Posted on 06/02/2019 8:48:34 PM PDT by ransomnote
n that twinkling zone between man and myth, Robert Mueller transcends the mundane. Even in refusing to reach a conclusion on criminal conduct, he is excused. As Mueller himself declared, we are to ask him no questions or expect any answers beyond his report. But his motivations as special counsel can only be found within an approved range that starts at “selfless” and ends at “heroic.” Representative Mike Quigley defended Mueller’s refusal to reach a conclusion as simply “protecting” President Trump in a moment of “extreme fairness.”
Yet, as I noted previously, Mueller’s position on the investigation has become increasingly conflicted and, at points, unintelligible. As someone who defended Mueller’s motivations against the unrelenting attacks of Trump, I found his press conference to be baffling, and it raised serious concerns over whether some key decisions are easier to reconcile on a political rather than a legal basis. Three decisions stand out that are hard to square with Mueller’s image as an apolitical icon. If he ever deigns to answer questions, his legacy may depend on his explanations.
Refusal to identify grand jury material
One of the most surprising disclosures made by Attorney General William Barr was that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly told Mueller to submit his report with grand jury material clearly marked to facilitate the release of a public version. The Justice Department cannot release grand jury material without a court order. Mueller knew that. He also knew his people had to mark the material because they were in the grand jury proceedings.
Thus, Barr and Rosenstein reportedly were dumbfounded to receive a report that did not contain these markings. It meant the public report would be delayed by weeks as the Justice Department waited for Mueller to perform this basic task. Mueller knew it would cause such a delay as many commentators were predicting Barr would postpone the release of the report or even bury it. It left Barr and the Justice Department in the worst possible position and created the false impression of a coverup.
Why would a special counsel directly disobey his superiors on such a demand? There is no legal or logical explanation. What is even more galling is that Mueller said in his press conference that he believed Barr acted in “good faith” in wanting to release the full report. Barr ultimately did so, releasing 98 percent of the report to select members of Congress and 92 percent to the public. However, then came the letter from Mueller.
Surprise letter sent to the attorney general
Five days after submitting his report, Mueller sent a letter objecting that Barr’s summary letter to Congress “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the work and conclusions reached by his team. He complained that “there is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”
The letter surprised Barr for good reasons. First, Barr had offered to allow Mueller to read the summary before submitting it. Mueller declined but then sent this letter calling for the release of sections of his report, even though they had not been cleared by Justice Department staff. Second, Barr has known Mueller for decades. Yet, Mueller did not simply pick up the phone to discuss his concerns and possible resolutions or to ask for a meeting. Instead, he undermined Barr with a letter clearly meant to insinuate something improper without actually making such an accusation.
Mueller’s letter also requested something he knew Barr could not do, which is to release uncleared portions of the report, including material later redacted by Justice Department staff. Mueller’s letter is notable in what it did not include, which is an acknowledgment that he was responsible for the need for the summary, as well as much of the delay in the release of the report.
In an earlier meeting, Barr explained that he wanted to quickly release the report and allow the work of the special counsel to speak for itself. To do so, however, Mueller and his people needed to identify material that should be redacted under federal law, which they did not do. While Barr has described Mueller’s letter as “snitty,” it was in fact a sucker punch.
Refusal to reach an obstruction conclusion
The most curious and significant decision by Mueller was refusing to reach a conclusion on presidential obstruction. While entirely ignored by the media, Mueller contradicted himself in first saying that he would have cleared Trump if he could have, but then later saying that he decided not to reach a conclusion on any crime.
I have already addressed why Mueller’s interpretation of memos from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel is unprecedented and illogical. He concluded that, in barring the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president, those memos meant prosecutors can investigate but not reach conclusions on possible criminal acts.
It is not just his legal interpretation that is incomprehensible. Mueller was appointed almost two years before he released his report. He was fully aware that Congress, the Justice Department, the media, and the public expected him to reach conclusions on criminal conduct, a basic function of the special counsel. He also was told he should do so by the attorney general and deputy attorney general. Yet, he relied on two highly controversial opinions written by a small office in the Justice Department.
Over those two years, Mueller could have asked his superiors for a decision on this alleged policy barring any conclusions on criminal conduct. More importantly, he could have requested an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel. That is what the Office of Legal Counsel does, particularly when its own opinions are the cause of confusion. One would think you would be even more motivated to do so, if you intended to ignore the view of the attorney general and his deputy that there is no such policy.
Mueller, however, is an experienced litigator who knows not to ask a question when you do not know the answer or when you know the answer and do not want to hear it. His position is even more curious, given his lack of action after Barr and Rosenstein did precisely what he said could not be done under Justice Department policies. If Mueller believed such conclusions are impermissible, why did he not submit the matter to the Justice Department inspector general?
His press conference captured his report perfectly. It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes. Mueller knew that was incrimination by omission. By emphasizing he could not clear Trump of criminality, Mueller knew the press would interpret that as a virtual indictment.
What is concerning is not that each of his three decisions clearly would undermine Trump or Barr but that his decisions ran against the grain for a special counsel. The law favored the other path in each instance. Thus, to use Mueller’s own construction, if we could rule out a political motive, we would have done so. This is why Mueller must testify and must do so publicly.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
I don't believe Turley or Barr ever really had the positive view of Mueller they have espoused. At the time both made positive statements about Mueller, a large portion of the public was unaware of evidence that would lead either man to recoil from him. Public servants, appointees, analysts all need a reputation for objectivity and fairness in order to perform their jobs and maintain the public's trust. Their credibility would be destroyed if they were seen acting on information about Mueller they could not share with the public (e.g., criticizing him, calling for his removal). The MSM would work to mislead people into believing the ONLY reason the Turlys and Barrs of the world could revile a "fine, upstanding Marine" like Mueller would be blind, unethical, disqualifying loyalty to President Trump.
