One huge problem with Mueller’s strange statement on Wednesday was brought up in the New York Post’s editorial from that day:
‘Here’s the thing,” the editorial reads. “if Mueller’s team had been able to build a collusion or obstruction case against anyone else from the Trump campaign or the Trump White House, they would have been free to press those charges in court, AND EVEN NAME THE PRESIDENT AS AN UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR.” (Emphasis mine.)
Correct. And this is one of the reasons why Mueller’s excuse for not specifying charges –- that he wouldn’t have been able to indict a sitting President –- makes no sense. Trump wasn’t operating in a vacuum. If he had actually tried to impede Mueller in any way, somebody at some point would have helped him, acted at his direction or at least have been complicit. If there really had been any evidence of crimes, Mueller could have laid it out, recommended pressing charges where appropriate and named Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator. Why didn’t he?
Because he didn’t have the evidence to do it, that’s why. All he could do was continue to throw vague suspicion Trump’s way.
The Post called it a “passive-aggressive” press conference, and I couldn’t agree more. I’d also call it oddly subdued, even shaky (others have noticed this, too) and perhaps a little embarrassing. As I said on Wednesday’s HANNITY, it’s been over two years, Easter is over, and Democrats are like little kids still running around looking for eggs that aren't there. (I also said Jerry Nadler couldn't find his own rear end with both hands and a flashlight, but I digress.)
Mueller has reached a dead end of sorts, in that he knows he cannot, under any circumstances, testify before Congress. That’s because even though the impeachment-crazy Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans such as Jim Jordan would get to ask questions, too. (And just imagine what it would be like before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Lindsay Graham. Sen. Graham has been pretty quiet; I hope he's trying somehow to drag Mueller in.) No wonder Mueller said he wouldn’t be speaking about this again, and why he wouldn’t take even one question during this so-called press conference.
Alan Dershowitz was dismayed by Mueller's twisted approach to his role as prosecutor. He said in THE HILL, "Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan...By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias."
Judging from his performance on Wednesday, looking mostly down and reading sullenly from a prepared sheet, he would be ripped apart in the witness chair by questions such as “When exactly did you realize that Trump did not actually conspire with Russia, and why did you keep investigating anyway?,” “Why did you put the very pro-Hillary Andrew Weissmann, known for hiding exculpatory evidence, in charge of assembling your team?” and “If Russian meddling was supposed to be such a threat, why didn’t you look the slightest bit at Bill and Hillary Clinton’s shady Russian connections?”
Mueller knows it’s time for him to get the heck out of Dodge. Of course I’m speculating, but it sure seems as though some sort of backroom deal with congressional Democrats was made; as in, “Okay, we get why you don’t want to be questioned. We’re ready to let you out of testifying before our committee, which sounds more and more like a really bad idea, if you’ll go to the media with a statement that helps us with our narrative to go after the President on ‘obstruction.’” Obstruction of what? Doesn’t matter. Specific evidence? Doesn’t matter.
Democrats must assume Mueller’s stunt will help them whether they decide to impeach or not. Their rhetoric will communicate either that he WILL be impeached or that he DESERVES to be. They can keep that up till November 2020. Also, with all the anti-Trump hysteria,, the candidates get to run against Trump –- or rather, the monster they’ve created that is supposed to be Trump –- and keep the focus away from the looniness of their far-left positions.
John Solomon has come up with something else that it would be fun to ask Mueller about. According to multiple witnesses who talked to members of Congress, Britain’s top national security official, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, sent a private communique, hand delivered by someone who was aware of its contents and later became a whistleblower, to incoming national security adviser Gen. Mike Flynn –- just a week before Trump’s inauguration. The memo was about Britain’s role in the counterintelligence investigation of Russian influence in our elections and the lack of credibility of former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele’s evidence for Russian collusion.
One witness, a U.S. official who had seen the memo, confirmed to Congress that he was interviewed by Mueller about it.
Okay, did I miss something? Is there anything about this in the Mueller report? Wow, this is evidence I’d love to ask Mueller about---oh, wait, he says he’s not testifying.
Congressional investigators also interviewed this witness, plus one other who also saw the memo, and they alerted the Department of Justice about what they learned from the testimony. So can the document be retrieved? (It’s supposed to be in the national security archives of the Trump transition team.) Did Flynn ever have it? Does any of this have to do with why Flynn was targeted? Solomon said Wednesday night on HANNITY that there's no way the incoming administration during a transition would have been notified like this without the Obama administration being notified, too.
Rep. Mark Meadows of the House Oversight Committee is one of those who learned about this communique --- he said he was recently alerted by a whistleblower --- and he went to both Attorney General William Barr and Inspector General Michael Horowitz about it. “There is now overwhelming evidence,” Meadows told Solomon, “to suggest that on multiple occasions the FBI was warned that Christopher Steele and the dossier had severe credibility issues.” Of course, the FBI knew about that early on and used the dossier anyway, to get their FISA warrant to spy on the Trump people, plus three renewals.
So far, the main people involved are not commenting. Solomon contacted the British Embassy in Washington and they did not return his call. Sir Grant works at a university now; a call placed to him there was not returned. His former top deputy declined comment. It would be great to talk with Flynn, but his lawyer did not return a phone call, text or email. Perhaps Flynn never saw the communique; someone familiar with Flynn’s account told Solomon he said he had no recollection of receiving it and didn’t know what happened to it, so Trump was probably never informed. Flynn had told the source he first heard about it when questioned by members of Mueller’s team, so they must have known about it. Flynn had the impression they learned about it from some of Flynn’s national security team members.
Again, Mueller barely references the dossier in his final report.
From the way Solomon describes this communique, it sounds almost like an apology from the Brits for being involved in the counterintelligence. “The message was clear,” Solomon’s source told him. “The Brits were saying they may have done some stuff to assist the investigation that they now regretted after learning the whole thing was based on information from Steele. They wanted Trump’s team to know they did not think Steele’s information was credible or reliable. They also wanted Trump to know whatever they had done, they did only at the Americans’ request and didn’t want it to get in the way of cooperating with the U.S.”
This communique could turn out to be one of the most significant pieces of evidence in the whole “investigation of the investigation.” It suggests that Flynn’s team was warned by the British government but that incoming President Trump was never told. The FBI and DOJ continued to rely on the uncorroborated dossier for many months afterwards, renewing their FISA warrant at least two more times and seeing Mueller appointed as special counsel to investigate Russian “collusion” that didn't happen.
Just wondering...Mueller doesn’t have to testify before Congress now if he doesn’t want to, but Attorney General Barr or John Durham, his investigator, could issue a subpoena, couldn’t they? Might it come to that? Barr has said he has more questions now than he did at the start of his investigation, and some of them may very well be about this British communique. What did Mueller know about it, when did he know it, and why wasn’t it covered in his report?
Incidentally, Christopher Steele has just said he will not cooperate with John Durham. Details at the link. Gosh, these people just don’t want to answer any questions!