Columns, Criminal law, Politics, Religion, Society

Why Mueller May Be Fighting A Public Hearing

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.

143 thoughts on “Why Mueller May Be Fighting A Public Hearing”

  1. Robert Mueller speaking at 59:53

    WATCH LIVE: Special counsel Robert Mueller makes first public statement on Russia probe

  2. Robert Mueller Hints At Impeachment, Reiterates Trump Not Exonerated

    He also announced he would resign and the special counsel’s office would close. He said he has no plans to testify before Congress.

    By Ryan J. Reilly and Hayley Miller

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mueller-report-russia-trump-investigation-statement_n_5cee9340e4b0975ccf5e9f24

    WASHINGTON ― Robert Mueller made his first public statement on Wednesday about his special counsel investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election and the question of whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.

    “I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete,” said Mueller, a former FBI director. “We are formally closing the special counsel’s office and as well I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return from private life.”

    “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller continued. “A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.”

    “Under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” Mueller said, adding that such a charge is unconstitutional. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

    Mueller said he does not expect to speak publicly about the investigation again.

    “We will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president,” he said. “I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can, or should, testify. … The report is my testimony.”

    Mueller kept mum throughout the nearly two-year investigation and since the public release of a redacted version of his report in April. House Democrats want Mueller to testify publicly about his investigation.

    Mueller’s investigation did not find clear evidence to charge members of the Trump campaign with conspiring with Russian operatives to sway the election. Mueller chose not to reach a traditional prosecutorial decision on obstruction of justice, but he outlined 10 instances of potential obstruction by the president during the probe.

    Attorney General William Barr released and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein chose not to charge Trump with obstruction, a decision influenced by the Justice Department’s position that the president can’t be charged with a crime. Barr and Mueller previously privately sparred over a misleading letter Barr sent to Congress that failed to fully summarize the Mueller’s report’s findings.

    This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

    1. Barr testified, before the OSC report was completed, that the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president does not preclude reaching a conclusion that the president committed a crime.
      They decision to “punt” was Mueller’s.

        1. Rorschach tests are abstract blots. The point of them is to see what a person’s mind makes of the abstraction.

          The collusion truthers aren’t people looking at an abstraction and using their imagination. They’re just lying.

  3. Mueller’s refusal to reach an obstruction conclusion has caused a great deal of trouble and instability in the US. The data clearly did not show obstruction. However, there are those who will never accept Barr’s declaration that the report did not prove obstruction. It seemed either a spiteful move on Mueller’s part, or serious negligence.

    It will be like the legend of Anastasia. Without the body of obstruction, there are those who believe the obstruction charge is still alive.

    Whatever conclusion Mueller himself can make from the data, needs to be amended to his report or declared to the American people.

    1. Mueller sounded more like a partisan than an independent voice. He stretched the points in favor of what he could not prove and neglected all the other evidence involved where proof existed. His personal reputation in the future will fall to the level of a toad when evaluated by historians.

    2. Without the body of obstruction, there are those who believe the obstruction charge is still alive.

      For Mueller to say today that if he didn’t believe Trump had committed the crime of obstruction, then he would have said so. His job was to say so. This guy’s a snake and he may have no plans to testify before congress, but that doesn’t mean congress doesn’t have plans of their own. Maybe not the house, but the senate.

      It was awhile ago that Mespo cited an exchange between Sir Thomas More and William Roper in the movie A Man For All Seasons. In this exchange, President Trump would be the devil…of course. I believe this captures the lengths to which Democrats (and their supporters) have gone and will continue to go to achieve their goal.

      “William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

      Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

      William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

      Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

  4. It certainly is noteworthy that Mueller is apparently reticent to testify publicly.

    Just as interesting is the fact that Ds are certainly not beating down the door for him to testify–publicly or privately–any time soon while the Rs were the first to press for Mueller to testify.