Turley, Barr, and others with reason to know what kind of creature Mueller really is cannot move any faster than the public's understanding. Until further notice, they need to demonstrate bipartisan or objective good will. As information about Mueller's crimes moves into the public sphere, Turley, Barr, et. al. would naturally be expected to recoil with expressions of shock/rightious anger and, since those men have previously established themselves as objective in prior dealings with Mueller, many members of the public would be comfortable joining them as they reject him. Group consensus based on evidence revealed.
I don't see how it could work any other way....unless one is POTUS and therefore has the public's assumption that he has it all..... : ) But note how often the MSM intones, "President Trump once again reiterated false accusations without supplying any evidence at all..."
Even POTUS greeted black hat Comey with warmth in the public's eye at first (the week of his inauguration). Then as more was revealed, POTUS criticized Comey, and eventually fired him. And with more revelations...more rebuke and here we are (When firing just isn't enough anymore).
POTUS sometimes plays along and other times, he's first to name names...but as I implied above, a portion of the public is more likely to wonder what info POTUS has that would lead him to stake his reputation for veracity on his bold statements.
The day Mueller was appointed I was sure he was dirty, all it took was watching the democrats almost pee themselves blithering about how great he was. They knew he would protect Hillary.
A couple of weeks later after watching him hire a platoon of Hillary donors, I knew how this would turn out.
I agree he should be questioned, in public would be good but in a classified hearing is more important. In public we’ll just hear “that’s classified” all day. “I can’t discuss that in a public setting”, “...national security...” ad nauseum...all of Comey’s favorite dodges.
In public he’ll never say much, then again in a classified setting he’ll probably clam up too. If Jordan ever gets his hands on this guy he’s toast and he knows it. A couple of others would grill him pretty good too. Graham sounds like he actually grew a pair now and then.
If anyone wants to read it, Louie Gohmert did a pretty good write up of Mueller’s past here -
https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398634
I’d like to see a public questioning, but I doubt we would get much. If he answers at all, I would expect nonstop lies. This is the ring leader of the Comey, Clapper, Brennan gang, and they have all lied repeatedly in sworn testimony, probably at least partially to protect Mueller’s hide in addition to their own. He was FBI director while Hillary was involved in the worst of her offenses, knew about her and protected her. Mueller is the one who took a uranium sample to Russia. Comey worked for him, Clapper and Brennan were co-conspirators. Then the rest were all feeding from the same trough...Weissman, Rosenstein, McCabe, Ohr, Stzrok etc, all up to their eyeballs in at least 20 years of dirty deeds and the revolving door between government and big business.
Comey was working with Lockheed and brought them contracts worth hundreds of millions, (and about 6 million for himself) just to mention one of their connections, while his best buddy Mueller was running the FBI. Then he went back to the FBI himself...cash in, go back and feed at the government trough and cover it up...cash in, go back...
Business—> government—> lobbyist groups—> business—> government—> lobbyist groups...final stop, CNN/MSNBC post, millions for life...guess where Clapper and Brennan wound up...still corrupt, using their security clearances for profit. I read an article a few days ago saying Brennan still has his, a year after Trump ordered it yanked.
We’ll never get to the bottom of all this, especially when dealing with the top level bosses in the intelligence community, they’ve been working for years on how to hide their dirty deeds and they know exactly how to pressure the lower level guys who can rat them out. It will take getting a lower level peon under some serious charges with 300 years jail time staring him in the face, then maybe someone will start to squeal.
In Mueller’s case, all of them actually, we need both public and classified hearings. But don’t expect to get a lot out of either, they are good at answering with non answers.
But I’d sure like to see someone try it...
On the positive side, they are beginning to throw each other under the bus...Lynch and Comey are pointing fingers at each other, it’s beginning to look like some of them are worried.
I want Mule Face UNDER OATH....for HOURS!! And HOURS!
I also want a Pre-Dawn RAID on Weissman’s homes and offices! He is ONE DIRTY COP!
BINGO!! WTF WAS Mule Face involved with Uranium One??
Mueller and Comey, both Directors of the FBI and both failures. Pretty sad state of affairs. Trump is exposing failure, corruption and malfeasance.
“If he ever deigns to answer questions,”
Oh, he’d better “deign”. Who does he think he is, anyhow? There’s a new sheriff in town and I think he Mueller may be learning that he’s not calling the shots any more.
Jonathan Turley... interesting that he’d be so honest. It’s good to know there are people like him and Dershowitz who put the law before politics.
“b) Did not write a single word of his statement c) Never even led the “witch hunt” but was led by others”
According to talking heads “in the know”, it was Weismann who wrote the statement and led the witch hunt.
“... I pity him.”
I despise him. When someone willing breaks the law throughout his entire career, and chooses to do the wrong thing, and tries to take down a president elected by the people, he’s an evil, evil man. No pity. If he’s suffering in any way. I’m more than OK with that.
Very few of these people “answer” questions. I could go the rest of my life without hearing his name again.
“So how are you feeling about barr?”
Barr worries me, too. His crony relationship with the Bushes is a problem. They have everything to gain by Barr hurting Trump. PDJT is threatening the Mexican cartels ... and that’s all I’ll say.
“I’m skeptical of Barr as well.”
When he said in his Alaska interview that there was no treason in the “legal” sense, I lost hope about then. The coup organizers DID commit treason as it’s defined in the Constitution. Clearly. His weasel words were disturbing.
“I know there is much dislike for him but I pity him.”
Trump called Mueller ‘conflicted’. Maybe Trump sees it like you do.
Joe DiGenova said this morning that it was Weismann who did all the work and that Mueller is past his sell date. Nevertheless, Mueller is a dishonest piece of scum.
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.