Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on why Special Counsel Robert Mueller may not want to testify in public. Mueller clearly had trouble explaining why he was refusing to reach a conclusion on obstruction in a meeting with Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It could be a hundred times more difficult — and embarrassing — before a congressional committee.
Mueller failed to perform the most basic function of a special counsel to reach conclusions on possible criminal conduct. After accepting the job as Special Counsel, Mueller basically decided not to be a special counsel with respect to this core responsibility. It was like watching Bodexpress run in the Preakness without a rider. My first reaction to both scenes was: can he do that? The answer in both cases is it is possible but this is not how it is done. The Special Counsel is mandated to find possible evidence of criminal conduct. Period.
Here is the column:
One of the more profound statements by Archie Bunker in “All In The Family” came when he corrected his daughter Gloria for questioning if God made a mistake: “God don’t make no mistakes, that’s how he got to be God.” There is a certain value in divine status. Natural disasters are dismissed as “God’s will,” and genetic defects as part of “God’s plan.”
Very few mortals ever warrant such faith, except perhaps Robert Mueller. Washington has deified him by popular acclamation. The times demanded it. It was simply not enough to demonize Donald Trump. That was done throughout the 2016 campaign, with the notable assistance of Trump himself. However, you cannot have a villain without a countervailing hero. Evil needs a point of reference, and Mueller became that reference. While Trump is portrayed as bombastic, impetuous, and juvenile, Mueller is painted as stoic, reserved, and professional. Indeed, as every new filing undermined the common narrative of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, the commentators fell into a mantra of “just wait for Mueller.”
They are still waiting. Mueller has yet to testify despite Attorney General William Barr stating that he has no objections to him doing so. In the past week, it was confirmed that Mueller is resisting testifying in public. At the same time, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler indicated that his committee may indeed allow Mueller to appear in private with no subpoena, no cameras, and no cries of coverup. The media is remarkably uninterested in the reason for this demand from Muelller. After all, if you have no faith in Mueller, then you are an apostate within the Beltway.
So why is Mueller and his staff so worried and apprehensive about his answering questions in public? To answer that question, we must look at his report objectively, as agnostics rather than as advocates for one side or the other. Mueller has to address several glaring problems with how he carried out his responsibilities, including his reported failure to identify grand jury material, as requested by Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which may have delayed the report.
The most troubling failure, however, was Mueller refusing to reach a conclusion on obstruction. He reached a conclusion on any crimes linked to collusion and stated that his staff could “not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” He then stated that he would not reach a conclusion on obstruction, without explaining why beyond citing past Justice Department memos stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. His decision on this matter is incompatible with his mandate.
The special counsel is mandated to find possible evidence of criminal conduct. If Mueller is going to argue that he felt constrained by Justice Department memos, he was a failure as special counsel. I have argued, going back to my testimony in the Clinton impeachment hearings, that the Justice Department was wrong on those memos. Nothing in the Constitution says that a president has immunity from criminal charges. Nevertheless, one can accept these memos and still see the illogic in reading them as a bar to reaching conclusions as a special counsel.
First, any implied interpretation would not only contradict the governing federal regulations but contradict the express directions of the Justice Department superiors overseeing the special counsel. Indeed, both Barr and Rosenstein pushed Mueller to reach a conclusion on obstruction. When he failed to do so, they did it for him. No one has suggested that they violated Justice Department policy in reaching their conclusion.
Second, any reading of the two Justice Department memos dispels any notion of a limit on special counsels. Even accepting the flawed logic of the memoranda, they only speak to indicting a president while in office. Because such an indictment would tie up a president in litigation, it was argued that it would interfere with his functioning. Yet, nothing in that policy would stop a special counsel from making findings of criminal conduct. Indeed, Mueller made findings not just on collusion but on facts underlying obstruction. It is nonsensical to read memos on the indictment of a president to mean that you cannot find a basis for criminal charges.
