Comey has been involved since the start. As FBI Director, he certainly would have been aware of the set-up of Flynn using a Logan Act pretext and the targeting of Flynn. Comey then created the political pressure for appointment of a Special Counsel through the subterfuge of leaking government property to the press.
Shortly after the Flynn appearance in court to plead guilty, Comey was acting like the cat that ate the canary, tweeting that justice finally will “roll down like waters”:
On December 2 he tweeted a link to his Instagram posting:
To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun; the moon; and the truth.
The entire purported reason for a Special Counsel – to have someone truly independent conducting the investigation of Russian interference in the election and possible election collusion.
Instead we have an investigation that appears to be looking for any pretext to take down Trump.
It smells like the revenge of James Comey by his close friend Robert Mueller, and his team of Trump haters.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
And Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Mueller, and FBI management are looking more and more criminal.
Comey seems to be in the most jeopardy currently, but the Uranium One investigations have barely kicked off, so Mueller may come out of that “radioactive.”
Mueller should be expecting subpoenas to appear before the committees to testify shortly.
Realizing that you are in fact a professor of law, it still must be horribly obvious that neither law nor due process are involved here. This is an attempted coup against the duly elected government of the United States. If it succeeds [and since we really have only one political party it may well succeed] then the whole electoral political process will be finished and we will progress to the next stage. The UniParty believes that stage will involve the submission of the Deplorables. Others have a different view.
“Only the Great Blue Sky Tengri Nor knows what the outcome will be.”
Comey is about as sanctimonious and sleazy as there is, and his recent tweets further prove it. Hopefully, he will receive what he deserves.
He is sanctimonious.
I’d like to know why in hell he thinks what he’s done is moral.
The whole thing with Hillary compared to this – utterly mind blowing.
Words are just not enough.
Why? Trump Derangement Syndrome
Morality to a DC insider/swamp creature is doing what works or is accepted by the swamp. One does not adjust behavior to an ideal, one adjusts the ideal to the standard of behavior. It is Machiavellian and evil. The swamp creatures are their own gods.
Remember “Harry Reid’s ‘well, it worked, didn’t it?” That is what morality is to creatures of the left.
I do recall that America operates ‘prison ships’ which are constantly at sea. Perhaps these two boys, and their entire cohort would consider a nice expenses paid ocean cruise? Whatever works, right?
Glenn Reynolds posted something a retired judge sent him. About how there might be a Giglio violation if Flynn wasn’t told about Strzok removal.
“In short, there’s no doubt the Logan Act, a law dismissed as a joke or an archaic irrelevancy or simply unconstitutional by many legal experts, played a central role in the Obama administration’s aggressive and enormously consequential investigation of its successor.”
Like a skilled cult leader, Obama gave his sympathizers all the phony pretext they would need to start a crusade.
I’v said it before; I’ll say it again: feckless Sessions.
Yeah, especially after listening to Rush today, I just don’t understand Sessions lack of leadership in his department and/or assistance to the guy who hired him. He readily accepted the swamp reasoning that he should recuse and stay away. At least, he could reassign Rosenstein…
Calling feckless gets him off the hook Sessions is in on the treason.
Comey belongs on the end of a rope.
There is two parts to this though. Yes Sessions has been a major disappointment BUT the simple fact is we are stuck with him UNTIL more conservatives are put in the Senate.
There are simply too many Democrat Republicans in place at the moment that would stop Sessions from being replaced.
IF a unified Republican senate actually existed then Sessions could be replaced tomorrow but with morons like McSteins, Flunkey, McConnel and his girlfriend Ryan (plus those two transgenders) there is no chance of getting anyone remotely with a backbone to lead the DoJ any time soon.
It’s really quite sad to see you continue to degenerate this way, professor.
Comey didn’t “manipulate the system into getting his friend appointed Special Counsel”. You don’t even present an argument for why you think this. You present one for why you think Comey manipulated the system into getting a Special Counsel appointed in general, but have no argument for why Comey’s action would result in Mueller in particular getting appointed.
There is absolutely nothing odd about Mueller looking into post-election activity. An investigation into whether collusion, particularly a tit-for-tat agreement, occurred, would naturally involve investigating the “tat”.
