Mueller Investigation: Ending the Probe that Never Should have Started in the First Place

By Lynn Matthews & Tim Walsh

Its been over a year since the Mueller investigation began looking into allegations of collusion or any kind of Russian interference in the 2016 election of President Trump.  So far the special counsel has indicted, charged, and brokered plea deals with several Trump associates for process crimes such as tax-evasion or lying to the FBI, charges that have nothing to do with anyone attempting to work with any Russians to interfere with, or change the outcome of the 2016 election results.

Robert Mueller even went into examining the tax records of Paul Manafort, a former campaign manager for President Trump; in an attempt to “flip”, or bully him into testifying against the president.  Having the FBI arrest him in an early morning home raid using SWAT team tactics that can be described as those they would use for a serial killer or foreign terrorist.  They did not have the proper warrant to do so until after the fact.

The Mueller Investigation went to investigating Michael Flynn, a United States Army Lieutenant General who served this country for more than 33 years. Mueller had the FBI place Flynn under arrest for allegedly Lying the the FBI.  Flynn was later cleared.

The most troubling issue, despite all the media hype, is the fact that Mueller is looking for a man to fit a crime that has yet to be discovered.  The firing of James Comey was used in an attempt to decry that President Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice.  Many on both sides of the political aisle called for his firing, some blamed him for Hillary’s elections loss.  It was James Comey who lied to congress with respect to denying leaking of documents, then later he admitted to leaking of documents to compel the creation of a special counsel.  An absolute double standard of the law.

Another significant consideration with respect to obstruction is that Rod Rosenstein wrote the letter to President Trump referring him to fire James Comey.  Then turns around and appoints a special counsel to investigate the firing of  James Comey as potential obstruction.  Because Rod Rosenstein wrote that letter, that makes him a fact witness in “the incident” of firing James Comey.  For him to oversee the investigation of firing Comey as potential obstruction is a severe conflict of interest.  One can easily argue its the textbook definition of conflict of interest.

While looking for a man to fit the crime, Mueller has went after Dr.  Jerome Corsi, author and Trump supporter for alleged ties with Wikileaks that he may or may not have had.  He has threatened Dr. Corsi with prosecution because Dr. Corsi forwarded an email to someone looking for a contact with Wikileaks editor Julian Assange.  When Dr. Corsi was allowed to amend his statement to the FBI due to his memory, they accused him of lying to the FBI.  Incidentally, one of the lawyers prosecuting Dr. Corsi is Jeannie Rhee, who was a member of the legal team defending Clinton illegal use of a private server.

Dr. Corsi believes that he has been ensnared in a perjury trap at the behest of the special council investigating him, and has filed a wrongful prosecution against Mueller.  Jeannie Rhee, Aaron Zelinsky, and Andrew Goldstein are the lawyers representing Mueller in the special investigation against Dr. Corsi.

Mr.  Zelinsky is no stranger for advocating for political hardball when it comes to the Democrat party.  His prior blog history which is no longer available is proof of his strong political bias when it comes to the Democratic party, and as the Daily Caller wrote, “he encouraged Obama to emulate the strong-arm tactics of former President Lyndon Johnson. “He wasn’t afraid to get down and dirty with the legislative branch, arm twisting, cajoling, and sometimes bullying senators to vote his way,” Zelinsky said of Johnson.”

Andrew Goldstein, who worked for Preet Bharara, the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was fired by Trump.  His twitter account shows a particular bias as seen by his profile description.


Most importantly in the Mueller investigation is the legality of the appointment.  According to Todd Young, in an article published by Newsmax, “Robert Mueller and his band of erstwhile “Special Assistant United States Attorneys” have power to which they are not entitled — in violation of the checks and balances and separation of powers spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, full stop.

Mark Levin, radio host, and constitutional scholar called the appointment of Mueller unconstitutional and he even referred to it as a violation of the law. He pointed out that not only was the special counsel’s appointment not done in accordance with Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, but not in accordance with the Special counsel statute that lapsed in 1999, or even the DOJ Internal regulation appropriating a special counsel.