    In my view, the above circumstances are likely driven by the fact that there is significantly more downside than upside for Ds and certainly a lot of uncomfortable questions for Mueller to address, such as:

    1) How did Mueller ensure that his team was not potentially biased in their work? Think Strozk, Weissmann, Ahmad, OSC staffing decisions, the potential nexus to the Steele dossier etc.

    2) Why did Mueller elect to forego his mandate by not making a determination either way on obstruction? As Turley notes, this is a question that Mueller struggled with privately. Certainly if Mueller had sufficient evidence to charge, he would have stated so and then noted that they specifically declined to charge because of standing DOJ policy against indictment of a sitting President–if that were the case.

    3) Did Mueller consult with the AG and OLC on the constitutionality/legality of their novel theory of obstruction? For an incisive analyses into the issue, read Josh Blackman’s and Jack Goldsmith’s excellent takes on the issue in the Lawfare blog. Also, read the countervailing view by Wittes et al to get a full understanding of exactly how novel and contentious this issue is.

    4) Did Mueller intend the report to be some sort of impeachment roadmap (which would clearly be beyond his scope and mandate)?

    5) Why did Mueller conduct a cost benefit analysis and then decide not to subpoena the President? The rationale of a delay and that they already had evidence but apparently not enough to make a prosecutorial determination is exceedingly thin especially when the determining factor is corrupt intent (assuming the SC’s novel theory of obstruction has validity and issues such as the clear statement rule can be overcome–see #3).

    The list could obviously go on but what exactly is the upside for the Ds?

    1) First and foremost, Mueller could contradict Barr and state that he would have indicted the President but for the OLC opinion re indictment of a sitting President. Of course, that would mean the normally legally astute Mr. Barr would have unequivocally perjured himself under oath knowing full well that his blatant mendaciousness would be exposed in relatively short order. All this and for what possible gain? Let’s just say we’re entering into near zero if not absolute zero probability territory.

    2) Mueller could hint or allude to some sort of veiled code in the report that outlines his view on the evidence (in totality or otherwise) being a potential matter for impeachment hearings. Of course, that would be completely outside the Special Counsel’s mandate per the regulations and the “by the book” Mueller has such a noted predilection towards engaging in innuendo to drive a political process.

    3) Ds could try and make hay out of Mueller’s seeming preoccupation with a novel and unprecedented legal standard–exoneration–one that has no basis in the history of our legal jurisprudence. However, at the end of the day, Mueller decided not to charge and that fact will not change by going down an exoneration rabbit hole.

    Outside of the above, particularly #1, it’s hard to see a definitive upside for Ds and I suspect we’ll continue to see the slow walk while Ds continue to strive to keep the impeachment narrative alive.

  5. Bobby is the fool, he brought down others with evidence from decades long ago but President Trump stands strong 😀

  6. Mueller doesn’t want to testify in public because he knows the gig is up and he doesn’t want to get dragged any further into this catastrophe. Nadler himself said that Mueller probably doesn’t want to testify because the Republicans are going to ask the obvious difficult questions- he’s not afraid of the Dems. Barr, having been delegated the Presidential power to declassify and make public any government document, is going to rain holy hell on this whole charade via declassification and then prosecution…it’s best for Mueller that he keep as low a profile as possible from here on out. He tried his best to get Trump, but he failed.

  7. Turley remains a Barr apologist and a Trump enabler.

    Good on L4D for his Turley is still a twit project, it is more needed now given Turley’s inane mind reading of the special counsel’s motives.

    1. L4d says–excerpted from the interview with Neal Katyal linked above:

      And I would say there is even a third one, near the end of the report, that is more subtle. Maybe Mueller can be faulted for being subtle. It is footnote 1091. It says impeachment isn’t the only remedy here and, just because there is an impeachment possibility, it doesn’t take criminal actions off the table, and, in particular, even though a sitting President can’t be indicted, once a President leaves office, he can be. That footnote did not need to be in the report, and it is in there, in my judgment, as a very pointed footnote.

