Mueller Accuser Is A No Show As Criminal and Civil Liability Loom Over The Allegations of Sexual Assault

Conspiracy theorists Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, a conservative lobbyist and radio host, are outspoken supporters of President Donald Trump and called reporters to come to a Holiday Inn in Washington to hear from a woman who would allegedly accuse Special Counsel Robert Mueller of sexual misconduct.  Previously, Mueller referred an allegation to the FBI that women were promised money to accuse him of wrongdoing.  With the no show of their accuser, Wohl and Burkman could well be looking at both criminal and civil liability.

Reporters revealed earlier in the week that they had received emails from a woman who said that the was offered the money to implicate Mueller and reporters said that the offers were linked to  SureFire Intelligence, a company NBC News connected to Jacob Wohl.  Later a second woman said that she was also offered money by a SureFire agent.

The press conference was going to feature an accuser described as  a Los Angeles native in her 30s who was going to detail allegations that Mueller had sexually assaulted her in a hotel room in August 2010.  Wohl described her as “a fashion designer, who was “well-educated and comes from a good family.”  He emphasized that “She is a gal who has an illustrious background and she is not politically oriented.”

However, Wohl explained that she was afraid for her life after arriving in Washington. He said that she “panicked and boarded a flight to another location.”

The press conference quickly turned bizarre.  Wohl denied any offers of money – the matter that has now been referred to the FBI for investigation.  

Wohl admitted that he met the woman after she hired his company SureFire Intelligence to handle “an estate matter.”
Burkman then seemed to refer to her as his “client”  and said  “We have tentacles out in all directions gathering evidence,” Burkman said.

When reporters noted that Mueller could show that he was at jury duty on the specific date, Wohl observed that “sometimes people go to jury duty, but they’re also somewhere else.”  When reporters began to laugh, Wohl insisted “It’s not funny. It’s not a laughing matter.”

Indeed, it is not.  Putting aside the potential for criminal liability, Mueller could well sue the two men and the woman for defamation if the allegations are false.

New York Times v. Sullivan places public officials (and later public figures) under a higher standard for defamation in the case: requiring a showing of actual malice or knowing disregard of the truth.  That makes it more difficult to prove defamation if you are a public figure.  However, it is not impossible.  Even if these two individuals could convincingly argue that they did not have actual knowledge of falsity, there could be a real challenge under the reckless disregard prong.  Moreover, Mueller would be entitled to discovery in fully exploring their financial and political connections to any effort to defame him.

The criminal investigation will obviously turn on questions of fraud as well as alleged efforts to intimidate a prosecutor or obstruction of an investigation. There are also possible charges like subordination of perjury depending on any specific arrangement with these women.  Mueller however is clearly reluctant to pursue a personal tort claim when he is trying to complete his investigation as Special Counsel.  His referral to the FBI therefore allowed for an investigation while separating himself from that effort. There is ordinarily a one year or two year statute of limitations.  In D.C. it is one year.  See D.C. Code Sec 12-301(4).  Thus, Mueller can allow the criminal investigation to be completed and then, after ending his work as special counsel, file a lawsuit against the individuals.

The allegations are equally troubling if they are true or false.  If false, the allegations raise a deeply disturbing effort to discredit the Special Counsel on a personal level.  If that is the case (and I see no credible evidence against Mueller), Mueller should sue not simply for his family name but the public interest.

21 thoughts on “Mueller Accuser Is A No Show As Criminal and Civil Liability Loom Over The Allegations of Sexual Assault”

  1. Mr. Turley
    Referencing this para:
    “When reporters noted that Mueller could show that he was at jury duty on the specific date, Wohl observed that “sometimes people go to jury duty, but they’re also somewhere else.” When reporters began to laugh, Wohl insisted “It’s not funny. It’s not a laughing matter.””