In many ways, with no initial crime to investigate, Robert Mueller should have never been appointed in the first place.

Should Congress shut down Mueller?  We report you decide.  Let us know what you think.





Iran Sanctions

A new round of sanctions are being placed on Iran. Mike Pompeo, described them as the most severe to have been imposed on Iran and said they were aimed at forcing Tehran to stop its “destabilizing activities” in the Middle East, referring to Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.  “These sanctions are the toughest ever put in place on the Republic of Iran,” he said. The top diplomat in the US said the new sanctions were designed to “alter Iran’s behavior” and protect Israel and other countries.”

According to National Review, the Iran deal was a fraud.  Citing several secret side deals that were not revealed to congress.  One grievous side deal discovered by accident was that Iran would have the ability to self inspect its nuclear facilities.

According to Ballotpedia, Congress did not pass any legislation that approved of or rejected the deal, despite many attempts to do so.  In fact, congress was so opposed to the JCPOA,(Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) it tried to limit President Obama ability to negotiate the deal.  In a final effort to stop the deal, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) proposed an amendment prohibiting “the President from waiving, suspending, reducing, providing relief from, or otherwise limiting the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran.”

The JCPOA, however was signed by Obama despite congress overall attempts to stop it.

President Rouhani of Iran called the sanctions “illegal and unfair”.  And the European Union, Iran, China and Russia have set out a plan to sidestep unilateral US sanctions designed to cripple the Iranian economy and force the Iranians to renegotiate the nuclear deal signed in 2015.  The European Union has even considered reverse sanctions on Industries that refuse to do business with Iran to avoid United States sanctions.

How these sanctions will affect Iran, is still not known, and the political fallout could be devastating given that China, Russia and the European Union are intending to violate US sanctions and continue to do trade with Iran.  Given the clandestine nature of the JCPOA, one would have to wonder, why any country would sign it.

We here at Red Hot Media work to bring you the most truthful news on the internet.  If you would like to support our work, please consider donating by clicking here.

The 14th Amendment vs. Pregnancy Tourism

by Lynn Matthews and Tim Walsh

President Donald Trump hinted in an Axios interview that he wanted to put an end to women entering America to have children that can claim citizenship.  A practice referred to a pregnancy tourism; where pregnant women from foreign countries have their babies born here, receive a birth certificate, social security card, and are immediately granted citizenship in America.

While a hotly contested issue for both citizens and non citizens.  RHM has decided to examine the 14th Amendment, whose original intention was to grant protections to recently freed slaves;  where it came from and who represents it.  According to Mark Levin, Constitutional scholar,  “Not until the 1960’s has the Constitution been interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy.”

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”   Jurisdiction means having a legal right over something.

By the very wording of the first sentence, one would interpret this to imply, that if persons born here in the United States, raised to hate the United States, and have the intention of over throwing the government of the United States, they would still proclaim to have citizenship in the United States.  By that standard, even the President of the United States, being raised in an environment could seek to over throw the United States.  Hypothetically speaking, a future president raised to admire Sharia Law, could potentially seek to divide the nation from it’s constitutional values, by dividing the nation based on sexual orientation, racial orientation, religious orientation, simply by giving one group significantly more attention.  By addressing claims of prejudice where none exist.

According to Pew Research, “The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world. Today, more than 40 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country, accounting for about one-fifth of the world’s migrants in 2016.  Mexico is the top origin country of the U.S. immigrant population. In 2016, 11.6 million immigrants living in the U.S. were from there, accounting for 26% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest origin groups were those from China (6%), India (6%), the Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%).

The hotly contested 14th Amendment needs to have a discussion regarding its origins, and the future of America with respect to it.  Many legal scholars, and politicians are advocating for the first sentence, All persons born, and forgetting the second half.  The originator of the Amendment plainly made his intentions known when writing it.  According to Wikipedia, ” During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Howard argued for including the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:”  He further argued, “Every person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.”

