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.
Awesome video! A little long but weak worth the time!
Thank you!
Thank you. He’s a smart kid.
Mueller should be exiled for putting in a report information that is nothing but innuendo and opinion. He cannot point to “a guilty mind”. I’d like to see something like happened at the end of the movie Absence of Malice. Ok Mr. Muleass, you think you have a case? Make it now! Watch him flounder around trying to reach for that guilty mind. Trying to make someone saying I did nothing wrong sound like obstruction. Try to justify having only a bunch of left wing attorneys putting together his investigation. Simply trying to explain how someone that did nothing wrong could be charged with obstruction the very investigation that would show that. At the end of the day, he would be at the same point: I hired you and I can fire you...you got 30 days (and 29 are gone).
The press did not report the story, they prosecuted the story.
A hypothetical: Defendant is arrested and charged with drug smuggling. Defendant is interviewed on TV and says, "I'm innocent, and if any dirty rat tells any lies to the prosecutor, he should remember that I can find out where his kids go to school and that there are a lot of hit-and-run accidents near schools these days."
Is that obstruction?
“According to the Democratic Media Complex, if you’re innocent and you’re angry at being accused and investigated for a crime you didn’t commit you’re not supposed to express your anger and frustration or offer a defense.”
Telling your advisors what you want them to do in the heat of the moment, but listening to and following their advice against doing it is not obstruction. Wanting to do something and actually doing it are two different things. If wishes were ponies, we’d all be riding.
mark
I wonder if the WH staffers who were abused by Wiessemann would be willing to be interviewed on Fox or OANN to describe what they went through when interrogated by Wiessman et al. I understand it was horrible. In fact, I think Rudy described Wiessman’s tactics were terrorizing.
That’s because they and their MSM colleagues (as Barr pointed out) were on a 24/7 attack/propaganda mission that also entails illegal leaks...they ignore that and I think Barr may help it bite a few Dem asses. The only thing he obstructed was their illegal coup attempt...as Barr pointed out, they did not claim any Executive Privilege, did not ask for any of the redactions, and did not withhold any requested documents....hard to claim obstruction with that ....
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.