    I wonder if he means this.
    Mueller was obviously quickly released from jury duty on Aug 2 probably with ample time to make it to NYC before dinner.
    The point being is that Mueller just may have been in NYC at the time of the alleged assault as noted in the link below. Not a smoking gun but certainly not helpful to his alibi. Should be looked into.

    https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2010/nyfo080610.htm

  2. FEW RESPONSES TO HOAX STORY ON TURLEY’S BLOG

    Had these same allegations been presented as ‘credible’, Trump supporters would have been jubilant. That was, in fact, the intention of this hoax; ‘to excite deplorables’. The hoaxers were hoping that the reach of right-wing media would be enough to ‘blow this baby up’; thereby forcing the mainstream media to give it ‘equal weight’.

    Right-wing media pundits would have had a field day promoting this scoop. There would have been a barrage of comments to the effect that mainstream media was trying to ‘cover up’, or that the ‘liberal response was only crickets’.

    It was hoped The New York Times and Washington Post would have had to show the same ‘sensitivity’ to Mueller’s accuser that they showed to Kavanaugh’s. Charges of ‘hypocrisy’ would have shelled those papers like endless mortar rounds. ‘That’ was the intention of this shabby hoax; ‘to cow the mainstream media’.

    Instead this hoax backfired and left the participants looking foolish. Therefore Trump supporters, on Jonathan Turley’s blog, have scarcely any comments. How disappointed they are that right-wing media failed to launch this missile. For once the echo chamber couldn’t bounce a baseless charge.

  3. The article refers to “the reckless disregard prong”. That is when the thing itself (the prong) recklessly talks or speaks. A woman without a prong has a different defense when prosecuted.

  4. All of this intrigue and they choose a Holiday Inn as the venue. It doesn’t even make for a good mystery. What’s next, McDonalds?

    1. Darren, I guess they figured a professional banquet room, however modest, would look respectable on tape. There would be a parking lot, sanitary restrooms plus food & beverage concessions. The hoaxer on a budget could imagine Holiday Inn as perfectly credible.

    1. More reckless disregard for the truth. A “Go Fund Me” raised the money, but who ever said she authorized it. Any evidence Dr. Ford ever received it? You claim that she was paid “for testifying against Kavanaugh”. Where’s the proof? Oh, I forgot. You follow Faux News, so facts don’t faze you.

      1. Anonymous – I know that Kavanaugh has turned his $600k GoFundMe over to a Catholic Boys School. No one has mentioned what Chrissy has done with her funds.

  5. Please clarify your cerebral comment that uses no logic or rational thought regarding the whooey. I trust you have your chest wadders on cause you will need a belt around your waist. Best regards, hugs & kisses!

  6. LMAO if the left can get away with it why not everyone. Looks like these two acted in ‘good faith’ so BFD. After all it may have been a set up. Maybe they are demonstrating exactly that for a book deal?

    1. Left can get away with what? Kavanaugh’s accusers were all willing to testify under penalty of perjury. Only one got the time of day. And that one had come forward before he was even the nominee. Mueller’s “accuser” was seeking to pay people to commit perjury and hid the second the story fell apart.

      1. Left can get away with what? Kavanaugh’s accusers were all willing to testify under penalty of perjury. Only one got the time of day.

        All three were peddling stories decades after the fact, one was a serial fraudster in litigation, that same one was offering incredible tales, and the other contended she was intoxicated and thought she had a look at BK’s private parts, a conclusion she came to after ‘working with’ a lawyer for several days. The one who did testify was caught in three demonstrable lies. None of them deserved the time of day.

    2. Rather- get paid to bring allegations. If someone were paying people to bring stories of Kavanaugh that would be a huge scandal. There’s plenty of desperate people out there. If you paid people $10,000 to bring accusations against Jesus himself you’d get takers. If the only reward is death threats and intense personal scrutiny however, what is the likelihood of getting a college professor to falsely accuse someone????

      1. CK07 – she got $1M tax-free, and is considering several book deals. Since her lawyers were pro-bono, and the committee covered most of her OOP expenses, I think she came out pretty good for a college professor.

Leave a Reply