Mueller’s Preposterous Rationale for Tainting the President with ‘Obstruction’ Allegations

Volume II of his report does exactly what he claimed to be avoiding.

muellerAndrew C. McCarthy – In gross violation of Justice Department policy and constitutional norms, a prosecutor neither charges nor recommends charges against a suspect, but proceeds to smear him by publishing 200 pages of obstruction allegations. Asked to explain why he did it, the prosecutor says he was just trying to protect the suspect from being smeared.

This is the upshot of the Mueller report’s Volume II. It might be thought campy if the suspect weren’t the president of the United States and the stakes weren’t so high.

The smear-but-don’t-charge outcome is the result of two wrongs: (1) Mueller’s dizzying application of Justice Department guidance, written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), holding that a president may not be indicted while he is in office; and (2) the media-Democrat complex’s demand that only laws they like — those that serve their anti-Trump political purposes — be enforced. Continue reading

The Malevolent Farce that is Mueller and the Russia Hoax

MuellerLarry C. Johnson – The “Introduction” to the Mueller Report justifies the investigation of Donald Trump by claiming as undisputed fact that, “the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” But, according to Mueller, this “sweeping and systematic”  interference, consisted of:

A social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Russian military intelligence conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.

You have got to be kidding me? The Mueller team present the Russian social media campaign as some sort of propaganda behemoth and claims it was wildly influential. The Mueller folks cite, for instance, the IRA spending $100,000 on Facebook ads as evidence of this great influence. Nothing is said, however, about the billion dollars the Clinton Campaign spent on media to influence the American public. Apparently, $100,000 dollars from Russia carries more punch than $1,000,000,000 from Hillary. Continue reading

Tragedy Tomorrow, Comedy Tonight

BarrClarice Feldman – That’s the title of a great song in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and that, it occurs to me, is an appropriate song for the media and the Democrats. For two years they vigorously promoted — for their amusement and political benefit — a fake Russian collusion story and now must watch it unravel and boomerang on them, their allies and the miscreants who created it. They had their fun, and the denouement has begun.

This Week’s Hearings

There were two hearings on the Mueller report this week, one before the Senate Judiciary Committee and another before the House Judiciary Committee. The Senate hearings were marked by such silly questions and vituperative charges, often by senators who are seeking the party’s nomination and want publicity, that I was tempted to simply repeat some of them for laughs. Other developments, which I will explain, preempted that plan, but I cannot resist this exchange between the fabulist Senator Richard Blumenthal, who faked his war record, and the attorney general: Continue reading

Barr Testimony: Mueller May Have Some ‘Splainin’ To Do

Mueller reportJonathan Turley – One of the big takeaways from the first day of the testimony of Bill Barr concerns a number of failures that may be attributed to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The most significant failure concerns his decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction, as I discussed in today’s column. With an hour of the release of the Report, I criticized Mueller for his decision not to reach a conclusion which has no basis in law or policy. The only question was whether Mueller had been told not to reach such a conclusion. Barr answered that questions today in no uncertain terms. Not only could Mueller reach a conclusion, both Barr and Rosenstein pressed him to do so. Mueller’s decision remains both unsupported and incomprehensible. And that is not all that Mueller will have to explain. Continue reading

Mueller’s Political Prosecution

muellerMarc A. Scaringi – Special Counsel Robert Mueller claims correctly that a traditional prosecution or declination decision is a binary choice – to prosecute or not to prosecute. Mueller was able to make a decision regarding collusion, so why couldn’t he make one regarding obstruction?
He claims he couldn’t because the Office of Legal Counsel had previously opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted; he also claims that it would be unfair to accuse the president of committing a crime without indicting him and thus denying him the right to defend himself in court to clear his name.

Continue reading