The Weissmann Dossier

Who really wrote the Mueller Report?

Anyone who watched more than a few minutes of Wednesday’s painful hearings with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller discovered a sad truth the Democrats and many in the media continue to hide: Mueller neither wrote his report nor did he master the content of it.

Repeatedly during the day, the former FBI director stumbled over what we had been told were his findings. He slowly leafed through a binder, searching for passages that lawmakers were quoting to him, only to say “okay” or “true” when he finally found them.

In the morning’s hearing at the House Judiciary committee, Rep. Doug Collins asked Mueller if “conspiracy” – the criminal law term used in the first part of his report about Russia – and the vernacular term, “collusion” were the same thing. Mueller replied, “No.”

Taken aback, Collins asked if he was changing his earlier testimony – ie, the report – which stated on page 180 that collusion and conspiracy were the same. When Mueller finally found the passage, he withdrew his earlier testimony and stood by the report.

Rep. Collins – and frankly, every member of the two committees who questioned Mueller – had the elegance not to state the obvious: Mueller was non compus mentis.

During the afternoon hearing, Rep. Peter Welch, D, Va, again asked whether he had found collusion. This time, Mueller was so far gone, he couldn’t find his words.

“We don’t use the word collusion,” he said. “The word we usually use is-ah-not collusion-ah. But one of the other-ah-terms that-ah-ah-that fills in when collusion is not used. In any event, we decided not to use the word collusion in so much as it has no relevance to the criminal law arena.”

“The term is ‘conspiracy’,” Welch said.

“Conspiracy, that’s exactly right.”

“You help me, I’ll help you,” Welch offered.

Similarly, Mueller drew a blank over the name of Fusion GPS, the company that had hired Christopher Steele on behalf of the Democrat National Committee to produce the infamous Russia “dossier” about Donald Trump.

“When discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting you reference ‘the firm that produced the Steele reporting.’ The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?” Rep. Sterve Chabot, R, OH, asked.

Mueller said he was “not familiar” with the name.

“It was. It’s not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS,” Chabot said.

There were many other examples, and they were painful to watch.

The conclusion one must draw is significant and far-reaching. The 448 page dossier commonly referred to as the Mueller Report was not written by Robert Mueller, nor did the Special Counsel apparently review its findings or familiarize himself with the investigation that led up to those findings.

It is the Weissmann dossier, and it was written by the highly partisan Democrat lawyer and Hillary Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann.

Weissmann is best known for wildly famous cases of prosecutorial overreach, including his overturned prosecution of Enron officials and the auditing firm Arthur Andersen LLP, which destroyed both firms and put over 100,000 people out of work.

Defense Attorney Sidney Powell, in her 2014 book Licensed to Lie, accuses Weissmann of suborning perjury, something that multiple witnesses in the (newly renamed) Weissman witch hunt have also accused him of doing.

Jerome Corsi is suing the Special Counsel and has said that he rejected a plea deal offered to him by the Special Counsel’s office because it required him to lie.

Similarly, The Hill’s John Solomon recently revealed that Weissmann reached out to the U.S. lawyers of Ukrainian oligarch Dimitry Firtash early on during the probe in another attempt to suborn perjury. “Give us some dirt on Donald Trump in the Russia case, and Team Mueller might make his 2014 U.S. criminal charges go away,” they said in effect, Solomon wrote.

According to Solomon’s account, Weissmann gave specific instructions to Firtash’s legal team on what lies their client should tell the Special Counsel.

If these tales of attempts to suborn perjury are accurate, Andrew Weissmann should be indicted and sent to jail.

But while jailing Weissmann might provide solace to Jerome Corsi and others who have been wronged by his prosecutorial misconduct, by the time that happens the political damage will have been done.

And that’s the point. Weissmann and his team of partisan Democrat lawyers wrote this entire 448 page report with one goal in mind: to provide a roadmap to Democrats in Congress for the impeachment of President Trump.

If you don’t believe that, just tune into any show on MSNBC or CNN. That’s all they’ve been talking about since Mueller’s testimony.

As Representative John Radcliffe, R-TX, pointed out in his exchange with Mueller on Wednesday, this report never should have been written, and if written, should never have been released, because it violates the most sacred U.S. legal principal, namely that accused persons are innocent until proven guilty.

“I agree that Donald Trump is not above the law,” Ratclifee said in conclusion. “He’s not. But he damned sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.”

Federal prosecutors either indict, or they decline to indict. They don’t decline to indict – as Team Weissmann did – all the while laying out the rationale for some other prosecutors, such as Democrat committee chairmen in the House, to indict.

Americans should now understand that the so-called Mueller Report is a political hit job, not a work of criminal investigation, and as such, it is just a souped-up version of the infamously unverified “Russia dossier” penned by former British intelligence officer turned Democrat Party paid operative, Christopher Steele

Share