A much anticipated press conference today with Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as they release the report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. When the actual report is released we can FIND IT HERE.

UPDATE: Video and Transcript Added

.

[Transcript of prepared remarks] Good Morning. Thank you all for being here today.

On March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation of matters related to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and submitted his confidential report to me pursuant to Department of Justice regulations.

As I said during my Senate confirmation hearing and since, I am committed to ensuring the greatest possible degree of transparency concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation, consistent with the law.

At 11:00 this morning, I will transmit copies of a public version of the Special Counsel’s report to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Department of Justice will also make the report available to the American public by posting it on the Department’s website after it has been delivered to Congress.

I would like to offer a few comments today on the report.

But before I do that, I want to thank Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for joining me here today and for his assistance and counsel throughout this process. Rod has served the Department of Justice for many years with dedication and distinction, and it has been a great privilege and pleasure to work with him since my confirmation. He had well-deserved plans to step back from public service that I interrupted by asking him to help in my transition. Rod has been an invaluable partner, and I am grateful that he was willing to help me and has been able to see the Special Counsel’s investigation to its conclusion. Thank you, Rod.

I would also like to thank Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our electoral process.

As you know, one of the primary purposes of the Special Counsel’s investigation was to determine whether members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, or any individuals associated with that campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report describes the results of that investigation. As you will see, the Special Counsel’s report states that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I am sure that all Americans share my concerns about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.

The Special Counsel’s report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election:

First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations.

Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.

But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme.

Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.

Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime.

Following a thorough investigation of these hacking operations, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian military officers for their respective roles in these illegal hacking activities. Those charges are still pending and the defendants remain at large.

But again, the Special Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with the Russian government’s hacking.

The Special Counsel’s investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet. The Special Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication. Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps.

The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.

Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.

So that is the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.

After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.

After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.

In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability.

Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.

Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.

Now, before I take questions, I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report that I am releasing today. As I said several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.

As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing upon ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case.

These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product.

Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so.

Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice. Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report. Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.

In addition, earlier this week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication. The President’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions.

In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also committed to working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the Special Counsel’s investigation. We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler throughout this process, and we will continue to do so.

Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information. Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves – with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared.

I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation.

Once again, I would like to thank you all for being here today. I now have a few minutes for questions.

(link)

The anticipated start time for the press conference is 9:30am EST; with the release of the Mueller report around 11:00am to Noon at the Special Counsel website HERE.

Fox News Livestream Link – RSBN Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream Link

This will not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed closely; however, according to the FBI’s primary narrative engineer, Devlin Barrett at the Washington Post, the Mueller team has invested most heavily in “obstruction, obstruction, obstruction”….

For two years 19 lawyers were piecing the script together; while 40 FBI agents used 2,800 subpoenas, 230 orders for communication records, national security letters, FISA authorization, wiretaps, 50 pen register authorizations, and over 500 Title III search warrants to scour the background of every private communication, phone call, text message and email of everyone in the Trump orbit.  Eventually interviewing over 500 witnesses for words to paste into the text of the Mueller/Weissmann obstruction report.

As Barrett outlines on behalf of his benefactors, the team has painted a detailed narrative using every word, tweet, media interview, comment, and private/confidential White House utterance by President Trump -about his unhappiness with the Mueller probe- as clear and convincing evidence of President Trump’s intent to obstruct the investigation.

It’s all about the “obstruction”…. And that is Pelosi’s launch platform.

(WaPo Via Devlin Barrett)  The Justice Department plans to release a lightly redacted version of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s 400-page report Thursday, offering a granular look at the ways in which President Trump was suspected of having obstructed justice, people familiar with the matter said.

The report — the general outlines of which the Justice Department has briefed the White House on — will reveal that Mueller decided he could not come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction because it was difficult to determine Trump’s intent and because some of his actions could be interpreted innocently, these people said.

