According to the New York Times and Washington Post, special agent Peter Strzok was removed from the Russia investigation after his superiors discovered he and another agent on the team exchanged text messages “disparaging” President Donald Trump and “supporting” Hillary Clinton during last year’s election.
Robert Mueller had to have known his views beforehand. In fact, he clearly knows the views of all the Democrats he hired to investigate Trump-Russia collusion.
Strzok was bashing Trump in email exchanges with agent Lisa Page. The two were engaged in an extramarital affair.
What we are supposed to believe is Mueller doesn’t want a perception of bias or impropriety to surround his investigation.
Devin Nunes is infuriated and wants to know why Congress was not told. They were trying to interview him.
Anyone investigating the Russia interference case and anyone on Trump’s side needed to have this information when it took place in July.
“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” Nunes said in a statement Saturday afternoon. “This is part of a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this committee’s oversight work, particularly oversight of their use of the Steele dossier. At this point, these agencies should be investigating themselves.”
The DoJ has suddenly decided to share some information it has been hiding for months and they did so hours before the report came out.
“The DOJ has now expressed — on a Saturday, just hours after the press reports on Strzok’s dismissal appeared — a sudden willingness to comply with some of the committee’s long-standing demands,” Nunes said in the statement. “This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction.”
Nunes will draw up a Contempt of Congress citation for Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray.
Nunes is angry that they didn’t know why Strzok was demoted and for their treatment of Congress.
If it were true that Mueller wants an unbiased probe, he wouldn’t have filled up his team with Democrats and the lead prosecutor wouldn’t be Andrew Weissman who prosecutes people who are totally innocent, even puts them in solitary for over a year. He destroyed an entire company with 82,000 employees – Arthur Anderson.
One of the attorneys involved in Arthur Anderson with Weissman is Michael Dreeben. He is on Mueller’s Russia team and has a history of attempting to put an overly broad definiton of obstruction of justice into case law at the expense of innocent people.
AN EXTREME INTERPRETATION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Michael Dreeban, has already argued for a ridiculously broad interpretation of obstruction of justice, one of the issues Trump is being investigated for after Mueller’s friend Jim Comey said he thought there might be a case. Esteemed liberal Professor of law Jonathan Turley writes:
Dreeben’s background also contains an interesting item that bears directly on the potential case against President Donald Trump. Dreeben argued in an unsuccessful appeal of the prosecution of Arthur Anderson where the Justice Department advanced a sweeping interpretation of obstruction of justice — an interpretation that I criticized as wildly overbroad.
The interpretation resulted in a unanimous rejection of the Supreme Court. Given the call for a charge of obstruction against Trump (and the view of some of us that there remains considerable statutory barriers to such a charge), Dreeben’s addition should be a concern to the Trump defense team.
After Dreeben and his team relentlessly and unconstitutionally pursued Arthur Anderson, one of the biggest accounting firms in the nation at the time, the case was overturned by the Supreme Court, but by then the company was ruined.