Wrap it up, Mr. Mueller by Richard Jack Rail at the American Thinker:
It's beginning to look like the Mueller "investigation" is really just a jobs program for a bunch of hard-left D.C. ambulance-chasers. Mueller himself is so discredited that only a smoking gun with Trump's fingerprints all over it would even have a chance of rescuing the tatters of his dubious program, much less his dubious reputation. By now everyone knows that Mueller isn't disinterested. Everyone knows his report will be slanted every possible way to reach its predetermined conclusion. And everyone, once the report is issued, will cut loose with a lengthy yawn.
One can hope that Mueller's futile chase after his own tail will result in the demise of the special counsel statute. While it isn't clear that Kenneth Starr's effort to nab Bill Clinton ran as far off the rails as the Mueller probe has, both investigations were constitutionally problematic and ended up exacerbating tensions between the two parties.
As if exacerbation were needed. Maxine Waters and Cory Booker busily call for in-your-face confrontation with Trump officials. This thinly disguised call for racial violence will get just that if something isn't done to shut up these black racialists.
Shut it down, Mr. Mueller. The whole country is fed up. You are the Vietnam war all over again, the Establishment doing something the people do not support, something that embitters foes, ruins lives, and threatens to run completely out of control in America's streets. Wrap it up and let it go. Your side lost. You lost. Deal with it.
#Mueller considers @realDonaldTrump’s tweets obstruction of justice, but Strzok and Page’s texts are no big deal.— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) July 27, 2018
Still think this isn’t a witch hunt?
Can't wait for this to leak! Allison Elyse Gualtieri, WaEx, Judge orders firm behind Trump dossier to give deposition in lawsuit: Report
Political research firm Fusion GPS will have to give a deposition in the lawsuit brought by a Russian technology executive against BuzzFeed and British former spy Christopher Steele regarding the Trump dossier, according to reports.OUCH! Sharyl Attkisson turns lib media concern about Trump & election security in an AWKWARD direction
Fox News reported U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled Thursday that the firm, which had hired Steele to work on the controversial dossier, had to answer questions about what direction it had given Steele. The judge rejected Fusion GPS' claims that a deposition would impinge on its First Amendment rights and require it to disclose confidential business relationships, according to a copy of the ruling published by Fox News.
He should consult the last administration and do whatever they did once they identified this risk. Oh -- wait...! https://t.co/p2DsQajaaV— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) July 28, 2018
Asche Schowe at the Daily Wire: The Root Claims There’s Evidence of Russia Changing Votes In 2016 — There’s Just One Problem
On Thursday morning, The Root, an online magazine typically devoted to African-American culture, published an article titled: “Evidence Shows Hackers Changed Votes in the 2016 Election But No One Will Admit It.”As Instapundit noted "They had a time machine, and they still lost the cold war?"
The article, naturally, took Anti-Trump Twitter by storm, with many commentators failing to look past the headline to see that the author, Michael Harriot, was talking about circumstantial, not direct, evidence. The article was also an op-ed and not, as the headline suggested, a news article (this may or may not have been Harriot’s fault; sometimes writers don’t get the final say in their own headlines).
Still, on Friday afternoon, the piece was updated with a correction because Harriot had referred to Russians as “Soviets” on a couple of occasions. By Saturday morning, however, the article was taken down and an editor’s note put in its place that reads:
This story was an opinion piece asserting there was evidence that hackers changed votes in the 2016 election. However, a number of statements in the piece are disputed by experts. As a result, we have pulled it down for editorial review, and will update it once that review is completed.
The Dersh wants to know Who Leaked the Trump Tape?
Someone leaked the lawyer/client confidential tape containing a conversation between President Donald J. Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen. A former judge, assigned by the presiding judge to evaluate the seized tapes, reportedly concluded that this conversation was privileged. Yet someone leaked their contents. The President Trump's current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, then waived the privilege as to that tape. He said he never would have waived it had its existence and content not been improperly leaked.It's Cohen. His career as a lawyer is over. Who would trust him at this point? He will probably be disbarred anyway even if he escapes prosecution. HE LIED: Cohen’s Testimony to the Senate Refutes His Claim That Trump Knew About Russian Trump Tower Meeting. It's not like anyone ever gets prosecuted for lying to the Senate (or House)
So, the question remains: Who leaked this privileged material? If it was anyone in the Trump camp, there would be no violation of confidentiality, as the privilege belongs to the client, namely Trump, who can waive it. But no one else, most especially his lawyer, may properly waive the privilege. And Giuliani has categorically denied that it was leaked by Trump or anyone on his behalf. Indeed, he has expressed outrage at the leak.
Whom does that leave? Cohen is an obvious suspect, although I am confident that his excellent and experienced lawyer, Lanny Davis, would not have done so. Perhaps Cohen himself, who ran into Michael Avenatti at a restaurant, told him about the tape. We simply do not know.
It is unlikely that any judicial or prosecutorial authority is responsible for the leak, because they would have more to lose than to gain if they were caught.
The reason this is important to all Americans, beyond the immediate parties to this taped conversation, is that it may well discourage clients, patients, penitents and others from confiding in their lawyers, doctors, priests and the professionals who promise them confidentiality. Cohen promised confidentiality and yet the world heard what his client confided in him. We know he recorded the confidential conversation without the knowledge of his client. That is bad enough. Then it was deliberately leaked by someone who must have believed he or she would reap some benefit or advantage from having the public hear it.
We must find out who is the source of this damaging leak — damaging to all Americans who place their faith in the promise of confidentiality from the professionals in whom they confide.