Did Mueller Hold Back his Report?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Friday Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., came out with some interesting predictions on a New York radio show saying that there “no legal basis” for the Russian meddling investigation into the Trump campaign.

King spoke with New York radio host John Catsimatidis and said, “There was no legal basis at all for them to begin the investigation of his campaign, and the way they carried it forward and the way information was leaked, the improper applications they filed in the FISA court to get surveillance, all of this is going to come out.”

Attorney General William Barr is looking into the origins of the investigation and, along with others, I believe that there is much to expose from within the FBI and the CIA.

The big question is allegedly how information was leaked and how the warrant was obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Republicans claimed that federal authorities did not fully disclose their reliance on an unverified dossier compiled by Christopher Steele. That document, referred to as the Steele Dossier, was part of opposition research for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Democrats, on the other hand, do not believe that anything improper happened.

Besides this, King is of the belief that special counsel Robert Mueller knew that there was no collusion long before his report came out.

King said, “I think that the Mueller people had obligations to tell the president, to tell the country, to tell the world, that there was no collusion whatsoever as soon as they found out there was none. This isn’t like you’re dealing with some local drug dealer … You’re talking about, whether you like him or not, he is the leader of the country. The leader of the Free World. And they let this hang over him for at least a year. It was wrong not to make it known.”

Allegedly, people have come forward to speak about misconduct after not doing so earlier on. At least one witness outside the Justice Department and FBI started cooperating with the investigation.

When Barr ordered U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead a separate investigation into the origins of the bureau’s 2016 Russia case that laid the foundation for the “probe,” the information started to flow.

King stated, “Just from evidence I’ve seen over the last several years being on the Intelligence Committee, being a member of Congress, there’s no doubt to me there were severe serious abuses that were carried out in the FBI, and I believe the top levels of the CIA.”

According to King, the failed narrative of Trump campaign conspiracy has gone on too long. Mueller let the president of the United States work under a “cloud” for at least a year, when in fact, he found no evidence of collusion.

The report was way overdue.

Mueller is set to testify before Congress on July 17th. King is no longer on the House Intelligence committee but current members will be asking questions.

Folks, the show has begun. Get out the popcorn and prepare to be enlightened. If you’ve been waiting for justice to be served, this show will be entertaining and it should give you some satisfaction, at long last.

Is Pelosi Done with Trump?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Tuesday Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was not backing claims on impeachment but rather implying that her caucus has more support for not pushing for it than it has members who do want to roll with it.

Pelosi was speaking at the Fiscal Summit in Washington hosted by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation when she made the comment, “It’s not even close in our caucus.”

Pelosi’s comment was in response to a question directed at her about if she would move on impeachment if a majority of her caucus supported it. She also added, “Why are we speculating on hypothetical’s?”

Madame Speaker, despite calls from her fellow Democrats, has so far resisted impeachment proceedings. The progressive wing of her party is not on the same track as their leader.

Pelosi is trying to cover all corners and would not rule out impeachment. She said, “It’s not off the table. I don’t think you should impeach for political reasons and I don’t think you should not impeach for political reasons.”

The Speaker then added, “It’s not about politics. It’s not about Democrats and Republicans. It’s not about partisanship. It’s about patriotism to our country.”

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave his public statement, he did emphasize that his report did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice accusations. Many Democrats took this to mean that it was a call to action by Congress.

Some of us did not seem to feel the same way. Even Pelosi is reluctant to fall behind the strategy her progressive members want to go for. She’s did, however, she did say that she ultimately wants to see Trump “in prison.”

As you can well imagine, President Trump did not take Pelosi’s comments lightly.

The tweets from Trump were rather clear:

Pelosi also sad that she has had it with the president. She said, “I’m done with him.”

Pelosi mocked Trump on his tariff fight with Mexico. She also called him the “diverter of attention in chief.”

Pelosi declared that Trump doesn’t deserve attention for backing off his threat to impose escalating tariffs on Mexico. She also cast doubt on the idea that Trump struck a substantive deal that will benefit the United States.

Pelosi was in full force and mocked Trump’s tariff threats. She said, “They were designed to take your attention away from the Mueller report.”

