Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on three unanswered and troubling questions for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The concerns over Mueller’s motivations was heightened by the justifications that he has offered for some of his decisions like not reaching a conclusion on the weight of the evidence on obstruction. Many of us view Mueller’s rationale (based on the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president) to be not just unprecedented but illogical. Putting aside my long disagreement with the argument that a president is immune from indictment, that policy (and the underlying memos) say nothing about a Special Counsel reaching conclusions on the evidence of possible criminal acts. Indeed, that is the core purpose of a Special Counsel. If one rejects the rationales of Mueller, you are left with a question of motivation in maintaining these positions.
Here is the column:
In that twinkling zone between man and myth, Robert Mueller transcends the mundane. Even in refusing to reach a conclusion on criminal conduct, he is excused. As Mueller himself declared, we are to ask him no questions or expect any answers beyond his report. But his motivations as special counsel can only be found within an approved range that starts at “selfless” and ends at “heroic.” Representative Mike Quigley defended Mueller’s refusal to reach a conclusion as simply “protecting” President Trump in a moment of “extreme fairness.”
Yet, as I noted previously, Mueller’s position on the investigation has become increasingly conflicted and, at points, unintelligible. As someone who defended Mueller’s motivations against the unrelenting attacks of Trump, I found his press conference to be baffling, and it raised serious concerns over whether some key decisions are easier to reconcile on a political rather than a legal basis. Three decisions stand out that are hard to square with Mueller’s image as an apolitical icon. If he ever deigns to answer questions, his legacy may depend on his explanations.
Refusal to identify grand jury material
One of the most surprising disclosures made by Attorney General William Barr was that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly told Mueller to submit his report with grand jury material clearly marked to facilitate the release of a public version. The Justice Department cannot release grand jury material without a court order. Mueller knew that. He also knew his people had to mark the material because they were in the grand jury proceedings.
Thus, Barr and Rosenstein reportedly were dumbfounded to receive a report that did not contain these markings. It meant the public report would be delayed by weeks as the Justice Department waited for Mueller to perform this basic task. Mueller knew it would cause such a delay as many commentators were predicting Barr would postpone the release of the report or even bury it. It left Barr and the Justice Department in the worst possible position and created the false impression of a coverup.
Why would a special counsel directly disobey his superiors on such a demand? There is no legal or logical explanation. What is even more galling is that Mueller said in his press conference that he believed Barr acted in “good faith” in wanting to release the full report. Barr ultimately did so, releasing 98 percent of the report to select members of Congress and 92 percent to the public. However, then came the letter from Mueller.
Surprise letter sent to the attorney general
Five days after submitting his report, Mueller sent a letter objecting that Barr’s summary letter to Congress “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the work and conclusions reached by his team. He complained that “there is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”
The letter surprised Barr for good reasons. First, Barr had offered to allow Mueller to read the summary before submitting it. Mueller declined but then sent this letter calling for the release of sections of his report, even though they had not been cleared by Justice Department staff. Second, Barr has known Mueller for decades. Yet, Mueller did not simply pick up the phone to discuss his concerns and possible resolutions or to ask for a meeting. Instead, he undermined Barr with a letter clearly meant to insinuate something improper without actually making such an accusation.
Mueller’s letter also requested something he knew Barr could not do, which is to release uncleared portions of the report, including material later redacted by Justice Department staff. Mueller’s letter is notable in what it did not include, which is an acknowledgment that he was responsible for the need for the summary, as well as much of the delay in the release of the report.
In an earlier meeting, Barr explained that he wanted to quickly release the report and allow the work of the special counsel to speak for itself. To do so, however, Mueller and his people needed to identify material that should be redacted under federal law, which they did not do. While Barr has described Mueller’s letter as “snitty,” it was in fact a sucker punch.
Refusal to reach an obstruction conclusion
The most curious and significant decision by Mueller was refusing to reach a conclusion on presidential obstruction. While entirely ignored by the media, Mueller contradicted himself in first saying that he would have cleared Trump if he could have, but then later saying that he decided not to reach a conclusion on any crime.
I have already addressed why Mueller’s interpretation of memos from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel is unprecedented and illogical. He concluded that, in barring the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president, those memos meant prosecutors can investigate but not reach conclusions on possible criminal acts.
It is not just his legal interpretation that is incomprehensible. Mueller was appointed almost two years before he released his report. He was fully aware that Congress, the Justice Department, the media, and the public expected him to reach conclusions on criminal conduct, a basic function of the special counsel. He also was told he should do so by the attorney general and deputy attorney general. Yet, he relied on two highly controversial opinions written by a small office in the Justice Department.
Over those two years, Mueller could have asked his superiors for a decision on this alleged policy barring any conclusions on criminal conduct. More importantly, he could have requested an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel. That is what the Office of Legal Counsel does, particularly when its own opinions are the cause of confusion. One would think you would be even more motivated to do so, if you intended to ignore the view of the attorney general and his deputy that there is no such policy.
Mueller, however, is an experienced litigator who knows not to ask a question when you do not know the answer or when you know the answer and do not want to hear it. His position is even more curious, given his lack of action after Barr and Rosenstein did precisely what he said could not be done under Justice Department policies. If Mueller believed such conclusions are impermissible, why did he not submit the matter to the Justice Department inspector general?
His press conference captured his report perfectly. It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes. Mueller knew that was incrimination by omission. By emphasizing he could not clear Trump of criminality, Mueller knew the press would interpret that as a virtual indictment.
What is concerning is not that each of his three decisions clearly would undermine Trump or Barr but that his decisions ran against the grain for a special counsel. The law favored the other path in each instance. Thus, to use Mueller’s own construction, if we could rule out a political motive, we would have done so. This is why Mueller must testify and must do so publicly.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
If Mueller believes what he wrote in his stupid little report than he should have declared his own appointment unconstitutional. There would be no need for a Special Counsel, or any rules for a Special or Independent Council, and the investigation itself would be unconstitutional. Next, Mueller accepts the OLC policy yet ignores several others such as not smearing someone who is not charged. That is exactly what he did with the almost 200 pages of volume II. That throws out this whole narrative of “fairness,” he professes as well.