    2. L4D says–Also excerpted from the Neal Katyal interview linked above:

      But so far Mueller appears to have applied his very cautious nature to this whole investigation. The President has been railing against this for two years, calling it a “witch hunt.” What kind of witch hunt is it when Mueller says, Look, even if you are guilty as sin, I am not going to tell the American people that? I would say three people’s colors have been revealed by this report. We have learned Mueller’s reputation is real. We have learned Trump’s disregard for the truth and the rule of law is real. And we have learned Barr has become a total Trumpian Attorney General.

      [repeated for emphasis]

      What kind of witch hunt is it when Mueller says, Look, even if you are guilty as sin, I am not going to tell the American people that?

      [end excerpt]

      It truly is difficult to believe that Trump, Barr and even the incomparable twit, Turley, are pretending to be upset about the fact that Mueller refuses to tell the American people that Trump is guilty of a crime called obstruction of justice. But it’s true, anyway. Mueller is not going to say that while Trump is in office because Trump would have no way to clear his name after Mueller said that. And it’s also true that Trump, Barr and Turley, the incomparable twit, are merely pretending to be upset about that fact. Obviously what they are really upset about is that Mueller refused to exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice so that AG Whitewash Casting Couch had to usurp the powers of Congress to exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. That and the probable fact that as soon as Trump is out of office Mueller will probably indict Trump for obstruction of justice.

      1. L4D says–So nobody read the post above. Cowards. One and all. Here’s the proof.

        Trump will pardon himself before Trump leaves office. And everybody knows it. There’s a halfway decent chance that Trump has already pardoned himself but has not yet publicly disclosed that presidential self-pardon because he has not yet lost his bid for re-election to a second term of office in 2020. And, even then, you will not find out about Trump’s self-pardon until Mueller indicts Trump for obstruction of justice sometime around January 21st, 2021.

        1. The main lreason that L4B’s comments are not read is that she does not know the meaning of the word “concise”.
          If the OSC report is 448 pages, she’ll write reviews/ spin that are 448,000.
          She’s probably well on her way to that total now, if she hasn’t reached it already.
          Her total on all subjects is probably more than twice the 448,000.
          She has not figured out that, while she may spent 4-6 hours a day writing her tripe, not many people are willing to put in long, daily shifts reading her columns.

  10. Turley wrote, “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.”

    Nonsense. There are two possibilities: Indict versus decline to indict. There’s a regulation based on an opinion that says Mueller cannot indict a sitting President. That leaves only one of the two previous possibilities–don’t indict Trump. Guess what? Mueller did not indict Trump. What Mueller did, instead, was refer the obstruction of justice investigation to The House of Representatives who are the only constitutional officers who can do anything at all about Trump’s obstruction of justice while Trump is in office. If you’d like, then you could say that handing the obstruction of justice investigation off to Congress is “the conclusion” that Mueller reached about Trump’s criminal conduct. Mueller “concluded” that Congress, and only Congress, can take further action on the question of Trump’s criminal conduct while Trump is still in office. Now, if Trump were no longer in office, then Mueller might be far more willing to reach “the conclusion” that Trump should be indicted for obstruction of justice. But Mueller is not going to say out loud in public that Trump definitely, positively, emphatically, demonstrably really, really, truly, truly ought to be indicted for obstruction of justice.

    Contributed by The L4D–TURLEY IS STILL A TWIT–Project

    1. “Nonsense. There are two possibilities: Indict versus decline to indict.”

      No. That is not special council’s job. With regard to the President, it is to reach a finding of criminal conduct. Not to indict.

