Mueller’s Hail Mary and Barr’s Interception

I watched Robert Mueller’s press conference. For over two years, I held on to a glimmer of hope that Mueller was trying to do a thorough investigation to find and report the facts. His press conference confirmed solidly in my mind that his entire investigation was not to find the truth but to find that President Trump committed a crime.

He could not find that President Trump committed a crime so he turned the foundational principles of justice on its head. With glaring hypocrisy, Mueller applied the principle of justice to indicted Russians when he said that he would not comment on their innocence or guilt because, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

In President Trump’s case, however, instead of reporting the facts that there was no evidence to charge the President with a crime, he turned the burden of proof upside down. While he extended the presumption of innocence to Russians, for President Trump he said, “if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

This sounds more like the famous swimming test of a witch trial than American justice. In the swimming test, the accused would be bound with ropes and thrown into a lake. If she somehow managed to get to the surface for air, it was clearly through means of witchcraft. If she sank, then she must not have been a witch.

In the Russian collusion investigation, Mueller also attempted to plant a seed of guilt where there was none. He said, “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” Note the modifier, “broader.” He clearly intended to leave the impression that there could have been a conspiracy. It was just that if there was one, it was a county road conspiracy, not an I-75 conspiracy.

Mueller went on to say that he did not come to any conclusion because department policy prohibited charging a sitting President. He said, “we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.” Notice the careful use of words when he said that “we would not” not “we could not.”

Mueller’s argument on DOJ policy immediately raises a glaring question. If he was not going to come to a conclusion, then why did he waste millions of dollars over two years to write a 400 page gossip column?

Newt Gingrich quickly knocked down Mueller’s DOJ policy argument. He pointed out that Kenneth Starr’s report on the investigation of President Bill Clinton used the word, “guilty” eleven times with five of those being for obstruction of justice.

In an interview with Jan Crawford, Attorney General Bill Barr said that Mueller could have reached a conclusion. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were both surprised when Mueller did not.

Barr went even farther by pointing out that Mueller’s statement saying that he could not exonerate the President was not DOJ policy either. Barr said that Mueller’s standard of exoneration, “of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law.” There was no violation of the law. There was no narrow violation. There was no broad violation. There was no violation.

Mueller also said that the DOJ policy held that the Constitution puts the responsibility on Congress to formally accuse a sitting President. Barr said that he was not sure what Mueller was suggesting but that “the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. …we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.”

Mueller concluded his press conference by saying that he would not take questions. He went on to say that he had no plans to testify further. Referring to his report, he said, “We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony.”

This raises another glaring question. If the report speaks for itself and is his testimony, then why hold a press conference?

There is a simple answer. Mueller was seeking to find that President Trump committed a crime. He could not because there was nothing to find. Bill Barr released the Mueller report six weeks ago. It was gaining no traction.

Mueller’s press conference was simply a Hail Mary pass. Bill Barr intercepted it in the end zone.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Unfettered Power

“Unfettered power.” Two words from the bench of Federal District Court Judge T. S. Ellis III that sum up the judge’s line of questioning in the investigation of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller and his team.

I read the 48 page transcript of the hearing before Judge Ellis. Most of the hearing consisted of Judge Ellis pointedly questioning the special prosecutor’s attorney about the origin of the case brought before him and the motivation of the special counsel regarding the indictment of Paul Manafort.

The judge opened the hearing by making a distinction between the government and the special counsel. “Let me ask the government — or not the government — the special counsel a few questions..” From that point, the remainder of the conversation was between the judge and the special counsel.

Judge Ellis focused on the question of why the special counsel was prosecuting Manafort at this time. The US Attorney had investigated Manafort as far back as 2005 with no indictment. Mueller’s team took that old investigation and pressed charges. The judge’s questioning boiled down to “why” and “why now?”

He could see no connection between the investigations of 2005 and the special counsel’s actions today. He noted that the special counsel was appointed to investigate links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

The investigations and indictment of Manafort related to events well before the 2016 Presidential campaign. Judge Ellis noted, “I don’t see what relation this indictment has with anything the special prosecutor is authorized to investigate.”

Judge Ellis got right to the point by stating that the special counsel did not really care about the alleged bank fraud by Paul Manafort. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That’s what you’re really interested in.”

The special counsel struggled to answer the judge’s question in a straight forward manner. At one point he defended the special counsel’s using the files from the 2005 investigation by implying that the special counsel was not really bound by the scope of the order appointing the special counsel.

It was at that point that Judge Ellis sternly lectured the special counsel:

THE COURT: What we don’t want in this country is we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. We don’t want federal judges with unfettered power. We don’t want elected officials with unfettered power. We don’t want anybody, including the President of the United States, nobody to have unfettered power. So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants…. American people feel pretty strongly about no one having unfettered power.

In the course of Judge Ellis’s questioning, he noted that a memo from Acting Attorney General Rosenstein was 75% blacked out. He wanted to know why he did not have a full copy.

The special counsel explained that the only paragraphs pertinent were the ones that were given to the judge. Judge Ellis responded, “I’ll be the judge of whether it relates to the others…. I’ll be the judge of whether it has anything to do with Mr. Manafort.”

Judge Ellis wrapped up the hearing with a requirement that the special counsel provide him a means to read the full unredacted memos. He also told the special counsel that he (Judge Ellis) was exercising uncharacteristic restraint on his part not to require special counsel to provide additional information on the decision making process involved.

Unfettered power sums up the attitudes and actions exhibited by the special counsel. For the first time, outside of the President and members of Congress, the special counsel encountered someone who threw the penalty flag. At one point in his remarks, Judge Ellis incredulously exclaimed, “Come on, man!”

The American people have been of the “Come on, man!” mindset for months. It is well past time for someone to exercise oversight and end the unfettered power of the special counsel by setting a deadline for Robert Mueller to issue a final report.

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 






 FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather