Posted on 04/18/2019 10:06:37 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Thousands of interviews and hundreds of subpoenas later, special counsel Robert Mueller broke his two-year Wizard of Oz-like silence on Thursday in the form of a 448-page report that formally dropped the curtain on the bad political musical we’ve come to know as the Russian collusion scandal.
Let the record reflect that Mueller wasted little time debunking the feigned electoral love affair between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump that so many Democrats and their allies in the news media sang to life.
With little equivocation, the prosecutor declared that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, including by hacking Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Committee documents, but there was no evidence, none, that the president or his campaign — or any American, for that matter — engaged in the conspiracy.
To the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets that fanned the Russia collusion narrative — and to congressional Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who insisted there was secret evidence to support it — I refer you to this declaration in Mueller’s report:
“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russia government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances the Campaign was receptive to the offers, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
One inherent message of the first volume of the Mueller report is clear: It is time for the professional media to assume responsibility for its role in inflaming the public with a scandal that wasn’t proven, by endlessly quoting intelligence and partisan political sources whose claims went far beyond the skis that their evidence slithered upon.
SNIP
As commander in chief, his words matter and can be construed as orders, good or bad. Temper tantrums might be fine in the confines of a CEO’s office or a board room. But on the national and global stages, where the U.S. president is the world’s most powerful figure, they are inappropriate coming from the Oval Office.
Mueller’s report won’t resolve the question entirely of obstruction. Democrats will spin the Barr-Rosenstein decision as an effort to protect the president, and Republicans will declare victory. Mueller’s whiff on a final, independent call actually may have been a disservice to us all.
But one lesson from this debacle, which Americans might find applicable to both the courts of law and public opinion, is worth grasping: A guilty man’s conduct to get rid of prosecutors, to impact witnesses or to impugn an investigation looks a lot more like obstruction than an innocent man’s similar actions during an effort to defend himself from bogus allegations.
In the absence of provable charges, the presumption of innocence still reigns supreme.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.
He basically asked people to stop this charade, and it’s not that no one acted on it, it’s that they couldn’t stop it.
This will be good. They’ll ask him at his press conference, and he’ll admit it.
The guy has been through hell cmon a little joking. The beauty part of this is 14 lawyers and one Prussian couldn’t take him out. And Andy Weissmann couldn’t carry Trump ‘s jock.
More from the article:
The second volume of the Mueller report — dealing with 10 separate actions by Trump that could be construed as obstruction of justice — is less decisive.
It is clear from the report that an impetuous president with a famously Irish temper pondered aloud about firing people such as Mueller, suggested that witnesses stick to their stories, and sought leniency for some of his entangled aides. Senior advisers took extreme actions to ensure the president didn’t act on those impulses.
If he were a mob boss seeking to protect his racketeering empire, these actions would be slam-dunk evidence of obstruction.
But, as Volume 1 of the Mueller report made clear, Trump committed no crime that he was trying to cover up.
And that makes a motive for some of his ill-advised temper tantrums unclear, and his state of mind conflicted, from a prosecutorial perspective.
Because Trump refused an interview with Mueller, on the advice of his own attorneys, the only state-of-mind evidence that prosecutors had directly from him came from the president’s interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt, just a few short days after the president fired then-FBI Director James Comey.
In that interview, Trump made clear that he did not want to stop the Russia investigation and actually expected his actions would elongate it.
His motive, he said, was simply to get a more competent person in charge so that the probe would be “absolutely done properly” and the outcome would be the “right thing for the American people.”
That’s hardly the intentions of an obstructive criminal kingpin.
Most importantly, Trump did not ultimately take most of the formal actions he threatened — which he had the power to do under Article II of the Constitution — and thus did not actually thwart, end or impede the Mueller probe.
For the purpose of a court of law, Donald Trump neither committed a Russia collusion crime that he needed to cover up nor took formal action that actually impeded the probe.
And that left only a theoretical case for attempted obstruction. The report shows Mueller’s team so struggled with the issue that it offered novel theories of prosecution, and then abdicated the responsibility it was given to make the traditional charging decision.
