How is Conducting an Investigation Based upon Fake Evidence, Legal?
With regards to the Robert Mueller ‘investigation’ of US President Donald Trump, I have been asking the title’s question of many people for quite awhile: “How is conducting an investigation based upon fake evidence legal?”
Thus far, I haven’t received even a mediocre reply or one that resembles a modicum of logic.
Others merely try to change the subject.
As a Special Counsel was assigned to The Trump Case (although there doesn’t seem to be a factual let alone truthful case against him), in checking the requirements for the USAG assigning a Special Counsel—§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel—states:
“The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and – (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”
Criminal investigation or a counterintelligence investigation
Weren’t we told at the beginning of this whole process that it wasn’t a criminal investigation but, it was a counterintelligence investigation? It seemed to switch very quickly from a faux ‘counterintelligence’ mode to criminal…didn’t it? I strongly suspect—as do many other US citizens—that the original investigation was a huge ruse, as a counterintelligence investigation does not require nor even investigate a crime. It also appears to neither require nor allow the appointment of any “Special Counsel”…a counsel who is only to address criminal investigations. Furthermore—and despite this sleight of hand delivered by Deputy USAG Rosenstein to switch from counterintelligence to criminal—even if Special Counsel Mueller is now addressing a criminal investigation, under the law a crime must be identified before the investigation may proceed.
To date, no original crime to begin a criminal investigation has ever been identified.
Quiz question: How many apparent illegalities can you count that have been engaged in by Deputy AG Rosenstein and Special Counsel and former FBI head Robert Mueller…thus far?
Then, on top of these “irregularities,” Mr. Mueller and his crew of (at least 1 of whom is as unsavory character as may exist) attorneys are now on a full-fledged leaping and diving fishing expedition in search of a crime against President Trump and everyone who works for him.
Of note is that on 29 April 2015, the US Supreme Court adopted proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that new text to 26(b)(1) “Removes two prior loopholes that allowed for vast fishing expeditions”: Obtaining discovery about “the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identify and location of any persons who know of any discoverable matter” has been taken away. The removal of this language aims to eliminate gamesmanship in “discovery about discovery. In addition, removal of the following sentences aims to focus discovery on the evidence that is central and requests that are proportional to the case: “For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
So…now we have the ruse of an investigation that began as counterintelligence (to avoid having to name a crime) and almost immediately switched to a criminal investigation…which requires the identification of a crime.
Gee…did Rosenstein and Mueller just forget?
Were We-the-People not supposed to notice the man behind the curtain and all of his tricks, machinations and misdirection’s?
I think we were!
Oh…and what about Mueller using the fake created-out-of-whole-cloth ‘dossier’ to both help the DNC and Hillary Clinton win the US presidency and…as the central product to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil candidate and now President Trump and his team?
We still don’t know whether or not FISC Judge Contreras knew the dossier was false or not.
However, we do know that he was courted by FBI employees Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page; both of whom, along with their other 7th floor colleagueshold a deep-seated hated for candidate and now President Trump.
So…we have a Special Counsel who was appointed to investigate ‘counterintelligence’—which is not an SC’s purview—so that a crime would not be identified, we have the SC along with the Deputy US AG changing the investigation to criminal—but never identifying the crime—and basing the counterintelligence-turned-criminal on a “fishing expedition’ to find a crime—which SCOTUS has said is a “no-no”—and the FBI, DOJ and Hillary Clinton campaign conspiring together to have Hillary elected and to destroy Donald J. Trump.
And 1 additional item, and there are many…many more with new ones cropping up almost daily. We even have a former FBI Director Andrew McCabe (demoted then fired for lying under oath) having put together an “insurance policy” with Strzok and Page to destroy Trump should he win the US presidency!
These are American’s tax dollars at work.
This saga seems to have no end and there seem to be almost too many felonies and misdemeanors than one can track.
But, maybe one of you can help.
My question is still: “How is Conducting an Investigation Based upon Fake Evidence Legal?”
I don’t think it is.
And if it isn’t, it’s a crime to have begun an investigation at all.
Fake “evidence” to “get” someone you hate is 3rd world “justice.”
In my humble opinion, Robert Mueller has been working illegally on this since its inception and appears to be dragging it out to influence the 2018 election in the DNC’s favor.
Therefore, none of his findings are—legally—likely admissible in any court in the USA.
So, “How is Conducting an Investigation Based upon Fake Evidence Legal?”
If you have the answer, please let me know.
Paul Ebeling, Editor
Editor’s Note: Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Ms. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. She is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.