On Tuesday the Democrats are pushing a resolution through the House that would make it easier to sue the Trump administration. They would also make it easier to sue potential witnesses. This would pave the way for legal action against those who defy subpoenas in Congress’ Russia probe and other investigations.

The Democratic members of the House, through their resolution, would authorize lawsuits against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn for defying subpoenas pertaining to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Not that committee chairmen don’t have enough authority, but the resolution would empower committee chairmen to take legal action to enforce subpoenas without a vote of the full House, as long as they have approval from a bipartisan group of House leaders.

What is the next move by the Democrats after they approve the resolution? It may be dealt with depending on what kind of a mood Pelosi is in.

On Monday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler stated that they will hold off on suing Barr. The panel struck a deal with the Justice Department to receive some important documents from Mueller’s report and Nadler pushed the pause button.

All members of the committee will be able to view the material.

Did a Spy Come in from the Cold?

by Daveda Gruber:

The author of the famous anti-Trump dossier that led to the Russia probe, former British spy, Christopher Steele, has agreed to be questioned.

According to “The Times” (UK), investigators from the United States are scheduled to question Steele in London within weeks.

The 54 year old Steele, who compiled a dossier on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, will be questioned by investigators, who’s names have not been revealed as yet.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Now, attention is back on the dossier, which was at the helm of the investigation.

Steele has allegedly told the Department of Justice that he would only discuss his dealings with the FBI and wanted assurances that U.S. officials would secure the agreement of the British government.

The British government has not commented.

The origins of the Russia probe has several ongoing investigations at this time. Being investigated are how the Democrat-funded dossier, which was written by Steele, was used to secure surveillance warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016.

There are disputed trails of information on whether former CIA Director John Brennan or former FBI Director James Comey had somehow used and pushed the unverified dossier during the presidential transition.

Testimony by Steele has been sought by Congressional committees but have been, so far, unsuccessful.

Steele drafted the dossier while he was working for political opposition firm Fusion GPS, which was co-founded by Glenn Simpson.

Steele has previously declined to be interviewed. He had cited the potential impropriety of his involvement in an internal Justice Department investigation as a foreign national. Did something change? I believe so. Mueller’s report didn’t come out as originally planned.

Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, to review the FBI’s Russia probe. Barr did testify that “spying” did occur against the Trump campaign during the 2016 campaign. Barr has made it clear that he wants to get to the bottom of the entire Russian probe.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is probing how the dossier compiled by Steele was used to secure the original surveillance warrant.

Barr has said that he has not received answers from the intelligence community that are “at all satisfactory” in the early stages of his review into the origins of the Russian investigation.

Barr told CBS News, “Like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. And I assumed I’d get answers when I went in, and I have not gotten answers that are at all satisfactory.”

Barr was questioned by Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA., and this particular testimony is worth listening to.

Watch the testimony here:

Republicans in Congress and President Trump have maintained that the dossier was the root of what tuned into the Russian probe.

When the Mueller report was ready to be released, Senator Lindsey Graham R-SC., had this to say:

We know that the Steele Dossier was at the stem of the Mueller Russia investigation and was paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign. It bewilders me as to why these facts have not been brought to light with the proof to back it up.

Could it be that a key factor of proof lies in Steele’s testimony? We don’t know what is in Steele’s head but we should want to find out.

Another suicide is not what we need now, if you get my drift.

This show has started but we still have to wait for the exciting parts. My popcorn is ready.

Mueller Will Not Fade into Private Life Yet – Here’s Why

by Daveda Gruber:

Former Special Counsel, Robert Mueller doesn’t want to be in the hot seat and testify to Congress but House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., does not want to accept Mueller’s unwillingness to speak up on certain issues.

Mueller is ready for private life to begin and has been adamant in saying that he will not testify to Congress about his investigation into the 2016 election. Schiff has other plans for Mueller and was clear on his views.

Schiff was on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday and said, “I think he has one last service to perform.”

Schiff continued, “It’s not enough merely to speak for 10 minutes and say, ‘I’m not going to answer questions for Congress and the American people.’ There are a great many things that are not in the report.”

