House committee withdraws subpoena for Robert Mueller, cites health concerns from family



The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform kicked off its series of high-profile subpoena hearings last month with former Attorney General Bill Barr, who investigated the suspicious death of Jeffrey Epstein. Tuesday, however, former FBI Director Robert Mueller's hearing ran into an unexpected hitch, leading to its cancellation.

Mueller, who became the FBI director shortly before the September 11 attacks and resigned in 2013, was reportedly diagnosed with Parkinson's disease four years ago.

'We've learned that Mr. Mueller has health issues that preclude him from being able to testify.'

The AP reported that the committee withdrew its subpoena of Mueller, citing the state of his health.

"We've learned that Mr. Mueller has health issues that preclude him from being able to testify. The committee has withdrawn its subpoena," a committee aide told CBS News earlier this week.

RELATED: Former AG Bill Barr testifies he found no dirt on Trump during Epstein probe, Comer says

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“Bob was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in the summer of 2021,” Robert Mueller's family said in a statement to the New York Times on Sunday. “He retired from the practice of law at the end of that year. He taught at his law school alma mater during the fall of both 2021 and 2022, and he retired at the end of 2022. His family asks that his privacy be respected.”

Suspicions that Mueller's health was declining have been aired since at least 2019, when he gave a "halting performance" during a hearing on the Russia investigation, according to the New York Times. During a key meeting to discuss the findings of the investigation, Mueller’s hands “were trembling” and his voice was “tremulous,” Barr wrote in a memoir published in 2022.

In a cover letter addressed to Mueller on August 5, Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) explained the reasoning behind the subpoena issued on July 23, 2025. The committee sought information that members believed Mueller may have regarding the investigation into Epstein. "Because you were FBI Director during the time when Mr. Epstein was under investigation by the FBI, the Committee believes that you possess knowledge and information relevant to its investigation."

The subpoena hearing was set for September 2, 2025.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Robert Mueller Reportedly Diagnosed With Parkinson’s Disease

Mueller has been living in a memory-care facility

Bill Barr Says Trump Never Intervened In Epstein Case, No Evidence Of Crime

Barr cooperated fully in the deposition

House Oversight Committee To Withdraw Robert Mueller’s Subpoena

Mueller is reportedly residing in a memory care facility

Bombshell DNI Emails Expose Fraud That Sabotaged 2018 Trump-Putin Summit

The new release by Gabbard is a vindication for Trump, who stood alone in 2018, and strengthens his position ahead of the upcoming summit.

In Hindsight, It Makes Total Sense Robert Mueller Is Apparently Losing His Mind

'Holy crap, what’s wrong with Bob?'

Durham annex proves Russiagate was a coordinated smear



Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last week declassified a 29-page document known as the Durham annex. Its publication has received remarkably little attention from major media outlets, despite containing one of the most significant intelligence disclosures since the origins of the Russiagate investigation.

The Durham annex is not conjecture, analysis, or political spin. It is a collection of sensitive intelligence reports, internal memos, and declassified emails compiled by the intelligence community and withheld from public view for years under the pretext of “source protection.”

The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence in 2015 and 2016 suggesting that foreign governments were attempting to collude not with Trump, but with Clinton.

The declassified document offers a clearer view of what many Americans have long suspected: that the narrative surrounding Trump-Russia collusion was not only politically motivated but deliberately constructed by the Clinton campaign, facilitated by sympathetic actors within U.S. intelligence agencies, and ultimately endorsed by senior members of the Obama administration.

This trove of documents does not merely reinforce existing criticisms of the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election. It provides evidence that the Clinton campaign approved a strategy to discredit Donald Trump by promoting a false association with Vladimir Putin. And it does so using intelligence collected from foreign surveillance of American political actors — surveillance that the CIA deemed credible enough to brief President Barack Obama directly.

The cover-up unraveled

Central to the Durham annex is a source codenamed “T1” — a foreign intelligence asset who intercepted Russian cyber-espionage activity targeting American entities, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Clinton campaign, and U.S. think tanks. The reports T1 relayed to U.S. intelligence included detailed assessments of internal American political strategy. In effect, T1 was watching Russian spies watch us — and reporting back.

