FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been supposed to be investigating and charging people who allegedly violated American law over the 2016 Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia.
So far, no collusion charges.
But now Mueller’s team is being accused of violating the law it is supposed to be enforcing against others.
By releasing details of the Roger Stone indictment illegally.
According to a report at the Gateway Pundit, a new court filing shows CNN was in possession of a sealed indictment long before the court ordered its release.
“For weeks, we have been hearing CNN claim again and again that their presence at Stone’s home ahead of the FBI’s pre-dawn raid was a combination of ‘luck’ and good reporting. They have since built on that fairy-tale, describing their propagandist filming of Stone’s arrest the result of watching ‘unusual grand jury activity’ in the days leading up to January 25th,” the report said.
“However, we at The Gateway Pundit reported exclusively how the metadata on a draft copy of the indictment obtained by a CNN reporter and sent to Roger’s attorney after his arrest showed a save date of two days prior to the January 25th unsealing of the court documents following the Stone’s arrest,” the site reported.
“This proved that CNN illegally obtained a copy of the grand jury indictment, and now Mr. Stone’s attorneys are demanding the Mueller’s office explain themselves.”
In fact, the court filing in Washington is Stone’s “motion requesting a show cause order.”
He wants the order from the court “to determine whether the court’s order sealing the indictment of Roger J. Stone until his arrest, was violated by the premature release of a draft copy of the sealed indictment, enabling news media to attend and witness Stone’s 6 a.m. arrest.”
Stone is charged is a series of process crimes for his testimony before Congress, specifically lying and witness tampering. There are no collusion charges. But the indictment was sealed by the court until Stone was “in custody.”
At the time of Stone’s arrest at his home on Jan. 25, the indictment remained sealed, it explains.
But a camera crew was on the scene – even before the FBI.
Within literally minutes of the arrest, a “reporter” sent a text message attaching a draft copy of the “still sealed indictment.”
“The copy of the unsigned indictment provided by the reporter appears to have come from the special counsel’s office,” the court filing states.
The computer code behind the document, too, “indicates that the last ‘modification’ of the document was on January 23, 2010, apparently from the Justice Consolidated Office Network.”
That means, the filing states, “a person with privileged access to a ‘draft’ of Roger Stone’s indictment, identical to that which had been filed under seal and which was stamped ‘sealed’ in red … had – in violation of the court’s order – publicly distributed the indictment prior to its release.”
The actual indictment was unsealed and entered into the public docket, from which reporters could obtain the information, “more than two and a half hours after the news reporter sent the ‘draft’ indictment to counsel.”
The Gateway Pundit earlier reported that home surveillance video showed “FBI agents coordinating with CNN to position their film crew to televise Mr. Stone’s arrest.”
“This was meant to taint the jury pool and frame the longtime Trump adviser as some sort of violent criminal mastermind that required a heavily armed 29-member FBI strike force raid on his home, despite Stone being charged with non-violent process crimes on immaterial matters,” the site explained.
It charges that the “illegal leaking of the documents by the office of the special counsel, which the evidence suggests, is a crime that should earn the person who leaked it imprisonment or a fine, preferably both.”
It accused Mueller’s team, made up mostly of career officials who donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016, of “illegally leaking sealed court documents to CNN in an effort to taint the jury pool against Mr. Stone.”
Mueller’s work, of course, has been the subject of much speculation in the nearly two years he’s been investigating the “collusion” allegations, which were triggered when the Obama FBI submitted to a secret court in Washington an opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton as evidence.
The court then authorized the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign.
ABC News reported lawyer John Dowd, who headed the president’s legal team for a time, believes Mueller’s work will fizzle.
“I don’t think there’ll be a report,” he told the network. “I will be shocked if anything regarding the president is made public, other than ‘We’re done.’”
“This is one of the greatest frauds this country’s ever seen.”
He said there’s no merit to the investigation that was fueled in part by an unverified, anti-Trump dossier funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
The Obama FBI and the Justice Department submitted the document to a top-secret court to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
Both House and Senate investigations have concluded there’s no evidence of collusion.
Further, a report by investigative reporter John Solomon in the Hill reveals Mueller was “once was hauled before the nation’s secret intelligence court to address a large number of instances in which the FBI cheated on sensitive surveillance warrants, according to evidence gathered by congressional investigators.”
He pointed out the events have “escaped public notice because of the secrecy embedded in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”
It’s come out now because of the testimony of a former FBI lawyer.
“The episode is taking on new significance as Mueller moves into the final stages of his Russia probe while evidence mounts that the FBI work preceding his appointment as special prosecutor may have involved improprieties in the securing of a FISA warrant to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign,” Solomon explained.
He reported FBI agents applying for FISA warrants in counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases simply left out material facts.
“Such omissions are a serious matter at the FISC, because it is the one court in America where the accused gets no representation or chance to defend himself. And that means the FBI is obligated to disclose evidence of both guilt and innocence about the target of a FISA warrant,” Solomon explained.