May 30, 2019
The statement by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has further confirmed what many have already concluded. Mueller is not a nonpartisan “straight shooter”. His press conference yesterday was open encouragement for House Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings.
The Justice System
Defying the most basic tenet of our justice system, “innocent until proven guilty”, Mueller declared that, “If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime we would have said so.” A prosecutor’s job is not to prove that someone “did not commit a crime”. It’s not guilty until exonerated.
The task of a prosecutor is to decide, if beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt could be proven in a court of law. If a prosecutor declines to charge it goes against Department of Justice policy to disparage the subject of their investigation; never mind imply that they may actually be guilty. The President should be no exception to this most basic American right. Apparently Mueller feels otherwise.
However, Mueller did express that he would not comment on the guilt or innocence of the Russians whom his office indicted for interfering in the 2016 presidential election because, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” Not sure why Russian nationals have more rights than the President of the United States.
Mueller’s Discrepancies
Perhaps Mueller is dissatisfied with the lack of momentum toward impeachment since the release of his report. How else to explain the difference between his statement yesterday in which he asserted that neither Trump nor anyone with his campaign were charged with collusion because, there was “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy”. This statement implies that there was evidence, just not enough.
However, the Special Counsel’s Report shows no evidence of any conspiracy between Russia and Trump or anyone associated with him, to affect the outcome of the presidential race. In fact the Report stated that “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.”
Yesterday Mueller claimed that his office did not make the decision whether or not President Trump committed a crime, because they were bound by an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department. The policy states that a sitting president can not be charged with a federal crime. Mueller’s assertion implied that if not for this opinion, the special Counsel would have concluded Trump committed a crime. This statement appeared to contradict AG Barr’s claim that Mueller had told him three times, that “he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”
A joint statement between the Justice Department and its Office of Special Counsel was released today correcting this misleading claim made by Mueller. According to the statement, the Special Counsel had decided from the start of the investigation that no decision would be made on whether the President’s actions were criminal. It therefore is incorrect to conclude that if not for the OLC, the Special Counsel would have found that the president should be charged with a crime.
Special Counsel’s Non-decision
AG Barr, along with other legal experts disagreed with Mueller’s decision to not render a decision. Many pundits, opined that even though Mueller was barred from charging the president with a crime, he was not prohibited from coming to a conclusion on criminality.
Due to the non- decision by the Special Counsel, AG Barr and his Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reviewed the Mueller Report and made the prosecutorial judgment that Trump did not obstruct any investigation. Barr also made clear that the OLC opinion had no bearing on their decision.
If Mueller did not have an agenda against President Trump he would have accepted Barr’s decision, whom he stated he believed “acted in good faith”. It’s now clear why Mueller and his team released a 448 page report of one-sided “evidence” against the president. They compiled their report for the House Democrats to use in their impeachment proceedings.
Facts Against Obstruction
It’s hard to make a case that the president obstructed the Special Counsel investigation when he did not take a single action to inhibit the investigation. Trump fired no one associated with the probe, even though under the Constitution this was within his legal authority. Venting, complaining, and exploring options with advisors about an intrusive investigation into a crime of which we now know he was innocent, is not obstruction. The Special Counsel probe went on, unhindered for two years, until completion.
The only official Trump fired who had any role in any of the numerous Trump-Russia investigations, was James Comey, the then Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Almost everyone in the country, on both the left and the right agreed that Comey had committed an egregious error when he held the July 5, 2016 press conference disparaging Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, and then opining that “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict her. (It could be stated that Mueller committed a similar miscarriage of justice with President Trump.)
Further, after Trump fired Comey he stated in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt that he was bothered by the Russia investigation, but felt for the good of the country that Comey should be fired. He also added, that firing Comey may actually extend the investigation.
According to AG Barr
“the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims”.
Within Trump’s legal discretion was the ability to exert executive privilege, denying the Special Counsel access to witnesses/and or documents. Trump never declared this privilege. In fact he waived this authority and gave the green light for White House attorney Don McGahn to sit with Mueller’s investigators for a reported 29 hours.
It has perplexed the fair-minded as to why Mueller would choose a highly partisan team of prosecutors, comprised of Democrat donors, and Hillary Clinton supporters. Mueller’s public statement yesterday was tantamount to putting his thumb on the scale of justice. Igniting the call for impeachment, leaves little doubt that he and his team were of like minds in their opinion of Trump.
In spite of the highly partisan team of prosecutors the Mueller probe still could not find evidence that Trump or any American colluded with Russians to affect the outcome of the presidential election, which was the impetus and main objective of the probe.
During Mueller’s address yesterday he stated that he would not appear before Congress to give testimony. Mueller should be subpoenaed. A question not addressed in the Report, which if answered could be explosive, is when did Mueller and his team know that there was no collusion?
According to an infamous text sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok, when asked if he would join Mueller’s Special Counsel team, he replied that he was afraid that “there’s no big there there”, referring to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. This exchange occurred after Strzok lead the year- long FBI counterintelligence investigation into Trump-Russia collusion.
Did Mueller and his team of Democrat prosecutors know early on in the probe that there was no evidence of Russian collusion, yet continued the investigation? Since they couldn’t make a case on collusion, were they trying to ensnare Trump on perjury or obstruction?
Mueller’s mandate included investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Why was the now debunked Trump- Russia dossier not a part of Mueller’s probe? Even the New York Times has concluded that the dossier may have been Russian disinformation to sow discord into the election.
Mueller needs to answer these question, along with many others.
