As dangerous as it is to link to a CNN story involving the Mueller investigation, this one is actually fairly objective; and if they’ve got solid sources, it could be major news. According to this, after two long years at great taxpayer expense, the Mueller investigation of “Russian collusion” in the 2016 election is finally winding down (to quote Gerald Ford, “Our long national nightmare is over!”) Our new Attorney General Bill Barr could announce as early as next week that Mueller’s confidential report is complete and he would likely submit a summary to Congress shortly after. That timeline might change so that it wouldn’t interfere with President Trump’s negotiations with North Korea, but in general, the end may at last be in sight.
Trump has called this entire investigation a witch hunt based on a partisan false accusation, and it’s hamstrung his attempts to enact his agenda for two years. Meanwhile, many Democrats have pinned all their hopes on Mueller delivering some devastating case for impeachment, but they had better brace for disappointment or else they might be crying harder than they were on Election night, 2016. If Mueller’s found any “Russian collusion” (other than between Russia and Hillary Clinton, but I guess we don’t talk about that), none of it has shown up in any of the indictments he’s made so far. Trump haters point to all those indictments as proof of corruption/collusion/whatever, but so far, they’ve involved tax and other paperwork infractions dating to well before 2016 and crimes that wouldn’t have even existed if there hadn’t been an investigation, like “lying to investigators.”
In a country where we have so many laws that we all violate a dozen before breakfast without even knowing it, this is why we generally do not give a prosecutor unlimited time and resources and no specific charges and unleash him to go try to find some violations. To quote Pollyanna, if you go looking for the bad in people, you will surely find it.
I can’t help wondering how many of the liberals who point with glee at the legal woes of a Paul Manafort or Roger Stone could survive the same level of scrutiny? For instance, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has barely been in office for a month and already, she’s facing ethics rules questions about whether her boyfriend is on her staff or accepted money from a PAC that her campaign paid for consulting. She has denied some of the allegations, and maybe they are completely false. But if an investigator decided her honestly-intended denial was wrong, could she then face charges of “lying to an investigator”? Remember, Martha Stewart went to prison for denying something she was never charged with (insider trading.)
This is why it’s almost always better not to appoint special counsels who end up going off on tangents for years, inventing charges, distracting from the people’s business and hounding people into prison on process crimes. Each party curses these legal abuses when they’re aimed at their side. Then, they immediately forget about all that the minute they have a chance to aim a special counsel at the other side.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!