Now we have a tape of John Dowd, the President’s lawyer talking to Flynn’s team about giving the team a heads up. We now know that John Dowd did so in the context of any possible national security problems that may be faced by what Flynn has to tell the Special Counsel. That part was left out of the Special Counsels report. Why? Because Mueller and his team know that if the President commits and act that may be seen as somewhat corrupt because it benefits him personally, but also has a legitimate purpose (i.e. National Security) the President gets the benefit of the doubt. So on the “corrupt intent,” angle, that would not be obstruction of justice. Saint Mueller just committed the a sin in not offering a piece of exculpatory evidence.
Mueller’s actions are political. He doesn’t like Trump, his team really hates Trump, and they could not put together a real case against him so what they did is turn this into a veiled call for impeachment because they know they didn’t have a real political case.
Mueller not wanting to answer questions backs this up, and makes it more likely that Barr is the one telling the truth when it comes to them talking about the importance of the OLC opinion. I think Mueller’s team was the one that wrote the report and they wrote things in there that Mueller didn’t even realize. I think that is why Barr told a different story about the OLC policy. Barr seems fine with answering question but we have a defiant Mueller. Mr. Mueller seems to be someone who lives with the same thin skinned problem that the media knows Trump has. He thinks he is above questioning. If he believes Barr and Rosenstein are telling tall tales he should be more than happy to answer any and all questions. My guess is that he is protecting a team that were all out to get Trump and they wrote some things Mueller did not agree with. He doesn’t want that to be known.
Anthony, that is some hillarious s..t! So, Dowd was concerned with National Security? Yeah, right, we know how much Trump was on guard against the Russians. Here’ some of Dowd’s message that he left for Flynn.
“”Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I-‘m-I’m sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t … state it in … starker terms,” the message to Rob Kelner said. “If you have … and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh … I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that … implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know … some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So … uh … you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of … protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information. So, uhm, and if it’s the former, then, you know, remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.””
Mueller’s report said. “When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn’s actions reflected ‘hostility’ towards the President.'”
Over the course of 19 interviews, Flynn “informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” Mueller wrote.
Mueller also said that Flynn gave “useful information” about discussions among Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, and provided “firsthand information about the content and context of interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/transcript-of-john-dowds-voicemail-to-michael-flynn-lawyer-released
All very wonderful. Where are the indictments? Or, as one national burger chain would say, where is the meat? Seems this is all bun and no burger.
Canuck, Flynn was indicted and pled out.
I guess another critic of the MSM who has no f….g idea what is going on.
INSUBORDINATION
“One of the most surprising disclosures made by Attorney General William Barr was that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly told Mueller to submit his report with grand jury material clearly marked to facilitate the release of a public version.”
“Mueller declined but then sent this letter ( “…objecting that Barr’s summary letter to Congress “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the work and conclusions reached by his team. …” ) calling for the release of sections of his report, even though they had not been cleared by Justice Department staff.”
“Yet, Mueller did not simply pick up the phone to discuss his concerns and possible resolutions or to ask for a meeting. Instead, he undermined Barr with a letter clearly meant to insinuate something improper without actually making such an accusation. …”
“Mueller’s letter also requested something he knew Barr could not do, which is to release uncleared portions of the report, including material later redacted by Justice Department staff. …”
“He was fully aware that Congress, the Justice Department, the media, and the public expected him to reach conclusions on criminal conduct, a basic function of the special counsel. He also was told he should do so by the attorney general and deputy attorney general. Yet, he relied on two highly controversial opinions written by a small office in the Justice Department. …”
“One would think you would be even more motivated to do so, if you intended to ignore the view of the attorney general and his deputy that there is no such policy. …”
INSINUATION, NOT!, OMISSION. FAILURE OF DUTY, OF RESPONSIBILITY
“His press conference captured his report perfectly. It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes. Mueller knew that was incrimination by omission. …”
NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, NOT IN THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?
“By emphasizing he could not clear Trump of criminality, Mueller knew the press would interpret that as a virtual indictment. …”
RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW
RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION
RECLAIM THE REPUBLIC
“What is concerning is not … but … decisions ran against the grain for a special counsel. The law favored … if we could rule out a political motive …
why Mueller must testify and must do so publicly.”
The professor once again, and perhaps forever, regurgitates the political folly and foolishness of deception, deceit and disservice.
Why?
I said, from the beginning, one can check the archives, the so-called “Russia-gate”, an incredibly popular delusion, is about one matter and only one matter … politics.
From the beginning I said, Special Counsel Mueller had an irresolvable conflict of interest, if not dirty hands.
[ As Counsel to President Trump, or any other President so situated, I would have recommended Mueller be fired. Yes!, I know the reaction: political. A new Special Counsel could have and should have been appointed. The resultant politics would not be any different than now, except the issues would have clearer, more direct and honest. ]
Have not The Special Counsel’s Report, the professor’s bloviating and the public’s, and, of course, the so-called pundits’ interpretations been and are political.
[ The Justice Department Memoranda have no legal authority or for force of law. ]
Consequently, if Robert Mueller were to testify publicly, would not the same cast characters interpret any such testimony politically, not legally?
dennis hanna
p.s. Did Robert Mueller, as Assistant U. S. Attorney in charge of the Criminal Division in San Francisco and Boston, follow Justice Department “Guidelines” … “Memoranda” in prosecuting the Hells Angels ( 1 and 2 investigations and trials ) or in prosecuting the Whitey Bulger cabal ( numerous investigations and trials ).
For a small dam paling, please see:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-03/exposed-naked-truth-about-robert-mueller
L4D says–Turley has become the epitome of bad faith. Turley knows exactly what would have happened had Mueller “concluded” that Trump obstructed justice. AG Whitewash Casting Couch would have “redacted” Mueller’s “conclusion” for Rule 6(E) Grand Jury material. We know this because AG Whitewash Casting Couch “over-ruled” Mueller’s refusal to reach a “conclusion” on obstruction of justice by perfunctorily “exonerating” Trump of obstruction of justice without having read more than a few pages of the executive summaries in the Mueller Report.
