“That’s the classic prosecutor’s cheap shot.”
So says Gregg Jarrett (who wrote the appropriately titled THE RUSSIA HOAX) of special counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to include the “we-didn’t-exonerate-Trump-on-obstruction” language in his report, which was finally released to the attorney general on Sunday. When a prosecutor loses a case, Jarrett explains, he sometimes just can’t resist adding that, well, even though they didn’t find sufficient evidence of any crime, that doesn’t mean the subject is innocent. So when Mueller found no basis to recommend any further indictments –- on “collusion” (conspiracy), obstruction, anything having to do with the Russia case –- he added that language on obstruction to muddy the waters.
And that’s the line that all Democrats and almost all media will run with --- not the truly stunning line about the Trump campaign not colluding with Russians “despite multiple offers from Russia-affiliated individuals.” Let that sink in a minute. Who were those individuals? Which ones were also affiliated with the Hillary campaign, perhaps trying to lay a trap, perhaps involved in the fraudulent Trump “dossier.” This –- not whether Trump said something disparaging about Robert Mueller in a tweet –- is the important stuff that cries out for more investigation.
But, anyway, after almost two years (not counting the fraudulent FBI probe that led to it); after issuing 3,000 subpoenas; carrying out 500 search warrants; and conducting 500 witness interviews –- along with spending a conservatively-estimated $35 million of taxpayer money –- Mueller and his team obviously didn’t get the result they wanted. So this is the little parting gift they offered to keep the door open for Democrats to keep going after the President. Even though he still lacks evidence to say Trump obstructed justice, Mueller left it up to Attorney General Bill Barr and deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to decide that question for themselves, which they did in short order because they simply don’t have sufficient evidence. In bringing it up but leaving the determination to them, Mueller “abdicates his responsibility as prosecutor,” as Jarrett explains it.
Sunday night, Democrats frantic to get rid of Trump were clinging tightly to that one tiny tendril of hope. Listen closely to the phraseology in a tweet like this one from Adam Schiff: “Mueller spent two years investigating obstruction of justice and found EVIDENCE [emphasis mine] that “does not exonerate” Trump. Barr took two days to set aside that EVIDENCE... [emphasis mine]. Follow me here: Dems have decided that by not exonerating Trump on obstruction of justice, Mueller is saying there is evidence Trump actually did obstruct justice. Those two things are not the same, except in demented minds so full of hate that they can’t even function.
Speaking at the airport in West Palm Beach, Trump referred to the report as “a complete and total exoneration.” As there is no recommendation for indictment in that report, he should be able to say that and go unchallenged. But by inserting that one bit of language into a report that overwhelmingly clears him, Mueller has made it possible for Democrats to say, “No, it isn’t.”
Mueller has had to admit –- along with other investigators such as McCabe, Comey and Rosenstein –- that his investigation was never impeded. He knows that even the firing of Comey was well within the President’s authority and did not constitute obstruction. And now that he is finished, we can be sure Trump would like complete transparency about the report if at all possible. Trump has even called for that, no doubt because it would help neutralize the Democrats’ endless cries of “Obstruction!” It wouldn’t surprise me if we found out this team of prosecutors had deliberately included material that can’t be released due to its classified nature or its disclosures about innocent individuals, so that when Barr inevitably had to withhold it there would be screams of “the White House is withholding evidence!”
Speaking of transparency, Democrats –- and with them I include all vicious anti-Trumpers –- are as see-through as the air inside Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s head. The only way I can explain it is that they think WE’RE too stupid to figure out their brilliant strategy. Today, Democrats are screaming “You better let us see every word of that report!” while hoping to God that some of it is withheld. Remember when they screamed “You better not fire Mueller!” while hoping to God that Trump would fire him? This is like that.
I’ve been saying for a long time that the Democrats obviously WANTED it to be true that Trump colluded with the Russians. Today, it’s very obvious that they did, as they are horribly disappointed to find out he didn’t collude. Talk about twisted; think of the implications if it were true: that the President of the United States stole an election and was a dirty traitor, on par with Benedict Arnold, the kind of low-life they used to hang in the public square, and also that Russia had actually succeeded in putting a puppet of Vladimir Putin in the most powerful position on earth. Do they even care how destabilizing something like this would be? That countries have been plunged into civil war over less? But look at how upsetting it is for them to hear conclusively that this didn’t happen!
The Trump 2020 campaign has already created a video that should embarrass the life out of Democrat leaders like Jerrold Nadler, Adam Schiff and Richard Blumenthal, if they were capable of feeling embarrassment. The internet is forever, and we will always have this hilarious video of these clowns intoning that “we have strong evidence of collusion” –- between Trump and the Russians. Even “a mountain of evidence.” I don’t need to tell you what this is a mountain of. CNN and MSNBC created their own mountains of that same material.
Also, if Mueller found no evidence of collusion with Russia, what was the “evidence” used by the FBI to start the whole investigation into Trump in the first place? If the FBI had had anything real, wouldn’t it have been looked into and included by the Mueller team as an indictable offense? If there’s no evidence now, it means there was no evidence then, so what they had was lies. I’m talking mid-2016, perhaps earlier, with the “evidence” provided by Christopher Steele, Alexander Downer, Nellie Ohr, and the rest. I’m talking the lies told by ex-CIA chief John Brennan (who flat-out called Trump a traitor), James Clapper, Comey and more. The lack of findings in the Mueller report tells us: there was apparently never anything to it at all.
So that’s where we need to go next. Trump could start by declassifying a lot of material related to the FBI and the FISA court. This nation will not heal until we have answers about that, nor until we can see that America operates under one consistent form of justice. Bill Barr, take notice: We need to follow that trail back wherever it goes. WHEREVER it goes.
The left can’t risk exposure, so they still scream about obstruction as a way of saying, “Look over here! Not over there! Over here!” And Mueller, with that one little phrase about not exonerating Trump on obstruction, has made their game much easier. Which brings our discussion full circle. Mark Levin took on Mueller’s handling of the obstruction case in a post I’ll share with you here. He says that since Mueller didn’t actively pursue the obstruction issue (as he had no case), he should never have made it a part of his report in the first place. Levin also notes it’s not Mueller’s job as prosecutor to “exonerate” anyone. It occurs to me that Mueller seems as unclear about his responsibilities as special counsel as Comey did of his as FBI director.
Alan Dershowitz also criticizes Mueller, calling his non-decision on the issue of obstruction a “cop-out.” In its wishy-washiness, he says, Mueller’s report sounds like “a law-school exam.” If Mueller didn’t have enough evidence to indict, he should have just said so and ended this charade.