Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

Talon · May 30, 2019

Sean Davis of The Federalist delivered one of the most thorough beat-downs on the Obama-Clinton crime family's lead "insurance" agent and his dishonest and cowardly performance yesterday. Be sure to read the whole thing - I've omitted Davis' comparison of Lavrentiy Beria 2.0's antics to those of the other disgraced weasel who succeeded him at the FBI (which begs the question WTF is up with the leadership at the FBI?).

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law
At a hastily arranged Wednesday press conference, Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved that he was never interested in justice or the rule of law.
By Sean Davis
MAY 29, 2019

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.

“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.

If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.

Let’s start with the Mueller team’s unique take on the nature of a prosecutor’s job. The standard American view of justice, affirmed and enforced by the U.S. Constitution, is that all are presumed innocent absent conviction by a jury of a specific charge of criminal wrongdoing. That is, the natural legal state of an individual in this country is innocence. It is not a state or a nature bestowed by cops or attorneys. Innocence is not granted by unelected bureaucrats or federal prosecutors.

At one point in his remarks, Mueller seemed to agree. Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.”

“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.

“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.

The contradictions and double standards didn’t stop there, though.

“It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” Mueller said, after all but stating that Trump committed a crime for which Mueller never charged him. Just as Mueller’s own words and actions at the Wednesday press conference prove that he didn’t want his team’s report to speak for itself, the report itself proves that Mueller and his team don’t believe it’s unfair to accuse somebody of something a court cannot resolve.

If they actually believed that, then the 240-page volume II of their report on their obstruction investigation of the president would never have been authored. After all, according to Mueller’s own statement, such an operation would be patently unfair. And if it’s unfair to air dirty laundry against a target who was never charged, surely it’s doubly unfair to do so in writing and on camera during a press conference whose mere existence refutes the very claims of its host…

“As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily ‘no legitimate governmental interest served’ by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true ‘regardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third-party] for the future,'” states DOJ’s formal policy manual on the duties of federal prosecutors and principles of federal prosecutions.

Nationwide bar rules governing all practicing attorneys in the United States also explicitly prohibit Mueller’s display during Wednesday’s press conference.

“The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused,” states Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct.

Multiple federal agents and prosecutors reached out to The Federalist after Mueller’s press conference to express dismay at the former FBI director’s behavior.

“I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist. “I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”

“I wish these former FBI directors would learn their lessons: keep your mouths shut unless you’re referring a case for prosecution,” Jeff Danik, a retired FBI supervisor, said during a phone interview with The Federalist on Wednesday.

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…

These are the actions not of an impartial and independent investigator, but of a scheming political operative…

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/2...itical-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/
Click to expand...

Mueller made that crystal clear yesterday in what was a fittingly disgraceful end to his Stalinesque show "investigation".

Talon · May 30, 2019

Evidently, Lefty legal expert and erstwhile Democrat Alan Dershowitz agrees with Sean Davis about Bobby the Weasel's antics yesterday:

Robert Mueller 'put his elbow on the scale,' says Alan Dershowitz: 'Much worse' than what Comey did
Click to expand...

By David Montanaro | Fox News
May 30, 2019

Robert Mueller "put his elbow on the scale" and his decision to do so was "much worse" than what then-FBI Director James Comey did in 2016, Alan Dershowitz said on "Hannity" Wednesday night.

The Harvard Law professor emeritus took issue with Mueller stating earlier in the day that "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" in his report.

"That was absolutely inappropriate for him to say. It was worse than anything Comey said when he exonerated Hillary Clinton and then said, but she engaged in extremely careless conduct," he said.

Dershowitz said Comey was broadly "condemned" for his July 2016 announcement about the Clinton email probe and "helping the Democrats" was Mueller's only possible motive" for his appearance Wednesday morning.

Dershowitz continued that Mueller's decision to emphasize the possibility that President Trump committed a crime "went well beyond his authority as special counsel."...

"I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage," he stated.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/robert-mueller-worse-comey-alan-dershowitz
Click to expand...

