Posted on 03/26/2019 7:14:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Special counsel Robert Mueller's long-awaited report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election landed with an anticlimactic thud over the weekend, concluding that neither the president nor any Trump campaign officials knowingly conspired with Russia. On the question of obstruction, however, according to a summary of its "principal conclusions" released by Attorney General Robert Barr Sunday afternoon, Mueller came to no conclusion, balefully noting that while not concluding that the president committed a crime, his report "does not exonerate him" either.
That wording has many conservatives questioning Mueller's intent, as it left a huge opening for the Democrat-media complex to continue peddling conspiracy theories impugning the president and his attorney general in perpetuity.
As Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) pointed out, it's not a prosecutor's job to exonerate anyone. They prosecute, and if Mueller opted not to prosecute, that means the case was lacking evidence.
All the special counsel needed to say was that he lacks evidence of obstruction and cannot recommend further action. His decision to leave the question open appears to be yet another partisan smear against the president.
The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway compared the move to fired FBI Director (and Mueller pal) James Comey’s passive-aggressive word games with the president.
If Trump was not guilty of a crime, what was he supposed to be obstructing anyway? Barr concluded that no charges of obstruction were warranted under DOJ rules because there was no underlying crime to obstruct.
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned Mueller's "cop-out" yesterday in an interview with Fox News.
“I thought it was a cop-out. For him to say that there was not enough evidence to indict, but it’s not an exoneration (on obstruction)…it sounds like a law school exam.
“That’s not the job of prosecutor. The job of the prosecutor is to decide ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Make a decision. And then if you say ‘yes,’ you indict, if you say ‘no,’ you shut up," he said.
“You don’t go on and say, ‘no we’re not going to indict, but let tell me you all the evidence that might have led us to indict.’ That’s exactly what prosecutors shouldn’t do,’” he added.
Because Mueller left the question open, House Democrats will now use it as an excuse to launch their own partisan investigations into obstruction -- which will go nowhere, but that's not the point.
The point is to hurt the president with a damaging obstruction narrative as he heads into the 2020 election season, and of course to appease the anti-Trump resisters who are still demanding Trump's head on a pike.
With NO underlying crime....THERE IS NOTHING TO "OBSTRUCT"!!!
What was there to ‘obstruct’?
And I’m sure there was no intent, anyway.
Two can play that game.
"Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest." -- the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo
So why did Barr put that in is letter?
Amazing that Derschowicz has emerged as one of the most objective, clear-thinking observers of all this...
“If Trump was not guilty of a crime, what was he supposed to be obstructing anyway?”
The key point. If you’re guilty of nothing, Bob Mueller still thinks you can be charged by him for actually defending yourself.
In Mueller’s deranged world, any opposition to his attempt to frame you is “obstruction”. You’re supposed to plead guilty to everything he charges you with and throw yourself on the mercy of him and his henchman or else you’re a lawbreaker.
Mueller thinks he’s judge, jury and executioner. So does Comey. Both of them are the exact kind of people the Constitution was written to restrain, as the Founders had experienced such men wearing redcoats and British officer insignia.
Yeah, he obstructed the effort to find him not guilty. That makes sense.
It was less “vicious” and more “unprofessional” and “partisan” IMO.
He is scum. No more no less. And in reading his summary, we expected no more, no less.
No, that’s untrue. You can be innocent of the crime but if you give a cop a false name, you’re in trouble. Just one of many examples.
As a parting shot, it was a jazz-hands haymaker, all flounce and no muscle.
Mueller needs to be investigated now. He gave the order to destroy the text messages of two of his employees that broke the law. They committed a crime, and he gave the order to destroy evidence. That IS obstruction of justice.
Arrest Mueller with 15 SUV, armed people, assault boats and armored vehicles. Put him in solitary confinement in Federal prison. Go through everything he has done. Use his own rules against him.
Last Days of Hier Mueller.
Wow. Juxtaposing that comment with what Mueller said is so incredibly telling about how in the tank for Hillary they were. It's astounding.
Ironically, she had the power of a sitting president, the DOJ, FBI, major news media, the entertainment industry, academia, and an untold number of financiers (e.g. Soros), along with a huge war chest of money, and she still couldn't win. What Trump did was nothing short of miraculous.
Richard Jewell, Hero of Atlanta Bombing Attack
Same gig. Only this time there was a real crime. And Mueller went after the wrong guy.
How this nutcase stays in law "enforcement" is beyond me.
Mueller’s cop-out tells us more about him than about Trump. He would have gained much more respect if he would have just played it straight. His loss, not Trump’s. All Trump does is Win, Win, Win.
Also Martha Stewart.
I saw somewhere that the weasel-wording on obstruction came from scumbag shyster Andrew Weissmann.
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.