But it will offer a detailed blow-by-blow of the president’s alleged conduct — analyzing tweets, private threats and other episodes at the center of Mueller’s inquiry, they added.  (read more)

The White House approach to this is visible on the perimeter.  Classic Trump and it will catch the Moonbats completely off-guard.

Put it all out there….  All of it.  As much as possible…. let the world see just how much effort was expended on this stupid investigation into nothing.  This is classic Trump.

You know what the media and the Democrats have forgotten?…

Trump owns the downside better than anyone.

No-one, EVER, has yet to catch on to how brilliantly Trump owns the downside.

The report will outline how many times terrible Trump lashed out over the past two years to his closest advisers about the damn “witchhunt”.  It will outline every time he asked someone if he could do something to stop it…  It will outline everything about how Trump wanted that damned ridiculous investigation to be done with…  etc. etc. etc.

However, in releasing so much granular activity the one thing the Mueller team and the media will forget is….  that’s exactly the behavior of a transparently innocent man.

Wrongfully accused…. that’s what you do.  And you know what, Trump will own it.

Trump will own it in the very Trumpiest of ways.

Yes, I said that… I was, and am still, furious that we have had to put up with this nonsense; with this garbage… it’s infuriating.  etc. etc. etc. in buckets.

In the way only POTUS Trump can deliver.

In the words of a common man.

In the words of every man.

In the words that almost every American will relate to.

That’s how Trump will do it.  Authentically and naturally…. he will completely own his willingness to shut down that stupid Russia collusion nonsense.

“I’m the most powerful man in the world, right?.. that’s what people say, the office, the power of the president right?.. not me specifically..  and yet, excuse me, I’m, excuse me, …I’m creating jobs and this stuff is complex, it’s easy for me, but complex; important stuff, talking deals, and make things better, and negotiating for our country, and, excuse me… and I’ve got this nonsense – remember, no collusion-  tying up my people… and, excuse me, wasting so much time… interrupting everything we are doing to make America great.  It doesn’t stop us, but it’s ridiculous… make me angry?.. Sure. and for what?  Sure, wouldn’t you? ..  For what?.. excuse me, … A report?  That’s it?  $35 million or something right?  For what?… because a ridiculous witchhunt, no collusion”…

Classic Donald Trump.

Two years of fire-breathing dragon-energy Trump.. unleashed.

Can you hear it?

The Democrats/Media have no comprehension about owning the downside…

REMEMBER 2016?:

Regardless of who you supported in the 2016 Presidential primary race, most will admit there’s one strategic advantage held by Donald Trump over all other candidates – Trump’s willingness to “own the downside“.

All policies and proposals have a “downside“, there’s no such thing as a policy proposal with benefit to all and harm to none.

This empirical truth is toxic to professional politicians – therefore they spend an inordinate amount of time using pretzel logic to avoid it.  As a direct consequence of avoidance, the media love to use the downside as a weapon.

For the first time in recent political memory Donald Trump represents a candidacy who is unafraid of their spear; and as a consequence, immune to the damage.

A case in point – NBC’s Chuck Todd thought he could deploy the downside weapon during a Trump campaign stop in Iowa (State Fair). During the exclusive interview aboard the Trumpo Jet Todd deployed his arsenal – “but you can’t actually remove illegal immigrants, I mean you can’t actually deport them“.

Trump owned the downside. “Chuck, yes, yes we will. Either we have borders or we don’t; either we have a country or we don’t“.

Like all other media punditry, Chuck was left aghast. The dangling participle remained naught but a withering “but… but…”

Every other candidate who has ever existed in the history of modern political candidacy, would have given some form of “acceptable” alternative response. (ie. a PC version.) (ie. a lie.)

Not Trump, he owns the downside.

This approach is what makes ‘Splodey Heads!

A Second Case In Point – Trump does it again with CNN’s Jake Tapper, only this time Trump frames the controversial position ownership with an explanation.

