Mueller waxed at length about Trump adviser Carter Page’s trip to Moscow before concluding that it had not constituted a “collusion” conspiracy.23 Yet the special counsel never addressed the question of how his friend Comey and the DOJ appeared to have defrauded the FISA court by using unverified information from Steele and his “dossier” to spy on Page. In his report, Mueller dismissed one of his own conflicts of interest in a short footnote but left his other conflicts unchallenged.24 He never sought to dispel Rosenstein’s disqualifying conflict as both a key witness and supervisor of the investigation. He did not bother to defend the conflicts of his chief prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann, whose favoritism toward Clinton was well documented and who had been given the “dossier” material in the summer of 2016.25 Weissmann knew then that the “collusion” allegations were based on biased and defective information.
Mueller’s decision to assemble a team of partisans ruined the integrity and credibility of his work. He fired Strzok only when his profane and politically charged anti-Trump text messages surfaced. Instead of confiscating the FBI agent’s cell phone to preserve the evidence contained therein, Strzok’s iPhone was recycled and wiped clean. Mueller failed to question the agent about whether his bias had already contaminated the investigation. It likely had, although there were plenty of prejudiced prosecutors on the special counsel team to carry the torch. The tactics they employed were reprehensible, pressuring witnesses and defendants to lie. People were threatened with prosecution unless they signed statements falsely accusing Trump of some malefic act of “collusion.”26 Those unprincipled prosecutors were committing the equivalent of attempts to suborn perjury, extortion, and bribery. If you or I did the same, we’d be behind bars. They should be investigated. It is doubtful that they ever will be.
In the end, Mueller’s confederates “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russia government in its election interference activities.”27 That should have come as no surprise to any serious person paying attention. There were never any witches.
The sad coda to Mueller’s work occurred during an embarrassing spectacle on July 24, 2019, when he appeared before two separate congressional committees in televised hearings. The abstruse arguments and analysis in his report were laid bare. As he stumbled and stammered his way through several hours of testimony, Mueller seemed lost and confused. He struggled to understand basic questions. His answers were slow, halting, and uncertain. It was obvious that Mueller had not written the report that bore his name. Nor had he authored the letter sent to Attorney General William Barr that complained about the AG’s summary of the report’s conclusions.28 Nor had he penned the script he labored to read at his puzzling nine-minute news conference on May 29, 2019.29 In his testimony, Mueller admitted attending “very few” of the witness interviews.30 He had a feeble grasp of fundamental facts in the report and seemed oblivious to the law that supposedly supported the evidence cited therein.
Representative John Ratcliffe (R-TX) asked Mueller to explain how he came up with the unprecedented legal standard of a prosecutor announcing that he was not exonerating the subject of an investigation.
RATCLIFFE: Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated . . .
MUELLER: I—I . . .
RATCLIFFE: . . . because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
MUELLER: I cannot, but this is a unique situation.
RATCLIFFE: OK. Well, I— you can’t—time is short. I’ve got five minutes. Let’s just leave it at, you can’t find it because—I’ll tell you why: It doesn’t exist.31
Armed with unchecked power, Mueller and his team dreamed up a novel legal standard that robbed Trump of the presumption of innocence, a bedrock principle of law. His “does not exonerate” chimera was an unconscionable maneuver that bastardized the burden of proof, shifting it away from prosecutors and onto the shoulders of the presumptively innocent target. But in Mueller’s sinuous universe the president was “unique” and deserved only the presumption of guilt. Why? Mueller did not explain. How could he? It was inexplicable. As Ratcliffe observed, the president was treated by the special counsel as if he were “below the law.”32 He was accused of obstructing justice when he proclaimed his innocence and dared to criticize the special counsel or contemplate his removal over legitimate conflicts of interest. Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) reasoned that the president was not obstructing justice, he was vociferously protesting injustice.33 Trump had every right to do so. If the president’s words or actions constituted an obstruction offense, the special counsel would have said so in no uncertain terms. They knew the law did not support it, so they chose to otherwise smear him.
Mueller was repeatedly asked whether he ever investigated the origins of the Russia “collusion” allegations and the FBI’s counterintelligence operation against Trump and his campaign. Did he examine the contents of the “dossier” or Steele’s purported Russian sources, all of which were central to the conspiracy case? Apparently not. Did he investigate the role of the Clinton campaign and Democrats who paid for it to influence the election? Absolutely not. In one disturbing exchange, Mueller did not seem to know what Fusion GPS is or how the firm and its founder, Glenn Simpson, had peddled the false information that drove the hoax.34 To all of these vital questions, Mueller replied that it was “beyond my purview” and “predated” his appointment as special counsel.35 This was mind-splitting to even the casual observer. In truth, the entirety of Mueller’s “collusion” investigation predated his tenure. It was a nonsensical rationale for failing to investigate the real “collusion” conspiracy instead of the imagined one.
If nothing else, the debacle of his agonizing testimony drew back the curtain on the great and powerful Mueller. Like the Wizard of Oz, he was not what his vaunted reputation promised. His diminished mental acuity made plain that he had been little more than a detached figurehead, ceding command and control to his team of partisans. His top two lieutenants, Andrew Weissmann and Aaron Zebley, had likely assumed authority over the investigation and the report’s composition. They should never have been allowed to join the special counsel. Weissmann harbored pro-Clinton bias, having attended her election night event. Zebley, along with Jeannie Rhee, offered legal representation in Clinton-related lawsuits.36 This accounts for a great deal of the anti-Trump slant that shaped their probe and its final report. Although Mueller insisted “it is not a witch hunt,” his inability to convincingly explain and justify the special counsel’s work left many to conclude otherwise.37 Even some Democrats and members of the liberal media grudgingly confessed that his disoriented discourse had been a “disaster” politically and a calamity personally for Mueller.38 It brought into sharper focus how Trump had been framed with a non-existent “collusion” conspiracy and re-victimized by a one-sided squad of partisan zealots who inhabited the special counsel team. The actions taken and decisions made were neither fair nor impartial. It was a “witch hunt,” exactly as Trump so often described it. Ken Starr, who once served as Independent Counsel in an investigation that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, criticized Mueller for failing to ensure that his special counsel staff would be fair and unbiased. “I love Bob Mueller as a human being, as a patriot—but I think he’s done a grave disservice to our country in the way he conducted this investigation,” observed Starr just moments after Mueller concluded his testimony.39
In The Russia Hoax, I argued that the case against Trump was neither warranted by facts nor supported by law. Witch Hunt chronicles the wealth of new evidence that proves the original thesis. The fallacy of Trump’s being a collusive agent of the Kremlin was blindly accepted by many people without skepticism or scrutiny. For some, it was an emotional response to his unexpected election. They countenanced a suspicion and accepted it as truth. Their dislike of the man, his policies, or both, clouded their analysis. Still others embraced the lie f
or malevolent purposes. The liberal media, in concert with Democrats, endorsed false accusations despite readily available evidence to the contrary. They betrayed their responsibility to be objective and fair. They allowed their enmity and bias to obscure reasoned judgment.
I have no doubt that if the same facts and circumstances had surrounded someone other than Donald Trump, there would have been no FBI investigation initiated, no warrants to spy issued, and no special counsel appointed to perpetuate the witch hunt. But Trump has always been a lightning rod. His outspoken nature attracts both criticism and praise. He was not a conventional politician. He advocated turning Washington upside down. Voters liked what they heard. The entrenched establishment did not. They feared him. The dramatic change he envisioned threatened their very existence and their hold on power. He had to be stopped. The “collusion” hoax was the means to an end.
I am frequently asked whether those who bent the rules or broke the law to achieve their end will ever be held accountable. That, of course, is up to Attorney General William Barr. I have no crystal ball. However, Barr seems well aware that the explanations he has received so far are inconsistent with the known facts. He is on record as stating that “the counter-intelligence activities directed at the Trump Campaign were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures.”40 Indeed they were not. He cautioned that government abuse of power is equally as dangerous as foreign interference. He promised to investigate the investigators.
In May 2019, it became known that Barr had assigned John H. Durham, a top prosecutor in Connecticut, to examine the origins of the Russia investigation initiated by Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and others at the FBI.41 His assignment encompasses an investigation into the actions of intelligence agencies under the direction of Brennan and Clapper. As Barr noted in his congressional testimony, “I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. I need to explore that.”42 Durham, as a US attorney, is well versed in FBI corruption and CIA abuses.
There is a separate investigation under way by DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz.43 He is determining whether officials at the FBI and DOJ deceived or otherwise misled the FISA court to gain approval for four successive warrants to spy on Carter Page. Horowitz is also probing the FBI’s deployment of undercover informants on the Trump campaign, as well as the use of Christopher Steele and his “dossier.” The ex-spy was interviewed in Britain by the IG investigators in early June 2019.44 Upon completion of Horowitz’s report, it is possible that criminal referrals may be lodged with the Justice Department if evidence of wrongdoing justifies it.
Barr and Durham have their work cut out for them. Comey will likely plead ignorance or acute amnesia, as he did some 245 times when questioned by Congress in late 2018.45 Other former FBI officials may come up with an incurable case of laryngitis, invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Piercing the thick veil of secrecy that people such as Brennan and Clapper routinely hide behind will pose an exceptional challenge. The intelligence community and the FBI have vowed to cooperate. But this is a clever feint. They will resist and obstruct at every turn. However, Barr has been given unilateral authority to declassify a plethora of heretofore undisclosed documents that may prove to be a rich trove of corruption evidence.46 He should do so aggressively.
Witch Hunt presents compelling evidence that high officials in government whom we entrusted to uphold the law instead breached that trust and violated the law. They are the ones who meddled in the election to help Clinton. Thereafter, they aspired and conspired to evict Trump from office. Evidence against him was invented or embellished. Laws were perverted or ignored. Trump was framed for a “collusion” conspiracy that had never existed. They knew it was untrue.
Inventing the lie was easy. Spreading it was even easier. Uncovering the full truth will be hard. It will take time to unravel the layers of venal acts intended to take down Trump and his presidency. But the only cure for a lie is the truth. The only remedy for lawlessness is justice.
The reckoning awaits.
Appendix A
List of Major Characters
Federal Bureau of Investigation
James Baker: Top FBI attorney involved in decision making on both Clinton email investigation and Trump-Russia “collusion.” Prepared and approved the initial application for a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
James Comey: Became Obama’s director of the FBI in September 2013. Wrote exoneration of Hillary Clinton for her illicit email server before she was interviewed. Initiated investigation of Trump’s campaign. Signed three of four FISA warrant applications to spy on Carter Page. Was fired by Trump on May 9, 2017. Leaked his memos to trigger special counsel investigation.
Michael Gaeta: FBI agent and assistant legal attaché based in Rome. Interviewed Steele in Rome and London, passed his early memos to Victoria Nuland at the State Department.
Andrew McCabe: Deputy director of the FBI. Wife ran for state senate in Virginia after receiving $700,000 from Hillary Clinton associates. After James Comey firing, McCabe initiated a secret investigation of the president. Discussed removing Trump by recruiting cabinet members to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Signed Carter Page FISA warrant renewal request in June 2017. Testified that without the Christopher Steele “dossier,” no warrant from the FISC would have been sought. Fired from FBI for lying.
Lisa Page: FBI attorney infamous for exchanging anti-Trump texts with her paramour, Peter Strzok. General counsel to Andrew McCabe and on special counsel team. Investigated for leaking classified information.
Joe Pientka: FBI agent who interviewed Michael Flynn with Peter Strzok. Interviewed DOJ attorney Bruce Ohr as a back channel to Steele after he was terminated.