The California Senator went on to say, “We want to find out what happened to those counterintelligence findings that were sent back to headquarters. And in terms of if the president is vulnerable of influence from Russia.”

Schiff added that he was “disappointed” Mueller has, in his mind, displayed a “profound reluctance to testify.”

In the interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Schiff told him that he would want the chance to question Mueller about topics not covered in the report.
You can see the interview here:

Now, Schiff would like his demands met but Mueller has expressed that he would not say anything other than what is already in his report.

Last Wednesday, in his address to the nation, Mueller said, “The report is my testimony.”

Schiff went on to say, “I hope Bob Mueller will understand, as painful as it may be and as much as it may subject him to further abuse by the White House, he has a final duty here to perform, like any other witness,” he continued. “And it’s my hope that he’ll do so and it’s my hope that he’ll do so voluntary.”

You can see the full interview here:

President Trump has not wavered in his beliefs that the Russia investigation politically motivated.

“How do you impeach a Republican President for a crime that was committed by the Democrats? WITCH-HUNT!”
Tump tweeted last week:

Is the “WITCH HUNT” over or will we see the Democrats try to milk it for all it’s worth? Chances are that until the investigators are thoroughly investigated and held accountable for any spying or use of reputed information to obtain a FISA warrant, Trump will be attacked by Democrats for deeds that he allegedly committed.

Schiff Alleges Trump’s Policy Threatens National Security

by DavedaGruber:

On Friday the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, D-Calif., adamantly criticized the Trump administration for dangerously politicizing the Intelligence Community.

Schiff is requesting that the IC agencies provide more information about the president’s order which would allow them to declassify information related to the Russian probe.

Schiff has alleged that Trump’s policy threatened national security and he now wants the IC to provide all documents made available to Attorney General William Barr.

Schiff wants his committee, before any declassification, to provide an assessment on declassification’s harms to national security.  He also wants an in-person briefing on what the administration had requested to that point.

According to Schiff, Trump endangered national security by granting Barr the authority to declassify information without consulting with the IC.

Schiff wrote, in a letter to Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, “President Trump’s May 23, 2019 directive to you and other heads of agencies to assist and produce information to Attorney General William P. Barr … represents a disturbing effort by the President and the Attorney General to politicize the Intelligence Community (“IC”) and law enforcement, and raises grave concerns about inappropriate and misleading disclosures of classified information and IC sources and methods for political ends.”

Schiff sent his letters to the directors of National Intelligence, Dan Coats; the FBI Director, Christopher Wray; CIA and National Security Agency, Director Gen. Paul Nakasone.
President Trump had imposed an order in an push to accelerate his Justice Department’s investigation into the Russia investigation’s origins.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller was unable to conclude the president’s 2016 campaign engaged in a conspiracy with Russia. This has brought up questions as to how the whole Russian probe began.

Schiff has suggested that the administration’s argument behind that investigation was a “conspiracy theory” and that it incorrectly mistrusted the validity of Mueller’s probe.

Schiff said, “The Special Counsel’s report definitively establishes that the counterintelligence investigation was properly initiated based on credible information from an intelligence partner. Yet the Attorney General has called into question, without evidence, the validity of the predication of what became the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

Schiff also said, “This approach threatens national security by subverting longstanding rules and practices that obligate you and other heads of IC agencies to safeguard sources and methods and prevent the politicization of intelligence and law enforcement.”

Former FBI Director James Comey, who led the Russia investigation during the 2016 presidential election, had basically expressed similar views when he said, “The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.”

In an interview on Friday with CBS, Barr, he has vowed to get to the bottom of the investigation’s origins. He admitted that he faced difficulty in obtaining the answers he needed and said, “I assumed I’d get answers when I went in, and I have not gotten answers that are at all satisfactory.”

Republicans see the situation differently. They have demanded accountability after the release of Mueller’s report. The main concern here is the controversial Steele dossier’s role in initiating the investigation.

One key witness who is expected to refuse to cooperate with the review is former British spy Christopher Steele who is the author of the controversial “dossier” about alleged Trump interactions with Russia.

