Thursday, May 7, 2020

Techno Fog Argues That President Trump Is The Redacted Subject Of Mueller Witchhunt Memo

Last night DoJ released disgraced former DAG Rod Rosenstein's second "scope of the witchhunt" memo, which outlines whom Team Mueller could investigate and under what pretext. There were no real surprises in the revelations, except perhaps that Rosenstein actually cited the Logan Act with regard to Michael Flynn. The one exception to the "no surprises" statement is that there was a fifth subject whose identity was redacted and the allegations against whom were also redacted.

Naturally everyone wants to know who that fifth (redacted) subject is. There is no lack of plausible candidates, except that--with regard to most of them--it's difficult to understand why everything should be redacted: Roger Stone? Michael Cohen? Rick Gates? Etc.?

For that reason a number of internet commenters have been suggesting that the fifth (redacted) subject is, in fact, President Trump, and the pretext for that investigation would be "obstruction" for having fired disgraced former FBI Director James Comey. Last night I included a tweet by Undercover Huber to that effect in Rod Rosenstein's Second "Scope Memo" For Team Mueller.

This morning Techno Fog presented a fairly concise argument that seeks to make that case--that President Trump was explicitly targeted by Rosenstein and Team Mueller:

To make things a bit easier, here are the relevant attachments to Techno Fog's tweet:

Commenter Mike Sylwester wrote this morning that he was inclined to accept the identification of the fifth subject as President Trump. I responded, stressing the importance of this identification, if true:

If true that would be important because, as Undercover Huber points out (above) the only know allegations against Trump himself were "obstruction" allegations based on the firing of Comey. You wind up with double barreled idiocy or legal/investigative fraud. 
1. The allegation would amount to claiming that POTUS can't fire Director, FBI--absurd. 
2. But it would rely on the legitimacy of the Russia Hoax, because the point of obstructing Comey would be to obstruct Crossfire Hurricane--and the basis for that had been totally debunked 8 mos. earlier
Bottom line: if the fifth part is indeed aimed at Trump it's definitely not done in good faith.

Which leaves us with the question, Why, 8 months after all this was thoroughly debunked, did Rosenstein sic Team Mueller on the president? The immediate object is clear enough: to effect the removal of President Trump from office. As regards the other four named subjects, Mike Sylwester summarizes succinctly:

Rosenstein was just giving Mueller fishing licenses to fish for any stuff that Mueller might use to threaten prosecution and to offer deals to Manafort, Papadopoulos or Flynn in exchange for ratting on Trump about anything.

That much seems clear.

The still remaining question, then, is: Why include President as a subject? As I indicated above, the actual theory of the supposed "obstruction" case is constitutionally threadbare, resting on the absurd notion that the Chief Executive of the United States--in fact, the Executive Branch personified--cannot fire subordinate officers.

To attempt to argue that, in the special case of a president who is suspected of being an agent controlled by Russia and operating against the United States, really doesn't cure that fundamental problem. A Special Counsel investigation must rest on the proposition that a "criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted." The McCabe investigation rests on what could best be termed: Wild Ass Allegations. In fact, as stated above, allegations that had been debunked 8 months previously.

I have no unassailable explanation for why Trump would have been included. My guess is this. This may have been part of a ploy to induce Trump to submit to an interview by Team Mueller, in the course of which Team Mueller could claim to have discovered false statements. If Trump were under oath that would constitute perjury, but regardless there would be 18 US 1001 false statements and obstruction charges. Trump could be forced out. The ploy involved here would be to argue to Trump that he needed to submit to such an interview to "clear" himself. That ploy couldn't plausibly be made if the only subjects were those "four Americans" who were the subject of Crossfire Hurricane. But for the advice of competent attorneys, I suspect Trump would have been tempted to do so.


  1. "But for the advice of competent attorneys, I suspect Trump would have been tempted to do so."

    I think you're right. He has a history of being openly helpful and cooperative to law enforcement. Not in the "rat"sense that he's involved in whatever activity was being investigated, but in responding to LE requests. Without savvy counsel, it might very likely have gone the same way as Flynn.

