Latest News

Federal Courts Openly Criticize Mueller’s Investigation

Robert Mueller’s investigation is in jeopardy as more than one federal judge calls Mueller’s intentions into question.

Federal Judge T.S Ellis is the most recent judge to make it clear that Mueller does not have unfettered authority to do as he pleases in the investigation; what is more, the judge has made it abundantly clear that he believes Mueller’s intention is not to serve justice, but rather to eventually get President Trump impeached.

The judge also questioned prosecutor Michael Dreeben about Mueller’s recent decision to refer the case against Michael Cohen to New York law enforcement officials while keeping Paul Manafort’s case in Virginia. The judge noted that the decision seemed to be based solely on the likelihood of the charges in questions affecting the President. In the end, the judge made it clear that he would need to see an unredacted version of the memo authorizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate criminal allegations against Paul Manafort. If the Justice Department fails to provide the judge with the memo, the case could be thrown out of court.

T.S. Ellis is not the only judge who has sharply questioned the Special Counsel’s decisions and actions. Just last week, federal Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled against Robert Mueller’s request to delay the trial of thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian entities of knowingly and intentionally conspiring to interfere with the 2016 Presidential Election.

To complicate matters for the special counsel, Concord Management and Consulting, one of the Russian entities that Mueller listed in the indictment, has opted not to take the trial lying down. The company has retained two competent lawyers to appear in court on its behalf to fight against the questionable charges. It appears that Robert Mueller did not expect this to happen, as is evidenced by his team’s weak excuse that Concord Management and Consulting never accepted the formal summons related to the case. Judge Friedrich has already dismissed this claim as pettifoggery, which means that Mueller will need to product the evidence it has against Concord, including information about how the case was assembled and any evidence that could undermine the prosecution’s theories. Alternatively, the Special Counsel could withdraw the indictment in order to prevent the revelation of questionable evidence that he may prefer to keep hidden. The latter option; however, would be a big blow to those who are still trying to build a case of “Trump collusion with the Russians.”

Naturally, it is impossible to tell at this point what Special Counsel Robert Mueller will do about these challenges to this authority, real or perceived. However, given the fact that his office has already spent millions of dollars on investigating arguably weak collusion allegations against President Trump’s 2016 campaign, chances are he will continue to fight to show that his investigation is actually worth the money has already been spent and will continue to be spent for the foreseeable future. However, the results of his efforts may not be as positive as he may have initially hoped.

While some judges have ruled in favor of motions submitted by the Special Counsel, others have come to realize that giving a single individual a “blank check” to investigate just about anyone who actively campaigned against Hillary Clinton may not be legally sound.

The challenges Mueller faces could hardly come at a worse time for those who are determined to get rid of the current president. The 2018 mid-term elections are just about the corner, and Democrats have been using the “Russian collusion” narrative to stir up its audience and make them want to vote against Republican candidates. Should the investigation fall apart right before the elections take place, it would show that the push to investigate alleged collusion was nothing but a farce in the first place. It could push independent voters to vote for Republicans, giving the current president yet another majority in both houses of Congress.

At the same time, even the continuance of the investigation may not turn out the evidence that anti-Trump activists are hoping for. The Special Counsel’s authority has already been questioned in more than one court of law, weakening his position and making it clear that the investigation was partisan and biased right from the start.

~ Patriotic Freedom Fighter

Most Popular

These content links are provided by Both and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More

Most Popular
Sponsor Content

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *