by WashingtonsBlog<\/p>\n
The New York Times\u00a0characterizes<\/a>\u00a0special prosecutor Robert Mueller as being independent and fair:<\/p>\n Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s fact-check the Times \u2026<\/p>\n Mueller presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.<\/p>\n The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI\u2019s investigation was\u00a0\u201cflawed and inaccurate\u201d<\/a>.\u00a0 The investigation was so bogus that a senator\u00a0called for<\/a>\u00a0an \u201cindependent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case.\u201d<\/p>\n The head of the FBI\u2019s anthrax investigation says\u00a0the whole thing was a sham<\/a>. He\u00a0says<\/a>\u00a0that the FBI higher-ups \u201cgreatly obstructed and impeded the investigation\u201d, that there were \u201cpolitically motivated communication embargos from FBI Headquarters\u201d.<\/p>\n Moreover, the anthrax investigation head\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0that the FBI\u00a0framed<\/em>\u00a0scientist Bruce Ivins.\u00a0 On July 6, 2006, the FBI\u2019s anthrax investigation FBI Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI\u2019s Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:<\/p>\n (j) the\u00a0FBI\u2019s fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer<\/strong>; and, (k) the FBI\u2019s subsequent efforts to\u00a0railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory\u00a0evidence<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants\u00a0DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins\u2019 guilt<\/strong>. These efforts included press conferences and\u00a0highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions<\/strong>. In other words, Mueller presided over the attempt to frame an\u00a0innocent man<\/a>\u00a0(and\u00a0see this<\/a>).<\/p>\n Rather than saying \u201cof course not!\u201d, Mueller said that he wasn\u2019t sure whether Obama had the right to\u00a0assassinate Americans living on American soil<\/a>.<\/p>\n Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley\u00a0commented<\/a>\u00a0at the time:<\/p>\n One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.<\/em><\/p>\n ***<\/em><\/p>\n He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: \u201cOf course, I do not have that power under the Constitution.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mueller participated in one of the\u00a0greatest expansions of mass surveillance<\/a>\u00a0in human history.\u00a0 As we\u00a0noted<\/a>\u00a0in 2013:<\/p>\n NBC News\u00a0reports<\/a>:<\/em><\/p>\n NBC News has learned that under the post-9\/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting records on\u00a0every phone call made in the U.S.<\/strong><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller\u00a0told<\/a>\u00a0the Senate Judiciary Committee:<\/em><\/p>\n We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together\u00a0past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\nAnthrax Frame-Up<\/h3>\n
\n<\/span>
\n<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\nUnsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil<\/h3>\n
Spying on Americans<\/h3>\n