Mueller’s Disgraceful Exit
The special counsel teed up Democrats for impeachment on phony obstruction inference.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in remarks that demonstrate how once-admirable FBI directors become power drunk on Potomac political water, declared that his investigation was over and that he was closing his office and retiring. And not a minute too soon…
Mueller used his Wednesday press conference to take a few final partisan digs at President Donald Trump, encouraging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) to move forward with their obstructionist impeachment charade based on some conjecture about obstruction of justice. Again, “obstructing” something neither Mueller nor his water carrier, Clinton-supporting FBI Director James Comey, nor his coup co-conspirators could find.
Of course, the latter is a key element of the Demos’ 2020 campaign strategy to undermine Trump’s MAGA economic success.
Responding to Mueller’s dog whistle, Pelosi said, “We do want to make such a compelling case, such an ironclad case [for impeachment] that even the Republican Senate would … be convinced of the path that we have to take as a country.”
Nadler insists, “Special Counsel Mueller reaffirmed his report … that the president sought to obstruct Mueller’s investigation over and over again. He also confirmed three central points: he did not exonerate the president of the United States of obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system, and the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the president accountable.”
“Nothing changes,” Trump responded. “The case is closed!”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board thoroughly rebutted Nadler’s nonsense:
Mr. Mueller’s analysis of the obstruction evidence in his own report makes clear that no investigation was obstructed. Not the FBI’s counterintelligence probe, and not his own. No witnesses were interfered with, and Mr. Mueller was allowed over two years to issue nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants and interview anyone he wanted, including anyone in the White House.
Mr. Trump sometimes showed his exasperation, and bad judgment, in suggesting to more than one adviser that Mr. Mueller be fired, but no one acted on it. The special counsel probe rolled on without interference.
According to Mark Alexander: “In Mueller’s statement, he noted up front that his charge was ‘to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election,’ including ‘investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.’”
“In fact,” Alexander continues, “the origin and motives of Mueller’s investigation were based on a fake dossier funded by the Clinton campaign. The resulting investigation was an attempt by a handful of Barack Obama’s corrupt deep-state actors at the top of the DOJ and CIA to set Trump up for a takedown in the unlikely event he was elected. But, in the final analysis, as made clear by Attorney General William Barr in his summary upon releasing Mueller’s report, there was no Trump/Russia collusion. A rookie beat cop could have determined that on Day One of Mueller’s political hit job masquerading as an ‘investigation.’”
Alexander concludes, “As it turns out, there is a much better case for Clinton/Putin collusion with the complicity of Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan — which should be the subject of a legitimate special prosecutor investigation. And the greatest of ironies: The result of this investigative subterfuge is that, by several orders of magnitude, it did more to undermine the integrity of American elections than Vladimir Putin’s puppets could ever have hoped to achieve. Or, in the end, perhaps that is exactly what he achieved. Watergate pales in comparison to the Clinton/DoJ/CIA collusion to take down Trump…”
On the foundational question of American criminal justice, Thomas Gallatin says, “Innocent until proven guilty? Mueller may have paid lip service to America’s bedrock principle of justice, but it was clear that his view of jurisprudence is quite the opposite. After admitting that his team found no evidence that Trump committed a crime, Mueller dropped this twisted statement: ‘If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.’ He then equivocated, ‘We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.’ In other words, Mueller believes Trump is guilty but could not find sufficient evidence to support such a charge, so he instead declared him ‘not exonerated.’ This is not how our justice system works.”
Moreover, Gallatin argues, “What may be the most disconcerting aspect of this whole fiasco is that our nation’s past two top law men — Comey and Mueller before him — blatantly display such a flawed view of jurisprudence. The two men have done more to sow public distrust in the FBI than anything Trump or the media have ever said.”
As Alan Dershowitz keenly notes, Mueller’s statement “is worse than the statement made by then-FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.” How? “By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias.” Moreover, Dershowitz said, “I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.”
So where do Democrats go from here? Nate Jackson predicts, “Democrats will simply continue to imply Trump is guilty without ever actually impeaching him. At least not until 10 minutes after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021. After all, the Demo objective is to keep Trump on the ropes to make him beatable in 2020.”
Mueller teed them up nicely, however they wish to proceed. “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” he said. He gave no discernible wink and nod, but Mueller could only mean for Congress to take up impeachment.
The 2020 Democrat presidential candidates each ran for the nearest microphone to pontificate on their solemn duty to do so. Cory Booker called it a “legal and moral obligation.” Elizabeth Warren invoked the Constitution, which “leaves it up to Congress to act.” Kirsten Gillibrand likewise insisted, “We can’t let the president defy basic accountability measures built into our Constitution.” Such faux cynical appeals to the Constitution are par for the course with Democrats. And this whole sorry affair is exactly why so many Americans wanted Trump to drain the swamp.
(P.S. Perhaps the best explanation of the Democrat’s case against Trump, comes from a friend of Mark Alexander, an erudite rancher in Montana: “While we know Trump didn’t steal any cattle, he is definitely guilty of obstructing our efforts to hang him for stealing cattle, so we will hang him for that!”)
Start a conversation using these share links: