by Ruby Henley
I have several stories to report in this article, and I apologize for the rehashing of events, but these events are key to understanding the Mueller investigation. They must be understood and examined.
First, the Mueller report has been leaked, and Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, has given his verdict. He calls the Democrats “sneaky, unethical leakers” and “rabid Democrats” involved in the Mueller probe. We knew they were all that, and I guess it is no longer illegal to leak these things. Since the Democrats have done it now since Hillary Clinton allowed deadly classified documents to be leaked, it has not stopped. Hillary made it legal, since she was not charged.
An article in the ‘Times’ put fire under Giuliani, so I would say President Trump may have something to be concerned about. The ‘Times’ report cited associates of the investigators, who believe Attorney General William Barr was overly generous to Trump in his four-page summary of the report.
Giuliani said: “it makes the point that we’ve been making for two years. Despite all the media reports about how holy and sanctimonious the Mueller team is, they are a bunch of sneaky, unethical leakers. And they are rabid Democrats who hate the President of the United States.” I agree with Giuliani, but this comes as no surprise.
You can view the video in the following tweet –
Giuliani goes on to state the following in a Fox News article –
Quote – “And I can’t tell you how much false information they leaked during the course of the investigation. How many people are going to be indicted that didn’t get indicted?”
“How many – how many blockbusters were there? Starting with (former Trump campaign aide George) Papadopoulos and ending with (former Trump lawyer Michael) Cohen who turns out to be a serial liar. I mean, how could you have any confidence in this?”
In a follow-up tweet in the early hours of the morning, Giuliani renewed his attacks.
He said: “The NYT story about unspecified troubling findings in report is as accurate as the NYT saying Mueller’s staff didn’t leak. Who leaked this … Mueller’s unethical staff. This proves they are Angry Democrats who couldn’t find or create evidence to support collusion or obstruction.” End of Quote
Now I want to refer back to an article I did in February 2018 on Carter Page, the supposed victim in the Mueller investigation. I felt then Page was not a victim, but he was a plant from the beginning of his time as a ‘Trump campaign assistant.’ I believe at this point the FBI employed him as a counterintelligence agent first to help them catch some Russian players, and then they used him up to have an excuse to obtain the FISA warrant. At that point, they planted him inside the Trump campaign knowing that they could spy on anyone he talked to.
If you were shocked when the FISA MEMO dropped, you will drop to the floor when you read this.
Carter Page was an undercover FBI agent, who helped to bring down a Russian spy ring. Later, the FBI used him and set him up by telling the FISA COURT he was a Russian spy. While working as an undercover agent to bring down the Russian spy ring, he met with the Russians, of course. The FBI took those meetings later and used them to make him look like a Russian spy.
The below article explains how he helped bring down the Russian spy ring.
If I am right, then we are going to see this come out when Obama is fingered as the one who began the entire Russia investigation. I think that is coming soon, as James Clapper let it drop on video OBAMA was in fact the originator of the whole thing. There is a lot to come soon.
This is my report from 2018 – www.investmentwatchblog.com/carter-page-setup-by-fbi-he-was-fbi-employee-fbi-told-fisa-court-he-was-a-russian-spy/
Quote – Carter Page was an undercover FBI agent, who helped to bring down a Russian spy ring. Later, the FBI used him and set him up by telling the FISA COURT he was a Russian spy. While working as an undercover agent to bring down the Russian spy ring, he met with the Russians, of course. The FBI took those meetings later and used them to make him look like a Russian spy.
The below article explains how he helped bring down the Russian spy ring.
Carter Page was an FBI under-cover employee in 2013, and remained the primary FBI witness through May of 2016 throughout the case.
If Carter Page was working as a UCE (FBI undercover employee), responsible for the bust of a high level Russian agent in 2013 -and remained a UCE- throughout the court case UP TO May of 2016, how is it possible that on October 21st 2016 Carter Page is put under a FISA Title 1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent? He wasn’t. The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division, knew he wasn’t. The DOJ-NSD and FBI flat-out LIED. End Of Quote
www.scribd.com/document/370603711/FISA-Memo-1
intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/carter_page_hpsci_hearing_transcript_nov_2_2017.pdf
twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1113705177108897792
Now let’s talk about another aspect of the firing of James Comey which spawned the assignment of Robert Mueller as special counsel by Rod Rosenstein. This cannot be stressed enough. Here is an actual copy of the memo sent to President Trump advising him to fire James Comey by Rod Rosenstein.
QUOTE –
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767
I hope you can read the following Rosenstein memo, and you will be realizing that President Trump was set up to fire James Comey by his own Justice Department. By the way, Jeff Sessions approved this memo.
Then as soon as Trump fired Comey, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to the Mueller Investigation.
It was a setup.
Memorandum for the Attorney General
FROM: Rod J Rosenstein
SUBJECT: Restoring public confidence in the FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.
The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
What was Clinton FBI probe about?
Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.
Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the FBI’s decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision”. Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision “was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI”.
Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as “real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice”.
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was “astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”
We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.
Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions. End of Quote
Another aspect to the memo no one has spoken about is being reported by ‘Law and Crime.’
lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/rosensteins-secret-special-counsel-memo-was-written-after-the-feds-already-raided-manaforts-house/
Quote – The memo gives Mueller a more specific description of his authority and states that he can investigate Paul Manafort for any “crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.” And that’s pretty much what Manafort was indicted for.
Here’s the weird part about this: The Rosenstein “secret” memo revealed in this week’s court filing is dated August 2, 2017. According to media reports, Paul a home was raided July 26, 2017. So that means Rosenstein’s laid out the more specified scope and definition of authority for the special counsel investigation six days after Manafort’s home had already been raided.
What does this mean legally? Well, as always, the the legal experts are divided.
“There is something very wrong about that,” said Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz on Fox News Tuesday night, adding that the scope of the investigation should be clearly defined. “This special prosecutor is looking at everything. Where does it stop?” End of Quote
In conclusion, it may be necessary to review past facts to understand what is happening in the present day. The Rosenstein memo makes no sense, unless he wanted Trump to fire Comey. If this is true, why did he appoint Robert Mueller to investigate as a special counsel?
And as far as Carter Page goes, if he was ‘Male 1’ in the FBI undercover sting to catch the group of Russian spies, he was in fact undercover FBI.
He admits the FBI leaked this.
Why would the FBI seek a FISA warrant on him, and why has he not been charged?
Obama used him as he did have contact with Russian agents when he worked with the FBI to catch them. He could be utilized again to make a case for the FISA warrant. Yet he was never charged. And when he was allegedly used by the FBI for the FISA warrant, this meant when he was inside the Trump group, everyone he contacted could be spied on.
Carter Page is smarter than he acts.