Posted on 07/25/2019 9:45:10 AM PDT by Red Badger
Flustered and unprepared, Mueller undermined the Democrats case for impeachment.
==================================================================
If Democrats believed that Robert Mueller would provide them with additional ammunition for an impeachment inquiry, they made an extraordinary miscalculation. Not only was Mueller often flustered and unprepared to talk about his own report—we now have wonder to what extent he was even involved in the day-to-day work of the investigation—but he was needlessly evasive. In the end, he seriously undermined the central case for impeachment of President Donald Trump.
The often-distracted Mueller didn’t seem to know much about anything. The very first Republican to question him, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins, forced Mueller to correct his own opening statement. In it, the former FBI director had asserted that the independent counsel “did not address collusion, which is not a legal term.”
Stressing the difference between the criminal conspiracy and the colloquial “collusion” is a popular way of obscuring the fact that the central conspiracy pushed by Democrats, one that plunged the nation into two years of hysterics and fantasy, had been debunked by Mueller. Moreover, as Collins pointed out, Mueller’s own report stated that “collusion” and criminal conspiracy were basically “synonymous.”
“[C]ollusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute,” Mueller’s report states on page 180 of the second volume.
When asked to explain this contradiction, Mueller stammered on for a few minutes before saying he would “leave it with the report.” Collins pointed out that, yes, the report stated that the terms “collusion” and “conspiracy” were synonymous, Mueller was forced to admit, “Yes.”
It didn’t get better from there. Mueller didn’t know where some of the most infamous quotes in his own report had emanated—for example, Donald Trump’s “This is the end of my presidency. I’m f**ked” exclamation upon learning about the appointment of a special counsel. He claimed to be unfamiliar with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, the Clinton—and DNC—funded contractors who originated and then propelled the Trump-Russian collusion conspiracy theory.
Perhaps Mueller’s ignorance shouldn’t be surprising, since his independent counsel apparently expended zero effort into ascertaining the reliability of the evidence that helped launch the investigation.
And though there was nothing to stop him, Mueller refused to talk about a number of inconvenient aspects of his own report. He declined, for instance, to testify about the letter he sent Bill Barr, intrinsically connected to the veracity of the report. He refused to talk about Joseph Mifsud, the supposed impetus for his own investigation. He refused to discuss the Steele dossier, which not only turned out to be most effective tool of Russian interference in the 2016 election, but was used in multiple FISA applications targeting at least one individual.
In the end, even Russian election interference, the ostensible purpose of the entire project, was outside Mueller’s expertise. When Rep. Greg Steube asked him if there was any evidence that a single American had changed their vote because of Russian meddling (the answer, incidentally, is no), Mueller responded that it was “beyond his purview.”
By making Mueller look like a mere figurehead unfamiliar with his own report, Republicans were able to highlight the bias and conflict of interest that plagued an investigation that was not only initiated by a Democratic administration spying on the Republican opposition during an election year, but led by prosecutors who had relationships with opposition Democrats.
Mueller admitted during his testimony that a one-time attorney of a Hillary Clinton aide who had destroyed evidence by smashing the former top diplomat’s Blackberry e-mail devices was in charge of “day-to-day oversight” of his investigation. Others donated to her presidential campaign and even attended her election night party.
Surely there were better people available to lead a non-partisan criminal inquiry into the president.
Democrats, in turn, spent their time trying to force Mueller to dramatize the op-ed section of his report on potential obstruction of justice. Their case basically boiled down to the charge of Trump privately discussing shutting down the independent counsel. Mueller had stuffed the report with numerous examples of Trump, frustrated by false claims that he was seditious candidate who had stolen the presidency, giving into his own worst inclinations. Trump’s attempts—and we don’t know really know how serious he was—were shut down by his lawyers.
More importantly, when Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Mueller whether his investigation been curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any time, Mueller answered, “No.”
“If you were a casual viewer and were asked, ‘What did the president do wrong here?’ it wouldn’t be easy to answer that question,” CNN’s Jeffery Toobin conceded at one point during the testimony.
Yet every liberal outlet went with the only helpful Mueller quote they could find, which was his contention that investigation did “not exonerate” Trump on obstruction. The president is, of course, wrong to claim he was fully exonerated, but it’s also an absurd standard that seems to have been invented solely for Republicans. Prosecutors only have the authority to charge, not to “exonerate” their targets.
Ratcliffe, in fact, asked Mueller if he could cite a single example besides Donald Trump where the DOJ “determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.” Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”
After lecturing everyone about how justice must be meted out equally to all Americans, we now hear that rules are malleable if we’re talking about Donald Trump. As Ratcliffe also pointed out, Trump should not be above the law, but he should not be below it, either.
Under the Constitution, congressional Democrats are free to impeach the president for any reasons they like—and voters are free to judge the president’s actions and vote for someone else. But the Mueller investigation was unable, despite its best efforts, to indict a single person for conspiracy connected to Trump 2016 campaign, much less the president himself. Mueller admitted under oath that his investigation into that matter was unhindered.
Democrats seem unable to come to terms with these inconvenient facts. And Mueller’s presence didn’t help their cause. David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.
I’ve been seeing the Left losing it when its brought up today, along the lines of that bird in the old Coco-Puffs commercials.
That’s putting a nail in it.
He’s dead Jim.
I am pretty sure that everyone, EXCEPT the idiot Liberals who ‘bought’ Mueller, wouldn't be surprised by this.
Mueller didn't turn into a bumbling half-wit over night. So all of DC who worked with him or associated with him had to KNOW this was coming.
I never met the guy but I am certain that anyone who so wholly threw himself into something SO bogus has to have a screw loose to begin with.
I think the Liberals bought a guy who was 'past-it' and everyone knew about it, but THEM. President Trump certainly would know and he has to be sitting there right NOW, unable to uncurl his toe!!!
I did not watch the hearings. I did not see Mueller testify. But I’ve read like 10 or 20 threads so far on what a disaster it was. It makes me wonder if he threw the game on purpose. If this was a deliberate attempt.
I believe he obviously resented the Democrats questioning his report. I believe he knew they were going to attack him with all the fury and hatred of a typical liberal. He beat them to the punch by playing old, frail and stupid.
I”ve heard that because mueller was so inept the dems are planning to use it as an excuse to begin a whole new investigation.
I’m sitting at the airport seeing a trailer on CNN saying “Dems still consider pursuing impeachment.” On what grounds, pray tell?
“We don’t like Trump?”
Honestly, the democRATs are a disaster for the democRATs.
I have long held the belief that those people can and will screw up a wet dream, consistently. As of this date, I have seen not one thing that would possibly make me change my mind.
Bless their hearts.
He is dead, yes, as if looking like
a cross between John Kerry and Robert DeNiro
wasn’t enough to distract from his
unfamiliarity with his own work.
Mueller failed to “exonerate” himself.
It was so beyond obvious that letting GOP reps question Mueller under oath and in public was going to turn out to be a complete catastrophe for the Dems, that I was shocked when it turned out not to be just a bluff.
What else did they possibly imagine would happen?
The Dims are hellbent on holding a Neverending Show Trial, and hell is exactly where it’s going.
Here’s my question: when are voters going to wise up?
Jerry Nadler’s been in office since 1992.
He’s a Clinton lackey.
They Dems thought the Repubs would just hurl softball questions at Mueller, out of respect...........
I doubt that even they are that stupid...............But I could be wrong............see tagline.......
Meanwhile, the Democrats are stating that the Mueller testimony validated their claims... I’m not a Politico nor am I not a political analyst but I really wish to God that there was some resource out there that was perfectly clear in the assessment.
The Democrats are probably all wet, but today - this morning in fact, Pelosi announced it one of the marching orders on a task list for DNC going forward is continued pursuit of this BS. Which satisfies the minions within the DNC, the Marxists, and the low information systemic parasites.
I can only hope that the large percentage of the voting public looks at the DNC and realizes that nothing has been accomplished by the DNC except pointing fingers, naming names, spin, and slander.
I watched some of the Mueller's testimony in front of Fatso Nadler's Judiciary Committee. I don't think this was a deliberate act on Mueller's part.
For one thing, it looked real. He is 75 years old and looked and acted his age. Especially if he is experiencing some memory loss and a slow slide into dementia and senility.
And two, if it was a deliberate act on his part, why would he besmirch himself and his own reputation to dodder and bumble through his testimony? I sure didn't help the democRATS at all. And it certainly took the sheen off his reputation as a tough, stand-up guy.
His missteps in these hearings will be the last thing people will remember of him. Why deliberately close the door on a stellar career with such a disastrous performance on purpose?
Mueller didn't need to intentionally act "old, frail and stupid" because....well....he is old.
I wonder the same thing. He may very well have decided that his last act as a public servant was not going to be to encourage the insane clown posse to impeach the President.
On that note, Way back when Trump first took office, Mad Maxine Waters was on the warpath for ‘IMPEACHMENT!”
Asked by a reporter what “high crimes and misdemeanors” meant, she replied, “It means whatever we [The Dem controlled House] say it means!”......................
Godfather II
Never seen any of them..............
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.