It’s the zombie story that refuses to die: Trump must be impeached over. . . something!
Now it’s about OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE! (On an investigation that never should’ve happened and was in fact opened illegitimately and probably as part of a treasonous criminal conspiracy against Trump.)
That’s where we’ve been for the past several months. And that’s what brings us to today, with Special Counsel Robert Mueller issuing a prepared speech about his investigation in front of TV cameras.
Mueller’s remarks amounted to him revealing his true colors as a Uniparty Deep State overlord and passing the impeachment baton to Congressional Democrats.
“Special counsel Robert Mueller, in his first public statement about his Russia probe, did not exonerate President Trump, instead explaining why his office never considered indicting him for obstruction of justice.
“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so,” he told reporters at the Justice Department Wednesday.”
You might be wondering: “Wait, what about Russian Collusion? Wasn’t that the whole point of the Mueller investigation? Why would they lead with ‘obstruction of justice’?”
Keep up, sillyhead: When Mueller first released his report back in March, it firmly slammed the door on any hopes of nailing Trump for colluding with Russia. Not a single person was charged with anything remotely relating to a conspiracy with Russia. All hopes of uncovering a conspiracy between Trump and Putin were stomped out. And so at that point, our “media,” in its desperation to cling to anything that might keep the dream of impeachment alive, immediately and seamlessly pivoted to “Obstruction of Justice” and pretended all the hysteria and hyperbole over the past two years was never about Russian Collusion at all.
Because “Obstruction of Justice” (again, on an investigation that never should have been opened in the first place, and which itself was almost certainly orchestrated as part of a grand criminal conspiracy against Trump) was the one thing Mueller kinda, sorta left the door open on.
So Democrats in Congress and the Media immediately picked up the “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!!” thread and have been running with it for the past several months, even though Mueller himself never brought any charges for obstruction against Trump when he had the opportunity to do so.
Anyway, the CBS article continues:
“Mueller also indicated he would decline to testify before Congress, as many Democrats had hoped.
“Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself,” Mueller said. “The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”
So on one hand Mueller flatly says his office’s report contains everything he has to say on the matter, and that having him testify before Congress would be pointless because he’s already said everything he had to say in his report.
Yet on the other hand, he felt the need to make this public statement today in which apparently his main goal was to stoke the rabid left’s impeachment fervor and keep the dream alive, even though in Mueller’s report–which, again, he claimed said all there was to say on the matter–he declined to prosecute Trump on anything at all.
So Mueller is telling us that his report was the be-all, end-all–but also that it kinda wasn’t. Y’know: *wink wink, nudge nudge.*
If you didn’t get the hint by now, Mueller then went on and made it completely obvious what his reason was for making a public statement today:
“The Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president meant that “charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said, adding that the Constitution requires a “process other than the criminal justice system” to address wrongdoing by a president.”
Translation: “We didn’t charge Trump with a crime because Justice Department policy prohibited us from doing so, not because there were no crimes to charge Trump with.”
Democrats heard that loud and clear.
Hmm, what could Mueller possibly have meant when he said “a process other than the criminal justice system”?
But then the cowardly Mueller tried to make it seem as if his main goal–in hinting that Congressional Democrats should impeach Trump–was being fair to Trump:
“It would be unfair to potentially accuse someone of a crime” knowing the issue could not be resolved in the courts, Mueller said.
Yes, Bob: I’m sure the only reason you didn’t charge Trump was because you were just trying to be fair to him. Even though you all but accused him of a crime and recommended Democrats begin impeachment proceedings today.
Sean Davis of the Federalist dissects Mueller’s public statement:
“Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”
Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.
“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.”
Gotta love Bob Mueller flipping the entire foundation of American justice on its head.
No court in the history of this country has ever declared someone “innocent.”
What do they say at the end of every court case?
Either “Guilty,” or “Not guilty.”
Never in the history of the United States has the word “Innocent” been used at the end of a court case.
That’s not how it works. Courts don’t find people “Guilty” or “Innocent.” You are either found guilty of the crimes you were accused of, or you are found not guilty.
It is not the goal of a legal proceeding to find someone “Innocent.” The only question that must be answered is, “Is the accused guilty or not?”
Is there enough evidence to convict the defendant of the crimes he is accused of? If so, he is guilty, if not, he is not guilty.
But never has a court declared someone “innocent.” And yet somehow, Robert Mueller, a man who clearly knows better, just stated otherwise on national television in a case that pertains to the President of the United States.
Mueller knew exactly what he was doing. Instead of saying, “The President is not guilty,” he said “We could not prove the President’s innocence,” knowing full well that it has never been the job of any legal investigation in the history of this country to prove someone’s innocence.
John Cardillo brings up an excellent comparison to Ken Starr, the Special Counsel who investigated Bill Clinton in the 1990s:
For anyone out there still unsure of what kind of guy Robert Mueller is, look no further than his statement today. He’s a Uniparty tyrant through-and-through. His goal is the same as Hillary’s, Obama’s, Comey’s, Clapper’s, Brennan’s and the Media’s: overturn the result of the 2016 Presidential election.