John R. Houk
© July 25, 2019
I watched Mueller’s entire testimony before two House
Committees Chaired by reprehensible Dems. The Dems pushed an Obstruction of
Justice theme committed by President Trump with Mueller – often cryptically –
agreeing Dem assertions. BUT as much as President Trump wanted to interfere in
Mueller’s witch hunt, the relevant Aids involved essentially did their jobs in
protecting the President from bad judgment calls but not doing the errors.
Which means as much as the President wanted to meddle in Mueller’s
investigation NOTHING obstructive HAPPENED relating to Trump’s righteous
indignation of being falsely accused of working with Russians to win the 2016
Election.
The Dems persisted though. As far as the Dems on the
Committees were concerned, thinking about interfering when you know you are
innocent is an obstruction crime. Going after the President for thought crimes
smacks of Orwell/Huxley inventing crimes to fulfill the agenda of an all-powerful
State. A Big Brother scenario updated to today’s DEEP STATE.
The Republicans on both Committees kept asking questions
essentially pointing to Russian interference BUT with the Dems and Crooked
Hillary paying a foreigner getting disinformation from Russia as if it were
facts. In ALL cases Mueller’s answer was not his purview or not getting into
that. Hmm… The Mueller Mandate from Rod Rosenstein ORDER
NO. 3915-2017 dated 5/17/17:
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED
MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in
me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge
my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice,
and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert
S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department
of Justice.
(b) The Special
Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI
Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
i.
any links and/or
coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the
campaign of President Donald Trump; and
ii.
any matters
that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
iii.
any other matters
within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special
Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized
to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the
Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
Once Mueller
determined that President Trump did not conspire with Russians to win the 2016
election, Mueller should have moved on to (b) ii. Which states “any matters
that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.
It is evident Mueller
chose to pursue any crime by people who has any association with Donald Trump
before the President’s election even if the crime had NOTHING TO DO with
Russian interference in the 2016 Election. If Mueller was actually
investigating Russian interference HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED into the Dem Campaign
managed by Crooked Hillary Clinton paying money to a foreign agent in
Christopher Steele acquiring Russian disinformation for the purpose of insuring
Crooked Hillary’s election as President.
Instead Mueller
utilized false Russian information to remove a duly elected President Donald J.
Trump from Office. NOW THAT HAS TO BE A CRIME of conspiracy committed by Robert
Mueller and his team of Clinton Donors/Supporters angry Democrat prosecutors.
Now below are some observations
from Conservative sources (Dems are unreliable) on the Robert Mueller House
testimony. All of the GOP Committee members did a great job demonstrating
Mueller bias and witch hunt agenda, but I begin with Rep. Jim Jordan pointing
out the obvious. Then I follow the Jordan/Mueller interchange with a quite
humorous The
United West parody of the same interchange.
Then after the video fun,
read further criticism of Mueller’s from Fred Lucas and Ann Coulter.
********************
Posted by PBS NewsHour
Published on Jul 24, 2019
Rep. Jim Jordan,
R-Ohio, questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his July 24
testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about how the investigation
began. Mueller said in his opening statement that he could not address those questions.
Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016
election and possible ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign, agreed to
appear before Congress, but warned he would not go beyond what was already
documented in his final report.
+++++++++++++++++
Posted by theunitedwest
Published on Jul 24, 2019
Humorous post please!
Could this be the real
Judiciary Committee testimony???? Sure looks like this was pretty darn close to
what actually happened!
+++++++++++++++++++
8 Takeaways From
Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress
By Fred Lucas
July 24, 2019
Former special counsel
Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald
Trump and Russia before two House committees.
“It is not a witch
hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
He was referring to
his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored report released
in May to the public.
But many of Mueller’s
responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my
purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”
He also asked
constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.
Democrats on the
Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump
wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.
Democrats on the
intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping
Trump.
But neither of these
points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor
his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the
presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct
regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
Intelligence Chairman
Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference
was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”
“True,” Mueller said.
Trump repeatedly has
called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow
“a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.
Here are eight key
takeaways from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.
1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ
on Exoneration
With regard to
obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly,
while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it
also does not exonerate him”
Rep. John Ratcliffe,
R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI director, when the Department of
Justice ever had had the role of “exonerating” an individual.
