I said in my first-take on Robert Mueller’s appalling public statement that I was not a legal expert, so it was just my research on this subject and my experience in dealing with ruthless political hacks that led me to conclude it was a shameless and desperate attempt to throw red meat to the impeachment-crazed Democrats on his way out the door and muddy the waters to take the focus off the corruption in his own agency.
Well, as expected, Jerry Nadler and other Democrats scurried straight to the nearest TV cameras to rail about this new proof of Trump’s many (but still unnamed) “crimes.” They conveniently ignored the comments already appearing from people who do have legal and prosecutorial backgrounds, slamming Mueller’s last minute Hail Mary bomb throw.
There are many such articles appearing, and I’ll point to more later, but for now, let's start with Sean Davis’ piece at the Federalist. He lays out the myriad ways in which Mueller’s statement violated both laws of conduct for prosecutors and his own agency’s regulations, contradicted his own report, and turned the basic American right of presumption of innocence on its head. In case you think he’s just being a Trump partisan, he describes Mueller as having become a Mini-Me clone of James Comey, who pulled the same unethical abuse of power on Hillary Clinton by declining to prosecute while still leaving a big cloud of suspicion over her head.
You see, in America, it's not up to the target of an investigation to prove that he or she did not commit a crime, nor is it the place of a prosecutor to publicly imply that someone should have been charged with a crime even though the investigation unearthed no evidence. Presumption of innocence means that if the investigator can't find enough evidence to take to a grand jury, get an indictment and convince a jury to convict, then he folds his tent, shuts up and goes away, and that person is considered innocent. The prosecutor doesn't call a press conference to declare that person is "probably guilty, but we just couldn't quite prove it" or "would've been found guilty if only I had brought charges."
Davis' conclusion: "Mueller’s performance made it clear for all to see that what he ran for the last two years wasn’t an independent investigation pursuant to the rule of law so much as an inquisition motivated by political animus." And - oh goody! - now it will be probably used as the basis of impeachment hearings in the House that are exactly the same thing.
Davis also includes comments from former FBI supervisors and federal prosecutors who immediately began flooding him with outraged calls and emails. One ex-prosecutor said that if he had ever pulled anything like what Mueller just did, he would have been “crucified.”
Read the full piece at the link below and brace yourself. The impeachment-mad Democrats think they’ve tasted blood and are howling for more. They’ve yet to realize that if they give in to their ugly partisan impulses, the political bleeding they cause will be their own.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!