E. W. “Bill” Priestap: Assistant director of FBI Counterintelligence Division. Testified that verification of the Christopher Steele “dossier” was in its “infancy” when the FBI and DOJ filed for Carter Page FISA warrant.
Peter Strzok: Veteran FBI counterintelligence agent. Involved in both “Midyear Exam” and “Crossfire Hurricane.” Tapped by Robert Mueller to lead special counsel probe. Was removed in August 2017 after IG discovered thousands of anti-Trump texts he had traded with Lisa Page. Was fired from the FBI.
Department of Justice
William Barr: Appointed attorney general by Trump. Said he believes there was spying on the Trump campaign.
Dana Boente: US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. After Trump fired Sally Yates, became acting attorney general until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general. Then served as acting deputy attorney general until confirmation of Rod Rosenstein. Signed Carter Page FISA warrant application in April 2017.
Michael Horowitz: DOJ inspector general. Uncovered the Peter Strzok–Lisa Page texts in July 2017. In June 2018, released a scathing report on FBI and DOJ actions during the election. Is currently preparing a report on FISA abuse.
Loretta Lynch: Attorney general under President Barack Obama. On June 27, 2016, met secretly with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Phoenix airport days before Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI.
Bruce Ohr: Top DOJ official married to Russia expert Nellie Ohr. Served as a secret conduit to feed Christopher Steele “dossier” memos to FBI in an information-laundering scheme. Warned the FBI that Steele was desperate that Trump not be elected and the information needed verifying.
Rod Rosenstein: Deputy attorney general from April 2017 to May 2019. Wrote memo recommending that James Comey be fired. Appointed Robert Mueller special counsel on May 17, 2017. Discussed with Andrew McCabe the possibility of wearing a wire to record Trump and recruiting cabinet members to remove the president under the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Refused to recuse himself from oversight of the special counsel investigation even though he was a key witness in the case. Signed final Carter Page FISA warrant application in June 2017.
Jeff Sessions: Attorney general from February 2017 to November 2018. Head of Trump campaign’s foreign po
licy advisory team. Recused himself from Russia investigation. Resigned after 2018 midterm election.
Sally Yates: Acting attorney general from January 20 to January 30, 2017. Signed two Carter Page FISA applications in October 2016 and January 2017. Engineered the firing of Michael Flynn. Sacked by Trump for refusing to implement travel ban.
State Department
Elizabeth Dibble: Deputy chief of mission at US Embassy in London from 2013 to July 2016. Contacted regarding Alexander Downer’s conversation with George Papadopoulos in late July 2016.
Kathleen Kavalec: Top State Department official. Interviewed Christopher Steele on October 11, 2016, and warned the FBI of his political motives, contacts with the press, and errors in his “dossier.”
David J. Kramer: Former State Department official. Gave copy of Christopher Steele “dossier” to Senator John McCain, leaked it to BuzzFeed.
Victoria Nuland: Top Obama State Department official. Gave permission for FBI agent Michael Gaeta to meet with Christopher Steele in London on July 5, 2016, when Gaeta first received the “dossier.”
Jonathan Winer: Top State Department official. Passed on a two-page summary of Christopher Steele “dossier” to Victoria Nuland and Secretary of State John Kerry. Received salacious Cody Shearer memo from Sidney Blumenthal, passed it to Steele.
Intelligence Community and “Assets”
Julian Assange: Founded WikiLeaks. Claims that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of DNC and John Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 election. Now fighting extradition to the United States.
John Brennan: Director of the CIA under Barack Obama, MSNBC pundit. The epicenter of the collusion narrative. Triggered “Crossfire Hurricane.”
James Clapper: Director of national intelligence. Directed James Comey to brief Trump on the salacious “pee dossier,” then leaked that news to CNN and lied about it. Testified that the Christopher Steele “dossier” had not been verified by December 2016.
Witch Hunt Page 45