“Which DOJ policy or
principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not
exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively
determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director?
Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”
Mueller appeared not
to be clear about the question.
“Let me make it
easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example
other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an
investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”
Mueller responded: “I
cannot, but this is a unique situation.”
Ratcliffe followed up
by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until
proven guilty.
“You can’t find it
because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:
The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to
conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel
report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.
It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order.
It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of
Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not
in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together,
because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively
determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.
Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of
innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including
sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors
never, ever need to conclusively determine it.
“Donald Trump is not
above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.
“You wrote 180 pages
about decisions that weren’t reached,” Ratcliffe said, referring to the second
volume of the Mueller report, devoted to evidence of obstruction of justice.
Judiciary Chairman
Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pushed the point in his opening question after Mueller
was sworn in, saying the report specifically did not exonerate Trump of
obstruction of justice.
“Did you actually
‘totally exonerate’ the president?” Nadler asked at the beginning of the
hearing, quoting Trump.
“No,” Mueller
responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated
for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
Regarding obstruction,
ranking Judiciary member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked: “At any time in the
investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”
Mueller responded:
“No.”
Later, to drive the
point of a lack of obstruction further, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked:
“Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?”
Mueller began by
saying, “Not that I … ” then answered more directly: “No.”
Later that afternoon
during the intelligence committee hearing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked
about exoneration.
Mueller initially
said, “I’m going to pass on that.”
When pressed on the
question, Mueller said, “Because it embroils us in a legal discussion and I’m
not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.”
Turner noted that the
headline from Mueller’s morning testimony was that he did not exonerate Trump.
“You have no more
power to declare Trump exonerated than you do to declare him Anderson Cooper,”
Turner said, referring to the CNN personality.
2. Indicting a
President
Nadler, the Judiciary
chairman, asserted: “Any other person who acted in this way would have been
charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the
law.”
Other Democrats said
much the same during the day.
At first, during the
morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee, it appeared that Mueller
was contradicting Attorney General William Barr.
That impression was
left hanging for well over an hour before he clarified the issue at the outset
of the Intelligence hearing.
The Justice
Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued two legal opinions, most recently in 2000, stating
that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The second one reaffirmed a 1973 opinion at the height of the Watergate scandal.
Barr has stated on
multiple occasions that those official opinions were not the sole reason that
Mueller decided against seeking a grand jury indictment of Trump for
obstruction of justice. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein later decided the evidence was insufficient to make a case.
During the Judiciary
hearing, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked: “Could you charge the president with a
crime after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
Buck: “You believe
that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of
justice after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
Later in the hearing,
Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., followed up, citing the Office of Legal Counsel
opinions to determine whether Trump’s being president is the only reason he
wasn’t indicted.
“The reason, again,
that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [an] OLC opinion stating
that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?”
Mueller: “That is
correct.”
It wasn’t clear
whether Mueller was talking about indicting Trump, or speaking about legal
theory behind indicting any president under existing Justice Department policy.
Mueller tried to
clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing,
referring to what he had told Lieu.
“That is not the
correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We
did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
3. ‘Collusion’ and
‘Conspiracy’
The first part of the
Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and
the Russian government, which meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Collusion is not a
specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is,”
Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said. “In the
colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms,
correct?”
Mueller’s initial
answer was “No.”
Collins then referred
to page 180 in Volume 1 of the Mueller report, which states the two words are
“largely synonymous.”
“Now, you said you
chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?”
Collins asked.
“Not when I read it,”
Mueller responded.
“So, you would change
your answer to yes, then?” Collins asked.
“No,” Mueller said,
seeming somewhat unclear.
“I’m reading your
report, sir,” Collins said. “It is a yes or no answer. Page 180, Volume 1. This
is from your report.”
Mueller: “Correct. And
I leave it with the report.”
During the
Intelligence hearing in the afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked about
evidence of collusion with Russia.
Mueller, criticized on
social media and by cable news pundits for seeming a little off his game, had
some trouble answering.
“We don’t use the word
collusion. We use one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not
used,” he said haltingly.
Welch jumped in: “The
term is conspiracy?”