Finally, this is what a special counsel does, as defined in the regulations, which outweigh any Office of Legal Counsel memos. A special counsel makes prosecutorial decisions. For two years, both Congress and the executive branch expected Mueller to reach conclusions. Before filing his report, Barr and Rosenstein expressly told him to do so. If he was not willing to do so, he should have stood aside when asked to come on.
Many of the commentators discussing the report in the media not only make excuses for Mueller but ignore that the report is not particularly impressive. The investigation by the FBI certainly was impressive and notable, especially on Russian hacking and trolling operations. However, the report itself reads like a long account of interesting vignettes with no prosecutorial conclusions. One obvious concern is that Mueller and his staff did not reach a conclusion on obstruction because they could not bring themselves to give Trump a clean bill of health on criminal conduct.
The statement released by Barr was damning to be sure. Even if Trump was not found to have acted in an indictable or impeachable fashion, he was found to have acted in a contemptible fashion. However, reaching a conclusion in both volumes may have proven too much for Mueller after months of abuse by Trump. If this was the motivation, then the greatest political offense established by the special counsel was indeed his own.
Mueller may not want to answer any of these questions in public. Indeed, he seemed to have trouble answering even in private. As Barr tellingly testified to the Senate: “Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that,” but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, “he would have found obstruction.” He continued: “We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. When we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.”
That is not the Mueller many of us encountered 30 years ago. It is bizarre that he would meet with the attorney general and the deputy attorney general about his conclusions but not have a clear explanation on not reaching conclusions. In the past, the idea of Mueller saying his team was working on an explanation after two years would have been laughable.
The House Judiciary Committee is not placing conditions on Mueller testifying as it did with Barr, who had been willing to appear in public until the committee added a condition guaranteeing that he would not by insisting that he be questioned by legal staff, like a mob “torpedo” in the Kefauver hearings. When asked why they would forgo Barr testifying by insisting on such a condition, members said the special counsel report was so complicated that legal staff needed to question the witness.
Suddenly, it seems, the report has become less complicated. There is no demand for a public hearing and, apparently, no demand for legal staff to question Mueller. He has much to explain, and the public is entitled to hear it without the usual partisan filters. Mueller can still fulfill his mandate and redeem his legacy. After all, to err may not be divine, but it is human.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
We have no one to blame but ourselves.
As he investigates Trump’s aides, Robert Mueller’s record shows surprising flaws
By DAVID WILLMAN
NOV 24, 2017 | 6:00 AM
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-record-20171122-story.html
But at 73, Mueller has a record that shows a man of fallible judgment who can be slow to alter his chosen course. At times, he has intimidated or provoked resentment among subordinates. And his tenacious yet linear approach to evaluating evidence led him to fumble the biggest U.S. terrorism investigation since 9/11.
Now, as he leads a sprawling investigation aimed at the White House, Mueller’s prosecutorial discretion looms over the Trump presidency.
A minor point, but Mueller will be 75 in a couple of months. It’s been a long time since he’s spoken in public, at least in a contentious setting like a Congressional hearing.
There’ve been instances when someone “off their game” has blown it in Congressional testimony. Jeff Sessions, Alan Greenspan, and Chuck Hagel come to mind as examples of those who haven’t handled public Congressional testimony very well.
It’s hard to know if that’s a factor in Mueller’s reluctance to testify, but we’ll find out if he finally agrees to give public testimony.
“A minor point, but Mueller will be 75 in a couple of months. ”
Yes. The article was written in 2017.
TURLEY IS A TWIT.
LATE4DINNER
Americans turn a blind eye to the truth, even as it’s staring them in the face. If people had any idea how things really work in this country… Jonathan Turley clearly doesn’t.
ROBERT MUELLER IS A HOTHEAD WHO CAN’T OWN UP TO HIS MISTAKES, FORMER AIDES SAY
BY CARLOS BALLESTEROS ON 11/26/17 AT 5:25 PM EST
https://www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-aides-criticize-722670
Robert Mueller, special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, is a “gruff guy” who routinely undermined his subordinates and evaded responsibility as head of the FBI, according to several former aides and investigators who worked with Mueller interviewed by the Los Angeles Times.
