Stone Washington
Russiagate reaches climax: Trump + Russia = No collusion- -Part 2
By Stone Washington
"So that is the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes."
~Attorney General William Barr
Fallout from the anti-climactic Mueller Report
In continuing my coverage of the conclusion to the Mueller investigation and Russiagate scandal, this article will explore the principled events following the March 24th release of Attorney General William Barr's 4-page analysis on the Trump-Russia investigation. Barr's summary provided a comprehensive reveal of Mueller's principle conclusions from his investigation, finding that there was absolutely no evidence of Trump-Russian collusion to influence the 2016 Presidential Election. The summary quoted key excerpts from Robert Mueller himself in confirming the principled evidence that backs the Report's two major conclusions: the Trump Campaign did not collude with the Russian government to alter or meddle with the results of the 2016 Presidential election, and there were no grounds to say that President Trump obstructed justice in his actions during the election, according to the Mueller Report.
Specifically, Mueller concluded that "[t]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," and that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." Despite the fact that Attorney General Barr and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein confirmed Mueller's own conclusions to the investigation, a host of disgruntled Democrats and their Fake Media allies have expressed a great deal of disapproval towards Barr for his representation of the Report's findings. Opposition to the Report's analysis grew so large that Barr and Rosenstein were forced to hold a major press conference on Thursday April 10th, and subsequently release the entire 448-page redacted version of the Mueller Report to the public. The sections below will examine Barr's masterful defense of his findings in the Mueller Report, examining his press conference and recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Barr addresses the Mueller investigation
WILLIAM BARR: The Special Counsel's Report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election:
First, the Mueller Report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations. But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme.
Second, the Mueller Report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU (the military intelligence service of the Russian Federation)to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime.
But again, the Special Counsel's Report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign "collusion" with the Russian government's hacking.
Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of "links" or "contacts" between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.
So this is the bottom line, after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the Report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
The White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
As I said several times, the Report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.
These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel's Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product.
Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the Report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, significant portions of the Report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so.
Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released Report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel's investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the Report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information.
ANALYSIS: Attorney General Barr provides a masterful examination of the conclusions within the Mueller Report, reinforcing what was already stated in his March 24th letter. With this press conference, Barr's words should've placated any ongoing complaints by Congressional Democrats, most notably Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler, who have been on a warpath to frame President Trump as both guilty of colluding with the Russian government and of obstructing justice. But despite Barr's press conference, which affirmed the fact of there being no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, in addition to listing an insufficient amount of theoretical evidence toward the possibility that the President obstructed justice during the 10 noted instances in the Report, Democrats were not convinced that Trump was innocent in the matter.
Instead, it would seem that Barr's defense of the President's actions during the Mueller investigation has only fueled the flames of Congressional Democrats like Nadler into pushing for more and more investigative hearings involving Mueller and White House officials on the grounds that Trump obstructed justice by contemplating to fire Mueller and end the investigation (despite never doing so). This, while Elijah Cummings, Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is fanatically seeking to obtain President Trump's tax returns, clashing with U.S. Department of Treasury officials and members of the Trump Organization who have refused to comply with orders to reveal Trump's taxes. Thus, begins a two-front politically motivated assault against the President over the unjustified accusations of obstruction and tax evasion.
White House clashes with Democrats over subpoenas
Much of the current fallout over the Mueller Report ties into recent accusations by liberal Democrats and media outlets (that perpetuated Fake News stories surrounding the Mueller investigation) that President Trump obstructed his position in the investigation by nearly ordering then-White House lawyer Don McGahn to fire Mueller. President Trump expressly denies the prospect of ever seeking to fire Mueller, while at the same time defending his right to do so at any time he deemed necessary. In this regard, President Trump defends his total and unfettered cooperation with the Special Counsel during the 2-year investigation, as multiple White House staffers and Trump Organization officials (including even Donald Trump Jr.) interviewed with Mueller's lawyers for dozens of hours.
During the heated hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1st, Attorney General Barr argued that President Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller had insufficient evidence of corrupt intent, contrary to claims by many on the Left. Barr made known that it wouldn't be a crime if Trump felt he was the victim of false accusations by the New York Times and wanted Mueller removed because of a conflict of interest in defending the story. Barr added that McGahn's testimony didn't accuse the President of directly telling him to "fire Mueller" but rather it raised the issue of removing Mueller with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Regardless of Barr's justification of Trump's actions, Democrats continue to demand for McGahn and Mueller to testify to Congress. While Barr did not object to Mueller appearing before Congress, he warned that McGahn may be exempt from testifying as a former White House aide, and ultimately refuse subpoenas thrown at him. In fact, President Trump publicly vowed to fight all of the subpoenas issued against him and White House officials, after Nadler issued 80 letters demanding all communications from a host of controversies surrounding Trump, sent to his family, White House staff and campaign officials. This as Democrats seek to unveil whether the administration engaged in obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power.
Barr faced extreme backlash from Senate Democrats during the Judiciary Committee hearing. One such example was Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI), asking very few questions, instead attacking Barr and others in the administration over their handling of the Mueller Report. Another was Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), who joined Hirono in calling for Barr to resign after he admitted that he did not need to examine all the evidence regarding obstruction, instead accepting the statements in the Report as a factual record. Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were the only ones to ask substantive questions that probed how the Mueller investigation began in the first place. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) shared Graham's sentiment that Barr had been slandered and abused by Senate Democrats in this hearing similar to the way Judge Brett Kavanaugh was harshly treated in his Supreme Court confirmation process.
Barr would be increasingly at odds with Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee as ultimately refuses a subpoena to show up for an active hearing on May 2nd. Barr declined to show up due to Nadler's unagreed upon conditions to answer questions not only from representatives on the committee, but from a host of partisan Democrat lawyers who would turn the hearings into a media circus. This sparked a mixture of outrage and comedic protest, as Democrat Representative Steve Cohen went so far as to eat out of a bucket of chicken, a ridiculous attempt to frame Barr as a coward for not showing. This in addition to Nadler demanding access to the full unredacted Report, despite Barr and others repeatedly warning that the redacted 8% contained classified information that could not legally be revealed to the public due to pending investigations and other conflicts.
Conclusion to the Russian Delusion? Setup for Spygate
A key lesson that the Mueller Report introduced to Americans is that the Democrats will stop at nothing in their quest to sabotage and destroy the Trump Administration. Where Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have declared case closed for the Russian collusion hoax, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have only intensified their attacks against the President and Attorney General for defending the principled findings of the Mueller Report: no collusion, no evidence for obstruction of justice. How can Democrats continually argue against the clear facts of the Mueller investigation when the full Report has been examined by the DOJ and is even open to the public? Even the Destroy Trump media is hard-set on proving that President Trump somehow obstructed Justice through the 10 theoretical instances listed in the Mueller Report, namely the ordering of McGahn to fire Mueller. They continually ignore Barr's masterful assessment of the case, whether with his 4-page summary, press conference and subsequent Senate hearing, the AG has represented the principled conclusions of the Mueller Report, using every aspect of Mueller's 400-page investigative findings to do so.
But Barr's greatest discovery from the Mueller investigation, which seems to have so many on the Left afraid and bewildered, is the prospect that the Obama Administration secretly spied on key officials within the Trump Campaign during the 2016 election. While already a known prospect mentioned by President Trump 2 years prior, Barr confirmed these suspicions before the Senate, shocking many disbelievers that FBI officials actively surveilled people like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos without permission from Trump or any of his staff. And what has been more alarming is the prospect that former head of the CIA John Brennan and former head of the FBI James Comey pushed for the publishing of the uncorroborated Steele dossier, the corrupt and falsified heart of the Mueller investigation.
If true, this would fill in the gap of who the principle figures were that approved the false dossier to be processed by the FISA court, allowing for surveillance on Trump campaign officials. This combined with the fact that the dossier was compiled through Fusion GPS and funded by both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and later managed by Obama era officials in the Department of Justice. It would now seem that the tables have been turned, as the investigators are now the investigated, with Attorney General Barr working with Inspector General Michael Horowitz to fully uncover how the Mueller Report originated and what the motivations were for the corrupt Spygate controversy, which President Trump rightfully calls a political scandal that is even bigger than Watergate.
Finally, a new line of inquiry will be opened into who first started the treasonous Trump-Russia collusion narrative by Attorney General Barr's recent appointment of John Durham, Connecticut's Attorney General and a specialist on FBI crimes including abuse of FBI informant witnesses. Durham will essentially be the 'Special Counsel' into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses under former FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, NSA Director James Clapper, and multiple branches of the Obama Administration.
