The Washington Post Publishing Leaks or Fake News About Mueller Investigation?
The Washington Post was not deterred by the shooting in Virginia on Wednesday in which a 66-year-old Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on GOP Congressmen as they practiced for a charity game to be held Thursday night.
WaPo wasted no time in spreading leaks, fake news or both about Mueller’s investigation of President Trump.
What has now become The Post’s standard line for anything Trump, WaPo indicates that anonymous “officials” provided it with information on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
“Five people briefed on the requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly (emphasis added), said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.”
Cloaked in secrecy? How about shrouded in conflicts of interest?
Could it be that Mueller’s new legal team of Hillary Clinton donors are hard at work gathering “leaked” information or are they possibly leakers themselves?
According to WaPo, the NSA said in a written statement that they will “fully cooperate with the special counsel.” Apparently, Coats and Ledgett declined to comment.
WaPo is alleging that Mueller is looking into wrongdoing that may have occurred after a briefing at the White House in which Trump asked everyone to leave the room except Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
According to WaPo, again offering no sources to support their claims:
“Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials (emphasis added). Coats later told lawmakers that he never felt pressured to intervene.
A day or two after the March 22 meeting, Trump telephoned Coats and Rogers to separately ask them to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.
WaPo now contends that even though former FBI Director Comey assured Trump that he was not being investigated for obstruction of justice and testified to the same, Trump is now under investigation for obstruction of justice by Mueller.
Did Mueller decide to look into obstruction of justice by Trump after he and Comey met prior to Comey’s recent hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee? Did these “brothers in arm” discuss a new strategy?
The obstruction of justice investigation began days after Comey was fired on May 9.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein subsequently appointed Mueller to investigate the claim and also to make inquiries into the claim of Russian interference in the election.
An official said about the calling of new witnesses:
“The interviews suggest that Mueller sees the question of attempted obstruction of justice as more than just a “he said, he said” dispute between the president and the fired FBI director.”
Trump has classified Mueller’s investigation as a “witch hunt” and it appears that his statement is accurate.
According to WaPo:
“Investigating Trump for possible crimes is a complicated affair, even if convincing evidence of a crime were found. The Justice Department has long held that it would not be appropriate to indict a sitting president. Instead, experts say, the onus would be on Congress to review any findings of criminal misconduct and then decide whether to initiate impeachment proceedings.”
Republicans hold the majority seats in both the House and Senate. How likely would it be that they would find “criminal misconduct” of a GOP President, even when some GOP Congressmen aren’t Trump’s strongest supporters? The impact of such a finding could potentially devastate the Republican Party.
Mueller needs to be removed as “independent” counsel from what is seemingly nothing more than an agenda to impede the office of the President from serving the American public.
Is WaPo the willing mouthpiece of that agenda?