Donald Trump is backing up his previous position that removing Iraq’s Sadam Hussein and Libya’s Kaddaffi was not a good idea. Jake Tapper is aghast: “what about the human rights abuses”?

Trump owns the opposite: Human rights abuses? …”you don’t think they’re happening now? They’re worse now than they ever were. People are getting their heads chopped off, they’re being drowned in cages. Right now they’re far worse off than they ever were under Saddam Hussein or Kadaffi”…

Another ‘Splodey !

It doesn’t matter what the issue is.

When confronted by his tax proposal to eliminate taxes on wage earners below $50k Trump is challenged with the “skin in the game” argument. The response is simple: “look, it costs more for the processing of those income tax filers than the revenue which comes from them“…

• Media: Jeb Bush want’s a no-fly zone in Syria?
• Trump: When did ISIS get airplanes?

• Media: You can’t build a wall?
• Trump: I build things, that’s what I do – watch me!

• Media: You’re going to deport 11 million people. You’ll need a “deportation force“.
• Trump: What does I.C.E do?

And on and on it goes. Simple cut-to-the-chase responses with total fearless ownership of any downside from a policy proposal.

• Media: But you used to be a Democrat, you have donated to Democrats?
• Trump: Yes, I live and work in New York. NYC is all Democrats, if I need to leverage assistance for my company goals I need to work with Democrats. It’s a business necessity; I look out for my employees and their best interests.

• Media: But you had Hillary Clinton at your wedding?
• Trump: Yes, it was an amazing event, the best, the biggest, the most elegant, and I asked her and Bill to attend. They did. Wouldn’t you, I mean if I invited you?

• Media: You spend all this time talking about polls. You seem obsessed by polls?
• Trump: Yeah, that’s because I’m winning them. If the polls were not good, I wouldn’t even mention them. Duh.

The march of the Trumpisms’ continues:

• Megyn Kelly: “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’…”
• Trump: “Only Rosie O’Donnell.”

• Media: You can’t build a wall!
• Trump: “Sure I can, AND Mexico is going to pay for it!!”

• Media: But you support Eminent Domain?
• Trump: Yeah, and “Try building the Keystone Pipeline without it”..

• Media:  But you called Sanders a maniac!
• Trump: “And a Communist”, don’t forget!

• Media:  But you declared bankruptcy!
• Trump:  “Yup, sure did.  And I Chaptered 4 out of 400 companies. Took over bad deals and made money on those too !”…

• Media:  But you held a rally and someone said Obama was Muslim, and you didn’t defend him from it!
• Trump:  Yeah, “Would he defend me? I don’t think so!”

• Media: But you attacked Ben Carson! “…
• Trump: Well, I never hit my mother on the head with a hammer! Did you, Bill?”

When you compare how Trump owns the so-called “negatives”, you immediately recognize they are only negatives if he allows them to be. Thus, he doesn’t let them be issues – he owns them, and says “yeah, so?”

Trump has spent decades with Park Row media types. He has never avoided them, he totally understands how they operate – and more importantly “why”?

Pelosi and Mueller’s team think they’ve got him surrounded with Mueller’s team.  Except they’ve forgotten…  He’s seemingly one man, yet he consistently has his opposition surrounded.

Watch President Trump own the downside to this Mueller report… it’s going to be a thing of absolute beauty…. yet again.

Democrat politicians and their water-carrying media allies who helped spur the Mueller investigation for two years are furious about Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein holding a press conference tomorrow (9:30am) shortly before releasing the Mueller report (11:00am).

The level of Democrat pearl-clutching over process is only exceeded by the transparency of their political demands to create a narrative.  It really is silly…

(Nadler)

(Schiff)

(Jeffries)

(Haberman – New York Times)

(Kessler – Washington Post)

In 2015 the DOJ-OIG (office of inspector general) requested oversight of the DOJ National Security Division.  It was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the DOJ-NSD.