Congressional Democrats are continuing to press the administration for more answers surrounding Mueller’s investigation.

The roadblocks are in place as the president invoked executive privilege to avoid complying with subpoenas.

Now, some Democrats have taken their party’s efforts further and are calling for impeachment proceedings against the president. They don’t have enough support from their own party to impeach and Republicans, except for Justin Amash, R-Mich., don’t want impeachment.

In my humble opinion, the Steele dossier is the key factor here. The FISA warrant was issued because the dossier’s allegations helped justify the FISA warrant to wiretap former Trump adviser Carter Page.

The dossier now serves as an exhibit for the defense rather than the prosecution.

The show is about to begin. Stay tuned; the trailers are running in my head and I’m excited to see what happens next.

Mueller Speaks to America and Fuels Democrat Impeachment Talk

by Daveda Gruber:

On Wednesday morning Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his first public statement since he finished his probe on Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election.

The report was handed over to William Barr on March 22.

The White House was advised on Tuesday night of Mueller’s plans to speak to the American people. .

The speech didn’t tell much to those of us who have read the Mueller report. Mueller only said what was already in his report that he had given to Barr. Mueller said that his report was his final testimony.

Mueller said, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller explained longstanding Justice Department policy, which states that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

Mueller went on to say, “Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider. It would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”

Mueller added, “We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.  That is the office’s final position.”

The words that there was “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” were carefully chosen as was all word usage.

Mueller did state that there were efforts made by the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It was made very clear that Mueller will be leaving the DOJ and stepping into private life. He wants to move forward and believes that everyone should do the same.

Mueller made it clear that there was not enough evidence or insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. It appears also that he tried to make the point that not coming to a conclusion, but investigating if there was evidence that a crime was committed, was what he was supposed to do.

You can see Mueller’s speech here:

 

Mueller said he will not be testifying to Congress but Congress could issue a subpoena for him to testify. Would he comply with a subpoena? He did say that his speaking today would be the last time we would hear from him. Do I expect a subpoena? Yes, I do.

I will assume that President Trump was watching Mueller speak, live. Following Mueller’s address, Trump tweeted this out this:

The Democrats will take this verbiage and dwell on the words that you cannot indict a sitting president. This will be misconstrued and reported as that there was a crime but it could not be proven.

So, was Mueller telling Congress that he provided a roadmap  and that Congress  should run with it? Did Mueller put the ball in Congress’s court? That seems to be what the feedback from the Democratic side of the political spectrum is spewing.

This investigation was never about indicting the president on obstruction because it is not possible, within the law, to do so. The only way that this case will ever get closed for good is if and when the real criminals are brought to justice.

The Steele Dossier was never even a point of the Mueller investigation. The dossier has to be investigated. The creators of the dossier must be investigated and the person or people who paid for the dossier must be investigated.

What the heck did we, the American people, pay for? Was the investigation, on its own basis, actually needed? The only part of this investigation that makes any sense is that they found that Russians did try to influence an American election. There was never any collusion with the Trump campaign and Russia.

Nadler Leading the Pack Against Barr but Holder Contempt Vote was Shameful?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Wednesday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., led his pack of Democrats to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt of Congress.

The contempt charge has been led by Nadler and has Barr allegedly accused for not handing over documents related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe ˗˗ declaring the move necessary as the country enters a “constitutional crisis.”

Nadler also alleged that Barr acted as President Trump’s personal attorney.

Watch this video put out by MSNBC:

Oh my, things have certainly changed since 2012. In that year the shoe was on the other foot. House Republicans took the same step against then-AG Eric Holder for refusing to hand over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

Remember Fast and Furious? Of course you do. All of us have recollections of where DOJ officials tracked thousands of guns smuggled across the border and then did nothing to stop them.

Well, Nadler was so against Holder being held in contempt that he tweeted this:

And they did. Over one hundred members of Congress walked out of Congress over the vote to hold the Obama-era DOJ leader in contempt.

Donald Trump Jr. noticed the “irony” that Nadler had displayed and tweeted  about it:

The House Minority Leader, at that time in 2012,  Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argued House Republicans were more politically motivated in attacking Holder than driven to get to the bottom of the failed operation.