No, Yates did not tell Congress that the Logan act was the basis for the investigation into Flynn. This is the problem with you citing opinion articles as fact, Byron later clarifies in the article that his statement that she did is just his opinion of what was meant, not a factual statement of what was actually said:
I could go on, but this is ridiculously tiring. You’re better than this, Bill.
I am glad you also found your comment ridiculous…
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit.
That’s ok; coherent writing isn’t yours.
Here’s a free grammar lesson for you; when an adverb directly precedes an adjective in a sentence, that adverb modifies the adjective. So, in the sentence
the adverb “ridiculously” is modifying the adjective “tiring”.
There you go, now you are slightly less likely to make a fool of yourself through your ignorance of grammar.
Oh wow, I am always so impressed by the intelligence and maturity of anyone on the internet who appoints themselves the Internet Grammar Sherrif. It allows me to evaluate everything else they may say so much more clearly.
You’re a nut.
Not really interested in one. We’re just letting more and more Americans (as opposed to TWANLOCs) have a chance to see your corruption and get mad enough to do something about it.
That doesn’t make any sense. Is my “corruption” my arguments here? If so, how does responding with nothing more than childish insult result in anyone seeing it that wouldn’t otherwise?
And if I’m a “TWANLOC”, assuming you used to be American, what is your citizenship now?
I don’t think it’s that you don’t “want” an argument, I think it’s that you’re utterly incapable of forming one. It’s really very sad.
Talk about ridiculously tiring…
I was thinking “tiringly ridiculous”.
It’s a much more cogent argument than the one you purport to make.
It doesn’t matter why Mueller was chosen.
Fact is, regardless, Comey arranged for a special prosecutor to be appointed.
After he completely let Hillary off the hook for what any E-1 buck private would have been sent to Leavenworth for. For a LONG time.
As far as Yates, she hates the right, and she arranged to act accordingly to damage the expectations Trump voters had by winning the election.
Speaking of Hillary, I remember when I was in the Army Signal Corp, and I would go to repair equipment in very sensitive areas – had to have above a top secret clearance to do it – and they wouldn’t have a scrap of paper out. NOT A SINGLE PIECE. EVER.
I had a clearance, but it didn’t matter. They were scrupulous in the extreme.
Thank you for your random, off-topic story.
Perfectly on-topic. Corruptocrats Comey and Mueller have repeatedly covered for Hildebeeste by refusing to enforce the laws everyone else has to abide by.
It must be terrible to live in a mind where all you can think about is Hillary Clinton.
When you argue with an idiot, you then have two idiots arguing.
Today we have eight- including the original idiot.
Somewhere a village is missing its village idiot hahahahahahhahahaa
Why Mueller was chosen is central to Bill’s argument here, that this is all “the revenge of James Comey”, orchestrated by him to put his “close friend” in a position to “go after Trump”. That’s the argument Bill is putting forth.
I’m not going to engage your off-topic rants, if you have an argument for why what I’ve stated is incorrect, provide it. ‘You’re wrong because these people are bad and I don’t like them’ is not a sound argument, it’s the argument of a child, unable to separate emotions from facts.
You’re a nut.
Look at you, calling the Professor “Bill” like you’re at the same level of moral or intellectual development that he has attained through his years of work and study. But about what I’d expect from most of the classic personality disorder types, which your posts show every sign of.
I know Bill personally. I’ve taken two of his classes. I’ve been to his home for dinner. We’ve talked about this site long before it was as popular as it is today.
Your diagnostic abilities leave a lot to be desired.
What grades did you receive?
You’re still a nut.
You are forgetting Mueller was appointed by an Obama Administration holdover.
Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, in his capacity as Deputy Attorney General, a position he was appointed to by President Donald Trump.
You wanna try again?
Rosenstein was appointed Deputy AG by Trump and, if memory serves, Judas was appointed Apostle, First Class, by a boss who was not well-served.
Comey has stated that he leaked the memo in order to provoke a special council…. nothing ambiguous there.
Are you really that incapable of comprehending basic written communications?
Actually Comey admitted, under oath to Congress, to leaking information to the NYT to facilitate the appointment of a Special Counsel. Do try to keep up Junior.
Where, exactly, does anything I say contradict that?
Do keep up, boy.
I think it is clear the entire FBI and DOJ are criminally corrupt.
Painting with a broad brush, but yes, it looks that way. I feel bad for the field people, the bottom echelon, maybe they believed their training about being politically impartial. The unsullied need new management. They deserve that much.