  11. Turley asked, “So why is Mueller and his staff so worried and apprehensive about his answering questions in public?”

    For one thing Mueller’s Grand Jury in the District of Columbia is still convened. For another thing, Mueller is still an employee of the Justice Dep’t subject to the rules and regulations that govern any other federal prosecutor. And, for the main reason, Mueller cannot tell Congress what decisions to make on the question of Trump’s obstruction of justice. Mueller can only explain his report to Congress and describe the evidence in that report. The legal and moral judgments to be made about the Trump’s obstructive conduct can not come from Mueller’s lips. They can only come from the lips of the Members of Congress. If any Member of Congress asked Mueller if he thinks that Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice, then Mueller would have to decline to answer that question.

    Contributed by The L4D–TURLEY IS STILL A TWIT–Project

    1. L4D says–Donald Trump Jr. almost certainly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and then AG Whitewash redacted that invocation of The Fifth for Rule 6(E) Grand Jury material even though Donald Trump Jr. never testified before the Grand Jury, never granted an interview to the Special Counsel’s Office and never answered any of the SCO’s questions about anything at all.

      There’s a halfway decent chance that President Trump did the same thing–took The Fifth–and AG Whitewash redacted that for Rule 6(E) Grand Jury material as well. It would make far more sense for Trump to have asserted executive privilege than to have invoked The Fifth, but there was a fair bit of public reporting about Trump and his lawyers bragging and boasting that they had not asserted executive privilege and that Trump was, therefore, supposedly the most transparent President in American history or some such nonsense.

      It’s only a matter of time before The Congress gets those redactions un-redacted. And then we’ll see whether Trump was lying then or lying now, or just plain lying about everything all the time the whole way through.

      1. And, for another thing, there needs to be an explanation for the legal theory by means of which AG Whitewash Casting Couch redacted any information at all about two people, Trump Jr. and Trump Sr., who never testified before the Grand Jury, who were never subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury, who both declined to be interviewed by The Special Counsel’s office and one of whom refused to answer any of the SCO’s questions about anything at all even while the other one answered merely one-in-four of the SCO’s written questions with non-responsive and evasive answers (at least one which is so closely a paraphrase of the false testimony that Cohen gave to Congress–and to which Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress–as almost certainly to constitute perjury by Trump)

        Contributed By The L4D–TURLEY IS STILL A TWIT–Project

        1. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but suppose that Mueller testified to Congress in open session and someone asked Mueller about the two redactions for Grand Jury Rule 6(E) material in the section of Mueller’s report pertaining to Donald Trump Jr.’s non-cooperation with the SCO investigation as well as the two redactions for Grand Jury Rule 6(E) material in the section of Mueller’s report pertaining to President Trump’s non-cooperation with the SCO investigation. Remember that neither Trump Jr. nor Trump Sr. testified before the Grand Jury, nor were either subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury.

          How could Mueller answer such questions without necessarily giving an indication of what those redactions might be concealing?

          It’s one thing for an ordinary person to speculate that both Trump Jr. and Trump Sr. may have invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that AG Whitewash Casting Couch may have redacted those invocations of The Fifth as Rule 6(E) Grand Jury material. But it’s a whole ‘nother thing for Special Counsel Mueller to confirm or to deny in public congressional testimony exactly what information might actually be behind those four redactions for Grand Jury material in those sections of The Mueller Report.

          Contributed by The L4D–TURLEY IS STILL A TWIT–Project

  14. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke.
    .
    All participating with and supporting Deep State Democrat communist government think the violation of Rights and Law, abolishment of the Rule of Law, violence, incitement, sedition, deception, murder and abuse of power are perfectly acceptable tools for the Treasonous Acts of seizing power over peoples lives, destroying The Constitutional and Civil Rights of American Citizens and The Rule of Law and replacing the current system of government with Communist based tyranny.
    Deep States justifying, methodically codifying and socially engineering the implementation of their “ends justifies the means” machinations to replace the Constitution and The Rule of Law and inviting others to follow their example for the cause sends many messages.
    1. The government is weak, has lost control of itself, rejected it’s duty and purpose, and is no longer effective to carry out it’s mission.
    2. The People can no longer expect equal justice or protection or their Rights to be respected or even permanent as they watch as those Rights being removed before their eyes.
    3. The Democrat Deep State government has changed the goal of government from governing with the “consent of the Governed” to establishing absolute control over the governed, elimination of those who oppose the mission and has enlisted the powers of Official Government Agencies as a tools for carrying out that mission.
    4. The Founding Fathers were right about the Second Amendment.
    By The US Governments Deep State actions and the passive inactions on the part of those whose duty it is to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution, The United States and The American People, those in government have chosen to side against The United States and signaled their desire for and complicity in the death of Freedom. They have laid down the gauntlet telling Americans it’s getting time for Citizens to get ready to defend themselves by any means available to them because the Constitutional Republic has been infiltrated and damaged to the point it may well fail them and they will have to make their own justice or lose everything.
    We should all be ashamed today to look at the memorials and graves of those who gave their lives for the Constitution, this country, the principles and freedom it stands for and for us, people they didn’t know, people who weren’t even born and think of how we have let the this country come to a point where those flags and wreath on the graves of our fellow Americans who died for us are meaningless to most and hated by many.
    Today I passed a makeshift memorial in a Walmart parking lot. It was an empty rocking chair flanked by 2 American Flags and an American Flag pillow Above it was a sign that said:
    “We don’t know them all
    But we owe them all.”
    Shame on us all for throwing the gift that cost them their lives back into their graves and saying “No thanks.”

  15. A reminder of the things we’d rather ignore…, but we do so at our own peril.

    Come to think of it, this was my first brush with the notion that any FBI agents would falsify evidence, lie or frame someone. – Sharyl Attkisson

    ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ is a dangerous bylaw

    BY SHARYL ATTKISSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/31/19 09:00 AM EST

    https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/427738-guilty-until-proven-innocent-is-a-dangerous-bylaw

    This past week I was reminded of the story of poor Wen Ho Lee. He’s the Taiwanese-American scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory who was framed by the FBI and our government as being the spy responsible for stealing our most sensitive nuclear secrets and giving them to China.

    That happened in 1999.

    As a reporter for CBS News at the time, I’d just broken the story that China had obtained the design plans for our W88 thermonuclear warhead. But I knew from my inside sources that the government had no viable suspect.
    Much to my surprise, after I broke the news and the New York Times and others followed suit, the government suddenly announced it had a suspect: Wen Ho Lee. Again, I knew from my sources that Lee was being used as a scapegoat so that the government could say it had gotten its man. Lee was even put in solitary confinement in prison while he awaited trial.

    Soon, I broke the outrageous news that the FBI had lied about Lee’s polygraph results. FBI agents had claimed he failed when he actually passed the lie detector test with flying colors. I had obtained copies of the polygraph itself as proof. (Come to think of it, this was my first brush with the notion that any FBI agents would falsify evidence, lie or frame someone.)

    The judge in the case ultimately released Lee and admonished the FBI. There were congressional investigations into the FBI’s conduct — my reporting was cited — and President Clinton apologized to Lee; Lee sued the big players in the national news media, which paid settlements. (CBS alone was not sued because I knew better than to name Lee as a legitimate suspect.)

    Today, I can find no record of punishment for the FBI agents who falsified Lee’s polygraph.

  16. “There are three investigations going on. The Department of Justice Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is investigating the FBI’s actions as is U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah, John Huber. The IG investigation (which is limited in that it can only question current DoJ employees, not those such as Comey who are no longer employed by the FBI) is reportedly about finished. Horowitz’s report is expected next month. Huber’s investigation is not limited in that manner. However, Huber has been so silent about his investigation that we don’t know what he has accomplished if anything.

    The third investigation is apparently focused on the intelligence agencies. It reportedly began about two months ago under John Durham, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

    Trump’s order was probably issued because Durham — acting under Barr’s authority as AG — met severe resistance to any request for specific intelligence information from the intel agencies. Trump’s appointees (CIA Director Gina Haspel, DNI Dan Coats, and NSA Director Gen. Paul Nakasone) should cooperate with Barr. But they — and the Obama sympathizers who work for them — will be no more cooperative with Barr than the FBI was with Nunes.

