While Mueller's position may be admirable, it allows tRUMP and
his sycophants to state their own conclusions from Mueller's
statement. And they did. Their response to Mueller's statement is,
"see, no collusion, no obstruction." It goes without saying that they
are lying. But Mueller enabled them to do it. So here's my take.
Mueller began and ended his statement by stating that Russia
had a massive systematic and sweeping program to interfere with and
influence our election. But I have a major problem with the
following sentence, "This volume includes a discussion of the Trump
campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that
there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."
Mueller referred to the tRUMP campaign's response to the Russian
campaign, but did not state what the response was.. Mueller's report
explicitly stated that the tRUMP campaign welcomed the Russian
interference. Why could Mueller not bring himself to say perhaps the
most damning of all conclusions in the report. The vast majority of
people who have not read the report would have no idea of this damning
finding.
Mueller went on to say that the Russian campaign was intended
to damage a "presidential candidate." Why could Mueller not say that it
was intended to damage the Clinton campaign. tRUMP has often said that
the Russian interference was intended to help Clinton. Mueller should
have explicitly rejected that cockamamie B.S. Mueller expects people to
draw the logical conclusion. In my view, that is not enough.
At the end of the statement Mueller praised the hard work and
the integrity of the people on his team. That praise was fine, but not
nearly enough. tRUMP has continuously called the investigation a hoax
and a witch hunt being conducted by 18 angry Democrats. tRUMP directly
attacked the integrity of Mueller and his team. He accused two of them
plus Comey of treason. Barr is now investigating Mueller and his team
to see if this was a political hoax. I think it was incumbent on
Mueller to explicitly rebuke tRUMP's claim. He had a duty to maximize
the protection of his team. He needed to say that there was a sound
basis for beginning the investigation and his team was not in anyway
guided by political considerations.
Mueller said that he was constrained by the DOJ memo to not
charge a sitting president with a crime. There are plenty of legal
scholars who disagree with the DOJ memo. Mueller chose to abide by that
memo. It should be pointed out that Ken Starr did not feel the same
constraint. I would also say that two former federal prosecutors would
not have felt the same constraint if they thought that Barack Obama had
committed a crime. Those former prosecutors are Giuliani and
Christie. Mueller said that the constitution had a remedy other than
the criminal justice system to deal with a president who may have
committed a crime. Mueller simply could not get the word impeachment to
come from his lips. I understand why he couldn't, but he could have
just as easily told the American people what the alternative was.
I cannot believe that Mueller chose to give high praise to Barr.
Mueller said that at a point in time he requested that certain portions
of his report be made public. He was referring to the executive
summaries of the report. Once again Mueller could not bring himself to
say what portions he was referring to. More importantly he said that
Barr made a decision to largely make the entire report public. Mueller
than said, "I certainly do not question the attorney general's good
faith in that decision." This is just me, but I think it is outrageous
for Mueller to have made that statement. Barr totally misrepresented
the findings of the Mueller Report. And when Mueller saw the
misrepresentation he sent a letter to Barr urging him to release the
executive summaries. Barr refused. So not only had Barr
misrepresented, he refused to correct the misrepresentation despite the
urging of Mueller. Again, it is extremely disappointing that Mueller
praised the good faith of Barr. Mueller at a minimum could have
remained silent on the subject. Now he has given Barr a pass he
absolutely does not deserve.
Finally, there is one sentence which I initialed failed to
understand the significance of.. Mueller said the investigation was
important "to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents
available." There is only one reason to preserve evidence, and that is
for future proceedings. This innocuous sentence suggests that Mueller
believes there may well be future proceedings, whether trials or
impeachment.
For me, tRUMP's response to the Mueller statement is the most
fascinating of all responses. tRUMP said that there was insufficient
evidence to prove there was a crime. Therefore, case closed. First,
Mueller's reference to insufficient evidence related only to possible
conspiracy by the tRUMP campaign with Russia. Mueller never said that
there was insufficient evidence that tRUMP committed the crime of
obstruction of justice. Second, the fact that Mueller said there was
insufficient evidence of a crime, does not mean there was no crime. By
the way, I have read enough of the report to question how Mueller could
have come to that conclusion. I think the report contains plenty of
evidence of conspiracy. And third, it is jaw dropping that the
President of the United States thinks that lack of evidence somehow
vindicates him. That is a very low bar for anyone, let alone the
President. There are plenty of crimes which are not prosecuted for lack
of evidence. That does not mean that the crime was not committed.
I agree with both sides of the impeachment debate. Whether
or not the House moves toward impeachment, I think the period between
now and the election will reveal enumerable facts that show tRUMP is the
head of a continuing criminal enterprise. If we survive until 2020, we
will boot the crime boss out of office. Take care all.
Richard
No comments:
Post a Comment