In a lengthy profile published on Friday, the Times dredged up some of Mueller’s most difficult moments throughout his career as government prosecutor and as the sixth director of the FBI, a post he maintained from 2001 until 2013.
Those interviewed criticized Mueller’s handling of many high-profile cases stretching back to 1979, his temperament with government witnesses, and for directing his subordinates at the FBI to shield him from criticism.
The Times profile begins by focusing on Mueller’s tenure at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, where he was criticized for mishandling high-profile cases and for his treatment of government witnesses and subordinates.
The first of these cases took place in 1979, when Mueller, as head of the U.S. attorney’s special prosecutors unit, took over the case against 33 members of the Hells Angels motorcycle club charged with drug trafficking, murder, and bombings. The first trial, which sought to imprison 18 of the accused members, was unsuccessful, as the five convictions reached in the case were overturned on appeal.
Mueller then took over the case and lead [sic] a team of four prosecutors in the second trial with 11 eleven defendants. However, as reported by the Times, “after four months, the jury said it was deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Mueller decided not to ask for a retrial.”
Mueller then transferred to the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston where he oversaw cases against Panamanian president Manuel Noriega, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, and head of the Gambino crime family, John Gotti.
However, his success was marked by a disdain from some of his subordinates. As noted by the Times, Mueller sparked resentment “when he referred privately to reassigning career lawyers as ‘moving the furniture.’”
After a short stint in private practice, Mueller returned to public service as a homicide prosecutor in Washington, D.C. in 1995, where Mueller reportedly had a tough time forging relationships with victims, suspects, and government witnesses and was charged with being cold and unsympathetic.
“He was a gruff guy, and a lot of times, there wasn’t much warmth or ability to really build a bond or connect with a victim-witness,” one of Mueller’s fellow investigators told the Times. “There’s times when you’ve got to bond with the suspect to get what you need. His personality wasn’t necessarily the best for that.”
Mueller was also criticized for his time as head of the FBI. He led the investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks in the years after 9/11 for nearly seven years, ultimately leading in the prosecution of the wrong suspect, who later successfully sued the government for $5.8 million.
After agents successfully traced back the anthrax to an Army microbiologist who committed suicide once he was informed of the impending charges, Mueller “was reluctant to publicly address the missteps” in the case.
“I think he was personally embarrassed,” a former aide told the Times. “I would assess him as someone that can’t accept the fact that he screwed up.”
Later, as director of the FBI, Mueller instructed his staff to protect him from the agency’s oversight division, according to former colleagues interviewed by the Times.
Most notably, Mueller is charged with scrapping a highly-critical review of his Directorate of Intelligence, a unit that he had created at the FBI to investigate terrorism more effectively.
After an internal inspection reported that Mueller should “set [the unit] on fire and start from scratch,” his top aides decided to protect the director at all costs by hiding the report from the Justice Department’s inspector general.
“It was, ‘The director will get skewered. We’ve got to protect him, and we can’t issue this,’” a former official told the Times. “Anywhere it said ‘inspection,’ they changed it to ‘review.’ And said this was a review, not an inspection, and therefore they didn’t have to issue it to … the inspector general.”
For those with a short attention span, refer to this from the aforementioned article:
Mueller was also criticized for his time as head of the FBI. He led the investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks in the years after 9/11 for nearly seven years, ultimately leading in the prosecution of the wrong suspect, who later successfully sued the government for $5.8 million.
After agents successfully traced back the anthrax to an Army microbiologist who committed suicide once he was informed of the impending charges, Mueller “was reluctant to publicly address the missteps” in the case.
“I think he was personally embarrassed,” a former aide told the Times. “I would assess him as someone that can’t accept the fact that he screwed up.”
Later, as director of the FBI, Mueller instructed his staff to protect him from the agency’s oversight division, according to former colleagues interviewed by the Times.
Most notably, Mueller is charged with scrapping a highly-critical review of his Directorate of Intelligence, a unit that he had created at the FBI to investigate terrorism more effectively.
After an internal inspection reported that Mueller should “set [the unit] on fire and start from scratch,” his top aides decided to protect the director at all costs by hiding the report from the Justice Department’s inspector general.
“It was, ‘The director will get skewered. We’ve got to protect him, and we can’t issue this,’” a former official told the Times. “Anywhere it said ‘inspection,’ they changed it to ‘review.’ And said this was a review, not an inspection, and therefore they didn’t have to issue it to … the inspector general.”
NOW the long knives come out for Mueller. Back when the presumption reached by everyone was that Mueller would dish up large helpings of impeachable, indictable conduct, you never saw real investigative reporting on his dark side. It would have interfered with a beautiful case against Trump.
But Mueller didn’t give the Left what it wanted, so the Congressional Left is going back on its promise to accept Mueller’s findings (back when they thought those finding would support a bipartisan impeachment).
Nadler is granting Mueller an untelevised testimony, I think, so that Nadler and the other Congressional Democrats can have their version of what Mueller said in a closed hearing, and Mueller can fall back on his version of what he said. After all, the press has shown they won’t call Nadler on this shell game.
Professor Turley summed it up nicely:
Impeachable conduct is Richard Nixon unleashing the Kraken of Federal law enforcement, the IRS and the national intelligence community on his political enemies. Nothing like that happened under Trump, or it would have been in the Mueller report.
What the Congressional Democrats don’t want going out on national television is that Trump just behaved in a venal manner when facing a searching investigation.
It might lead to a trenchant question: Why, in eight years, was no independent counsel ever appointed to look into Operation Fast and Furious, into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton family accepting large sums of money from foreign governments and companies while Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State, and Secretary Clinton taking classified matter and material covered under the Open Records Act onto an poorly-secured private Email server on her property, outside Federal firewalls, and into Barack Obama’s repeated and systematic violations of Federal law/?
Today’s news: Trump warns of long prison sentences for those involved in the coup. It’s coming folks and no amount of hand-waving from the Dems can stop it.
Why are the hysterical Dems and their media so quiet when it comes to getting their superhero to testify in public? Hmmm. Why oh why?
When is he going to start? The whole world witnessed the more than possible and none of it was investigated. Starting with a simple Statement. on Day One. Collusion is not a crime. But one must remember hire a Republican In Name Only you get the right wing of socialist extremism.
With a summary of some of the FBI’s blunders. Americans continue to turn a blind eye.
Mueller assumes the helm of FBI
September 5, 2001 Posted: 10:52 AM EDT (1452 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/09/04/mueller.fbi/
“One of Mueller’s last acts as a top assistant to Attorney General John Ashcroft in May was approving a subpoena for an Associated Press reporter’s home telephone records.”
The obstruction section of the report should have been called the Weismann Report. It listed a number of perfectly legal things that Trump did but implies that “taken together” they might add up to obstruction. That is classic Weismann. Ask any of the 80,000 Arthur Anderson employees who lost their jobs. If each individual action by Trump was a zero, ten times zero is still zero. The fact that Mueller knew early on that there was no collusion but withheld that information is also classic Weismann.
“That is not the Mueller many of us encountered 30 years ago.”
A lot has changed in 30 years.
Nancy Pelosi and Jerold Nadler were so broadsided by Trump last week, resulting in their ostensible physical and psychological illnesses being triggered for all to see, that Mueller no doubt realizes Trump is a force with which to be reckoned. He saw Trump humiliate Hillary and Bill Clinton machinery and he sees Trump out-best the liberal mainstream media. While it is true that Trump is a sign of the moral and intellectual depravity of our current ethos, clearly Trump has done to the DNC machinery what none of the Bushes and McConnell GOP limp wrists could muster.
May he slay the cult-like apparatchiks who refuse to die.
Knock em dead, Donald
It’s a reasonable wager Mueller and his crew of Democratic Party donors have never had one defensible motive in this whole fandango.
I suspect there may not be a lot of comments on this one. It’s spot on. There’s nothing to add.
the dems will go after him like a bunch of mad dogs with rabies.
