Mueller to End Obstruction Probe by Sept. 1, New Leak That Don Jr’s “In a Jam”

3

Mueller will end the obstruction probe by September 1st if he can interview President Trump by mid-July, according to his attorney Rudy Giuliani.  The details of the interview are being hammered out.

PRESSURE FROM RUDY

The New York Times claims Guiliani’s announcement is an attempt to publicly pressure special counsel Robert Mueller amid negotiations over whether President Trump would be questioned.

Guiliani said Mueller shared the timeline two weeks ago.

The former New York City mayor said waiting any longer would risk influencing voters in the midterm elections,  according to the Times’ writers Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt, two Trump haters.

“You don’t want another repeat of the 2016 election where you get contrary reports at the end and you don’t know how it affected the election,” Mr. Giuliani said.

It’s always been our contention that this is meant to negatively impact the mid-terms and this will drag into October with a scathing attack on Trump. The Mueller team are all anti-Trump, pro-Clinton lawyers. It’s a counter-intelligence operation run by lawyers. This is nuts.

That is only one aspect of the endless, far-reaching investigation.

DON JR. “IN A JAM”

Axios now reports that Donald Trump Jr. is “in a jam” because in addition to the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, he met in Trump Tower for another meeting with Joel Zamel, George Nader and Blackwater co-founder Erik Prince to discuss foreign assistance in the election.

The Times reports that Zemel is an Israeli specialist in social media manipulation and Nader is an emissary for two welathy Arab prinices.

Nader explained to Donald Trump Jr. that the two princes saw the elder Mr. Trump as a strong leader who would fill the power vacuum that they believed Mr. Obama had left in the Middle East, and Mr. Nader went on to say that he and his friends would be glad to support Mr. Trump as much as they could.”

It’s illegal to seek foreign assistance — except if Hillary is doing the accepting of course.

In a statement from a Don Jr. lawyer Alan Futerfas, he wrote: “Prior to the 2016 election, Donald Trump Jr. recalls a meeting with Eric Prince, George Nader, and another individual who may be Joel Zamel. They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy. He was not interested and that was the end of it.”

According to Axios, a source close to Don Jr. said he barely remembers the meeting, and that “nothing came of it.” He added that Don Jr. always wants to make people happy is way too trusting.

A source close to the White House told Axios that foreign governments exploited the Trump campaign’s naiveté: “They saw a bunch of inexperienced people who suddenly found themselves in political roles. They took advantage.”

DOES TRUMP HAVE A POINT IN THESE TWEETS?

Alan Dershowitz said that the entire Mueller team is anti-Trump.

3 COMMENTS

  1. If Mueller is an objective investigator, then I am a six legged ostrich. I am a former Marine Officer and lawyer who holds Mueller in contempt because of his refusal to perform an investigation of ALL FACTS and his background in destroying innocent people’s lives. I would resign my commission before I ever served under Herr Mueller who kisses the ass of the most corrupt FBI director, Comey ever to “serve”. Ask Caputo how his life has been “shat terred” by Mueller and his Trump hating minions. I demand objectivity and honor in performance of duties for the American Citizens. Mueller has none

  2. Notice that all these “hot-shot” attorneys on the other side never mention any law or statute that is “violated”. It’s always a drumbeat of “connections”. In none of these cases is there anything illegal. This, too, applies for all that is Russia. We are led to believe that having anything to do with Putin is illegal, or even wrong at best. A President can have any foreign policy he so desires, and as President can determine “what” is in the “national interest”.

    For example, under Obama it was in the “national interest” to isolate Israel, as was done in his last days. Of course, while campaigning Obama gave No indication his Israel policies would be so drastic as to disallow even room additions to existing buildings if they were in so-called disputed territories. Was “this” policy in the US national interests.

    Trump, as a Presidential candidate can formulate and begin a process to develop HIS own foreign policy pursuits even though some may consider it against the national interest. And “that” is why there are elections. As the campaign hammered home, the main concern was of ISIS and Mideast terrorism, and one method to accomplish this goal was to align with Russia to “root it out”. Trump presented the argument that IT, the Russia policy, was IN the national interest, and was elected with that in mind.

    Therefore, a great deal of the, “noise”, in media assumes a President, now Trump, a candidate (Trump), has no business aligning in any way with Russia. Just as Treaties, (Foreign Policy) has its origins with a President, so will any other pursuit in foreign policy. The Constitution nowhere ascribes any authority given to Congress to “mandate” foreign policy, but does give “Advise and Consent” to those who would develop and implement such policies. This is the same argument in rebuttal to those who will cite Obstruction in any Russia related matter. The Executive has extensive Powers and this probe, in itself, is a violation of His Executive Powers, especially with Mueller probing actions WHILE in office.

    What the previous Administration was doing is much more problematic on a Constitutional level. The evidence suggests an “interference” in a Constitutional “process”, namely an election and a candidate for that elective office, to prevent or at least interfere. This, itself, continued after the candidate became elected whereby national security information was “withheld” from the incoming Administration. This was a clear and distinct violation of the succession of power. These are questions and answers that are NOT being discussed and if we are to continue as a Constitutional Republic we damn well better start asking and demanding answers.

  3. It’s been reported that Mueller’s team was set up with Special Assistant US Attorney status for some of the Prosecutors. This is rather peculiar on the surface, so what does it mean.

    Many have called for the firing of Mueller, and even Rosenstein, in the belief that would end the investigation. If these prosecutors, under Mueller, have US Attorney status then firing Mueller and / or Rosenstein may not have an affect. It could very well allow it to continue “unimpeded”. Only the AG would be able to end the case.

    There are other serious concerns considering this is a counter-intelligence investigation. We now have several cases that are being tried in State Courts. If this fails, as in the Judge Ellis’ situation, it may be able to continue in Federal Court.

    In United States v. Bernhardt, the State of Hawaii charged two defendants with conspiracy and misapplication of bank funds. Just before the defendants won a dismissal from the state court on statute of limitations grounds, the State Deputy Attorney General who prosecuted the case contacted the U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii. The federal office agreed to adopt the case if the state prosecutor would serve as uncompensated lead counsel. Accordingly, the state’s attorney received a cross-designation as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and successfully indicted the defendants before a federal grand jury.

    The district court dismissed the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, but the court of appeals reversed, finding that the dual sovereignty doctrine, which allows “the federal and state governments [to] both prosecute a person for a crime . . . if the person’s act violated both jurisdictions’ laws,” prevented the defendant from prevailing on his double jeopardy claim. The court reasoned that the federal government can always exert its “‘right to decide that a state prosecution has not vindicated a violation’ of federal law.” However, the court expressed its concern that the U.S. Attorney only took the case at the behest of the Deputy Attorney General, who carried out both prosecutions with a paycheck from the State of Hawaii.

    This case illustrates how state-level attorneys can effectuate their personal agendas under the guise of Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys. This designation, among other consequences, can result in the successive prosecution of defendants. The court of appeals in Bernhardt suggested that it would not have harbored reservations about the legitimacy of the second prosecution if the federal government actually demonstrated an interest in the outcome of the case. How much greater, then, is the danger of successive prosecutions where the federal government and the state team up to pursue a national agenda?

    The above case would seem to apply to the current Mueller investigation. As Alan Derschowitz has said when it comes to indictments that virtually anyone can be charged for several Federal crimes each and every day.

Comments are closed.