Is There An Obstruction Of Justice Taking Place In Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia Investigation?

by Ruby Henley
On May 22, 2017, Kim Dotcom posted a statement to his website claiming to have information relevant to the investigation into the July 2016 murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich. Dotcom claimed that he had proof that Rich was the source of the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, and that he was willing to provide evidence if US special counsel Robert Mueller could guarantee his safe passage from New Zealand to the United States.
Apparently, Mueller did not consider Kim Dotcom’s offer of evidence.  However, the New Zealand tech billionaire and his lawyers sent a direct letter to Mueller.  The letter is as follows:
30 May 2017
In accordance with his previous statement on this matter, Kim Dotcom’s solicitors in New Zealand have today sent the following letter to Robert Mueller, Special Counsel appointed to investigate interference with the 2016 United States presidential election and related matters:
30 May 2017
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Attention: Robert Mueller, Special Counsel
Dear Sir
1.We act for Kim Dotcom in New Zealand.
2.We are writing to you in your capacity as special counsel appointed to carry out the above investigation pursuant to Order 3915-2017 (Investigation).
3.Mr Dotcom has evidence that he considers relevant to the Investigation. The purpose of this letter is to confirm that, subject to appropriate arrangements being made and his constitutional rights being preserved, Mr Dotcom is willing to provide this evidence to the Investigation. He has instructed us to make this approach to initiate the necessary dialogue as to the required arrangements.
4.As you may be aware, Mr Dotcom resides in New Zealand. Since 2012, the United States has been seeking his extradition to face a criminal prosecution arising from his involvement in the Megaupload group of companies. Presently, Mr Dotcom is on bail while he exercises (as he is entitled to) his rights under New Zealand law to resist extradition. Mr Dotcom emphatically denies the alleged offending and is committed to defending the allegations in the extradition proceeding in New Zealand.
5.Mr Dotcom is also committed to achieving an outcome where his evidence can be properly received and reviewed by you as part of the Investigation. You will, however, appreciate that, given his current status, he is not in a position to voluntarily leave New Zealand’s jurisdiction. Further, he is concerned that, should he travel to the United States voluntarily, he would be arrested and detained in custody on the current counts on which he has been indicted.
6.Accordingly, for Mr Dotcom to attend in person in the United States to make a statement, and/or give oral evidence at any subsequent hearing, special arrangements would need to be discussed and agreed between all relevant parties. Such arrangements would need to include arrangements for his safe passage from New Zealand and return. This is because Mr Dotcom is determined to clear his name in New Zealand.
7.Mr Dotcom invites the Department of Justice to contact him through counsel to progress the taking of his evidence once you have had an opportunity to consider this letter and are in a position to discuss the required process and appropriate safeguards.
8.We look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions, or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully
Phil Creagh
t: + 64 9 306 5791
copy:Ira P. Rothken
Rothken Law Firm
Novato, CA 94949
Ron Mansfield
22 Lorne Chambers
I searched for any statement that Robert Mueller had made on receiving the letter from Kim DotCom.  I did find the following tweets from Kim DotCom:

This video explains the entire situation, and Kim DotCom speaks directly about the situation.  Whatever you may think of this man, he is an Internet genius, who has the backing of his own lawyers.  No one asked him to come forward.  He and Julian Assange are both credible, but Robert Mueller ignores these men.  Is that not considered “obstruction of justice?”