I actually doubt the *entire* FBI/DoJ are corrupt. That would take too much energy. I think the entire LEADERSHIP is corrupt. That only takes about 10 people.
I downvoted Awing1. If you read the Yates’ section of Professor Jacobson’s post carefully, he never cited Byron York’s opinion article as fact. When referencing York’s article, the Professor summarized York’s article as indicating there “appeared to be a set up” and “could form the basis for surveillance and obstruction traps,” speculative phrasing. Professor Jacobson came to an opinion that the Logan Act was the basis for the investigation based on his own connecting the dots.
So to what statute was Yates referring then in her testimony?
Bill quoted this from Byron York:
Bill then follows that up with statements that present the Logan Act motivation as fact:
I don’t know what statute she was referring to. It could have been the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 18 USC 219, or simply for lying on his SF86. Could have been something else, we don’t really know. We do know both the majority and minority leadership of the House Oversight Committee strongly implied Flynn violated 18 USC 219.
Additionally, the clarification from York was from someone “familiar with Yates’ thinking,” not York’s own thinking.
No, it was York’s opinion that Yates’ statements to Congress were about the Logan Act. He talks about someone close to Yates saying Yates thought Flynn violate the Logan Act, but that’s not in relation to what her comments to Congress were about.
Obama Broke the FBI, Obama Broke the DoJ, and Trump Derangement Syndrome exposed.. fitting
He quotes York after the speculative language in his post. Additionally, concerning the Logan Act, here is what YOrk’s article quoted:
“Yates, then the deputy attorney general, considered Flynn’s comments in the intercepted call to be ‘highly significant’ and ‘potentially illegal,’ according to an official familiar with her thinking,” the Washington Post reported on Feb. 13. “Yates and other intelligence officials suspected that Flynn could be in violation of an obscure U.S. statute known as the Logan Act, which bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country.”
So, it is not an unreasonable assumption that the statute Yates would not disclose was the Logan Act.
Yes, and after he quotes York, he states it as an established fact. As I originally said. I don’t see what you’re missing.
It’s not an unreasonable assumption if literally all you know is what York has written in his article, which, again, is the problem with citing his opinion article to establish as fact that the Logan Act is what Yates was referencing. Given that both the majority and minority leaders of the House Oversight Committee strongly implied that Flynn violated 18 USC 219, it seems more likely that’s the law she was referring to. From Chaffetz in late April 2017:
He analyzed York’s article and agreed. Now he is a freaking idiot? Why does she have to be referring to the same law? You can disbelieve the conversation the Post reported, which would make more sense for your position.
I don’t believe I called Bill a “freaking idiot”. I criticized him for quoting a part of York’s article that states as fact something that’s actually York’s opinion, and then adopting it as fact.
She doesn’t “have to be referring to the same law”, I don’t know how you’re getting from my assertions to these absolutist statements.
Mueller, Comey and Hillary their slave master are all
“dirty, dirty dirty!”
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it!
Mueller to Comey: Did you take a bath?
Comey to Mueller: Why? Is one missing?
an expose on Yates activities and behaviours re EPA and industry would be instructive. Why do you think industry prepares a “yates file” if ever getting an audit? She was a Facist
What do you mean was?
This investigation has become like an ingrown toenail on the body politic.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if it turned out to be a lance on the boil that is DC? I know, magical thinking.
Nicely laid out Professor. Thank you.
May i suggest an additional reason why Mueller “allowed” Flynn to plead to just one count of lying? Because the FBI agent to whom Flynn supposedly lied was none other than the Role Agent Supreme, Peter Strzok.
I can just imagine the cross-examination of Strzok, if the case had gone to trial — a complete unraveling of the collusion conspiracy would have occurred.
Obama’s/Communist deep state roots run deep,Comey and Mueller are just but a few.
So are anything the the Clinton’s or Obama a violation of the Logan Act?
Every candidate in recent years has done something that arguably could be a violation the Logan Act.
“I think it is clear the entire FBI and DOJ are criminally corrupt.”
It’s not for nothing they are known as the Federal Bureau of Incineration.
“”I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”” And now we find out general Flynn was a paid agent of foreign governments – what could go wrong with having the top intelligence officer of the US government taking bribes from Turkey, the Ukraine and Russia.