When John Carlin resigned as Asst. Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division in October 2016 he was replaced by Principal Deputy Asst. Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Mary McCord.  After President Trump took office on January 20th, 2017, Sally Yates was Acting AG and Mary McCord was in charge of the DOJ-NSD.

Yates and McCord were the two Main Justice officials who then engaged with White House Counsel Don McGahn on January 26th, 2017, regarding the General Flynn FBI interview conducted on January 24th.  The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was the headline.

On January 30th, 2017, Sally Yates was fired for refusing to defend the Trump travel ban from extremist countries.  Yates was replaced on January 31st by the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Dana Boente.

With his shift to Main Justice Dana Boente was Acting Attorney General, and Mary McCord was Asst. AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD.  Boente was in the Acting AG position from Jan 31st, 2017, until Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8th, 2017.

When Jeff Sessions became AG, Dana Boente became Acting Deputy AG, a role he would retain until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25th, 2017.   [Mary McCord remained head of the DOJ-National Security Division]

On March 2nd, 2017, Dana Boente was one of the small group who participated in a conversation that led to the recusal of Jeff Sessions from anything related to the 2016 election.  This recusal included the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, which was later picked up by Robert Mueller.

The other attendees for the recusal decision-making meeting (see above schedule) included Sessions’ chief of staff Jody Hunt; Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Jim Crowell; Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division Tash Gauhar (FISA lawyer); and Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools.  [Note: Tash Gauhar was lawyer for FBI Clinton case; and Scott Schools was part of drafting Clinton exoneration letter.]

The Main Justice group influenced Jeff Sessions to recuse.

With AG Jeff Sessions recused on March 2, 2017, FBI Director James Comey now reported to Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente.  [Technically, Boente is still EDVA U.S. Attorney and is only ‘acting’ as Deputy AG]  Additionally, on March 31st, 2017, President Trump signs executive order 13787 making the U.S. EDVA Attorney the 3rd in line for DOJ succession.

Question:  If Dana Boente was appointed “Acting Attorney General” on January 31st, 2017 (he was), then why did Don McGahn need to draw up XO 13787 on March 31st, 2017… especially after confirmed AG Jeff Sessions was already in place Feb 9th?   The answer likely has to do with a sign-off needed for FISA.

In the period between March 2nd and April 25th – With AG Sessions recused, and without a Deputy AG confirmed, Dana Boente is simultaneously:

• U.S. Attorney for EDVA
• Acting Deputy AG.
• Acting AG for all issues related to Sessions recusal.

It is James Comey and Dana Boente who sign the April 2017 FISA renewal for Carter Page.

(Page #271 – Carter Page FISA Application)

This dynamic would later become important as notes Boente took from conversations with James Comey became evidence for Mueller’s expanded obstruction investigation.  [3/2/17 Mary McCord is still head of DOJ-NSD]

Somehow Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente’s personal and handwritten notes were mysteriously leaked to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

[Backstory Here]

On April 20th, 2017, Mary McCord announces her intent to resign from the DOJ National Security Division effective with the confirmation of Deputy AG nominee Rod Rosenstein.

On April 25th, 2017, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is confirmed.   Rosenstein now takes over the responsibilities held by Acting DAG Dana Boente; this includes the FBI counterintelligence probe.

On May 9th, 2017, FBI Director James Comey is fired.

On May 10th, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe opens a criminal ‘obstruction of justice investigation’ of President Trump to parallel/compliment the ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and administration.

On/Around May 11th, 2017, Mary McCord departs.  Dana Boente now becomes the Asst. Attorney General and head of the DOJ National Security Divison; he is no longer U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of VA.

On May 16th, 2017, Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to meet President Trump. On May 17th, Rosenstein appoints the Robert Mueller special counsel probe. On May 18th, 2017, Scott Schools authorizes Robert Mueller:

And we’re off to the Trump-Russia-Collusion-Obstruction races…

With hindsight it is now clear the various players inside Main Justice and the FBI had a vested interest in maintaining the assault against Trump. By now everyone can see the bigger goal was against the office of POTUS. [“obstruction” etc.]  All of the personnel moves should be reviewed with hindsight of the larger anti-Trump objective in mind.

