RUTHFULLY YOURS

One of the stranger moments of Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe is Michael Flynn’s Dec. 1, 2017 guilty plea for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The former White House national security adviser pleaded guilty to a single count of making false statements, even though then FBI director James Comey had told Congress in March that the two FBI agents who interviewed Mr. Flynn believed he hadn’t lied.

These columns reported this Comey testimony based on sources at the time of Mr. Flynn’s plea (“The Flynn Information,” Dec. 1, 2017). Now comes confirmation from a less redacted version of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia report released late Friday.

On pages 53-54, the report notes that in March 2017 “Director Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents . . . discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.’” The quotes are from the committee transcript of Mr. Comey’s remarks.

The report goes on to say that then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe “confirmed the interviewing agent’s initial impression and stated that the ‘conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn’t detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview . . . the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.’”

Equity investors loved Friday morning’s jobs report for April, lifting share prices sharply across the board. Job growth for the month fell below expectations, but maybe Mr. Market looked at the details and saw the broader reality of an increasingly tight labor market that suggests business confidence in continuing economic growth. A couple of key figures that haven’t received much attention are worth noting.

Republican politicians pointed to the decline in the overall jobless rate to 3.9% after six months of 4.1%. But this was achieved thanks to a 236,000 decline in the U.S. labor force. That decline balances what happened in February when the rate stayed at 4.1% despite more than 800,000 new entrants to the labor force. A better way to look at the health of the jobs market is the long-term trend, and over the last year there is some notable good news.

The black jobless rate has fallen a remarkable 1.3-percentage points to 6.6% since April 2017. That’s still high compared to the 3.6% rate for whites, but it’s lower than the 6.8% recorded in December, which was the previous low since the government began tracking the data in 1972. The black jobless rate has been below 7% for four of the last five months, which has never previously happened.

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Ikhwan, Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood (MB), is an organizational humanitarian hoax being perpetrated on the American people to bring Islam to America. Islam in America would not be problematic if it was a religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism – it isn’t. Islam is a comprehensive socio-political, military, religious way of life with its own governing supremacist religious sharia laws that are antithetical to Western cultural norms and America’s governing secular Constitutional laws.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an enemy of the United States.

The goal of Islam is to convert the world to Islam. The purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood in America is SETTLEMENT not assimilation. Settlement is the incremental process of making Islam familiar, acceptable, normative, and ultimately replacing secular American laws with supremacist religious Islamic sharia law.

The treasonous conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots is fully documented in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum that details the strategic goal for the group in North America and the necessity for organizational acceptance. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that America is structured by organizations so the parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, has spawned hundreds of offspring organizations with the same subversive settlement goal and the same deceitful operating principles.

The Robert Mueller “investigation” is a disgrace to the Constitution, to our tradition of ordered liberty, and to the American Way. Tell me: did you ever expect to read a passage like this in an American newspaper?

Though Mr. Mueller doesn’t face any specific legal deadline… [he]has a lot still to do—prepare several reports, bring expected charges against alleged Russian hackers behind the breach of the Democratic National Committee and make decisions on whether to prosecute other cases. Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue he has yet to resolve is whether the special counsel’s office will demand an interview with Mr. Trump. If he can’t get all those things done in the next few months, his probe is likely to stretch into 2019.

Or longer — to infinity and beyond. Should he wish, Mueller can be at this for the rest of his life, with an unlimited budget, and at taxpayer expense.

But this is not justice in any meaningful sense of the term. Rather, it’s the sore-loser Left’s latest attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election by orchestrating, via deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and St. James Comey, a quasi-legal proceeding to demonstrate that Donald Trump is unfit to sit in the Oval Office, and that therefore his presidency must be ended by any means necessary. As Ed Koch, the late former mayor of New York City, famously said: “The people have spoken and now they must be punished.”

The point of the Wall Street Journal story quoted above is that with the election season fast approaching, Mueller may have to lie doggo for a while so as not to — stop laughing! — influence the fall congressional vote.

Mr. Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign will soon run into a dead zone of sorts, in which former prosecutors say they expect him either to wrap up, or lie low and take no visible steps until after the November vote…. He will reach a point this summer when Justice Department habits dictate he would have to go dark so he doesn’t appear to be trying to sway voters’ decisions, which would be at odds with Justice Department guidelines for prosecutors.

Any action by Mr. Mueller that implicates or exonerates Mr. Trump or his associates in working with Russia or obstructing justice could go a long way to determining whether Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress. Democrats have promised extra scrutiny of the Trump administration if voters pull the lever for their party in November, while Republican candidates have largely sided with Mr Trump, and some have echoed the president’s message that the prosecution is a witch hunt.