Perhaps Turley always was the epitome of bad faith.
http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/57746/book-your-one-way-trip-to-mars/
Diane, if you’re considering destinations for a summer vacation……..
Bill Barr’s Very Strange Memo on Obstruction of Justice – Lawfare
https://www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justice
Dec 20, 2018 … The memo on obstruction of justice by Bill Barr, the once and future attorney general, is a bizarre document—particularly so for a man who …
Document: William Barr Memo on Obstruction Investigation – Lawfare
https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-william-barr-memo-obstruction-investigation
Dec 20, 2018 … The Wall Street Journal reported on Dec. 20 that nominee for attorney general William Barr sent a memo to the Justice Department earlier this …
Perhaps nothing… You don’t know what you’re talking about. AG Barr made the conclusions he made along with Rod Rosenstein, and they took three weeks to do it, working alongside the lawyers of the Mueller team. The people here a little better informed than you seem to give them credit for… Don’t try to BS us, thanks
L4D says–Above, in which Canucklehead pretends that he never read about AG Casting Couch’s audition memo claiming that the President couldn’t obstruct justice. Why else would Whitewash have been hired for AG? His “conclusion” was “foregone” on his job application–well before Mueller submitted the report. Two days after Mueller submitted the report, there was Casting Couch’s “foregone conclusion” again in his preliminary summary letter to Congress. Then three weeks later, at the big press conference, there it was, again–the same forgone conclusion Casting Couch had reached three weeks earlier as well as before Whitewash was even hired for the job.
The people here who are a little bit better informed than who???
1. Don’t see the same intrigue. Since Mueller and his team went to the trouble of preparing summaries of various aspects/issues, it’s obvious he didn’t envision or intend the full report become public, therefore no need to redact. He probably thought few would read it … which turned out true basis the reaction from those who should have read (press and Congress).
2. Letter expresses his surprise, didn’t expect Barr to adjust the meaning of some issues. Didn’t pick up the phone since he wanted it to be on the record, even if he did not choose to make it public.
3. Similarly, if Barr expected a determination for prosecution, why didn’t he put it in writing so he would be assuming responsibility? Answer … obvious, it allows him to duck criticism from President Trump if the determination is prosecution. Further, Mueller’s point is valid … it would not have allowed President Trump to defend himself (unfair) except in the press OR it would have created a new constitutional crisis thereby making President Trump a victim … only unless impeachment proceedings were launched.
The summaries prepared by Mueller’s team were to be released as Mueller knew that a) there would be a period of time between the announcement that the report had been submitted and the redacted report’s release: and b) the vast majority of Americans have zero legal understanding of the law, let alone training.
Not only were his previous decisions on collusion suspect he big time failed to simply state “collusion is not a crime.” A fact that has the boggled the mindless of the left wing from the get go. Never mind that the man was given the broadest powers ever provided to a single individual, to the point one might start to wonder how could they not be in violation of The Constitution … and he did NOTHING with them. Tons of useless paper, except his pay checks and his ability to go anywhere and he refused to cross the line of the ridiculous to the serious. If anyone obstructed it was Meuller himself in his role as Republican in Name Only protecting his true home party’s candidate and her legions of co conspirators.
Michael, Mueller spelled out the standard for a prosecution on conspiracy with the Russians. Trump – and a number of his supporters are the most frequent mis-users of the term collusion and his mantra of “no collusion” is nonsensical in the extreme as well as false.
The broadest powers ever given to a single individual, apart from our Presidents, and focused on legal roles were those who were Independent Counsels. They did not report to the AG.
The rest of your post is of course mindless cult drivel.
The intent of the comment stands. All he had to do was point out Collusion was not a crime. He did not. For a very long time. The rest of your diversion is BS.
You of all people should know what a cut is. And what it is not. But then who Is your programmer?
One of the main rules of the left wing liberal cult is say it three times and then one can quote it as fact. So two attempts and your score is zero. Go read the elephant book again.
The DOJ could indict other people (than the President) and I recall that they did so. Mueller mentioned this.
I agree with the position that the President cannot be indicted but can be impeached. We have three branches of government. The legislative branch is also the olive branch. It is up to them.
My concern is that Mueller was not being truthful in his declaration that he could not reach a conclusion because of the Justice Department recommendation. Rather, he might have had insufficient evidence, so instead planted this poison pill to undermine the Presidency. After all, Barr stated, under oath, that Mueller clearly told him 3 different times that this was not why he did not reach a conclusion. I would like to ask the others in the room if they concur with Barr’s statements.
Mueller’s failure to clearly state a conclusion, and the delays his actions created, has caused quite a bit of unrest in the country. If he didn’t like Barr’s conclusion, then why didn’t he clearly state one himself? That way there could be no room for misunderstanding.
Mueller’s behavior is very troubling. His refusal to address Barr’s Congressional testimony has left open the question of whether Barr told the truth or not. Again, this is done through implication and evasion.
This is very squirrely.
My concern is that Trump will get away with another crime and escape impeachment because Mueller felt hamstrung by DOJ policy. That is very troubling.
As to Barr’s persistent lying, he should go to Congress – he ignored a subpoena – under force and answer for his PR work. He’s the AG, not an advance man.
“My concern is that Trump will get away with another crime”
To date Anon hasn’t produced any crime that Trump committed. Anon should be jailed for such incessant lying.
Trump is listed as Individual one in the felony conviction of Cohen who was making hush money payments in his interest which were violations of campaign financing laws. He is also a known tax cheat and who knows what else we’ll find out from his financials which he is so desperate to keep secret.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html
I guess they told you in orientation to be egregious. Cohen pleaded guilty to a range of offenses having to do with his taxes, his medallion business, & other matters. They also tack on the campaign finance charge. Enterprising federal prosecutors couldn’t get a conviction on such charges applied to John Edwards and they couldn’t get one on anyone else who elected to fight the charges, because the argument is humbug.
Tabby, explain why the ‘president’ retained a shameless hustler as his lawyer. Everything we know about Michael Cohen puts him in league with mafia-type attorneys. Surely Trump recognized Cohen’s glaring lack of ethics. And one suspects Trump was drawn to exactly that: ‘Cohen’s glaring lack of ethics’.