    The CIA and NSA may have a lot to hide.“

    https://spectator.org/trump-let-the-dogs-out/

  17. Trump Let the Dogs Out

    “Predictably, the people who are at greatest risk of exposure and danger of indictment erupted at Trump’s order. For example, Obama’s CIA chief, John Brennan, told an interviewer,“I see it as a very, very serious and outrageous move on the part of Mr. Trump, once again, trampling on the statutory authorities of the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of the independent intelligence agencies.” Brennan continued: “And it’s unclear to me what Mr. Barr is actually going to do. Is he investigating a crime? Well, what’s the predication of that crime? Or he is just going to be looking for information… that Mr. Trump can just give to his defenders on the right and cherry-pick information that could be taken out of context?”

    That’s pretty rich coming from one of the coup plotters who must have personally approved if not instigated the counterintelligence investigation of Trump and his team. Their whole exercise — not Barr’s — was searching for a crime in the manner of Stalin’s secret police chief Lavrenti Beria who once said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

    https://spectator.org/trump-let-the-dogs-out/

  19. I find your assessment that Mueller failed to perform his duties as the Special Council appalling, irresponsible, and arrogantly biased, given the fact that your conclusion is based upon little or no data and hearsay evidence at best, given the two other persons present in the meeting with Mueller are of questionable character and believability!

    If Congress was properly assembled and functioned as intended by Article 1 of the Constitution, not only would Mueller not have to testify before Congress, his testimony, as well as the investigation would have been secret from its inception!

    This is how the investigative process should have worked if it were conducted in a properly assembled Governing system:

    1. The FBI would have informed the sitting AG with their concerns about Russian involvement in the 2016 Elections, and the possible involvement of a candidate or a candidates campaign.

    2. The AG would have informed the Sitting President, or the President of the Senate directly if it involved the Sitting President, of the concerns which were brought to their attention.

    3. The Sitting President would transmit his concerns to Congress through the President of the Senate, Information that was necessary and expedient for their consideration.

    4. After consideration, the Senate should have opened an investigation by contacting the AG Directly to open an investigation of the matter using whatever resources available for the purpose of rendering information for their consideration that would lead to a conclusion on the matter of interference and or possible involvement of those within the Campaign in question.

    5. All findings from the investigation must be reported to the Senate, through the President of the Senate, as the investigation progresses, as well as at the conclusion of the investigation. The Senate’s role of Advice and Consent, is By and With, which means Before and During, Not After!

    6. The States as they are assembled in the Senate will at the appropriate time during, or after the investigation, decide how to proceed! If it is at a time before the election, the Senate can suspend all election activities until the problem which has been identified has been resolved and the election process can continue. If it is at a time after the election but before the New President assumes office, then the Senate can decide to nullify the election, or declare the Electors votes from affected states to not comply with the certification criteria of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution, which once their Electors votes are removed declare the person with a Majority of the remaining Electors Votes President, if it be a Majority of the Electors, or have a runoff in the House of the top 5 Candidates receiving Votes under Article 2 Section 1, or the top 3 under the 12th Amendment, 1 vote per State, the person receiving a Majority of the Votes of the States will become the President. If if it is after the President has assumed the office, then depending on their decision, the States can vote for impeachment in the House, requiring as few as 9 States to achieve the required Majority for impeachment, and if impeached, then the President can be put on immediate administrative leave, causing an absence in the Presidency which would be immediately filled by the Vice President, until the resolution of the trial in the Senate where either the President is removed or the absence of the Presidency is resolved returning the President to full duties!

    7. If removed, then the President and all supporting information from the investigation, shall be turned over to the Justice Department for resolution of any criminal findings and punishment, up to and including the forfeiture of Life or Property on the finding of guilt.