Texas Republican · May 30, 2019

Mueller’s unfair and unethical hit job on Trump is done. He refuses to answer questions from Republicans in Congress.

What doesn’t kill Trump will make him stronger.

Lil Mike · May 30, 2019

Yeah but didn't we pretty much know this was a political hit job from day one?

ImNotOliver · May 30, 2019

Talon said: ↑

Sean Davis of The Federalist delivered one of the most thorough beat-downs on the Obama-Clinton crime family's lead "insurance" agent and his dishonest and cowardly performance yesterday. Be sure to read the whole thing - I've omitted Davis' comparison of Lavrentiy Beria 2.0's antics to those of the other disgraced weasel who succeeded him at the FBI (which begs the question WTF is up with the leadership at the FBI?).

Mueller made that crystal clear yesterday in what was a fittingly disgraceful end to his Stalinesque show "investigation".
Click to expand...

Trumpians are so funny. First they insisted that the Mueller report exonerated Great Leader. Now they claim Mueller was wrong. So, if the Mueller report exonerated him and the Mueller report was wrong, does that mean Great Leader is guilty?

Golem · May 30, 2019

I do think that Mueller put his elbow on the scale against Trump yesterday. And that was to counter the fact that Barr put his own on the scale in favor of Trump. So they cancel out. The rest of the stuff on the scale is the actual evidence. And that definitely tilts the scale against Trump.

And this is the reason why none of the articles, comments or threads by Trump loyalists (including Barr's) refer to the evidence.

Sandy Shanks · May 30, 2019

Trump friendly William Barr was interviewed on CBS, and important excerpts of the interview were televised today. It is quite evident that Barr's obvious bias compels him to act more like Trump's defense lawyer than the U.S. Attorney General.

So I looked all over for a thread started by a Trump fan that concerns Barr and Trump. Then I remembered that Trump's fans rarely start a thread about Trump. Consequently, this is the closest one I could find. It loosely relates to Trump. Barr was critical of Mueller, thereby defending Trump once again.

The quotes are from CBS.

"In his first network interview since being sworn in, Barr said the special counsel, who gave a rare public statement Wednesday reiterating some of the key findings in his more than 400-page report, could have concluded the president broke the law without actually charging him — or cleared him of wrongdoing.

"I personally felt he could've reached a decision," he told CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford."

"Could've?" Mueller "could" have, but he would not. This is what Mueller said. "So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime."

Mueller also said, "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."

Put another way, Mueller had provided over 400 pages of evidence. He felt it would be highly presumptuous of him to make a decision for Congress.

I personally felt he could've reached a decision. Mueller was quite clear with his meaning yesterday. Would Trump's lawyer, er, attorney general, be happier if Mueller had forcefully said Trump should be impeached? Does Barr really understand what he said?

"The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office, but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity," Barr added. So, again, Barr would have been happy if Mueller had charged Trump with a crime. Is that what Barr is saying?

"But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons," Barr said.

Then why raise the issue at all? Barr is a lawyer. He could have given some B.S. to the question. It is what lawyers do. Answer: He wanted to discredit Mueller, thereby helping Trump.

It just didn't come out right.

"When he became aware that Mueller would not make a determination in his obstruction of justice probe — which investigated 11 instances in which Mr. Trump tried to derail the Russia investigation — Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "felt it was necessary" for them to make decision on the issue.

"In a letter to Congress after Mueller submitted his report, Barr said he and Rosenstein concluded that the nearly two-year investigation did not contain sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/willia...d-whether-trump-obstructed-justice-exclusive/

At the conclusion of Volume Two (obstruction of justice) Mueller concluded, If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Did Trump's lawyer just make a complete fool of himself?

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ars-of-silence-mueller-finally-speaks.556615/

Log in or Sign up

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

Lil Mike Well-Known Member

ImNotOliver Well-Known Member

Golem Well-Known Member Donor

Sandy Shanks Banned

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

Lil Mike Well-Known Member

ImNotOliver Well-Known Member

Golem Well-Known Member Donor

Sandy Shanks Banned

Share This Page

Useful Searches