Edwards successfully argued that the payments were made to keep his wife in the dark. In Trump’s …. excuse me, Individual #1’s case, The National Enquirer admitted that the payments were meant to keep voters in the dark.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-john-edwards-defense-further-dissipates
And your only source is the NY Times? Where’s the proof he was listed as Individual One? So far it’s just constantly repeating the same BS the NY Times printed without facts behind it …. Strike Three Go read a boook about elephants and why you should or not see them.
Michael, why don’t read any respectable source like the NYT’s before for showing up here to debate s..t you know nothing about. You’re embarrassing yourself and your dependence on right wing sources. It is not disputable the Trump is listed as Individual One by the prosecutors in the Cohen case involving hush payments.
Mueller was not, in fact, prevented from coming to a conclusion by the DOJ policy. That was a recommendation against an actual indictment. Mueller stated that he felt it wasn’t fair to come to a conclusion, either way, when there was no recourse of a court trial. That really doesn’t make any sense, at all, because then why do an investigation at all?
Mueller also failed to address the fact that Barr said, under oath, that Mueller told him 3 times that the DOJ recommendation against indictment was not why he reached no conclusion. Others were present. That should be investigated.
Are you saying that, although Mueller found insufficient evidence that Trump colluding with Russia turned out to be a hoax, that he should be impeached anyway?
Karen, Trump has been calling Russian interference ‘fake news’ for more than 2 years. Yet The Mueller Report described at length the Russian interference effort and identified the players.
If you’re president of the United States and you persistently label as ‘fake news’ a documented security threat, you are lending cover to that threat. That may no be ‘direct collusion’, but when a president willfully dismisses a national security threat, he is duplicitous, if nothing else.
What if Obama had kept dismissing ISIS as ‘fake news’..?? Republicans would have leveled him a traitor and demanded his immediate removal.
Trump has been calling it fake news that he collaborated with the Russians.
Hillary Clinton hid classified information on an illegal server in her bathroom, and deleted emails while under subpoena. True, Comey announcing they’d found some of those deleted emails hit her popularity just before the election, but that was because she did delete those emails.
Russian involvement used FB bots to help Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and Trump, and hurt Hillary Clinton. Although the DNC refused to allow the FBI to inspect their servers, their claim is that Russians hacked those servers and released damning, truthful information about wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton and the DNC. This was on top of Hillary Clinton’s well publicized bad acts about the server, and her constant lying about it on camera. Also, Donna Brazil came out about the DNC not allowing Bernie Sanders to compete fairly, and Clinton took over the debt of the DNC in order to run it before the primary. There was also the Clinton Foundation pay to play scandals, the plum jobs to big Clinton donors that resulted in moldy, leaky trailers being built for Haiti that were supposedly “hurricane proof”. Uranium One. Benghazi. TravelGate. Drag a dollar through a trailer park and you never know what you’ll find. Bimbo eruptions. Laughing about a pedophile passing a lie detector test. Giggling on tape about a crime lab accidentally throwing out crucial evidence, the blood and semen stained underwear of a young girl whom her client so brutally raped that it rendered her sterile.
Then there were the rape allegations against Bill Clinton. His repeated trips to Orgy Island, where he went without Secret Service, owned by a convicted sex offender who abused minors?
Hillary Clinton had a lot of problems, which is why many people did not vote for her. How much of that was due to Russian FB memes and ads? How much was due to either the leaking or hacking of the DNC servers, which revealed yet more Clinton shady dealings?
It’s pretty hard to say that Hillary Clinton would have won if the Russians hadn’t interfered.
It is also hypocritical of us to complain, since we meddle in other countries’ elections around the world.
I am concerned with actual hacking, especially of voting machines, and against foreign propaganda. One of the most serious Russian propaganda is the years’ long anti-capitalism campaign it has waged, sometimes employing US professors in pro-Socialist anti-capitalist think tanks. You can thank the Russians for one of the reasons why AOC got elected, and why Bernie Sanders is a contender. Every time you hear pro-socialist and anti-capitalist propaganda, it is an example of cooperation with the Russian agenda to weaken the US.
I honestly do not know how social media could prevent foreign nationals from creating viral memes or acting as plants. If requiring photo ID to vote is supposedly racist, how is social media to vet anyone’s citizenship or ties?
Gee Karen thanks for the laundry list of lies. You’ve been corrected before which is how we know they’re lies and not just mistakes.
Karen, your answer here is like a 16 gauge shotgun shooting a wide spray. You’re pumping out 50 different issues; a wide spray of talking points. Like P H is now obliged to address all 50.
But P H sees through that gimmick.
“Trump has been calling Russian interference ‘fake news’ for more than 2 years.”
Peter, Trump has been calling the way the media reported Russian interference ‘fake news’ and it was. It was even proven to be fake by Mueller, no conspiracy. Of course what did Obama say about Russian interference or did you forget? Obama was negligent in his duty as President.
Obama, knowing the partisan attacks coming if he acted alone, asked GOP leaders before the election to join him in denouncing the Russian interference. McConnell said forget it. After the election Obama placed additional sanctions on the Russians and the Trump campaign – Flynn among others – contacted them and told them to hold their cool until they took office.
Anon, Obama announced to the public that Russian interference didn’t exist just like he announced ISIS was the JV team. Obama announced to Medvedev “”After my election I have more flexibility,”. Sounds like a bit of stupidity on the part of Obama and also disregard for America.
After Obama set the bar so low is it any wonder why people were stupid enough to support Hillary?
Allan doesn’t know what he’s talking about … again.
Unlike trump, who knew about the Russian effort but at the time was making excuses for them and trying to hide them, as he still does to this day, Obama warned Putin personally and the Russians as did others in his administration and tried to enlist GOP leaders to make a non-partisan stand. They wouldn’t. After the election he imposed sanctions which the Trump campaign secretly reassured them would not stand. Fortunately Congress passed a law overwhelmingly on a non-partisan basis after Trump took office which locked those sanctions in.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016
“…Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. about the sanctions. In a phone call with the ambassador, on the same day the Obama administration announced the sanctions, Flynn asked that Russia refrain from retaliating, according to the charge filed by the special counsel’s office. Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, allegedly agreed that Russia would moderate its response, and Russian President Vladimir Putin then issued a statement saying Russia would not retaliate, citing plans to restore relations with the U.S. under the incoming Trump administration….”
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/meme-misleads-on-russia-sanctions/
Anon, you are such an ignorant liar.
“Obama warned Putin… ” Right, ‘Hey Putin, I’ll be more flexible after the election’. We saw the Russian advances in the Ukraine, Crimea, airforce and Russian troops into Syria. Right, Obama was a real gem. Libya destroyed, troops moved from Iraq etc. Obama was a horror and couldn’t even manage the economy in the eight years he had. Anemic recovery. Healthcare, the ACA helped some but badly hurt the middle class on the program, such BS from Anon.
“Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty…” Flynn was being investigated prior to Trump. Was that because he was looking into how money was being spent? I’ll wait for the clouds to clear before making a definitive opinion on Flynn though compared to those investigating him along with Hillary and the Obama Administration Flynn no matter what he did proven to be illegal (so far nothing illegal proven except for questionable mistruths to the FBI.
Only Stupid people rely on fact checks and don’t bother to even read what they say. Fact checks are spin machines.
Allan thinks his opinion of the ACA is relevant to the facts surrounding Russian interference in our election, the Trump campaigns collusion with that effort which, by virtue of his continued effort to defend them or deny it, and above all his failure to do anything about their current and future efforts after being in office for 2+ years, continues to this day, and Obama’s efforts at the time.
“Allan thinks his opinion of the ACA is relevant to the facts surrounding Russian interference in our election”
No I listed the ACA along with a host of other things to demonstrate that Obama was a complete doofus.
Allan’s opinion of Obama is irrelevant to the facts of his attempts to stop Russian interference in our 2016 election and Trump’s aiding them, which continues to this day. I appreciate his giving me reason to continue posting these facts.
Anon, Allan’s opinion is very relevant. Allan presents facts that you deny and other facts where your own words betray you. Nothing stops you from posting whatever you wish so you don’t need me as an excuse. Lying is part of your existence.
At least we know that if the Russians were thought to have trying to influence the election on Hillary’s behalf, Obama, Nancy, and Chuckie would have all gladly signed 😄😂🤣a statement exposuring and condemning Russian meddling.
Yes, Tom, but as we all know, the Russians did influence the election in favor of Trump, the GOP leaders in Congress refused to do anything about it, the Trump campaign colluded with them and to this day he
continues to defend Russian’s attack, deny it, and refuses to do anything about their current and future plans.
It’s a real knee slapper!
Anon/ Jan F.
Since you “know” that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump, how much influence did their troll operations have. Do you “know” if it changed votes, and how many?
While you’re at it, you can tabulate for the rest of us how the Vatican influenced the election against Trump. Since you “know” that the Russians actually had an influence, you should be the one to calculate the impact of Pope Francis’ pre-election statements on immigration and other issues where he was at odds with Trump.
Karen, it does make sense though reasonable people can disagree on whether it IS the correct interpretation of that policy.
The reasons to do the investigation are clear from his statement and the report:
1. To investigate the Russian attack on our election.
2. To prosecute those found to be chargeable, not including the President.
3. As to the President, to clear him in a finding if they were able. He did that regarding a criminal conspiracy with the Russians, though multiple instances of collusion are listed as was the lack of cooperation from the President and multiple members of his campaign and administration.
4. As to the President, to not clear him of crimes for which there was clear evidence, as in obstruction, and to provide this information for non-legal proceeding in the Congress.
It is up to Barr to explain his lies, not Mueller, who was quite clear in his reasoning on not writing a finding because of DOJ policy IN THE REPORT WHICH BARR HAD when he lied.
L4D says–“Whitewash” Barr was hired on The Casting Couch of his infamous memo claiming that Mueller was supposedly already wrong about obstruction of justice long before Mueller submitted his report and before AG “Casting Couch” was even confirmed as AG. There’s an outside chance that Whitewash bothered to read The Table of Contents on The Mueller Report before reiterating the “foregone conclusion” he had been hired to reach. Little did Casting Couch know that Mueller had found a way out of the “foregone conclusion” that Whitewash was hired to reach. You have to get well past The Table of Contents to figure out what Mueller was doing with that there report of his.
And that is why The Trumpa Lumpas are all so very deeply angry at Mueller. You see, their Mothers never taught The Trumpa Lumpas how to live with disappointment.
What Crimes? And why are you so focused on them while at the same time excusing the crimes committed by the left just in taking the oath of office? Redefining and reframing is not you strong suit.
You stupid twatt. The subpoena on AG Barr was a demand that he do something illegal, ie release 6e material. Are you really that stupid?
Canuck writes to Anon: “Are you really that stupid?”
Canuck, Anon is that stupid.
Canuck you fool – Barr refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. This was a separate issue from the un-redacted report subpoena.
Canuck Sailor says: June 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM
“You stupid twatt. [edit] Are you really that stupid?”
[end excerpt]
L4D says–Another fine example of Mysogeny by Proxy from Moran. He really is that [redacted].
Did anyone else notice Smith asleep at the wheel with Canucklehead’s post cited above?
“Mueller’s behavior is very troubling.”
Mueller’s behavior isn’t just troubling, it’s downright dishonest.
By definition, and for obvious reasons, a Trump supporter has surrendered any standing to discuss dishonesty.
Anon/Jan F. has experience in the field of dishonesty.
“By definition, and for obvious reasons”
Anon, once again words without proof. Why? You don’t know what you are talking about. It is so simple for everyone to see.
Anonymous, welcome back from your coma.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
According to your unsupported definition from the the liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist point of view. /s/ Constitutional Centrist what label did your programmer give The Collective this time.
I’m not sure of that. He’s a RINO and by know everyone should know they are the right wing OF the left. So the dishonesty must be measured from that particular dishonesty. It’s more than troubling. He got away with defending the Socialist etc party by pretending to be something he’s not. A Republican instead of a RINO.
Nothing at all prevented Mueller from identifying instances in which the President directed members of his staff to obstruct justice. Either the president did or did not obstruct justice. It was incumbent upon Mueller to resign his position the minute he realized he was unable to perform the work he had agreed to do. By coyly implying that the President was culpable but that Justice Department guidelines or the Constitution prevented him from charging the President with a crime, Mueller did actually prejudice the President’s chances of a fair hearing in the court of public opinion (which would definitely drive Congress either toward or away from impeachment proceedings).
It’s perhaps time for someone to investigate why Robert Mueller “did the little sidestep” (from Tommy Tune’s musical which cannot be named in a family blog) as his last official act as a Justice Department employee. He’s avoiding precisely the kind of accountability he demanded of every defendant he faced in a Federal courtroom.
Your last sentence says everything that needs to be said about Herr Mueller
L4D says–Do you really want Mueller to have flatly accused Trump of obstruction of justice? I don’t think so. I think you’re all just pretending that you really wanted Mueller write something like “The investigation established that The President obstructed justice.”
And, had Mueller written such a statement, then you could all lambaste Mueller for having effectively indicted a sitting President without literally indicting him contrary to Justice Dept’s regulations based on the long-standing OLC opinion and without any legal process though which Trump could clear his good name because of those same regulations. Huh? What?
Yeah! That’s right. That last little bit reads awfully close to what Mueller actually wrote in his report. Doesn’t it? You pretenders, you.
Let’s say you hire a lawyer to research law and facts and give his opinion on the likely success of your case. He takes two years, bills you millions and then tells you that he can’t give you that opinion because he’s not allowed to. Shouldn’t he be required to give the money back? I think so.
Meanwhile:
“SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — The Pentagon has told the White House to stop politicizing the military, amid a furor over a Trump administration order to have the Navy ship named for the late U.S. Sen. John McCain hidden from view during President Donald Trump’s recent visit to Japan….”
https://apnews.com/3dba0b327e8e45e5b9589db4bb735505?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter
Anon, Trump had nothing to do with it, but you will act as if he did and then later lie about it.
That experience gives Anon/ JanF standing to discuss dishonesty.
Trump had nothing to do with Russia helping to get him elected, either.
Trump has a horse-shoe up his [redacted].
BFD How many ships and boats have been named after Politicians since it was first started. The rest and the whole thing was traced to a staffer …. Just more BS.
If you conclude he’s scamming around and playing PR games, it all makes sense.
The main problem with all of this is that our system and The upstanding people in it are not equipped to deal with a totally corrupt President. Everything is completely unheard of and without precedent.
What an incredibly lame excuse for ineptness on the part of these “upstanding people.” Terrible Trump just made them that way and they just couldn’t help it. Good grief.
Always dragging Obama into it when your other comments end up toothless.
“It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes.”
I got a kick out of that one. In order to be fair to Trump, Mueller didn’t reach a conclusion. I’m sure Trump thinks that’s very thoughtful of him.
Mueller must testify in public, now! Everyone(left and right) agrees, right?
Ivan, I’m not sure Mueller will be able to testify even if he’s willing to ……that marathon gabfest of a press conference may have exhausted and sidelined him for the foreseeable future.
Mueller should be allowed to retire in peace! At the nearest Club Fed to pay for his many lies and crimes!
JT’s article relies again on Barr’s version of events. Like his boss, Barr is a proven and habitual liar.
JT has a habit of framing for alternative facts, and echo chamber bubbles for Trump and his base supporters. .
Let’s not mischaracterize the good Professor as part of the Trumpian right. He is, and always has been, a lefty/liberal. What distinguishes him from virtually everyone on the left is that he cares deeply about the Constitution. I criticize him for being hilariously naive- for not being much more aggressive in calling out the blatant corruption in his home town.
FishWings, it is often said that fish stink from the head, but in your case it stinks at the Wings. You comment is vacuous.
L4D says–Nature abhors a vacuum. Ergo, fish can’t stink in a vacuum, neither. Shoo, fly. Shoo!
I rather suspect people who are ANON are habitual liars.
L4D says–And the alias jfjoyner3 is as good as swearing on a stack of Bibles. Is it???
Anon, why does virtually every comment you make on this blog appear to be a lie or a libel? You always run away from listing the lies being made despite your common use of the term “habitual liar”. That term means you have loads of provable lies ready for you to tell us.
All I can see is your back running away wearing that same yellow jacket.
It’s what political hacks are paid to do and keep a straight face in committing the ridiculous while ignoring the obvious. There was plenty toinvestigate if the investigator wasn’t being paid in foreign currency.
Prove it? No? Didn’t think so.
The Special Counsel regulations state that “A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department . . . ” The first sentence gives some support to Mueller’s view that he could not indict a sitting President, assuming the OLC opinions represent “practices” or “policies” of the Justice Department. But the second sentence authorized him to seek guidance on this obviously all-important question. That he did not do so is inexplicable, amazing, stupefying. How on earth could such an obvious question be simply left hanging? Of course, it is also amazing that his initial marching orders from Rosenstein did not address this issue at the get-go. (My impression, perhaps wrong, is that Barr’s and Rosenstein’s instructions that Mueller could make a prosecution/declination decision came late in the process.)
Neither the Justice Department nor, it must be said, the legal profession comes off very well here.
Aging Boomer,
I said about a year and a half ago that nobody was going to come out of this looking very good.
We’re far removed from the Watergate days when some of the principals came out of it as folk heroes of sorts ( Sam Ervin, Howard Baker, Fred Thompson, Judge/ Prosecutor Sirica, etc).
Even if the right people were chosen and given a reasonable mandate in their tasks, and performed well, they would not be able to “win over” a major part of the country with their performance.
In this case is of the now-completed OSC investigation, none of the above apply.
Michael Dreeben is a seasoned federal law expert and member of Mueller’s team. He was likely instrumental in the decision not to write a finding of guilt.
“In 2016 Dreeben became only the seventh person to argue 100 cases before the Supreme Court (the others including Edwin Kneedler and Lawrence G. Wallace).[4”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dreeben
People that argue in front of the Supreme Court frequently have political leanings so the idea that he argued so many cases doesn’t necessarily mean what you assume it means.
L4D says–excerpted from the article to which Anon linked above:
Dreeben has a lengthy career in the Solicitor General’s office, starting as an Assistant in 1988, then promoted to Deputy in 1995. In his first case before the Supreme Court, United States v. Halper (1989), he was opposed by John Roberts, who later became Chief Justice.
Allan said, “People that argue in front of the Supreme Court frequently have political leanings . . .”
L4D says–John Roberts argued before the Supreme Court. According to All, John Roberts often has political leanings.
Allan said, “. . . [T]hat he [Dreeben] argued so many cases doesn’t necessarily mean what you [Anon] assume it means.”
Anon said, “Michael Dreeben is a seasoned federal law expert . . .”
L4D says–also excerpted from the article to which Anon linked above:
He [Dreeben] is recognized as an expert in U.S. criminal law.
[end excerpt]
L4D says–Anon did not assume anything about Michael Dreeben. Anon cited an article in Wikipedia that claims that Dreeben is recognized as an expert in U. S. criminal law. All-In Allan, however, did assume that Dreeben has political leanings on the basis of having argued 100 cases before the Supreme Court in the performance of his job-duties as Deputy Solicitor General. But that’s not all that All-In Allan assumed. No.
All-In Allan also assumed that Anon was assuming that Dreeben is impartial and non-biased on account of Dreeben having worked in The Solicitor General’s Office since 1988 way back in Reagan’s last year as President of the United States. That’s thirty years, All-In Allan. Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump and the last year of Regan’s Presidency. “Political Leanings” for sure. Eh? All-In Allan?
Diane, you have produced another word salad but said almost nothing.
Please read your own stuff, fool, and then apologize for being ignorant.
YNOT:
“Please read your own stuff, fool, and then apologize for being ignorant.”
****************
Can I suggest a new moniker? “YNON” and pronounced “whine on.” I find it infinitely more descriptive.
YNON sounds like a great moniker for him. I always look at him as a genetic impossibility lacking the Y chromosome (YNOT). That is a lethal combination so perhaps YNOT is just brain dead and carries a very small y.
Aging Boomer,
I can think of one reason off-hand why Mueller didn’t consult the Justice Department on what to do or not do if he believed the President to be guilty of obstruction of justice.
If Mueller’s plan was to do what he did last week all along, there’s an old, cynical saying that it’s much better to err and be forgiven than ask for permission and be refused – if to err is on the agenda all along.
James L. Quarles – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Quarles
James L. Quarles III is an American attorney who was an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and served as an Assistant Special Counsel for Russian interference in 2016 United States elections under Robert S. Mueller III. … Quarles joined the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a former …
Andrew McCarthy explains what Mueller has done in very good detail.
Simple as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. Likely felony obstruction, plus inability of prosecutors to indict, plus duty of Congress to deal with presidential criminality, equals: Impeachment is the only remedy, unless congressional Democrats are saying that Donald Trump is above the law. (Good luck, Speaker Pelosi, trying to pipe down your AOC wing, to say nothing of the 2020 primary contestants, after that one.)
This should not be a surprise. We have been saying since shortly after Mueller was appointed that his investigation was not a collusion probe but an obstruction probe, and that this necessarily made it an impeachment probe.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-investigation-was-always-impeachment-probe/
From back in December 2017:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment/
It’s interesting that people like you and McCarthy just totally ignore the points of the article to which you reply, to wit: you conflate two completely unrelated items. Whether or not a POTUS can be indicted, Mueller’s was paid taxpayer money to determine if Trump committed a crime or not. If yes, that was evidence for the impeachment trial to remove Trump. That’s not a criminal indictment. Either you know that and ignore it, or you are naïve (some like me would say an idiot).
Your post tells readers everything about you and McCarthy, and nothing about the subject matter.
Mueller’s was paid taxpayer money to determine if Trump committed a crime or not.
Did he? I missed that.
It happened on March 5, during Barr’s first meeting with Mueller after being confirmed. Taken aback by Mueller’s announcement that he would not be deciding the obstruction question, Barr pressed him repeatedly: “Is it because of the OLC guidance?” Mueller insisted that it was not. When asked what, then, was the reason, Mueller meandered about how they were still formulating their rationale.
Get it? Result-oriented: Decision first, then we’ll cobble together the reasoning.
Why would Mueller do this? Again, play out the alternative scenario.
If the special counsel had told Barr that the OLC guidance was his rationale for not deciding, Barr would likely have told him, “Don’t worry about the OLC guidance, that’s not your job. The OLC guidance only says we can’t return an indictment now. We still need to know whether there is a prosecutable case. Just make a recommendation on that, one way or the other.”
If that had happened, Mueller would have been cornered. If he recommended in favor of indictment, he would have ended up in the confrontation with Barr over obstruction law that he was trying to avoid. If he recommended against an indictment, he would have undermined the impeachment effort.
So he punted. And it worked.
Mueller told Barr he was still formulating his rationale for not deciding the issue. Maybe the staff really was still trying to come up with a coherent explanation; or maybe in the back (or front) of their minds, they figured “we’re still formulating” was vague enough that they could ultimately rely on the OLC guidance, even if Mueller had said it was not his rationale.
Whatever the calculation was, two and a half weeks later, when Mueller delivered his final report to Barr on March 22, Mueller and his staff expressly invoked the OLC guidance.
Does that mean Mueller was being dishonest on March 5? Does it mean his thinking truly was still evolving?
What difference does it make?
You forgot the other “if”. If no, that was evidence for no impeachment trial to remove Trump. Either you know that and ignore it, or you are naïve (some like me would say an idiot).
And McCarthy’s article gives a very reasonable and rational explanation for why Mueller did neither. Easily understood by anyone not a partisan hack.
This is the same Kevin McCarthy who said on June 15, 2016, “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump”
Andrew McCarthy. Try again.
Thanks, Olly. You beat me to it. For the record, Joe McCarthy didn’t say it, either.