Pelosi said, “What is happening here is shameful.”

You can’t make this stuff up. In the year 2012 Pelosi was so against Holder being held in contempt and she made sure she put her two cents in. Watch these video clips and how Pelosi felt about Holder being held in contempt of Congress:

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, wrote an op-ed for FOX News and said that the White House ‘stonewalling’ Congress represents an attack on ‘the essence of our democracy’ – as though stonewalling were some new phenomena. Where was Nadler’s righteous indignation when the stonewalling came from a Democratic White House?”

In an article by Politico, it was written that Fast and Furious has finally come to a conclusion and both sides said they maintained their disagreements but were dropping their appeals and the underlying lawsuit.

A settlement in a seven-year legal battle between the House and the Justice Department over records related to a gun-running investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious was publicly announced Wednesday just as similar clashes continue to intensify between the House and Trump administration.

The deal ends a lawsuit the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee filed in 2012 after the House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to release some records the panel demanded about the probe, during which law enforcement officials watched but did not intervene as up to 2,000 weapons were illegally sold.

The fight over the records ended more than a year ago, but a proposed settlement ran aground last fall after U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson signaled that she would refuse to wipe out her rulings in the case.

Both the Obama administration and the House objected to aspects of her decisions, but the executive branch had the larger grievance, as Jackson rejected the Justice Department’s longstanding position that courts have no proper role in resolving battles between Congress and federal agencies over access to records.

In the settlement filed Wednesday, both sides said they maintained their disagreements with Jackson’s decisions but were dropping their appeals and the underlying lawsuit.

 “The Parties agree that because subsequent developments have obviated the need to resolve those issues in an appeal in this case, the District Court’s holdings should not in any way control the resolution of the same or similar issues should they arise in other litigation between the Committee and the Executive Branch, and hereby waive any right to argue that the judgment of the District Court or any of the District Court’s orders or opinions in this case have any preclusive effect in any other litigation,” the agreement says.

Is this a big coincidence that Nadler is being held in contempt of Congress but “Fast and Furious”  just finally got an agreement worked out on both sides agreeing not to use an appeal?

If we don’t pay attention and we are not “a fly on the wall in Congress” who knows what we’d miss.

In my humble opinion, I don’t see Barr being hurt by any of these allegations by the Democratic side of Congress. He has only gone by the rule of law and has not broken it.

Did Pelosi Accuse Barr of Lying to Congress?

by Daveda Gruber:

Late Thursday morning, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., went on the record during a public press conference and said that Attorney General William Barr “lied to Congress.”

In a closed-door meeting Pelosi also allegedly told her colleagues that Barr committed a crime. She allegedly told Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla., “We saw [Barr] commit a crime when he answered your question.”

Pelosi was referring to a hearing on April 9. Crist had asked whether Barr knew what prompted reports that prosecutors on the special counsel team were frustrated with his initial summary.

Barr denied the allegation by saying that he did not.

This week “The Washington Post” reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns. This came after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March.

Mueller wanted Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office which stated that a four-page memo to Congress that described the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work.

Mueller made it clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.

Pelosi, said publicly, “He lied to Congress. And if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” she told reporters. “Nobody is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not the attorney general.”

Pelosi was then asked if Barr should go to jail for the alleged crime.

Pelosi replied, “There is a process involved here and as I said, I’ll say it again, the committee will have to come to how we will proceed.”

You can see and hear the comments by Pelosi here:

The Justice Department did not take the comments by Pelosi lightly.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said,  “Speaker Pelosi’s baseless attacks on the Attorney General is reckless, irresponsible and false.”

What AG Rod Rosenstein Says is Bizarre

by Daveda Gruber:

Attorney General William Barr had an ally in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when Rosenstein told the Wall Street Journal that he believed it was strange to say the attorney general was misleading the public.

Rosenstein’s comment came as he defended Barr’s handling of the Robert Mueller report. Barr testified before a House appropriations subcommittee.

The highly anticipated Mueller report has caused a rather big stir in Washington D.C. among lawmakers since it was wrapped up.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

Rosenstein who is 54 years old, told the Wall Street Journal that he believed it was strange to say the attorney general was misleading the public.

