Robert Mueller might have closed the books on his 2-year reign of terror against Trump supporters, but that doesn’t mean Democrats aren’t determined to continue fishing for something to destroy Trump and his presidency through impeachment or otherwise. But what about the collateral damage Mueller caused by inflicting harm to many people, most of whom were innocent, as well as the American people, with his conspiracy theory about collusion with Russia which burned through at least $25 million at taxpayer expense.
As reported by Attorney General William Barr in his four-page letter to Congress, the Special Counsel and his team “issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, and obtained more than 230 orders for communication records.” They executed “almost 500 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.”
As to the 500 witnesses, witnesses to what, as there was never any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, which Mueller finally admitted in his report. As for Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, he still faces sentencing from the deal he agreed to in order to save his family. For spending a mere 24 days as President Trump’s National Security Advisor, Gen. Flynn has been forced to incur $5 million in legal fees.
Collusion report omissions
Now that the Mueller Report failed to live up to expectations by absolving Trump and his campaign squad of collusion, the Democrats are compelled to pretend that the President’s real crime was engaging in obstruction of justice. But before considering Part 2, the obstruction of justice section of the Mueller Report, it’s probative to consider what the collusion report omitted.
Ben Weingarten, a senior contributor at The Federalist and senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, writing for The Federalist, notes seven of the most glaring omissions from the collusion section of the redacted Mueller report—since collusion, not obstruction, was the theory from which the investigation stemmed. Accordingly, these seven omissions all but kill the credibility of the Mueller Report:
- No Attempt to Grapple with the Investigation’s Troubling Underpinnings
- No Discussion of Whether the Special Counsel’s Appointment Was Legitimate
- No Discussion of Special Counsel’s Perceived Bias
- Skating Over the Papadopoulos Predicate for the Collusion Investigations
- Never Mentions Steele or His Dossier in the ‘Collusion’ Section
- Excluding Relevant Information About Numerous Actors
- Intelligence informant on the Trump campaign Stefan Halper, who made contact with both Papadopoulos and Page, is never mentioned.
As Weingarten wrote: “By presenting the collusion section as it did, similarly to the obstruction section, the counsel damaged the Trump administration to the greatest extent possible without affirming its criminality. It seems that Mueller pulled a Comey.”
Obstruction of justice lacks credence
The problem is that in order to push the obstruction agenda, those involved have to pretend that threatening to obstruct justice or having the authority to obstruct justice or even having it be rumored that you even considered obstructing justice is the same thing as actually throwing a monkey wrench into the legal process.
On top of which, you’d have to explain how in the absence of an actual crime having taken place, it was even possible to obstruct justice, when the crimes were committed by members of the Deep State serving in the Obama administration at the Justice Department and within the upper echelons of the FBI, all of whom conspired to traitorously nullify a presidential election.
Even a case for colluding with the Russians could be made, but it would target President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. In his case, it involved promising Putin to be more flexible after the 2012 election and ignoring Russia’s attempt to influence the 2014 and 2016 elections. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, it involved pushing the re-set button with her Russian counterpart, transferring 20% of our uranium deposits to Russian gangsters and conspiring with Christopher Steele to use the phony Russian dossier against Trump.
Ambiguity of Mueller Report feeds wrath of Democrats
Given that the discussion about Russian Collusion switched off overnight as though it never happened, the controversy continues about obstruction, and to a lesser extent, the supposed absolution of Trump by William Barr. In both cases, the comments by the news media does not reflect what Mueller obstruction documents really say. One person gets it wrong and the next person repeats that misstatement, adding their own embellishments. Even Fox News is guilty of misrepresenting the sources and allowing their guests to do the same.
The ambiguity of the Mueller Report regarding obstruction comes from the broad standard used by Mueller, to the effect that any criticism of the investigation could be construed as an attempt to interfere, although the legal standard is that there must be “corrupt intent” to avert prosecution for a crime, for oneself or on another’s behalf.
Mueller granted that the “obstruction” on Trump’s part was due to his frustration over accusation he knew to be false, as vindicated in Mueller’s report. Why then didn’t Mueller recommend indictment? Probably because he knew it would be quashed based on the law. Instead, Mueller left the question open, probably to pass the torch to House investigations, where law and the Constitution mean little. A more lenient interpretation is that Mueller intended Congress to define “obstruction” better in new legislation, not that this would impede Congress in the slightest!
Perhaps the most grievous mistake by the left that Mueller failed to vindicate the President. In fact, prosecutors indict or do not indict, and courts find defendants guilty or not guilty. “Innocent” is not a determination decided by law. You can’t prove a negative, and not all facts lead to even a preponderance of guilt, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. What is being ignored is a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
Mueller Report as a political smear job
It seems apparent that the special counsel engaged in anything resembling an intellectually honest, objective, and good faith investigation. Rather, it would seem to indicate that wittingly or unwittingly, this was more of a politicized smear job and de facto coverup.
We must have a thorough investigation of the investigators. The growing cacophony of attacks on Attorney General William Barr are a testament to it.
Watch here the video of Joseph A. Morris on April 19, 2019, in a 12-minute discussion of the Mueller Report on “Chicago Tonight”, the showcase nightly news and discussion program on WTTW (PBS-Chicago). Joseph A. Morris is a Partner in the law firm of Morris & De La Rosa, with offices in Chicago and London. He maintains an active practice conducting trials and appeals in the areas of constitutional, business, labor and international law.