( I wanted to save Fishwings the trouble in case she tries again).
L4D says–Kevin McCarthy never made-out with Molly Ringwald, Ally Sheedy, nor Jacqueline Bisset, either. So there. What’s your point?
I could try to explain it to you, but “what’s the point”?
L4D says–You don’t get FishWings’ sense of humor. That’s the point.
Sure I do. I thought it was hilarious when Fishwings tried to draw a comparison of the Berlin Wall with countries barricades to stem illegal immigration.
( The Berlin Wall was built to keep a East Berlin’s citizens IN, not to control unmanageable numbers of immigrants trying to immigrate TO East Berlin).
Maybe Anonymous/ L4B didn’t know that either, so I thought I’d review that in case she’s still confused.
Well, the Berlin Wall came down when Fishwings’ mother was in junior high school, so he can’t be expected to know anything about it.
I wasn’t aware (and I am not all-knowing) that Mueller’s brief as special counsel was to return an indictment.
An obscure memo by Richard Rotunda of Ken Starr’s office when he was special counsel looking into Bill Clinton’s conduct, the existence of which was revealed last July, according to a New York Times report by Charlie Savage, “Can the President Be Indicted? A Long-Hidden Legal Memo Says Yes” that
At that point, what matters is whether the President obstrcuted justice as part of his official duties.
Let’s say that the President became aware that, on the brink of war with a near-peer adversary (say, Russia or China), an employee of that coutnry’s embassy to the United States was involved in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident which left someone dead. It might be judged very inconvenient to requrest that country’s foreign ministry to revoke the employee’s accreditation as a diplomat to the United States to allow him to be prosecuted under our laws. Declining to do so, and either declaring him persona non grata privately to his employers or withholding action at all might be acts a President might take in the course of his duties if the alternative were to worsen a situation already on the verge of general war.
On the other hand, a President might obstruct justice to spare himself or someone else embarrassment. That’s not part of his duties.
The NYT article goes on,
In this case, then, it appears Robert Mueller is in excellent company in not indicting Donald Trump, but allowing Congress to read his report and proceed as it sees fit.
Mueller was paid taxpayer money to either state that there was a prosecution, or decline to prosecute. He was not put in place to bloviate, and create doubt… Perhaps I should say more doubt… In the situation. He did it to Trump exactly what former FBI director Comey did to Clinton, and it was not right in either case.
On the other hand, director Comey clearly pointed out the crimes that Clinton was not being prosecuted for. Mueller on the other hand, did not point out any crimes.
L4D says–Mueller declined to prosecute Trump for anything at all. You couldn’t miss it. Unless you didn’t read the report. You did read the report. Didn’t you?
“To state that there was a prosecution???”
L4D says–That’s called an indictment. There is no other way for a prosecutor to state that there is a prosecutable case against someone besides indicting that person. You are demanding that Mueller should have done something that Mueller is forbidden by law from doing.
Excellent articles…thanks.
https://www.irealb.com/forums/showthread.php?19148-It-s-Not-For-Me-To-Say-Robert-Allen-(Johnny-Mathis)
Olly,
Did you hear the music from Mueller’s swan song as he exited the scene?
I wish the deification of Mueller would stop. This is the man who sent four people who he knew to be innocent to prison in order to protect an organized crime confidential informant. Two of those men died in prison. The other two received a $100mm judgement from the government.
If it’s true that Mueller knew early on that there was no collusion and did not report that fact, look no further than Andrew Weismann.
The selection of Weismann for his team is one of the questions Mueller doesn’t want to be asked. Another would be why he would hire the former attorney for the Clinton Foundation to investigate Trump.
Finally, the SC statute lists reasons for disqualification. One of the reasons is personal relationships with anyone connected to the investigation. How was his decades long relationship with James Comey ignored?
Ostensibly, Rod Rosenstein hired Mueller for the primary task of confirming whether or not Trump committed any crime. Instead of doing his job, Mueller punted on obstruction.
The fact that the DOJ paid Mueller and all the DNC shills on his team is proof that this is a 3rd world banana republic, just one with a bigger military than most.
Mueller’s loyalty to the entrenched bureaucratic power base within the Federal government is his motivation. We may not know just what this loyalty entails, but it is painfully obvious that his obfuscations and innuendos are tools used to wound those he cares to ruin.
I wonder if we can ever get to the bottom of this mess since I fear that it entangles too many at this point,
Mark Levin’s comment on this reflected my thoughts as Mueller made his statement. “The answer is there were no crimes, he had no case, there was no probable cause, and by Mueller writing Volume II and giving his little spiel today, he was very feeble. … This is not a man who would do well under seven, eight, nine hours of questioning, with the Republicans honing in on so many issues,”
“Mark Levin’s comment on this reflected my thought”, your use of Levin to justify your own stupidity is priceless.
“His press conference captured his report perfectly. It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes. Mueller knew that was incrimination by omission. By emphasizing he could not clear Trump of criminality, Mueller knew the press would interpret that as a virtual indictment.”
************************
It’s impossible to prove a negative. Here try it: Prove I wasn’t the Jussie Smollett’s assailant. You have no idea where I was on 1/29/2019. Thus, while you can’t prove I was the assailant, you likewise can’t prove I wasn’t.
Mueller has now officially entered the middle school girl, passive-aggressive argumentation zone, i.e. “Tiffany is a slut and that’s all I’m saying about it.”
I used to think heroes like the younger Mueller were impervious to decay, now I see they rot like three-day old bananas.
“What is concerning is not that each of his three decisions clearly would undermine Trump or Barr but that his decisions ran against the grain for a special counsel. The law favored the other path in each instance. Thus, to use Mueller’s own construction, if we could rule out a political motive, we would have done so. This is why Mueller must testify and must do so publicly.” Turley is a national treasure for those who can read. Thank you.
Floundering again?
Mespo,
I have not concluded that Mueller has not entered that ” middle school girl, passive-agressive argumentation zone”.
Well said.
“Tiffany is a slut and that’s all I’m saying about it.”
That’s the best summation of Mueller’s speech I’ve seen. Brilliant.