Trump Attorney John Dowd Accuses Mueller of “Monstrous Lie and Scheme to Defraud,” Gregg Jarrett Reports

It appears that collusion did indeed happen...

But it wasn't between Trump and Russia.

No, the real collusion appeared to take place between Mueller and Deep State agents out to get President Trump.

Fox News has more details of Trump's attorney accusing Mueller of lying:

John Dowd, one of the lead lawyers who represented President Trump during Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion, said Tuesday that the special counsel engineered a perjury trap for Trump in the exact same way that James Comey’s FBI invented a trap for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

“Mueller’s scheme was the same one captured in the (newly released) FBI set-up notes pertaining to Flynn. They knew they had nothing, but using their official power they created and perpetuated the facade of an investigation,” said Dowd.

In an extensive interview on Tuesday, Dowd explained to me how his commitment of cooperation and transparency in dealing with Mueller was eventually turned against the president, as the special counsel “misled” Trump’s legal team in order to manufacture a crime where none existed.

According to Dowd, Mueller learned early in his investigation that there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion to influence the 2016 presidential election. He admitted it during a meeting with the president’s lawyers on March 5, 2018. So, Mueller shifted to a legally contorted interpretation of obstruction of justice in order to keep his investigation afloat.

On Tuesday, Dowd elaborated on how the special counsel deceived the Trump team:

“As I look back, we had the most perfect trusting relationship with Mueller based on his word and handshake, which held throughout. No paper. Word was solid. They received everything they asked for without a hitch or page missing, including the most intimate notes of conversations with and by POTUS (President of the United States). Every witness they requested testified truthfully. No lying. No grand jury testimony. Mueller affirmed all of this in our March 5 (2018) meeting. How could there be a whisper of obstruction under these circumstances?”

Despite no evidence of an underlying crime, Mueller insisted that the president be interviewed by the special counsel. Dowd knew it was a trap. Mueller had done it to Flynn and others. He was clearly angling for obstruction of justice and hoping to ensnare the president in the equivalent of a perjury trap if he consented to be interviewed.

But obstructing what? Mueller readily acknowledged that there was no underlying crime. Moreover, Trump had encouraged every witness connected to his campaign and the White House to testify. He voluntarily produced more than a million pages of documents. The special counsel’s investigation had proceeded unimpeded.  

As Mueller persisted, Trump’s lawyer realized that he had been conned all along. On Tuesday, Dowd was unsparing in his scorn for Mueller and his unscrupulous tactics:  

“That is when I knew he had lied to me in our original meeting (June 16, 2017) and every meeting thereafter. Robert Mueller —‘D.C.’s great man’ — completely and deliberately misled us in order to set up a perjury/false statement trap for POTUS. It was a monstrous lie and scheme to defraud.”

Dowd shared with me numerous documents and letters supporting his accusations against Mueller. They paint a vivid picture of a special counsel determined to damage the president with an investigation bereft of any credible evidence.

In the March 5, 2018, meeting, the special counsel suggested that maybe Trump’s firing of Comey (Mueller’s longtime friend, partner and ally) might constitute obstruction of justice. This was especially ludicrous since both Comey and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe had testified that no one had obstructed the bureau’s investigation and that the probe had continued uninterrupted after Comey’s departure.  

Dowd patiently explained to Mueller that the firing had been an exercise of presidential authority under the Constitution and could not, by definition, establish obstruction. Even Comey had confirmed this. Trump had sacked the director for repeated violations of FBI regulations in his mishandling the Hillary Clinton email scandal and on the recommendation of the deputy attorney general, as well as several former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general from different eras and both political parties.    

Yet, Mueller would not relent.

Though Democrats spent 3 years investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion, there has never been ANY evidence that such collusion occured or impacted the election.

In fact, in recent weeks, the investigation into Trump has appeared to fall apart and lose its basis.

The total exoneration of General Flynn has raised serious questions into the Russia probe as well as the integrity of top Obama administration officials.

Democrats, who already attempted to impeach President Trump and remove him from office but FAILED, are openly talking about impeaching President Trump... AGAIN!

They've requested documents pertaining to the Mueller investigation so they can re-hash the Mueller fraud and attempt to find a new spin on the controversy.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major win by temporarily blocking the release of the documents, the New York Times reports:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked the release of parts of the report prepared by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The court’s order, concerning a request by the House Judiciary Committee for grand jury materials that the Justice Department had blacked out from the report provided to Congress, could mean that the full report would not be made available before the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court’s brief order gave no reasons for blocking an appeals court ruling ordering the release of the full report while the justices considered whether to hear the case. It ordered the Justice Department to file a petition seeking review by June 1. There were no noted dissents.

The House told the justices that it sought information about whether President Trump had obstructed justice, a topic on which Mr. Mueller failed to reach a conclusion.

“These redactions bear on whether the president committed impeachable offenses by obstructing the F.B.I.’s and special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and his possible motivations for doing so,” the House’s brief said.

Mr. Trump was impeached by the House in December and acquitted by the Senate in February. The House told the Supreme Court that its inquiry into the president’s conduct was not over.

“The committee’s impeachment investigation related to obstruction of justice pertaining to the Russia investigation is ongoing,” the brief said.

It's clear that Democrats are STILL trying to undo the results of the November 2016 election.

With the nation in the midst of a grave crisis and an election less than 6 months away, do Democrats truly want to attempt another divisive impeachment process?

For a party that claims every vote should count, perhaps they should wait until November and allow the voters to do their thing.

Or... do they secretly fear that there's no chance for Joe Biden to defeat President Trump?

It appears that Democrats are more willing to place their bets on impeachment, rather than rallying around Sleepy Joe.