Questions? +1 (202) 335-3939 Login
Trusted News Since 1995
A service for military industry professionals · Wednesday, August 21, 2019 · 494,196,266 Articles · 3+ Million Readers

Was a Demented Robert Mueller an Elder Abuse Victim of Weissmann, Other Angry Dems?, asks Senate Cand. Victor Williams

Defeat "Russia-Hoaxer" Warner

LOGO Victor Williams for US Senate Virginia

Victor Williams' July 4th Announcement of US Senate Run Against Warner

Prof. Williams is Chair and Senior Counsel of Law Professors for Trump

Victor Williams, US Senate- Virginia Candidate Challenging Incumbent Mark Warner, Analyses Mueller's Testimony: Who Ran the So-Called "Muller" Investigation?

Andrew Weissmann gained Mueller’s fulsome trust years ago when he worked directly with FBI Director Mueller. Weissmann’s ironic title working with the FBI chief was Mueller’s 'Special Counsel.'”
— Prof. Victor Williams, Candidate US Senate - Virginia

ARLIGNTON, VIRGINIA, USA, July 26, 2019 / -- Victor Williams announced his Virginia US Senate candidacy against incumbent Mark Warner on July 4, 2019. Williams brands his Senate campaign “Victor Williams for Virginia” –

An attorney, academic, and early Trump supporter, Williams founded and chairs “Law Professors for Trump,”
Williams runs for the Senate because Warner has repeatedly embarrassed Virginia with his Trump-Russia-Hoax” investigations.

Williams states that Robert Mueller’s investigations/report, Warner’s Trump-Russia-Hoax foolishness, and the House’s many anti-Trump harassments are all shameful subparts of the same elitist, establishment crusade against disruptive President Donald Trump and the 2016 American voters.

After Mueller’s House testimony, Williams’ campaign today addresses the three questions that were raised by the Mueller hearings:
1. Who actually ran the Mueller investigation?
2. Who actually made prosecutorial decisions, conducted plea bargain negotiations, and brought legal actions in questionably legitimate use of Mueller’s DOJ-delegated authority?
3. Who actually wrote the Mueller report?

Professor Williams notes that after the congressional hearings -- all Americans now know that Robert Mueller is not the correct answer.

The Williams’ campaign’s analysis of Mueller’s troubling testimony is offered as part of its broader and varied reform proposals for our political and legal system.

Williams’ campaign has previously raised the need for stronger elder protection from abuse. Williams today expressed fear that Mueller testimony ironically evidenced a probable example of such elder abuse.
Elder abuse takes forms beyond the horrendous physical harm and financial pilfering/embezzlement most often reported. The more furtive “undue influence” abuse is less reported and understood.

Williams has focused attention on such furtive type of elder harm involving abusers who exercise “undue influence” to manipulate a person with declining mental capacity.

This abuse is often done for the abuser’s nonmonetary goals.
The undue influence abuse invariably evolves into a carefully-calculated exercise of control.
Such furtive manipulation occurs when victims are beginning to experience forgetfulness, confusion, and embarrassment about mental decline.

The sly abuser may restrict others’ contact with the victim. Soon enough, the elderly person begins to self-isolate and to avoid public speaking.

If family, friends, and professional associates suspect such undue influence, they may go into a type of denial -- neither wanting to embarrass the victim nor wanting to confront the thuggish, sly abuser.

In relation to Mueller’s testimony, Williams now asks if all America is in a type of denial about just what actually happened to Mueller and with his investigation?

As widely reported, Mueller’s testimony left little doubt of a significant decline in his capacities and perhaps a serious cognitive impairment.

So who ran the investigation and wrote the report? We now know that it was not Mueller.
Williams asserts that the nation must analyze Muller’s dysfunction at the hearings: his lack of knowledge about the investigation’s processes and the report bearing his name; his blank stare; his inability to process questions; his tendency/susceptibility to agree with (conflicting) positions as presented to him; and when pressed or stressed, his automated reversion to monosyllabic deflections of pertinent, relevant questions.

Sadly, Mueller did not even know that Reagan first appointed him to be a US Attorney. No congressperson from either side dared ask him to list the first five presidents, or count backwards from 100.

If the Mueller hearing had been scheduled for “sundown,” a more accurate reading of the incapacity might have manifested.

While some might see such an analysis of Mueller’s testimony as unpleasant or unkind, Senate candidate Williams reminds that the prolonged $34 million investigation inflicted an enormous cost on the nation, on President Trump and his family, on the administration, and on those witnesses and targets caught in its Orwellian processes.

Many of the hundreds of average American citizens called as witnesses expended enormous sums on legal fees just for their appearance before the “Mueller” investigators. Mueller testified that he rarely attended the questioning ordeals.

Applying what he has learned to date from his research and concern about elder abuse, Williams posits that only person that Mueller already trusted would have been in a position to have exercised such undue influence over Mueller
As stated before, however, this type of elder abuse is very difficult to trace. It does bear reflection that Mueller’s number-two, zealous Hillary Clinton- supporter Andrew Weissmann appeared to have such trust.

Indeed, Andrew Weissmann gained Mueller’s fulsome trust years ago when Weissmann worked directly with FBI Director Mueller. Weissmann’s ironic title working with the FBI chief was Mueller’s “special counsel.”

Of course, there were at least a dozen other angry, anti-Trump, patently conflicted lawyers working on the Mueller investigation.

Again, how does one prove undue influence in such an investigation done in private? Any conjecture is circumstantial at best. Williams reaches no conclusion.
Williams explains, however, that any person’s manipulation of Mueller would likely have moved quickly from undue influence to a level of effective control over the investigation.

If it was ultimately determined that it was one of the angry, anti-Trump Democrats on staff who actually ran the investigation and wrote the report, Williams notes that many other important questions could then be answered, regarding:
the prolonged nature of the investigation; ignoring the Fusion GPS predicate and the FISA fraud; the deliberate hiring of such a patently conflicted, partisan staff; establishing “exoneration” to replace “innocent until proven guilty” as a new legal standard applying only to Trump; and the shocking selective prosecution decisions.

If it was an Angry Democrat's investigation, such would explain the absurd obstruction phase investigation that prolonged the process for over a year and ultimately lead to the equally absurd Volume II of the __________ (fill in author’s name) Report.

Media should contact the campaign directly for interview or booking requests. or or 571-301-8249 (cell) or 703-566-6227 (landline).

Prof. Victor Williams
Victor Williams for US Senate for Virginia
+1 571-309-8249
email us here
Visit us on social media:

Powered by EIN Presswire

EIN Presswire does not exercise editorial control over third-party content provided, uploaded, published, or distributed by users of EIN Presswire. We are a distributor, not a publisher, of 3rd party content. Such content may contain the views, opinions, statements, offers, and other material of the respective users, suppliers, participants, or authors.

Submit your press release