There will be many good analyses of the self-immolation performed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller today, but for now you can learn everything you need to know from Sean Davis’s indictment of Mueller at The Federalist.
The title says it all: “Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was a Political Hit Job That Trampled the Rule if Law.”
Davis exposes the logical contradictions that litter Mueller’s statement today, starting with the one underlying them all — that Mueller is going to let his report speak for itself!
Umm, sorry! That dog won’t hunt! As Davis explains:
If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.
At that point Davis, like many others have done, shows that Mueller has reinvented U.S. jurisprudence in the style of a harsh Napoleonic Code. If you want to send an innocent man to Devil’s Island (er, I mean impeach him), it is much easier if he has to prove himself innocent!
Davis quotes Mueller as saying that the Russians charge with election interference must be presumed innocent, but then Mueller went on with a different standard for a President Trump:
“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.
Mueller also came out and said that he could not have charged Trump even if he were guilty. According to Mueller, that would have been unconstitutional. I dare Bob Mueller or anyone else to find a constitutional provision that prohibits indicting a president. Impeachment is a mechanism for removing a president from office, not for punishing crimes. But Mueller is basically daring Congress to impeach Trump because (wink wink nod nod) he’s “not innocent.”
“It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” Mueller said, after all but stating that Trump committed a crime for which Mueller never charged him. Just as Mueller’s own words and actions at the Wednesday press conference prove that he didn’t want his team’s report to speak for itself, the report itself proves that Mueller and his team don’t believe it’s unfair to accuse somebody of something a court cannot resolve.
I’ll let my favorite line from Davis’s article stand as my conclusion:
Mueller revealed himself as little more than a clone of James Comey—the smarmy, scheming politician who replaced Mueller as the head of the FBI.
Talk about a damning indictment!
My new book is “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake,” which offers many examples of the press being the enemy of the truth. To support my work, please consider buying “The Media Matrix” or my “Why We Needed Trump” trilogy, which documents the downward spiral of the USA before Trump arrived on the scene. The books are available at Amazon in paperback or Kindle editions. Go here for a free sample: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/sitb/B07PDQBJM4