How can Robert Mueller ignore anyone, who says they have evidence concerning the DNC emails and the Russia investigation?  In the video, Kim says the same thing, and he does not understand why he is being ignored.  He says if Mueller would look at his evidence, “the investigation would be over in no time.”
They are accusing President Trump of “obstruction of justice,” but, in fact, if Special Counsel Mueller ignores the evidence that Kim DotCom offers, it is my opinion that the Special Counsel is obstructing justice.
If this is the case, then we know the investigation is nothing but a witch hunt to bring down President Trump.
Another aspect of this evidence is Kim says that Seth’s brother, Aaron Rich, has actually asked him not to release the evidence he has.  Further Rich has tried to discredit Kim DotCom in the media.  This makes no sense to me.
However, there is good news in the fact that the House Judiciary Committee has asked for second special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton/Comey/Lynch scandal.  
The letter that the Committee has written to Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is outstanding, and if I had written it myself I could not have asked for more.  Some of the very to-the-point and deeply penetrating requests are as follows:
1.While we presume that the FBI’s investigation into Russian influence has been subsumed into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, we are not confident that other matters related to the 2016 election and aftermath are similarly under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller. The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected. For this reason, we call on you to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
2.Our call for a special counsel is not made lightly. We have no interest in engendering more bad feelings and less confidence in the process or governmental institutions by the American people. Rather, our call is made on their behalf. It is meant to determine whether the criminal prosecution of any individual is warranted based on the solemn obligation to follow the facts wherever they lead and applying the law to those facts.
3.As we referenced above, Democrats and the mainstream media called for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate any Russian influence on President Trump’s campaign. Their pleas were answered, but there are many questions that may be outside the scope of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. This was clear following Mr. Comey’s recent testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, which ignited renewed scrutiny of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the actions she took to mislead the public concerning the investigation into the Clinton email investigation. Last year, this Committee inquired repeatedly about the circumstances surrounding that and other matters, but our inquiries were largely ignored.
4.Notwithstanding the fact that the FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and not the Federal Bureau of Matters, one is hard-pressed to understand why Ms. Lynch directed then-Director Comey to call the Clinton investigation a “matter” unless she intended to use such deceptive language to help wrongly persuade the American people that former Secretary Clinton was not, in fact, the subject of a full-scale FBI investigation, or to otherwise undermine the integrity of the investigation.
5.We call on a newly appointed special counsel to investigate, consistent with appropriate regulations, the following questions, many of which were previously posed by this Committee and remain unanswered:Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation;
6.The shadow cast over our system of justice concerning Secretary Clinton and her involvement in mishandling classified information; FBI and DOJ’s investigative decisions related to former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation, including the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to potential Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel and possibly others;
7.The apparent failure of DOJ to empanel a grand jury to investigate allegations of mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and her associates;
8.The Department of State and its employees’ involvement in determining which communications of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates to turn over for public scrutiny;
9.WikiLeaks disclosures concerning the Clinton Foundation and its potentially unlawful international dealings; Connections between the Clinton campaign, or the Clinton Foundation, and foreign entities, including those from Russia and Ukraine; Mr. Comey’s knowledge of the purchase of Uranium One¹ by the company Rosatom, whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation, and what role Secretary Clinton played in the approval of that sale that had national security ramifications;
10.Disclosures arising from unlawful access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer systems, including inappropriate collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign;
11.Post-election accusations by the President [Trump] that he was wiretapped by the previous Administration, and whether Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to unlawfully monitor communications of then-candidate Trump or his associates; Selected leaks of classified information related to the unmasking of U.S. person identities incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community, including an assessment of whether anyone in the Obama Administration, including Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Susan Rice, Ms. Samantha Power, or others, had any knowledge about the “unmasking” of individuals on then candidate-Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both;
12.Admitted leaks by Mr. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations between Mr. Comey and President Trump, how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of a special counsel, and whether any classified information was included in the now infamous “Comey memos”; Mr. Comey’s and the FBI’s apparent reliance on “Fusion GPS”² in its investigation of the Trump campaign, including the company’s creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Trump, that dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 election, whether the FBI paid anyone connected to the dossier, and the intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS and its affiliates;
13.and Any and all potential leaks originated by Mr. Comey and provide to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.
14.You have the ability now to right the ship for the American people so these investigations may proceed independently and impartially. The American public has a right to know the facts – all of them – surrounding the election and its aftermath. We urge you to appoint a second special counsel to ensure these troubling, unanswered questions are not relegated to the dustbin of history.
This letter is signed by the following lawmakers, and we owe them a debt of gratitude:

  1. Bob Goodlatte, Chair
  2. Jim Jordan
  3. Lamar Smith
  4. Matt Gaetz
  5. Tom Marino
  6. Steve Chabot
  7. Blake Farenthold
  8. Steve King
  9. Louis Gohmert
  10. Ted Poe
  11. Doug Collins
  12. Raul Labrador
  13. Ron DeSantis
  14. Andy Biggs
  15. Mike Johnson
  16. John Rutherford
  17. Martha Roby
  18. John Ratcliffe
  19. Trent Franks
  20. Karen Handel

As Americans do not forget the above lawmakers, as they are the ones, who are looking out for the American people, and the United States of America.
While we cannot know for sure if Special Counselor Mueller will be taking the evidence that Kim DotCom is offering, we know now that a group of our lawmakers are intent on getting to the truth.  Special Counselor Mueller has someone looking over his shoulder along with the American people.  We are not alone.

READ  "NFTs in 2021 is what ICOs were in 2017. There's a 99.99% chance that you're going to lose money buying into them"
READ  The Ramifications of China Taking Taiwan & Russia Taking Ukraine

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.