Against the known fraud that was the Trump-Russia Collusion-Conspiracy narrative, there are no visible people who didn’t participate in one form or another.

Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire.  However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when he actually left.

On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announces Boente has shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker).  As Mueller is using 19 lawyers, and 40 FBI investigators, Boente now becomes a legal adviser to Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe is ongoing.

As we recently discovered, Mueller’s lead FBI agent for the corrupt Russia collusion-conspiracy investigation, was David W. Archey.  Archey was selected by Robert Mueller when FBI Agent Peter Strzok was removed.  The Mueller probe took over the counterintelligence investigation in May 2017, a few months later Special Agent Peter Strzok was removed (July) and David W. Archey was brought in:

As David Archey arrives in August 2017, Mueller is getting the new scope memo from Rod Rosenstein.  There’s little doubt the entire FBI group would have known the Trump-Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative was false.  So Archey status as lead agent has to be considered *corrupt/sketchy*; FBI activity was likely focused on the obstruction angle.

Interestingly at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation Archey was promoted by Christopher Wray to head of the Richmond, Virginia FBI field office (March 4, 2019).  This field office overlaps with another FBI/DOJ filing from the EDVA.

The April 11th, 2019, recently released Julian Assange indictment stems from the EDVA.  From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

However, on Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The investigation took place prior to December 2017, the Grand Jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.

Why the delay?  Here’s where it gets interesting….

This FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

It would appear the FBI took keen interest after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017.  Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).

To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report(needed for Obama in December ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looks like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report is dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story:

(Bloomberg) Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report describes Russian cybercrimesduring the 2016 election.

The report, which is expected to be released soon, will clear up questions about the Russian campaign to interfere in the election President Donald Trump won, Rosenstein said in a speech given to a private group at the Metropolitan Club of Washington, according to three people in attendance. (more)

Attorney General Bill Barr has already outlined the Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election.  This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview.  There’s the motive to shut him down.

The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue.  The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently.   Almost all independent research into this DNC hack claim also challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers.

Dana Boente was part of the group who advised Sessions to recuse.  Boente later authorized the second renewal of the Title-one surveillance warrant and worked with James Comey.  Boente then leaked his Comey notes to the media, essentially to support Comey’s narrative about Trump; and participated from within the FBI as legal counsel to Chris Wray who told everyone in July 2018 there was no political bias in the FBI… but hey, everyone is going to bias training….. and pay no attention to the 40 FBI agents who were investigating an invisible Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy for two years.

Seriously?

There are no “good guys” in this. There are no “white hats” here. Certainly not Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Bowditch or Boente.  Instead, this is a matrix of broad interests positioned only to benefit and sustain the status quo of the administrative state; and protect the larger community from the Trump disruption.

In the end it all comes back to the same series of questions. Who was recommending to President Trump that he retain and promote DOJ and FBI officials who were part of the anti-Trump Russia collusion-conspiracy program?

Someone who knew the system but would still be vulnerable to peer influence.  Someone who would take counsel and advice on who was needed and where. Someone in a position of influence with President Trump.  Someone who could steer these placements from a position of advisement close to the President.

Appointing Rod Rosenstein as DAG was one of those key placements.

Appointing DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu was another.

From Rosenstein we get: Mueller, Chris Wray, David Bowditch and Dana Boente.

Meanwhile Jessie Liu quashed cases against: Awan bros, James Wolfe, Greg Craig and Andrew McCabe.

With the Mueller report coming out tomorrow, I suspect we are going to see direct testimony from people, perhaps including a White House counsel, who was not previously suspected of working against the interests of the executive – when President Trump waived executive privilege and encouraged all staff members to cooperate with the special counsel…