T1’s identity remains classified, but strong circumstantial evidence points to a Dutch intelligence source. The Netherlands reportedly gained access to Russian cyber operations as early as 2014. Regardless of who provided it, U.S. agencies treated the intelligence from T1 as credible.

Then-CIA Director John Brennan quickly briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Those briefings included memos indicating Hillary Clinton had personally approved a plan to tie Donald Trump to Russian election interference.

One memo, dated 2016 and reportedly obtained through Russian surveillance of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, outlined a Clinton campaign strategy: “Smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal” over Russia’s preference for Trump. That memo laid the groundwork for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax now known as Russiagate.

Intelligence running Clinton’s interference

The CIA labeled the intelligence “sensitive” and credible. The FBI rejected it. Agents claimed it relied on hearsay, appeared exaggerated, and might have suffered from translation errors.

That kind of skepticism might seem reasonable — if the FBI had applied the same scrutiny to the Steele dossier. Instead, they accepted that now-debunked document without verification and used it to justify surveillance warrants.

The inconsistency runs deeper than analysis. The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence from 2015 and 2016 showing that foreign governments weren’t courting Trump — they were cozying up to Clinton.

One memo, written before Trump even announced his candidacy, described a foreign intelligence operative preparing to meet with a Clinton associate to discuss a “plan.” The operative was acting on direct orders from a foreign head of state.

RELATED: The Russia hoax and COVID lies share the same deep-state fingerprints

Photo by Gilbert Carrasquillo/FilmMagic

The precise content of the plan is redacted, but the FBI’s field office viewed it as serious enough to request a FISA warrant. That request, however, was left to “languish in limbo” by senior FBI officials, who subsequently warned Clinton in a defensive briefing.

Frayed trust, no accountability

The documents suggest a coordinated operation — one in which political, bureaucratic, and media institutions aligned to discredit a political opponent using information they had strong reasons to believe was false. The CIA deemed the intelligence worth a presidential briefing. The FBI discarded it. The media ignored it. And Clinton operatives implemented it.

This is not merely a scandal of partisan excess. Nearly 10 years after the first Hillary Clinton email leaks, and eight years after Trump’s unexpected victory, we are only now beginning to see the scope of institutional complicity in the Russiagate deception. The political cost may never be fully calculated, but the institutional damage — to the FBI, to the intelligence community, and to the trust of the American people — is already done.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Levindication: Mark Levin's Mueller and Russia hoax diagnoses in 2019 were right on the money



The House Oversight Committee issued deposition subpoenas on Tuesday to the Department of Justice as well as to a number of high-profile former government officials "for testimony related to horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein."

Among those whom Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) subpoenaed was Robert Mueller.

'I'm not going to mock this man.'

There are mounting doubts over whether Mueller — who was FBI director when child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein received immunity from federal prosecution through a non-prosecution agreement — will be able to testify before the committee.

If accurate, the basis of these doubts serves to vindicate the second of two diagnoses Blaze Media co-founder Mark Levin accurately made in the same segment six years ago.

Then

Mueller was appointed in May 2017 to oversee the DOJ's investigation into allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. His final report, which was released in April 2019, stated that the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Following the publication of his report, Mueller testified before the House Judiciary Committee. It was a total disaster.

During the hearing, the former special counsel stuttered, blanked on critical pieces of information about his investigation, and struggled to hear questions.

RELATED: House Republicans subpoena Clintons, ex-DOJ officials in Epstein probe

JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

After watching the hearing, Levin suggested that the former special counsel might have "onset dementia."

"Look, I've seen people with onset dementia. I'm not going to mock this man," Levin told "Fox & Friends." "He obviously shouldn't have been there. He should've never headed this investigation. I'm not making allegations. I'm not trying to be provocative, but the idea that Rod Rosenstein appointed this man to head the office is an outrage."

In addition to suggesting that Mueller's disastrous performance was the result of cognitive decline, Levin noted that "this is the greatest political scandal in American history, and it's still going on, and it was led by Obama, and it was led by Hillary Clinton."