According to Conservative Review, this issued is already settled, with respect to how the Supreme Court views the 14th Amendment.  Citing, “Nowhere is this more evident than in the debate over so-called birthright citizenship, where the Left cherry-picks one non-binding footnote of a terrible decision misinterpreting another bad decision that violates previous precedent, the plain meaning and purpose of the 14th Amendment, sovereignty, and the social compact while collectively ignoring endless uninterrupted case law indicating the opposite – all for the political outcome of giving our sacred birthright to illegal aliens.”

We here at Red Hot Media report the issues, you decide.

If you wish to support the work that we do at Red Hot Media you can help support our work on paypal:



Salem Witch Trials – Again?

It happened in 1692, and perhaps was one of Americas most horrific incidents of all Times.  Two young girls reported to have been possessed by Satan, which led to a mass hysteria that resulted in the deaths of over 200 people.

The Satanic possession, was so prevalent, even those defending the accused were later accused themselves.

According to the History Channel, “The infamous Salem witch trials began during the spring of 1692, after a group of young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts, claimed to be possessed by the devil and accused several local women of witchcraft. As a wave of hysteria spread throughout colonial Massachusetts, a special court convened in Salem to hear the cases; the first convicted witch, Bridget Bishop, was hanged that June. Eighteen others followed Bishop to Salem’s Gallows Hill, while some 150 more men, women and children were accused over the next several months.”

Today, we have a modern day Salem occurring in our country, where anonymous reports of evil doings have hit such a fervent pitch, our own government is turning itself upside down to decry, Impeach, drive the administration out, screaming at our government officials and calling them Nazi.  All without a shred of evidence of their involvement in the precepts of Nazism.

Association, with anyone who enjoys our current system of government is called a “white nationalist”, “misogynist”, “xenophobe”, “racist”, or other abhorrent names, once reserved for those who commit crimes against humanity.  These are such common terms now, that even the main stream media uses them with their microphone to cause animosity to anyone disagreeing with their ideology.

In relationship to the girls who created the hysteria, is a reference to the main stream media.  Their divisive tactics are perpetuating this media hype that all supporters of the current administration, anyone who agrees with conservative principles, and the rules governing our nation by our founding documents, have been exposed.  Even those who make jokes about them, are sought out and threatened by them as in the case of the young man who made a meme depicting CNN in a negative light.

The main stream media has created a hysteria about the President of the United States.  So profound that it would be easy to think that Russian operatives were sitting on the border of Canada waiting for the opportunity to rush into the country and take over the White House.  As so many of the media pundits have pointed out, “Russians interfered in our democracy”.  However, with the evidence obtained thus far, indicates, a few people made some fake social media accounts, and were playing with peoples heads like an online game where they played Live Action Role Player. (LARP)

Posting fake articles with the mission of sewing discontent.  The Russian Bots, orchestrated fake Rallies, and Americans attended.  Even though they had no knowledge of the Russian involvement.  One elderly woman was harassed after she posted about a Trump event, which was staged by Russians.  As Breibart reported, “A private citizen received online abuse after CNN tracked her down and publicly shamed her for unknowingly sharing a “Russian-coordinated event” on her Facebook page.”

Companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have altered their algorithms that allow Conservative outlets voicing their opinions regarding these atrocities of the main stream media have been silenced, or shadow banned, thus adding to the hysteria.  The gateway pundit reported, “In February, Facebook launched a new algorithm to ensure that conservative news would not spread on the social media platform. The algorithm change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%.”

The media has even went so far as to report false, misleading news, citing but not documenting studies only to perpetuate the myth of racism being alive in America.  Time magazine, once known for intriguing articles has entered the realm of fantasy when its editors allowed the following headline to be published.  Nearly 20% of Trump Fans Think Freeing the Slaves Was a Bad Idea.  The article quoted a survey, however the author of the article failed to enclose the study.  RHM was able to find this survey, and with respect to the Headline printed from Time found the article was written from a very loosely defined interpretation of the results.  Below are the results of the study Time magazine is referring to.