Mueller: “That’s
exactly right.”
“You help me, I’ll
help you,” Welch said, prompting laughter in the chamber.
4. Allusions to
Impeachment
Nadler, the Judiciary
chairman, made what seemed like a vague reference to impeachment during his
opening remarks.
“We will follow your
example, Director Mueller,” Nadler said. “We will act with integrity. We will
follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We
will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”
Rep. Jim
Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who noted he was also a member of the Judiciary
Committee during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, asked why Mueller
didn’t specify in his report whether there was impeachable conduct–as
then-independent counsel Ken Starr had in his report.
“We have studiously
kept in the center of the investigation our mandate, and our mandate does not
go to other ways of addressing conduct,” Mueller said. “Our mandate goes to
developing the report and turning the report in to the attorney general.”
Mueller, given many
openings by Democrats, refused to state that impeachment was what the report
means in referring to other venues to pursue evidence of obstruction of
justice.
Rep. Ted Deutch,
D-Fla., said Congress must do it’s duty to ensure Trump isn’t above the law.
Other Democrats made similar vague comments, but most did not outright call for
impeachment.
Later, Rep. Mike
Johnson, R-La., asked, “Mr. Chairman, was the point of this hearing to get Mr.
Mueller to recommend impeachment?”
Nadler responded:
“That is not a fair point of inquiry.
5. On When He
Put Conspiracy to Rest
Mueller asserted early
on that he would not talk about the origins of the Russia
investigation–currently under review by the Justice Department’s Office of
Inspector General.
“It is unusual for a
prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a
prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited,”
Mueller said.
“These matters are the
subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics
should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department,” he said, referring
to the contested origins of the investigation.
Rep. Andy Biggs,
R-Ariz., a Judiciary member, asked when the special counsel’s team determined
there was no conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Many Republicans argue
that Mueller could have issued that conclusion before the midterm elections, in
which Republicans lost control of the House.
“As you understand,
when developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information as you make your
case,” Mueller said. “When you make a decision on that particular case depends
on the factors. I cannot say specifically we reached a particular decision on a
particular defendant at a particular point in time.”
“We were ongoing for
two years.”
Biggs pressed: “That’s
my point, there are various aspects that happen. But somewhere along the pike,
you come to the conclusion there is no there there for this defendant.”
Mueller finally said:
“I can’t say when.”
The former special
counsel said he did not have knowledge of Fusion GPS, the opposition research
firm that hired former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who
compiled the so-called Steele dossier, an unverified, salacious collection of
information about Trump, including during a visit to Moscow. Both the
Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign
paid for that work.
Although President
Barack Obama’s Justice Department and FBI used the Steele dossier as the basis
for spying on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and the dossier is mentioned in
the Mueller report, the investigation apparently did not look into its origins.
6. What Else He
Didn’t Answer
Mueller declined
multiple times before both House committees to answer why his team did not
prosecute Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic who Republican lawmakers said had
lied to investigators. Mifsud in spring 2016 told Trump campaign adviser George
Papadopoulos that Moscow had some of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Mueller also declined
to answer questions about whether he interviewed Steele or Fusion GPS head
Glenn Simpson. During the Intelligence hearing, he refused to answer
whether he even read the Steele dossier.
Mueller repeatedly
answered that such questions were “outside of my purview.”
Among Democrats’
questions Mueller didn’t answer: whether the Trump campaign had turned its back
on the country, whether Trump told associates his 2016 campaign was an
“infomercial” for the Trump businesses, what would happen if Trump wins a
second term and serves beyond the statute of limitations for obstruction of
justice, and whether Trump had potential illegal ties to foreign banks.
He also declined to
speculate whether Russian meddling swayed the outcome of the presidential
election.
Rep. Eric Swalwell,
D-Calif., asked Mueller whether he agreed with an open letter in May signed by
about 1,000 former federal prosecutors that said Trump would be prosecuted for
obstruction of justice if he were anyone else.
Mueller
responded: “They have a different case.”
Swalwell seemed a bit
surprised, and asked whether Mueller would sign the letter.
Mueller again
responded: “They have a different case.”
7. Defending
Alleged Conflicts
Mueller responded to
questions about the number of Democratic lawyers, many of whom donated to
Democratic candidates, who worked on his staff.
“I’ve been in the
business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion
once to ask someone about their political affiliation,” Mueller said at one
point. “What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job.”
Trump has said several
times that after he fired James Comey as FBI director, he met with Mueller, who
wanted the job back.
Mueller testified that
he talked to Trump, but “not as a candidate” for the job, in response to a
question from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.
Rep. Greg Steube,
R-Fla., later asked: “Did you interview for the FBI director job one day before
you were appointed as special counsel?”
Mueller said he was
only advising Trump.
“My understanding, I
was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would
take to do the job,” Mueller said.
He also defended
Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer on his team and one of the hires
Trump and other Republicans criticize Mueller for.
“Let me say that
Andrew Weissmann is one of the more talented attorneys we had on board,”
Mueller said.
8. Trump’s
Responsibility and ‘New Normal’
Rep. Mike Quigley,
D-Ill., brought up Trump’s tweeted support of WikiLeaks and its hacking of
Clinton campaign staff emails. He quoted Trump as a candidate saying, “I love
WikiLeaks” and tweeting similar sentiments, then asked Mueller for his
response.
WikiLeaks is an online
operation that made its name on releasing confidential and secret government
information
After hesitating,
Mueller said: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in
terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be
illegal activity.”
The Mueller report
said the Trump campaign was aware of Russian election meddling and expected to
benefit from it.
Welch, the Vermont
Democrat and member of the intelligence panel, said he was concerned that Trump
may get away with not reporting Russian interference in the future.
“If we establish the
new normal for this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns,
so that if any one of us, running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S.
Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States are aware that a
hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report
that to the FBI or other authorities …, ” Welch began to ask, before Mueller
interrupted.
“I hope this is not
the new normal, but I fear it is,” Mueller said.
Ken McIntyre
contributed to this report.
Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for
The Daily Signal and co-host of "The
Right Side of History" podcast. Lucas is also the author
of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and
Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred.
+++++++++++++++++++++
MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION
Ann Coulter mocks bureau whose
attitude is never having to say you're sorry
By ANN COULTER
July 24, 2019
It is apparently part
of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as
“honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed
and confused” to his appellation.)
If it matters that
Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a
team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are
registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have
donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.
Congressman Steve
Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff
attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing. Here are a few from Chabot’s list:
· Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns
and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
· Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama
campaigns.
· Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the
Obama and Clinton campaigns.
· Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats,
contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign – and represented Hillary Clinton
and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.
· Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the
Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the
Clinton Campaign.
None had donated to
the Trump campaign.
The media brushed off
the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how
prosecutors are “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on
CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views
are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”
Obviously, no one
believes this – otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to
Mueller’s name.
In a fiery rebuke at
the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard
Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25
years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about
their political affiliation. It is not done.”
No kidding. He’s been
director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a
U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the
president before.
An independent counsel
investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors.
You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want
organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.
But lawyers on a
special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t
supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.
As for Mueller being
“honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted
Stevens might beg to differ.
After the 2001 anthrax
attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS
pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real
culprit went about his life undisturbed – until he committed suicide when, at
last, the FBI zeroed in on him.
Mueller was deeply
involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the
case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The
Mirage Man” by David Willman.
During this multi-year
investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft,
as well as two U.S. senators, that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently,
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General
James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent
man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the
main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that
it was Hatfill.”
The hounding of Steven
Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of
dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s
FBI for its handling of the case.
Far from apologizing,
the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless
Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He
said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”
Maybe he can use that
line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia
investigation.
Eight days before the
2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly
report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in
Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.
Months later – too
late for Stevens’ political career – Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved
for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the
government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial
judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent
counsel to investigate the investigators.
Unlike the disastrous
Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is
less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S.
senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he
wasn’t – which is worse.
In addition to
“honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric
Holder.”
[Blog Editor: Help keep
WND an independent Internet source BY DONATING.]
__________________
My 2¢ What Mueller
Could-a Should-a Done
John R. Houk
© July 25, 2019
___________________
8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2
Appearances Before Congress
_______________________
MUELLER HAS A
REPUTATION
