What’s the final conclusive proof that Special Counsel Robert Mueller hasn’t found any collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians? A new report today that suggests Mueller is casting around trying to find other crimes beyond his original charge that he was supposed to be pursuing – Russian influence on the election.
From Fox News:
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is now purportedly looking into whether the United Arab Emirates, with perhaps help from a top adviser, tried to gain political influence by putting money into Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign — a tack that would indicate Mueller’s investigation continues to expand beyond whether campaign officials colluded with Russia.
Mueller’s investigators in recent weeks have questioned the adviser, Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, and asked witnesses for information about whether the UAE tried to buy political influence by giving money to the Trump campaign, according to The New York Times.
Nader was close to Steve Bannon, according to the Times.
Note that it’s a report from the New York Times, so there’s a question there. And of course, it’s very curious how certain media outlets seem to have a line into the Mueller’s team to know what is allegedly going on.
But the reports are often wrong as well, so take that under advisement.
Axios has also reported that Mueller investigators were talking to Nader.
Nothing in the report indicates that there was evidence of any crime, even if true.
It stands to reason that Mueller might talk to a lot of people even if nothing had been done.
Mueller took over the Justice Department investigation in May 2017. And in recent weeks, he has made several moves that suggest his probe has expanded beyond possible collusion, including charging former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort with alleged tax and bank fraud and indicting 13 Russians in connection with trying to sow political discord during the 2016 elections.
The NY Times said Mueller’s team was looking into what influence Nader might have had on policymaking and they have a memo about a meeting between President Donald Trump and Elliot Broidy who has security contracts with the UAE.
And so? Where’s the evidence of any pay for play?
Meanwhile, pay for play is literally screaming out with the Clinton Foundation and in the uranium investigation.
This has become a desperate hunt to find something, anything, they can throw up against the wall either to get Trump or to justify their existence.
[Note: This post was written by Nick Arama]