Time magazine bogus article

Its easy to see from the survey the misleading headline, as well as the article that followed.  However due to the fact that most people read, and distribute articles online without examining the content it is easy to understand the fear that people would feel by reading it.

Yes, Salem is occurring today, with the help of the main stream media and their constant never ending accusations of racism running rampant, the Hitler hysteria, as well as the Russian narratives, coupled with the inability of conservatives to point out the contrary, RHM believes that the Trials of the American public will soon begin.  Where the Main Stream Media acts, as Judge, Jury and executioner.

CNN, Blaming Trump for attempted Bombing?

Reading an article, not an opinion piece from CNN one would get the opinion that people are not responsible for their own actions, but rather minions of a controlled mindset led by a devious mastermind bent on controlling someone.  A deep controlling entity viewing only their media enterprise, and filled with such contempt for them, that they would act irrationally and out of character for a human being.

After suspicious packages were sent to many people that Trump had mentioned at his rallies, CNN has taken the position, that the alleged bomber is directly tied to the brain of President Trump.  In their article, which is NOT an opinion piece they cite while discussing the suspicious packages, “What do the targets have in common? They’ve all been targeted by President Donald Trump and made into bogeymen for the far-right, often on Fox News by opinion anchors like Sean Hannity.”

While, this article is an example of not holding accountable a person who acted upon vitriol he had heard it indeed makes the claim of blaming the victim.  Because the people whom had received the packages were indeed the ones whom Trump had discussed at his rallies.

However, a close examination of their vitriolic article, it is easy to see, why someone would contemplate these actions.  Calling out Fake News, at CNN, does not necessarily portray a visceral feeling of hate or contempt, however CNN making the claim, of blaming the victim could easily upset a normal person.  People who act irrationally do so because they are irrational.  Is CNN necessarily acting, or commentating in a rational manner?  According to CNN, Trump has criticized their network numerous times.  Where as their network has reported non-stop since before his presidency on negative Trump issues.  In fact, on slow news days, they have been known to resort back to previous Trump stories just to show contempt for him.  Trump is one man, vs an entire network, with 24/7 coverage cycle, portraying him in a negative form.

As for other examples, lets examine the rhetoric of Maxine Waters, democrat in California at a rally she was holding.  “If you see anybody from that administration, in a restaurant, at a department store, at a gasoline station; you get out and create a crowd, and you push back on them.  And you tell them they’re not welcome.

According to Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, while holding a meeting, he made the claim, “when they go low, we kick them”, resulting in laughter from his audience.

Another example is previous presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

Other examples of poor behavior on behalf of anti-trump supporters can all too well recall Madonna, donning a black cap designed to resemble kitten ears and her vitriolic diatribe where she claimed, “yes, i have thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house” to a crowd of screaming crowd.

According to WND, The Obama administration’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made an impassioned video plea for more marching, blood and death on the streets – a video that was later posted on the Facebook page of Senate Democrats as “words of inspiration.”

Trump supporters, being asked to leave establishments, for openly supporting their candidate, Trump supporters being harassed for attending events where conservative speakers are featured.  The vitriol is non-ending, and CNN and other media outlets who allege they are valid news sources are in a race to discover what new scandal they can uncover with respect to a sitting president.  Yet claim they are the victim of his perhaps distasteful commentary.

If anyone is a victim, it is the American public who are forced by the establishments they visit, airports, restaurants, bars, to watch the endless hours of political commentary aimed at portraying the President they elected as anything less than the President.  They are the real victims here, not a network who divisively portrays the president and the people who believe in him as racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, unintelligent, anti-Americans.

When media outlets report the news, with facts, and qualify their rhetoric as political commentary instead of news worthy topics, perhaps they can then be held with the respect they deserve as journalists, and regain their journalistic integrity, until then they should be labeled and registered as a political pac.



Blog at

Up ↑