This is ludicrously disingenuous — the very continuance of the Mueller investigation into non-existent Russian “collusion” has already swayed, and will continue to sway, voters, as the Democrats and the never-Trumpers knew it would. Even if they can’t get a do-over on 2016, the Left has made it clear that this fall’s elections should be a referendum on Trump — both his fitness for, and his performance in, office. Indeed, at this point there’s nothing Mueller can do not to influence the election. If he fails to bring any charges against the president, or issue an impeachment referral, the Left will scream bloody murder; if he does, the Right will howl. And if he just keeps on keepin’ on… well, where there’s smoke there must be fire, right? CONTINUE AT SITE

Former Trump campaign advisor Michael Caputo condemned the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday following his closed-door testimony. His words, no doubt, resonated with every Trump aide, associate, and family member ensnared in the bogus Trump-Russia election collusion scam.

“God damn you to Hell,” Caputo told the committee—an impassioned conclusion to an emotional statement explaining the personal and financial strain the investigations have caused his family.

Caputo called out a former staffer to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is orchestrating the ongoing smear campaign against anyone in Trump’s orbit thanks to deep-pocketed Democratic activists in New York and California. And he implored the committee to “investigate the investigators.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team interviewed Caputo the following day, nearly one year after Mueller got his marching orders from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. So, why has Caputo now been interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the special counsel? What makes this longtime GOP consultant who worked on the Trump campaign for less than a year (and not in any central role) possibly complicit in, or a witness to, the yet-unproven crime that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election?

Caputo made the egregious error of having once worked for the Russians. In the 1990s. He told New York magazine in an interview this week that he “studied Russia in college and became a big admirer of Russian literature and ballet. I worked hard in the Cold War to defeat Russia, and after the Wall fell I grew curious about the Russian people. I wanted to see the results.” Of course, this all sounds very fishy now. It’s obvious that Caputo developed an interest in Russia in the 1980s so he could earn the coveted post of Donald Trump’s New York primary election coordinator in 2015 and then work with the Rooskies to strip Hillary Clinton of enough votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan to cost her the election in November 2016 (even though he left the campaign in June 2016.)

One week after a Senate committee approved a bill to protect the special counsel from being fired by the president, both of Robert Mueller’s high-profile cases appear to be in legal jeopardy.

On Friday morning, a federal judge accused Mueller’s team of weaponizing its prosecutorial authority in an effort to take down Donald Trump. U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis III suggested the special counsel’s case against Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, is “about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment. President Trump’s prosecution or impeachment—that’s what you’re really after.”

ABC News reported that Ellis, a 30-year veteran of the federal bench, repeatedly criticized the 18-count indictment against Manafort for bank fraud and tax evasion as being unrelated to Mueller’s initial directive, which was to investigate alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government before the 2016 presidential election.

Ellis pointed out that “the allegations clearly pre-date the appointment of the special counsel. None of it had any relation to the campaign.” He ascribed ulterior motives to Mueller’s investigation: “You get somebody in a conspiracy and then you tighten the screws. I’ve been here awhile, the vernacular is ‘to sing.’”

Justice is Stonewalling
Judge Ellis also might prevail where Congress has so far failed: Obtaining an unredacted version of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’sAugust 2017 memo that purportedly widened Mueller’s powers to include non-collusion crimes against Manafort.

On Monday, the Justice Department—citing “long-standing principles of investigatory independence”—declined a request by Republican lawmakers to see a clean copy of the largely blacked-out memo. The dispute devolved into a war of words this week between Rosenstein and some GOP leaders amid impeachment threats and accusations of extortion.

It’s time to level with the public about the basis for Mueller’s investigation.

‘How do you know Trump’s not a suspect?”

I’ve been hearing that question a lot these days. News reports indicate that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may try to coerce President Trump’s testimony by issuing a grand-jury subpoena if the president does not agree to a “voluntary” interview. That has sparked a public debate over the question of whether Mueller, an inferior executive officer, has such authority to strong-arm the chief executive — the official in whom the Constitution reposes all executive power, including the power that Mueller exercises only as long as the president permits it.

I don’t think he does.

To be clear, there is no question that Mueller, as a special counsel, is a federal prosecutor who has the authority to issue grand-jury subpoenas. But everyone who works in the Justice Department has a boss, including the attorney general (who answers to the president). As special counsel, Mueller answers to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the so-called Russia investigation). That means Mueller has the authority to issue a subpoena to the president unless Rosenstein — or the president — tells him not to.

Before we come to whether the deputy AG should clip the special counsel’s wings, let’s address one point of confusion.

Many people believe, as I do, that the president should not be subjected to questioning by a prosecutor on the facts as we presently known them. From that premise, however, they argue that Mueller may not subpoena the president, or that the president may ignore any subpoena. Neither of those things is true.

Those against Gina Haspel being confirmed utter the word “torturer” yet refuse to say “Islamist jihadist.” They have a problem with her involvement in the enhanced interrogation program, but are willing to overlook the fact that she has been acting director ever since Mike Pompeo has been confirmed as secretary of state. If she is so horrible, how could they let her be in that position even for a day? The answer, according to 9-11 families, is that she was the shield that kept Americans safe during the turbulent times right after September 11.

David Beamer lost his son, Todd, after United Flight 93 crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside. He expressed the sentiment of all the other 9-11 families interviewed, supporting Gina Haspel as CIA director. “She has given the prime years of her life in service to protect us. Her performance, intellect, dedication, and skills have been recognized in many assignments.”

His answer to those who criticize the enhanced interrogation program: “Unlike my son, none of the enemy died during interrogation. The plans that they executed caused the death of many free and innocent people, just as they intended, as much collateral damage as possible that was their objective. If some uncomfortable questioning leads to uncovering further attacks and lives saved, so be it.”

Gordon Haberman concurs: “Our beautiful, vibrant, loving Andrea was subjected to torture. She was alive after the building was hit and then brutalized in a desperate attempt to escape the inferno. She was then ripped apart as she died. It haunts me till this day. I only hope she was dead before being dismembered in this manner. In seventeen years, they have recovered and identified eleven pieces of her. Do I worry about how those who perpetrated this act were treated after being caught alive and are still alive? No.”

Democrats have made a political calculation to delay or challenge every Donald Trump nominee, no matter the merits, and one egregious episode is playing out now. The left is smearing a nominee for CIA Director as a queen of torture, but the White House can win this argument if it rebuts the charges head on.

On Wednesday Gina Haspel will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee for a confirmation hearing, and her critics are gearing up for a mugging. Ms. Haspel is largely unknown to the American public: Only recently did the CIA declassify some of the details of her 33-year CIA career. Ms. Haspel started as a case officer in Africa and after assignments around the world in its operations directorate became deputy director in 2017.

Ms. Haspel is the first CIA officer in more than five decades to reach the top position. She won the confidence of former director Mike Pompeo as his deputy, so the agency’s leadership transition would be straightforward.

The problem is that Democrats and Rand Paul of Kentucky are painting her as an unrepentant torturer. The specific rap is that Ms. Haspel in the early 2000s “ran a secret center in Thailand where prisoners were tortured,” as Mr. Paul put it in an op-ed. She is also branded for involvement in destroying tapes of CIA waterboarding.

Americans can disagree about the merits of enhanced interrogation after 9/11, but there’s no debating that the CIA’s interrogation program was legal at the time. The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel produced memos making the legal case. The memos were withdrawn some years later, and Congress has also since changed the law to ban some of the techniques that were used in the immediate wake of 9/11. But Ms. Haspel is not responsible for any legal errors. Her job was to protect the country.

Special counsel Robert Mueller is used to getting kid-glove treatment. That changed Friday in a federal courtroom in Virginia, where Judge T.S. Ellis directed a blunt challenge to the Mueller team prosecuting former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on charges of tax and bank fraud, some of which date back to 2005.

“I don’t see what relation this indictment has with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate. You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Judge Ellis told Michael Dreeben, who was representing Mr. Mueller in court. “What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

Judge Ellis won’t win a diplomacy-in-judging prize, but his sharp words expose a central problem with the evolution of the Mueller probe. Though he was appointed to investigate collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, Mr. Mueller’s indictments thus far have concerned other matters—lying to the FBI, or in Mr. Manafort’s case actions relating to his business with Ukraine.

Mr. Manafort’s team wants Judge Ellis to throw out the charges on grounds they exceed Mr. Mueller’s original mandate. And the judge’s questions leave the Mueller team in a difficult position. Essentially Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors now have to argue that even if they violated the Justice Department’s rules, it shouldn’t matter.

Mr. Dreeben of Team Mueller responded that the indictment doesn’t exceed the special counsel’s mandate, but the judge wants to see specifically the full and unredacted August 2, 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein saying what Mr. Mueller could pursue. The judge put it this way: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”