'Mueller was used by some very vicious people.'

After noting how the FBI spied on the Trump campaign and made good use out of the bogus Steele dossier, Levin said, "They were trying to kill off the Trump campaign. ... This is Obama, Hillary, and their surrogates in law enforcement and in the intelligence agencies."

In an apparent effort to maximize confidence in Mueller's statements to Congress — including the former special counsel's suggestion that his report did not exonerate the president — Newsweek hit Levin on his first claim.

The liberal publication suggested that there was no evidence that Mueller had dementia, that "there are no credible reports of Mueller being unwell in any way," and that the allegation was part of an effort to "discredit the Mueller probe."

Now

Both of Levin's assertions appear to have been right on the money. Newsweek's doubts, on the other hand, appear to have been misplaced.

Paul Sperry, a senior reporter at RealClearInvestigations, revealed on Tuesday that sources told him that Mueller "has been living in a memory-care facility for the past few years."

Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) noted, "It was clear this is where things were heading when we questioned him before congress. Mueller was used by some very vicious people. I’m not sure he really ever knew what was happening in the investigation."

When asked by the Daily Caller about whether Mueller was indeed in a memory-care facility, a spokesman for the Oversight Committee declined to comment.

'More than vindication, I am disgusted and appalled by this.'

Levin's other diagnosis concerning Obama and Clinton's links to the Russia collusion hoax was also recently bolstered by documents declassified and shared by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

The Durham annex, declassified by Ratcliffe then published by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), revealed that the FBI was aware in 2016 of credible intelligence indicating that the Clinton campaign planned to smear Trump, falsely link him to Russia, then have the intelligence community carry the ball down the field.

RELATED: Ratcliffe releases damning Durham annex. Here's what it reveals about Obama-Clinton Russia collusion hoax.

Photo by Gilbert Carrasquillo/FilmMagic

The House Intelligence Committee majority staff report released last month by Gabbard revealed that the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment regarding imagined Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was a work of fiction, including comprising misquotes, unreliable reports, lies of omissions, and straight-out falsehoods.

As Levin deduced, Obama was directly involved — ordering the ICA in December — and the Steele dossier played a role, as it was incorporated in the assessment contrary to ex-CIA Director John Brennan's 2023 statement to Congress.

Levin told Blaze News, "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are responsible for the greatest attack on our Republic from within our government. And they colluded and conspired with the American media, who worked with them every step of the way."

"More than vindication, I am disgusted and appalled by this and am thankful the administration is releasing internal government records and evidence and that a grand jury has been empaneled to criminally expose the reprobates who were involved," continued Levin. "It is also about time that Obama and Clinton will be questioned under oath — or sure as hell better be!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

REPORT: Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller Allegedly Living In Memory Care Facility

'The subpoenas issued are legally binding and duly authorized'

The case against Clinton, Brennan, and Comey is stronger than ever



By now, most politically literate Americans understand that the Steele dossier — the infamous, much ballyhooed collection of 2016 opposition research memos — was either reckless fantasy or deliberate defamation. But what many still don’t grasp is how that discredited document could become central to criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and John Brennan.

They pushed it. They knew better. And now a case is building.

The dossier’s known falsity

On July 28, 2016, CIA Director John Brennan briefed top Obama administration officials — including President Obama, FBI Director James Comey, Vice President Joe Biden, and National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Brennan reported that the Clinton campaign intended to frame Donald Trump by blaming Russian interference on him. This strategy, he explained, aimed to distract from revelations that the Democratic National Committee had rigged its primary against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

If the dossier was a cartoonish act of election interference, then its creators and knowing advocates should face prosecution.

At the same time, the FBI Special Agent Michael Gaeta alerted his superiors that ex-British spy Christopher Steele was compiling a salacious dossier on behalf of Clinton’s campaign. Brennan passed this intelligence to the FBI as a criminal referral.

So what did Clinton, Brennan, and Comey do with that knowledge?