Rosenstein said, “He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre.”

Rosenstein also said, “It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, ‘I’m not going to give you the report. What he said is, ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do.”

Rosenstein was not about to give up too much information but he did call on the public to have “tremendous confidence” in Barr.

Barr has defended his decision to send a letter to Congress detailing Mueller’s principal conclusions. This was done because the public would not have tolerated waiting weeks for information that took Mueller and his team nearly two years to put together.

Mueller’s investigation concluded in late March and since then Barr has received the nearly 400-page confidential report. Barr, in turn, sent his four-page summary letter to Congress two days later.

In that letter, Barr wrote that Mueller found no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion despite efforts by “Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Also noted was that Mueller had not exonerated President Trump on the issue of obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report will be made public in a week but that version will be redacted.

Rosenstein stayed in his position at the Department of Justice “at Barr’s request” saying, “For me, it’s a real privilege.” He hopes to begin a new job toward the end of the summer.

In Capital Hill testimony, Barr said that “spying did occur” against the 2016 Trump campaign.

It’s very clear that Democrats on the Hill were notably disturbed by that claim. In fact, even former FBI Director James Comey made a claim that he had no idea what Barr was talking about when he said that “spying did occur” against the 2016 Trump campaign.

Comey said, “I have no idea what he’s talking about so it’s hard for me to comment. When I hear that kind of language used, it’s concerning because the FBI and the Department of Justice conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance. I have never thought of that as spying.”

So, if spying does not include electronic devices, why have people who were being spied on always thought that their phone was tapped? What are listening devices? When someone goes to a meeting with a wire to record the events or to have agents listening in real time, is it surveillance or spying? Or are the two, if not similar, the same thing?

The covering up has just begun. Not only do I want to see the Mueller report but I want to find out what or who Barr is investigating next.

Is the Mueller Probe Illegal?

by Daveda Gruber:

At the end of the week we still wait for Special Counsel Robert Mueller Probe to draw to a close. We’ve waited this long; what’s more time? Patience sometimes wears thin.

On Friday morning President Trump took to Twitter to give his thoughts to the American people. The theme of Trump’s tweets, once again, took aim at the  Russia investigation by Mueller as the president’s transparency on social media came to the forefront as he commented.

Trump tweeted:

As Americans wait for the Mueller Probe to end and would love to see the final results, Trump speculated on if Mueller’s team will complete the investigation and submit a report to Attorney General William Barr.

The investigation should be drawing to a close as we wait for the results. The expected departure of top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann makes the assumption of the end of the probe a reality.
Weissmann led the charge on the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. At this time, it is known that Manafort will face 81 months in prison.

A spokesman from New York University Law School noted that Weissmann will be leaving Mueller’s team “in the near future” and that they were in talks with Weissmann, who had done work with the university in the past, to return to the Law School.

Good deduction. Still, there is no guarantee on when the report will actually come. In the meantime, we wait for Mueller to submit his report and then for Barr to review it. It is then expected that Barr will create his own report to send to Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

An explanation of the special counsel’s findings would follow. Ultimately, it is the attorney general who is the official who decides what, if anything, in the report can become public.

Trump’s criticism of the investigation on Twitter comes after hundreds of pages of transcripts were released from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok’s and his lover at the time, former FBI counsel Lisa Page’s closed-door interviews before the House Judiciary Committee last summer.

Page’s testimony was rather informative. It confirmed that FBI officials had very little evidence at the beginning of the investigation in August 2016.

Page stated that the FBI “knew so little” about whether the allegations were “true or not true,” and had a “paucity of evidence because we are just starting down the path” of vetting the allegations.
You can read all of Page’s testimony here:

Lisa Page Interview Day 1 by on Scribd

Lisa Page Interview Day 2 by on Scribd

Strzok and Page became famous for their exchange of numerous anti-Trump text messages. The pair worked on the FBI’s initial investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election.

With all their anti-Trump rhetoric, the two also served, for a short period of time, on Mueller’s probe team.

We await a report but even though it appears to be coming soon, we really don’t know when or if it will be released.