© Stone Washington
May 15, 2019
"So that is the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes."
~Attorney General William Barr
Fallout from the anti-climactic Mueller Report
In continuing my coverage of the conclusion to the Mueller investigation and Russiagate scandal, this article will explore the principled events following the March 24th release of Attorney General William Barr's 4-page analysis on the Trump-Russia investigation. Barr's summary provided a comprehensive reveal of Mueller's principle conclusions from his investigation, finding that there was absolutely no evidence of Trump-Russian collusion to influence the 2016 Presidential Election. The summary quoted key excerpts from Robert Mueller himself in confirming the principled evidence that backs the Report's two major conclusions: the Trump Campaign did not collude with the Russian government to alter or meddle with the results of the 2016 Presidential election, and there were no grounds to say that President Trump obstructed justice in his actions during the election, according to the Mueller Report.
Specifically, Mueller concluded that "[t]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," and that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." Despite the fact that Attorney General Barr and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein confirmed Mueller's own conclusions to the investigation, a host of disgruntled Democrats and their Fake Media allies have expressed a great deal of disapproval towards Barr for his representation of the Report's findings. Opposition to the Report's analysis grew so large that Barr and Rosenstein were forced to hold a major press conference on Thursday April 10th, and subsequently release the entire 448-page redacted version of the Mueller Report to the public. The sections below will examine Barr's masterful defense of his findings in the Mueller Report, examining his press conference and recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Barr addresses the Mueller investigation
WILLIAM BARR: The Special Counsel's Report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election:
First, the Mueller Report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations. But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme.
Second, the Mueller Report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU (the military intelligence service of the Russian Federation)to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime.
But again, the Special Counsel's Report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign "collusion" with the Russian government's hacking.
Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of "links" or "contacts" between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.
So this is the bottom line, after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the Report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
The White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
As I said several times, the Report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.
These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel's Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product.
Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the Report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, significant portions of the Report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so.
Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released Report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel's investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the Report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information.
ANALYSIS: Attorney General Barr provides a masterful examination of the conclusions within the Mueller Report, reinforcing what was already stated in his March 24th letter. With this press conference, Barr's words should've placated any ongoing complaints by Congressional Democrats, most notably Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler, who have been on a warpath to frame President Trump as both guilty of colluding with the Russian government and of obstructing justice. But despite Barr's press conference, which affirmed the fact of there being no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, in addition to listing an insufficient amount of theoretical evidence toward the possibility that the President obstructed justice during the 10 noted instances in the Report, Democrats were not convinced that Trump was innocent in the matter.
Instead, it would seem that Barr's defense of the President's actions during the Mueller investigation has only fueled the flames of Congressional Democrats like Nadler into pushing for more and more investigative hearings involving Mueller and White House officials on the grounds that Trump obstructed justice by contemplating to fire Mueller and end the investigation (despite never doing so). This, while Elijah Cummings, Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is fanatically seeking to obtain President Trump's tax returns, clashing with U.S. Department of Treasury officials and members of the Trump Organization who have refused to comply with orders to reveal Trump's taxes. Thus, begins a two-front politically motivated assault against the President over the unjustified accusations of obstruction and tax evasion.
White House clashes with Democrats over subpoenas
Much of the current fallout over the Mueller Report ties into recent accusations by liberal Democrats and media outlets (that perpetuated Fake News stories surrounding the Mueller investigation) that President Trump obstructed his position in the investigation by nearly ordering then-White House lawyer Don McGahn to fire Mueller. President Trump expressly denies the prospect of ever seeking to fire Mueller, while at the same time defending his right to do so at any time he deemed necessary. In this regard, President Trump defends his total and unfettered cooperation with the Special Counsel during the 2-year investigation, as multiple White House staffers and Trump Organization officials (including even Donald Trump Jr.) interviewed with Mueller's lawyers for dozens of hours.