  2. One possible reason for including an Obstruction investigation on Trump in the "Scope" memo is -- knowing that there is no "there" there on collusion -- that the Obstruction investigation becomes 1) an inoculation of Mueller from Trump shutting down the investigation, and 2) allows Mueller to gather "evidence" and put together legal arguments (albeit bogus) that Trump's actions amount to an attempt to obstruct his investigation. The purpose of that is plain enough: fodder for House Dems who hoped (and did) to take control to use Mueller's report to launch an Impeachment drive, to further damage Trump going into 20120 elections.

    THis hypothesis explains why Mueller curiously never decided if there should be Obstruction charges, even though that was arguably his main responsibility. By punting, he put the burden on Trump's AG, who if he says "no indictment," it is waved away as a political fix, and Impeachment is "game on." Mueller knows that the Obstruction argument in his report is legal fantasy, and if he decided there should be indictments as soon as Constitutionally permissible, Weissmann's screwy legal arguments would become the focus, whereas by punting to Barr, who declines indictment, which appears political, and sets up the Dems to launch Impeach on Obstruction, where the focus would not be on the legal arguments as much as it would be on Trump's actions, which they hoped would do the most political damage before the 2020 election.

    It didn't work, because the Mueller report despite best efforts to the contrary, had to admit there was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, which guts the argument that he was trying to Obstruct the investigation, as he had no motive to do so.

    The collapse in public support for Impeaching Trump after the Mueller Report landed with a dull thud doomed that scheme.

    And that's why the Dems redoubled their effort to then hastily create an alternative scenario to try to Impeach him for drummed up bogus Ukraine quid-pro-quo silliness.

    Side comment: I have alwys suspected that Comey intended to bait Trump into firing him; the clue is Comey's own memos record the fact that Comey on three separate occassions gratuitously volunteered the statement to Trump in their one-on-one meetings: "You can always fire me if you don't like the job I'm doing."

    That combined with his divulging to Trump in Early 2017 that he personally was not under investigation (ha?), while DOJ leaked furiously to the MSM to the contrary, and Comey consistently refused to make the statement clearing Trump of being under investigation to the public, were the "firing bait."

    McCabe almost instantly seized the firing as an excuse to open an Obstruction investigation, (for which there was no real predication,) and it was the spark that ignited public anger that gave RR the cover needed to appoint Mueller and his Thugs to harass Trump and eat out his substance for the next two years while trying to gather evidence that could by used by a Dem House in a bogus Impeachment based on a kooky theory of Obstruction.

    1. Interesting idea. Both an offensive and defensive aspect to it. Obstruction was certainly always a legal fantasy--which is why they desperately needed an interview with Trump. Although diGenova and Toensing eventually declined to join the Trump legal team, they did apparently engage in discussions in that regard. From the extremely adamant way diGenova states that he gave advice that the President should never under any circumstances agree to an interview, it seems that Trump--as he did publicly state--actually considered doing so.

  3. An interview with POTUS would have been icing on the cake for Mueller, to set him up for a perjury or 1001 allegation. Given his propensity to answer questions "Shooting from the hip," it was likely sage advice by DiGenova and all other like minded legal advisors that Trump never agree to a live interview with corrupt prosecutors like Weissmann.

  4. Nice rewind for 2022.
    An interview with Mueller would have been a minor coup for them. Comey was a leaker and Trump knew.
    As far as firings..most new incoming typically dump everyone tied to the previous admin. Trump did not. He was watching for leaks and cover up involvement in the warrants. Wray.
    Flynn and Obama rarely agreed on policy. Flynn did not meet requirements for FARA when he went to Turkey. The office in Alexandria Virginia said he did not have to apply.
    Flynn knows the nasty details of Obama and Muslim Brotherhood Arab Spring..Benghazi..creation of ISIS Al Shabbaz youth corp.
    2014 was a huge year for the corrupt including Ukraine. Obama and Biden needed to CTAs. Flynn left resigned or was fired as DIA 2014.
    The whole FISA SpyGate. Russia Collusion began in 2015. They never counted on Hillary losing.