Clinton approved and oversaw the media blitz. Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and Clinton herself pushed the Russia-Trump collusion narrative exhaustively to the press and to DNC delegates — statements that were knowingly false.

That alone opens the door to criminal charges: false statements to federal officials and the press to advance an operation built on fabricated intelligence.

Brennan’s role in spreading a lie

Brennan, for his part, played both sides. He privately briefed White House officials about the hoax but reportedly gave false information to legislators like Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who used it to smear Trump publicly.

Despite knowing the dossier was unverified, Brennan insisted it had “the ring of truth” and fought to attach it to the January 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment as “Annex A.” In May 2023, Brennan denied to the House Judiciary Committee that he pushed the dossier’s inclusion. That claim was contradicted by a December 2016 email he wrote. Lying under oath about that decision could carry criminal consequences.

Comey’s FISA cover-up

Then-FBI Director James Comey didn’t just accept the hoax. He institutionalized it.

Comey approved the October 2016 FISA warrant applications that relied on the Steele dossier. He failed to inform the court that Steele’s work was a Clinton campaign product. Deputy Director Andrew McCabe tried to downplay the dossier’s origins in the FISA applications — and it’s hard to believe Comey was shut out of the discussion.

In December 2016, Obama ordered the professionally prepared honest draft of the ICA to be changed to include a discussion of Vladimir Putin’s alleged “hack and leak” program to assist Donald Trump in the election.

Brennan and Comey knew of this ordered change and later inserted the dossier’s summary into the ICA. They knew that at least that portion of the assessment was false, especially since many of Steele’s sources were themselves tied to the Kremlin.

Put simply: They pushed Kremlin-fed lies to frame Trump — under the pretense of exposing Kremlin interference.

The Russian cast behind the dossier

The dossier’s roots tell the real story.

Fusion GPS, led by Glenn Simpson, contracted Steele while simultaneously working for Russian oligarch Denis Katsyv — who wanted to roll back the Magnitsky Act. Simpson also helped orchestrate the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting involving Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. While promising dirt on Clinton, Veselnitskaya’s real mission was lobbying against Magnitsky sanctions.

Steele, meanwhile, had previously worked for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. His key source? Igor Danchenko, a Brookings Institution analyst who had tried bribing U.S. officials for classified information and claimed ties to “Putin’s Rasputin” Vladislav Surkov and Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin.

Danchenko’s supporting cast in his “peeing prostitutes” fraud included Russian PR agent Charles Dolan and Olga Galkina, a former Russian state media operative who bragged to friends ahead of the election about landing a job in Clinton’s State Department.

RELATED: The Russia hoax and COVID lies share the same deep-state fingerprints

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Mueller made it worse

Shockingly, Robert Mueller’s special counsel office hired Danchenko, approved $200,000 in payments to him, and requested another $346,000 — while giving him access to sensitive U.S. intelligence operations against Moscow. That’s how far the collusion hoax went: Federal law enforcement paid a likely Russian operative to help “investigate” Russia.

Then there’s Susan Rice’s January 2017 memo, which confirmed that Comey planned to withhold Russiagate intelligence from the incoming Trump administration. Comey even memorialized his secretive maneuvering against Trump in five classified memos — personal notes meant to serve as a post hoc CYA roadmap.

Mueller’s team adopted many of the dossier’s core themes, particularly the “Putin hack and leak” narrative — despite clear technical evidence that the DNC data was downloaded internally, not hacked externally.

No expiration date on treason

Fortunately, Brennan’s 2023 testimony — potentially perjurious — could extend the statute of limitations. That gives Justice Department investigators more time to piece together a conspiracy that stretches from the Clinton campaign to the FBI and CIA and all the way to the Oval Office.

And all of it can be traced back to Steele’s dossier, a cynical exercise that dwarfs any prior American political scandal. If the dossier was a cartoonish act of election interference, it follows that its creators and knowing advocates should face prosecution. The dossier was more than another media smear against Donald Trump. It was a coordinated disinformation operation built on Russian sources, laundered through federal agencies, and weaponized against a sitting president.

If that isn’t criminal, what is?