Only if you have an (R) after your name, then everything you do, think, or say, in any context at all is wrong.
From the Mueller report:
“During the press conference, Trump repeated, “I have nothing to do with Russia” five times. He stated that “the closest [he] came to Russia” was that Russians may have purchased a home or condos from him. He said that after he held the Miss America pageant in Moscow in 2013 he had been interested in working with Russian companies that “wanted to put a lot of money into developments in Russia” but “it never worked out.” He explained, “[f]rankly, I didn’t want to do it for a couple of different reasons. But we had a major developer...that wanted to develop property in Moscow and other places. But we decided not to do it.” The Trump Organization, however, had been pursuing a building project in Moscow - the Trump Tower Moscow project - from approximately September 2015 through June 2016, and the candidate was regularly updated on developments, including possible trips by Michael Cohen to Moscow to promote the deal and by Trump himself to finalize it.”
What in the hell does a press conference have to do with “obstruction of justice”? I was unaware the media qualified at law enforcement agencies.
They still aren’t dealing with the fact that Hillary and all her minions were colluding with the Russians (and Ukrainians, and Chinese, and Arabs, and everyone else...)
Fusion GPS was on contract with the Russians. Christopher Steele was on contract with the Russians. Podesta, the Clintons’ brain, fixer, and manager, was on contract with the Russians. And Hillary and Bill famously took money by the rail-car-load from the Russians.
If you want collusion, there is a good place to start. It’s way past time.
That’s basically what Giuliani said this morning.
I do not agree. The Presidency, before anything else, is a political office comprised of a bully pulpit.
The process has been politicized and the executive branch weaponized against President Trump.
A little perspective, Sir. You're smarter than this.
By the way, the president possesses the right to hire and Fire directors of minor bureaus like the FBI at will, for no reason at all. He can direct an investigation to be started or stopped. How exactly does a president interfere with the Department of Justice? He cannot be charged with that crime ever. If he does something corrupt, impeachment is the remedy, but he may not be prosecuted.
Well by the media’s standards, denial is obstruction.
Unless you’re a democrat. Then, of course, you should never had to make a denial in the first place. At which point, they will pick up the ball and carry it for you.
As most people here know, the Income Tax and it’s attendant requirement to divulge all your personal finances to faceless bureaucrats is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Yet another outrage inflicted on us by the Progressives.
Reading thru the obstruction section of the report, I’m seeing a lot about statements made to the press. Frankly - and I’m no lawyer - but I don’t see how any statement made to the press can ever be called obstruction of justice. It is widely known and ASSUMED that politicians & businessmen and political activists and scientists and welfare mothers and just about anyone else lies to the press all the time.
Heck, the PRESS lies all the time and we all know it! They lie to themselves, their readers, politicians...just a bunch of corrupt butt monkeys! So how can any statement made to the press be discussed in a report on obstruction of justice?
Seems to me it shows just how hard Mueller TRIED to get Trump and how far his team were willing to stretch the meaning of obstruction.
Color me dense maybe but I’m really having a difficult time discerning what this article is actually concluding.
You can get frustrated but you can’t obstruct justice. Good thing he hired good people who knew the difference.
Reading thru the obstruction section of the report, I’m seeing a lot about statements made to the press. Frankly - and I’m no lawyer - but I don’t see how any statement made to the press can ever be called obstruction of justice.
~~~
I agree.
In fact, I heard a news report on the radio a few days ago that the Prosecutors in FLA going after Robert Kraft were releasing some videos (or stills of the videos) when he went to that massage parlor. All I could think is, how can they do this when they haven’t even completed a case yet?
It’s not defamation or slander if it’s physical evidence that he actually did something, but I am guessing that Kraft’s lawyers could likewise start releasing evidence and making statements against these details and others, no?
How is it that Trump defending himself in the press is obstruction?
We are moving from "the seriousness of the charge" to "the seriousness of the defense" as the presumed measure of guilt.
-PJ
Bookmark
There was no “collusion” therefore there was prima facie Obstruction. He maliciously did not “collude” which caused the finding of “no collusion” which makes his noncollusion to be pre-emptive Obstruction. IMPEACH HIM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.