Perhaps he doesn’t want to be questioned why he failed to investigate the Clinton, Obama involvement in Russian Meddling. Or maybe it was the failed FISA app.
Or Hunter Biden.
Maybe Mueller was pushed back by his friend Barr ahead of finishing the report and didn’t want to have a confrontation at that level
And monkeys may fly out my rear end.
Thanks. I can’t un-see that visual.
Martha
Mueller is a good soldier. He knows what the 1% want, and what they DON’T want…which is more than a token of democracy. People like him and Barr have nothing to lose from an authoritarian government, and plenty more to gain. Some people may remember the corruption that the FBI Boston office condoned, and who was the head of that office? Mr. Mueller.
Wrong, McWilliams. Mueller was an Assistant Untied States Attorney for the Massachusetts District in the early 1980s.
Mueller was not the head of the FBI Boston Office. Get your facts straight like yesterday or get lost and stay lost, McWilliams.
Late4Dinner. Boo Yah!
Thanks for the correction. Does that mean that Mueller really is a patriot…even though his subordinates dislike him?
Do you believe everything you hear on Fox News?
Ignorance abounds!
Yada yada yada …..Fox News …Ignorance abounds
Yo Bruh, the Federalist Papers is reporting
Fox News Is Crushing CNN, MSNBC In Ratings After Mueller Report
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/fox-news-crushing-cnn-msnbc-ratings-mueller-report
Now might be a time to change your profile name to perhaps Pravda or Granma, OFFICIAL VOICE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CUBA CENTRAL COMMITTEE
just a thought
Being a Republic has absolutely nothing to do with being communist or socialist, maybe this is the time you learned something, bruh!
Stop being ignorant long enough to hear something between the verses you’ve been singing in the choir of the Right!
You and those others commenting on this Blog are spineless simps repeating the propaganda of the Republican Party, like that makes you any different from the Democrats that you hate!
Get a clue, Bruh!
The economical theory is Prof. Turley’s:
“The special counsel is mandated to find possible evidence of criminal conduct.”
Isn’t he actually mandated to find whether there is evidence of criminal conduct? I think that has always been one problem with the “special” or “independent” counsels. They seem to feel their mandate is to find evidence, even if there is none. As to why he did not reach a decision on obstruction, I really don’t understand. But the Justice Department did make a decision, and it seems this matter should now be over, and Congress should get on with tackling the country’s problems such as infrastructure, immigration, and healthcare.
OT: While Hezbollah aims over 100,000 Iranian supplied rockets at Israel and some blame Israel whose civilians are the recipients of those rockets many Americans forget that the money doesn’t only come from Iran but also comes from drug trafficking killing many of our young. Anti-Semitic Americans ought to start thinking about that.
Trying to unseat Trump and prevent any type of victory for him on a barrier negatively affects America and its children. America needs a unified front to protect itself from future strikes on its cities. Don’t blame Israel for they are not the ones that will be aiming missiles at us.
Part of the article:
“Hezbollah immediately began earning “enormous amounts of money” in the narcotics trade, using banks, money transfer businesses, and the purchase of goods (such as automobiles) to launder the proceeds back to Lebanon. Livermore, among others, points out that while Iran was providing Hezbollah up to $200 million per year, our own Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Treasury Department said just one Hezbollah smuggling ring in Central America generated more than $200 million every month.
The DEA’s 2008-2016 “Project Cassandra” found that Hezbollah’s “External Security Organization Business Affairs” arm collected as much as $1 billion a year from money laundering, criminal activities, and drug and weapons trade. All through the Obama years and into the Trump years, Hezbollah and South American drug cartels have been involved in cocaine shipments from Latin America to West Africa to European markets, as well as through Venezuela and Mexico to the United States.”
Remember “Hezbollah operatives, trained in explosives and arms, are deployed all over the world.”
“Its operatives lie in waiting inside the United States too, no doubt maintained in some part by drug proceeds from Latin American operations. As I have reportedabout two ongoing U.S. prosecutions in New York and in Michigan, Hezbollah fields and pays clandestine operatives of its “Unit 910″ to collect target information in American cities for the day they are called on to strike.”
https://www.meforum.org/58602/irans-cash-crunch-isnt-disabling-hezbollah-yet?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=ea4fbc4d86-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_26_09_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-ea4fbc4d86-33582557
Earth to Israel-firster: The US and League of Nations, solely through threat of force, built Israel in the middle of the ME. Israel’s ME neighbors which are not vassal states of the West would prefer Israel move to a Southern Baptist (Zionist) Conference state like Texas.
Not one Israel-firster has a cogent thoughtful contradiction to George Washington, who forbade all permanent foreign alliances. If stopping innocent deaths was the standard to force US military action, we’d incinerate Saudi Arabia today, a nation that beheads more than ISIS, where women are killed and/or imprisoned for not covering their face, a State that saws journalists into pieces and melts the evidence in acid, then buys the silence of surviving family members and more military weapons from Trump.
The fact that 55-60% of the worlds Judaics freely choose to live outside Israel absolutely proves that Israel is unnecessary for the security and survival of Judaics. Israel’s sum total contribution to US security is solely as a buyer (with US financial aid) of military weapons.
What is your principle justification to argue against foreign entanglements and yet entangle yourself in the disestablishment of the current state of Israel? If the existence of the current state of Israel is none of our business, then of course any opinion you have on the matter is equally none of your business.
Trohar, go back to the history books because to date you are batting Zero. Learn where the Jews came from and where they lived for millenia even before Mohammad was born. No one gave Israel anything and if one were to add up who has the most justification historically and otherwise to live there it would be the Jews. There was no thing as the Palestinian people that exist today.
In fact before Israel declared itself a state the Jews in the area were known as Palestinians. When Israel was created it fought a war with organized nations around it that were given the munitions and forts. Israel had nothing but prevailed. The Arab leader in Jerusuleum was a Nazi, supported Hitler and supported the gencide of Jews. You have imbibed too much hate and probably to boost your self esteem you choose positions that are not only unpopular but that aren’t true. In that way you engender acceptance from the ignorant and intollerant people that exist.
I guess the Iroquois still holds dominion over their old stomping grounds.
YNOT, if you actually tried to think you might have recognized from what I wrote that Israel had the same type of historical dominion as the Iroquois but in addition to that they improved the land and defended it. You don’t have to remain ignorant.
Always dumber than I expect you to be: the Iroquois never defended themselves, I guess that is why I don’t speak Iroqouian(?). Doesn’t making all of these excuses tiring, you are not even good at this.
Keep talking YNOT. I rely on what you write to demonstrate what low a low intellect you have.
“I guess the Iroquois still holds dominion over their old stomping grounds”.
” the Iroquois never defended themselves”
The Iroquois lost and that is why they no longer hold such dominion. You are incapable of puttig two ideas together. But, I don’t have to tell anyone that. They already know.
“Earth to Israel-firster: ” Trohar, I’m an American firster if one wants to know. At the present time Israel is of great advantage to the US so I support that advantage just like I support other nations that are of support to the US. All alliances are temporary and the US even has alliances with Israel’s enemies. In fact the US has alliances all over the world where boots are on the ground. The US has no troops in Israel and during the wars acted mostly as a neutral. Israel won so decisively that it was on the way to Damascus. That is when the US actually interfered and stopped Israel from going further.
But I forget. you didn’t want the US to interfere.
You are typical of a hater, but you pick out only one country in your arguments even though the US has no troops on the ground and stayed out of the fighting. It has become clear what you really are.
The article that I posted had to do with American security and our borders. We are not immune to attack even from backward nations. Technology is relatively inexpensive so even individuals that know how to use it can pose a great threat. Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorism and has extended its reach into South America through its proxies.
Your personality probably takes pleasure where Jews are killed, blacks are lynched and everyone but your own kind is upended. You are not a very nice person.
I think the U.S. has a small air base in Israel now. Fairly recently established, with a two-digit population of billets.
Plenty of room out in the Negev for something like that.
Thanks, you are right. I forgot when I was quickly recounting a bit of history. I think some called it a facility rather than a military base but Americans are there and it is permanent. I don’t know if that is a good or bad thing in the long run and really don’t know much of what has happened there. I think it contains a missile defense unit.
I would think it is mostly symbolic but has the same effect as placing the American embassy in Jerusuleum. Communication has always been strong. If you know more I’d like to hear.
Earth to Israel-firster: The US and League of Nations, solely through threat of force, built Israel in the middle of the ME. I
MBITRW, the Jewish population of the area built Israel.
The Ottoman Empire entered World War I of its own accord. It paid dearly for that decision and one of the ways it paid was losing its remaining Arabophone territories. Ottoman authority over its North African territories had dissipated over a period of several centuries and the formal association between those territories and the Ottoman Sultan was terminated step-by-step between 1830 and 1914. As for the Arabian peninsula, the writ of the Sultan was null by 1840 bar in Yemen and the Hijaz. As a consequence of the War, the Yemen Imamate established itself as sovereign, as did the Hijaz (under the Hashemite family; the House of Saud seized the Hijaz about 7 years later and have kept it since. The Ottoman territories in the Fertile Crescent were organized by the victors into four dependencies, two British and two French. They were formally styled ‘League of Nations Mandates’ and there were multinational diplomatic committees observing the British and French administration, but otherwise the League of Nations as an apparat had nothing to do with governing the territories.
The ‘Mandate of Palestine’ was an assemblage of three Ottoman subprefectures (whose exterior boundaries were modified somewhat in the course of assembling them). The prefectoral boundaries were not antique – they’d been established 50-odd years earlier. British armed force replaced the Sultan’s armed forces. Otherwise, the Jewish communities continued as before. Confessional courts had had jurisdiction under the Ottoman millet system and that continued. The Jewish settlements were given a franchise to establish a common corporate body. Otherwise, they bought their land, found positions for new arrivals, built their farms and businesses without outside assistance other than philanthropic donations. The Jewish militias were not assembled by Britain, but by Jews themselves. British policy was roughly permissive between 1917 and 1939, antagonistic thereafter.
No clue how you got the idea in your head that the U.S. government exercised force in mandatory Palestine at all. At no time prior to 1958 did the U.S. have more than a corporal’s guard of non-combat troops on the ground in the Fertile Crescent. We had an air base in Turkey, and that’s the closest we came. We had no formal alliances with any party therein (the Baghdad Pact was a British concern). We had a formal presence in Lebanon for a few months in 1958, but they never fired a shot while they were there. American aid to Israel prior to 1973 was bupkis.
You really don’t know much.
Five dependencies, three British, two French.
Republicans believe that Mueller’s greatest fear if he testifies will be their question “when were you aware that there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians?” Much of what has been released in testimony and investigations seems to indicate he knew from almost the beginning of his inquiry.
Turley writes it and nothing more need be written: “Mueller failed…”
The Mueller fiasco was a blatant attempt at unseating a legally elected President. Despite Mueller having appointed left wing and Hillary supporters the report found nothing. He failed and to testify means he will be asked questions outside the scope of his report and why those more important issues weren’t investigated with conclusions. Mueller will have no answers because ‘he failed’, no collusion. Democrats are now in disarray.
Democrats are now in disarray.
They gave Mueller a stacked deck and he came back with empty pockets. Democrats can hardly sit him down in a public setting and ask him why. Obstruction? I believe that is a conversation Democrats would be wise to avoid; unless they want to explain how lost emails, hammers and bleachbit did not obstruct an investigation into an actual crime, while significant cooperation and transparency demonstrates obstruction in an investigation looking for a crime.
Of course they are in disarray. Not only have they lost on the legal front, they can’t compete on the policy front.
Great analysis; Prof. Turley articulated one of the elements of the proceeding that had left me feeling uneasy.
Mueller needs to speak the truth and be candid. Why not? Why not a full Congressional hearing?
But in any event, quit posting his ugly photo on the blog.