by Sher Zieve, ©2018

(Mar. 19, 2018) — With regards to the Mueller ‘investigation’ of President Trump, I have been asking the title’s question (from many) for quite a while:  “How is conducting an investigation based upon fake evidence legal?”  Thus far, I haven’t received even a mediocre reply or one that resembles a modicum of logic.  Others merely try to change the subject.  As a Special Counsel was assigned to the Trump case (although there doesn’t seem to be a factual, let alone truthful, case against him), in checking the requirements for the USAG assigning a Special Counsel–§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel–states:  “The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and – (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”

Hmmm.  Weren’t we told at the beginning of this whole process that it wasn’t a criminal investigation but it was a counterintelligence investigation?  It seemed to switch very quickly from a faux ‘counterintelligence’ mode to criminal…didn’t it?  I strongly suspect—as do many other US citizens–that the original investigation was a huge ruse, as a counterintelligence investigation does not require nor even investigate a crime.   It also appears to neither require nor allow the appointment of any “Special Counsel”…a counsel who is only to address criminal investigations.  Furthermore—and despite this sleight of hand delivered by Deputy USAG Rosenstein to switch from counterintelligence to criminal—even if Special Counsel Mueller is now addressing a criminal investigation, under the law a crime must be identified before the investigation may proceed.  To date, no original crime to begin a criminal investigation has ever been identified.   Quiz question:  How many apparent illegalities can you count that have been engaged in by Deputy AG Rosenstein and Special Counsel and former FBI head Robert Mueller…thus far?

Then, on top of these “irregularities,” Mr. Mueller and his crew of (at least one of whom is as unsavory character as may exist) attorneys are now on a full-fledged leaping and diving fishing expedition in search of a crime against Trump and everyone who works for him.   Of note is that on 29 April 2015, the US Supreme Court adopted proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that new text to 26(b)(1) “Removes two prior loopholes that allowed for vast fishing expeditions”:  Obtaining discovery about “the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identify and location of any persons who know of any discoverable matter” has been taken away.  The removal of this language aims to eliminate gamesmanship in “discovery about discovery.  In addition, removal of the following sentences aims to focus discovery on the evidence that is central and requests that are proportional to the case:  “For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

So…now we have the ruse of an investigation that began as counterintelligence (to avoid having to name a crime) and almost immediately switched to a criminal investigation…which requires the identification of a crime.  Gee…did Rosenstein and Mueller just forget?  Very doubtful.  Were we-the-people not supposed to notice the man behind the curtain and all of his tricks, machinations and misdirections?  I think we were!  Oh…and what about Mueller using the fake created-out-of-whole-cloth ‘dossier’ to both help the DNC and Hillary Clinton win the US presidency and…as the central product to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil candidate and now President Trump and his team?  We still don’t know whether or not FISC Judge Contreras knew the dossier was false or not.  However, we do know that he was courted by FBI employees Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page, both of whom—along with their other 7th floor colleagues–hold a deep-seated hate for candidate and now President Trump.

So…we have a Special Counsel who was appointed to investigate ‘counterintelligence’—which is not an SC’s purview—so that a crime would not be identified, we have the SC along with the Deputy US AG changing the investigation to criminal—but never identifying the crime—and basing the counterintelligence-turned-criminal on a “fishing expedition’ to find a crime—which SCOTUS has said is a “no-no”—and the FBI, DOJ and Hillary Clinton campaign conspiring together to have Hillary elected and to destroy Donald J. Trump.  Oh!  And one additional item—and there are many…many more with new ones cropping up almost daily.  We even have a former FBI Director Andrew McCabe (demoted, then fired for lying under oath) having put together an “insurance policy” with Strzok and Page to destroy Trump should he win the US presidency!  Wow!  These are your tax $Dollars at work.

This saga seems to have no end and there seem to be almost too many felonies and misdemeanors than one can track.  But, maybe one of you can help.  My question is still:  “How is Conducting an Investigation Based upon Fake Evidence Legal?”  I don’t think it is.  And if it isn’t, it’s a crime to have begun an investigation at all.  Fake “evidence” to “get” someone you hate is 3rd world “justice.”  In my humble opinion, Mueller has been working illegally on this since its inception and appears to be dragging it out to influence the 2018 election in the DNC’s favor.  Therefore, none of his findings are—legally—likely admissible in any court in the USA.  So, “How is Conducting an Investigation Based upon Fake Evidence Legal?”  If you have the answer, please let me know.  Thanks!

“They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved”– 2 Peter 2:19

“For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life”– Galatians 6:8


Russian election meddling probe now a criminal investigation:  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/robert-mueller-takes-russia-case-as-criminal-inves/

28 CFR 600.1 – Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

New Federal Rules Aim to Promote Proportionality in Discovery:  https://www.hunton.com/images/content/2/6/v2/2645/new-federal-rules-aim-to-promote-proportionality-in-discovery.pdf

Trump lawyer says Mueller obtained transition emails illegally:  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365278-trump-lawyer-says-mueller-obtained-transition-emails-illegally


Trump transition lawyer: Mueller improperly obtained documents in Russia probe:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/16/trump-lawyer-mueller-improperly-obtained-transition-documents-in-russia-probe.html

Memo: FBI Used Tainted Steele Dossier, Paid For By Hillary Clinton, As Reason To Spy On Trump:  https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/memo-fbi-used-tainted-steele-dossier-paid-for-by-hillary-clinton-as-reason-to-spy-on-trump/













Join the Conversation


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Also, it seems there are two related parts: Comitting a fraud upon the court in obtaining the FISA warrant(s), and any resulting information being “fruit of a poisoned tree”. But to her more fundamental point, the system is still clogged with swamp creatures. Justice remains a non-starter.

  2. Interesting viewpoint. However, in this case as I see it, the “investigator” is pursuing the fake investigation after committing illegal acts (aka “the ruse”) to get the mark and continues with even more illegal acts along the way. In some ways, I find it similar to a Sting. Problem is that–thus far–the “Stingee” isn’t falling for the game…so, the Stinger becomes more and more aggressive in his flouting the law. The real problem, as I see it, is that these illegal acts are being allowed to continue and our badly dumbed-down population thinks they’re legal. If we have completely lost our legal system to the Marxists…we are kaput as a nation of laws and the truly evil Deep State will be in charge in perpetuity.



  3. It’s a “Flawed Logic Test: reaching a legal verdict based on illegal facts.”
    Here’s an example: Innocent man convicted; sent up the river for life. He escapes and discovers the real murderer, who the cops arrest.
    The bad guy confesses. The DA declares it was all a Big Mistake.
    Meanwhile, because the innocent man escaped, he is guilty of escaping, even though he shouldn’t have been in the prison in the first place.
    Bottom Line: Flawed Logic is applied: he DID escape from prison (so he broke the law: escaping from incarceration is a felony, irrespective if he was railroaded or not) so he’s sentenced to five years.
    Now he’s a real convicted felon.