    The main points in the process described above are Secrecy and Dispatch, that is what the Senate is designed for, also there are no conflicts of interest associated with this process, and no involvement of the Sitting President or anyone outside the Senate or directed by the Senate, not even back to the States Themselves, and Definitely not to any Parties through the Affiliation of the Senators, and all decisions are made by the States as they are assembled in the Senate as Equals, The Union!

    Now if you think you can rebut my analysis of Article 1 and 2 of the Constitution regarding how Congress is assembled and How Congress functions as the Union, feel free and don’t forget to reference the appropriate principles from Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution to support your opinion!

    1. Now if you think you can rebut my analysis…

      “This business is well ended.
      My liege, and madam, to expostulate
      What majesty should be, what duty is,
      Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
      Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.
      Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
      And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
      I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
      Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
      What is’t but to be nothing else but mad?
      But let that go.”
      – LORD POLONIUS in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, 1602

    2. Now if you think you can rebut my analysis…

      I’d have to stay awake through it first.

    3. You left out the part where Citizens would open fire and Civil War 2 would begin.

      1. The second Civil War has already begun, but this time instead of a war between the States, its a war between the States and the Parties. If you don’t know the difference then you need to study your history a little more, you can start with the Declaration of Independence!

        1. No, it’s a war between a bunch of power mad deRp state government control freaks seeking absolute power and the People they seek to enslave and control.

          1. I think I said that, what do you think the Parties are! But “We The People”, through our States, don’t have to stand for it! We can end this clown show any time We want, we just need to work Together, as the Union!

            “We the People” have all the Power and always have had all the Power! The Parties are just squatters and usurpers!

            1. There are more than just the parties involved. They are, for the most part are just feckless tools. The UN isn’t running up and down I-81 playing dress up with their toys for nothing.

              1. The UN has nothing to do with our Governing System, our governing system is insulated from interference from within the United States and doubly insulated from interference from outside the United States, if it is properly assembled through Article 1 of the Constitution!

  20. “Mueller And Strzok Knew There Was No Big There There”

    “It indicates they’re considering joining the Mueller special counsel investigation,” Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis. said. “… He doesn’t really want to join that because his gut sense is there’s no big there there. I think that’s kind of shocking.”
    ________

    “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

    The Mueller probe could be “in the history books…” and “…maybe the most important case of our lives” as an “…investigation leading to Impeachment?”

    – Peter Strzok to Lisa Page
    ______________________

    “POTUS (Obama) wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to Peter Strzok
    ______________________

    Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller accepted the appointment as corrupt and barbarous special counsel to act as the “tip-of-the-spear” of the Obama Coup D’etat in America. Mueller was conducting “deep state,” political oppo research not law. Mueller willfully conducted a “malicious prosecution” identical to the malicious prosecution of Mike Nifong, DA, Durham County, NC (Durham, paradoxically, is Barr’s Russia investigator), which landed Nifong in jail. Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller KNEW when Peter Strzok KNEW and said

    “…I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”
    ____________________________________________________________________

    “If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.”

    – Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
    _______________________________

    Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller will not testify because Mueller will not be able to protect Der Fuhrer Barack Obama, POTUS, from answering for his crimes, which range from using a pseudonymous account to illegally exchange classified e-mail with Hillary Clinton on her illegal servers, to directing Samatha Powers to “unmask” political opponents “hundreds of times” in the final days of his administration and tasking Clapper and Brennan to run entrapment ops on Carter Page and George Papadoupolos, employing, as agents, Halper, Mifsud, Downer, Turk et al.

    Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller issued an innocuous report hoping to obtain plausible deniability regarding his participation in Obama’s coup-coup Coup D’etat. He intended to trade effective exoneration of President Trump for his personal “exoneration” and be allowed to quietly fade away into exile.

    Uh-oh!!!
    ____________________

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker,

    Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,

    Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder,

    Brazile, Sessions, Obama et al.

Comments are closed.