- Seen lying in the dumpster next to the Jussie Smollett visage, originally planned for the Great Hall of Civil Rights Martyrs.
- Mueller could not find crime so he smeared
Poor Mueller. Imagine all the grief he has gotten in the past few weeks from his friends on Capitol Hill, Hollywood, the NY TIMES, WaPo, etc, etc. for bungling his mission, letting them down, and allowing that awful creep, Donald Trump to remain in office.
After many months being wined and dined all over Washington, reminded by pundits of both sides of the aisle that he is the greatest, most honest, smartest law enforcement genius who ever walked the earth, now told he is a big dud who couldn’t handle a simple overthrow of a presidential election!
Really hurts a guy’s feelings…Damn that Barr! DLH
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
“The letter made a key request: that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries, and it made initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials.”
Except that letter was after Barr had announced he would expeditiously release every twittle of the report that he could. And he did. It was just that Mueller was not satisfied with the one news cycle that did not sufficiently sing Hosannas to him.
Questions and observations about Mueller and his report:
This particular article is from a publication that despite its name is not among our favorites. We excerpt what we think are the most compelling questions (if rhetorical) and a couple of their readers responses:
15 Questions Robert Mueller Must Answer
Why the cryptic wording on the Steele Dossier? Why wasn’t Trump given an opportunity to defend himself in court?
By Peter Van Buren
2) Your Report did not refer any crimes to Congress, the SDNY, or anyone else. Again, tell us why. If the answer is “the evidence did not support it,” please say so again.
7) A cardinal rule for prosecutors is to not publicize negative information that does not lead them to indict someone—”the decision does the talking.” James Comey was criticized for doing this to Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Yet most of your Report’s Volume II is just that, descriptions of actions by Trump that contain elements of obstruction but that you ultimately did not charge. Why did you include this information so prominently? Some say it was because you wanted to draw a “road map” for impeachment. Why didn’t you just say that? You had no reason to speak in riddles.
14) Prosecutors do not issue certificates of exoneration. The job is to charge or drop a case. That’s what constitutes exoneration in any practical sense. Yet you have as your final line that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Why did you include that, and so prominently?
15) You also wrote, “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” You argue elsewhere in the Report that because Trump is a sitting president, he cannot be indicted, so therefore it would be unjust to accuse him of something he could not go to court and defend himself over. But didn’t you do just that? Why did you leave the taint of guilt without giving Trump the means of defending himself in court? You must have understood that such wording would be raw meat to Democrats, and would force Trump to defend himself not in a court with legal protections, but in an often hostile media. Was that your intention?
Excerpts from reader response (each bullet is a different respondent)
- no prosecutor exonerates anyone. They either act or they don’t and Mueller was unethical in making such an absurd statement
- In American law potential defendants are not exonerated. There is a presumption of innocence to start. They are found guilty or not guilty in court or, a prosecutor declines to prosecute because he thinks there is insufficient evidence.
Davis Limbaugh at Townhall had this to say:
The Worm Has Turned on the Democrats (excerpt)
What a spectacle to behold — the Democrats and the media feigning outrage at the attorney general for merely formalizing what special counsel Robert Mueller found on the “collusion” charge, and for finishing what Mueller didn’t have the courage to finish on the obstruction charge.
As the facts and law are both against them, Democrats are again pounding the table — going on the offensive to distract from their excesses; shouting epithets and leveling slanders against Barr to obfuscate Mueller’s actual findings; playing semantic word games with the term “collusion”; and manufacturing a bogus complaint that Barr withheld the special counsel’s 19-page summary despite the subsequent release of that summary showing there’s still no “there” there.
The raw truth is that Mueller found no evidence that Trump colluded (non-legal term) or coordinated (legal term) with Russia to interfere with the election. After having used the term “collusion” for three years, Democrats are in a faux outrage that Republicans are throwing it back in their faces, saying there was none. They claim Republicans are trying to distort Mueller’s findings. They know better. Mueller explicitly found no actionable coordination either.
Then, Mueller got in a snit over Barr’s four-page summary, and Democrats brayed that Barr was misrepresenting Mueller’s 19-page summary and the full report. But when Barr followed up with Mueller on his quibbles, Mueller assured him he was emphatically not suggesting that Barr had misrepresented his findings. He just didn’t like the contextual presentation, which he thought led to an unflattering media narrative against him and his work. Herein lies the rub. The pristine and unflappable Mueller turns out not to be so unflappable after all. He just couldn’t abide by the media blowback after enjoying two years of high praise as the Saint of Pre-Impeachment.
Mueller’s apparently thin skin might give us insight into why he didn’t have the courage to issue a concrete finding that there was no actionable obstruction claim. Barr was obviously surprised and disappointed with the fecklessness of his lukewarm old friend. Probably fearful that he would go from hero to villain overnight upon the release of his lackluster report, Mueller hedged on the obstruction charge, which is appalling, especially considering that the chief executive has every right to cashier his FBI chief for any reason.
Democrats are as nervous as a criminal defendant at his sentencing, knowing the other shoe might be about to drop. Never did they imagine that their own conspiracy to hatch a false conspiracy against President Trump would not only yield them no fruit but also backfire in their smug faces. For Barr not only sealed shut their farcical investigation; he is signaling that the real investigation against the conspiracy conspirators is afoot.
Multiple criminal leak probes are underway, as well as an inquiry into whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian disinformation campaign and whether the Democrats, not Trump, were coordinating with the Russians to interfere with the election. Further, Barr could be investigating whether a proper predicate existed for the Obama administration to investigate and spy on Trump and his campaign. Popcorn.
