John Sexton at Hot Air, One Of Mueller’s Top Deputies Turns On Him, Says He Let The American People Down
One of Robert Mueller’s top deputies is about to publish a book about the inner workings of the special counsel investigation. In a piece about the book, Andrew Weissman told the Atlantic that he was “frustrated” he Mueller report hadn’t gone harder after the president:
Weissmann offers a damning indictment of a “lawless” president and his knowing accomplices—Attorney General William Barr (portrayed as a cynical liar), congressional Republicans, criminal flunkies, Fox News. Donald Trump, he writes, is “like an animal, clawing at the world with no concept of right and wrong.” But in telling the story of the investigation and its fallout, Weissmann reserves his most painful words for the Special Counsel’s Office itself. Where Law Ends portrays a group of talented, dedicated professionals beset with internal divisions and led by a man whose code of integrity allowed their target to defy them and escape accountability.It’s incredible that Democrats are still whining about Barr’s summary of the report so long after the report itself has been released. It couldn’t be any clearer that what mattered most to them wasn’t the report but the Democratic PR effort surrounding it which never recovered.
“There’s no question I was frustrated at the time,” Weissmann told me in a recent interview. “There was more that could be done that we didn’t do.” . . .
The Houston Chronicle cites WaPoo as it whines Mueller 'could have done more' to hold Trump accountable, member of special counsel says
He lays particular blame on Mueller's top deputy, Aaron Zebley, for stopping investigators from taking a broad look at Trump's finances, and writes that he now wonders whether investigators had "given it our all," knowing they left many important questions unanswered.
"As proud as I am of the work our team did - the unprecedented number of people we indicted and convicted and in record speed for any similar investigation - I know the hard answer to that simple question: We could have done more," Weissmann writes.
But not a single mention of the fact that Weissmann "accidentally" deleted the content of his cellphone twice, before giving it to IG Horowitz. Breitbart, Mueller’s Top Prosecutor Andrew Weissman Laments: ‘We Could Have Done More’. But you get the point. Weissman thought he was entitled to unlimited ability to investigate the president to attempt to find a crime, not investigate a crime that they believed had occurred, and to create some along the way via process if necessary. That's not the way justice is supposed to work. But then, it was never about justice, was it?
At Da Caller, Chuck Ross points out that Time Is Running Out For Revelations About Trump-Russia Probe, and anyway, all the oxygen will be sucked up by the Supreme Court confirmation fight, unless McConnell simply cuts the Gordian Knot and shortcuts the hearing process. Also contains a pretty good review of the twists and turn of "Spygate."
Sundance at CTH looks at how Clinton Emails and FBI Activity Back in News as NY FBI Agent Talks – Fills-in CTH Background Research…
According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue. Pay close attention to the convo:
(pdf source for all messages here)
Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”.
Pay super close attention. This is not an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. The emails were not turned over to the FBI in New York, the actual emails were turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.
Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”.
♦If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation)
♦Why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence?
Think about this carefully. I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Weiner had material that was his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton. Facing a criminal prosecution Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage the content therein on his client’s behalf.
Fast forward three weeks, and we go back to FBI in DC.
. . .
Important to note here, that at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the emails. The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves. Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content.