During the heated hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1st, Attorney General Barr argued that President Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller had insufficient evidence of corrupt intent, contrary to claims by many on the Left. Barr made known that it wouldn't be a crime if Trump felt he was the victim of false accusations by the New York Times and wanted Mueller removed because of a conflict of interest in defending the story. Barr added that McGahn's testimony didn't accuse the President of directly telling him to "fire Mueller" but rather it raised the issue of removing Mueller with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Regardless of Barr's justification of Trump's actions, Democrats continue to demand for McGahn and Mueller to testify to Congress. While Barr did not object to Mueller appearing before Congress, he warned that McGahn may be exempt from testifying as a former White House aide, and ultimately refuse subpoenas thrown at him. In fact, President Trump publicly vowed to fight all of the subpoenas issued against him and White House officials, after Nadler issued 80 letters demanding all communications from a host of controversies surrounding Trump, sent to his family, White House staff and campaign officials. This as Democrats seek to unveil whether the administration engaged in obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power.
Barr faced extreme backlash from Senate Democrats during the Judiciary Committee hearing. One such example was Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI), asking very few questions, instead attacking Barr and others in the administration over their handling of the Mueller Report. Another was Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), who joined Hirono in calling for Barr to resign after he admitted that he did not need to examine all the evidence regarding obstruction, instead accepting the statements in the Report as a factual record. Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were the only ones to ask substantive questions that probed how the Mueller investigation began in the first place. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) shared Graham's sentiment that Barr had been slandered and abused by Senate Democrats in this hearing similar to the way Judge Brett Kavanaugh was harshly treated in his Supreme Court confirmation process.
Barr would be increasingly at odds with Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee as ultimately refuses a subpoena to show up for an active hearing on May 2nd. Barr declined to show up due to Nadler's unagreed upon conditions to answer questions not only from representatives on the committee, but from a host of partisan Democrat lawyers who would turn the hearings into a media circus. This sparked a mixture of outrage and comedic protest, as Democrat Representative Steve Cohen went so far as to eat out of a bucket of chicken, a ridiculous attempt to frame Barr as a coward for not showing. This in addition to Nadler demanding access to the full unredacted Report, despite Barr and others repeatedly warning that the redacted 8% contained classified information that could not legally be revealed to the public due to pending investigations and other conflicts.
Conclusion to the Russian Delusion? Setup for Spygate
A key lesson that the Mueller Report introduced to Americans is that the Democrats will stop at nothing in their quest to sabotage and destroy the Trump Administration. Where Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have declared case closed for the Russian collusion hoax, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have only intensified their attacks against the President and Attorney General for defending the principled findings of the Mueller Report: no collusion, no evidence for obstruction of justice. How can Democrats continually argue against the clear facts of the Mueller investigation when the full Report has been examined by the DOJ and is even open to the public? Even the Destroy Trump media is hard-set on proving that President Trump somehow obstructed Justice through the 10 theoretical instances listed in the Mueller Report, namely the ordering of McGahn to fire Mueller. They continually ignore Barr's masterful assessment of the case, whether with his 4-page summary, press conference and subsequent Senate hearing, the AG has represented the principled conclusions of the Mueller Report, using every aspect of Mueller's 400-page investigative findings to do so.
But Barr's greatest discovery from the Mueller investigation, which seems to have so many on the Left afraid and bewildered, is the prospect that the Obama Administration secretly spied on key officials within the Trump Campaign during the 2016 election. While already a known prospect mentioned by President Trump 2 years prior, Barr confirmed these suspicions before the Senate, shocking many disbelievers that FBI officials actively surveilled people like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos without permission from Trump or any of his staff. And what has been more alarming is the prospect that former head of the CIA John Brennan and former head of the FBI James Comey pushed for the publishing of the uncorroborated Steele dossier, the corrupt and falsified heart of the Mueller investigation.
If true, this would fill in the gap of who the principle figures were that approved the false dossier to be processed by the FISA court, allowing for surveillance on Trump campaign officials. This combined with the fact that the dossier was compiled through Fusion GPS and funded by both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and later managed by Obama era officials in the Department of Justice. It would now seem that the tables have been turned, as the investigators are now the investigated, with Attorney General Barr working with Inspector General Michael Horowitz to fully uncover how the Mueller Report originated and what the motivations were for the corrupt Spygate controversy, which President Trump rightfully calls a political scandal that is even bigger than Watergate.
Finally, a new line of inquiry will be opened into who first started the treasonous Trump-Russia collusion narrative by Attorney General Barr's recent appointment of John Durham, Connecticut's Attorney General and a specialist on FBI crimes including abuse of FBI informant witnesses. Durham will essentially be the 'Special Counsel' into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses under former FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, NSA Director James Clapper, and multiple branches of the Obama Administration.
© Stone Washington
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
