So said Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a televised speech given on May 29. So wrong for a prosecutor to say. Let's try this: "If the truth-uncensored had confidence that Robert Mueller did not beat his wife, we would have said that." I've never heard him deny it - have you? Sure, his wife has not accused him of it, but many women fear coming forward. She has no obvious bruises on her, but many men know where to hit women so the bruises do not show. Calm down, everyone, I am not suggesting that Mr. Mueller has ever beaten his wife; nor am I making light of the serious crime of spousal abuse. But I am making a point. It is not the job of a prosecutor to declare someone to be "innocent." Their job is to prosecute or not. Mueller just turned our system on its head, suggesting that Trump is guilty until proven innocent.
In fact, the statement made by Mueller as set forth in the title of this post is inconsistent with a statement Mueller made later in his speech: "...we concluded that we would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime." I guess that means that Mueller could just as easily have said that "if we had confidence that the President clearly did commit a crime, we would have said that." Instead, Mueller chose to say the opposite. One might reasonably ask why he did that unless he had an agenda - to force Congress' hand to begin impeachment proceedings.
Many in Congress objected to Attorney General Barr saying there was no basis for prosecuting the President. As the Special Counsel deferred, that determination could only be made by Barr. Congress has no prosecutorial powers. Mueller had at least 18 prosecutors on his team, issued hundreds of search warrants, interviewed numerous people, and told us that "...no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter."
I have said it before, I oppose the idea of a "special counsel" as well as the former "independent counsel." They are outside our Constitutional system. They are beholden to no one. Of the 34 people charged, only Russians were charged with interfering in our elections - with no Americans charged in any conspiracy with the Russians. That investigation and prosecution could have easily been done by the Justice Department - by one of the 93 US Attorneys' offices. Mueller made it clear that Russian interference in our elections was and will continue to be a serious matter. So, one might ask what Congress has done about it, as they have known about the issue for some 3 years.
The better, though never entirely satisfactory approach to these kinds of issues, is the appointment of a bipartisan commission. We had that after the attacks of 9/11. Congress then enacted some of the reforms recommended by that commission. Writing in the Weekend Edition (June 1-2) of the Wall Street Journal, David Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley, opined: "America's experience with special prosecutors, independent counsels and special counsels has left a trail of partisan-fueled destruction. These investigations are inherently harmful to national unity and a stain on the constitutional fabric." After all, if Justice Department policy is that a sitting President may not be indicted as it would be a violation of the Constitution, then all other issues are easily dealt with by an independent commission and the Justice Department. Additionally, Congress may then take whatever action it deems necessary based upon the commission's findings.
Instead, we had Mueller's team of Democratic prosecutors laying out possible instances of obstruction of justice committed by the President. Of course it would be seen as partisan. And, what was the point of stating "possible" instances of obstruction against the President if no action was going to taken regardless. Apparently, the Mueller team was even looking at the firing of former FBI director James Comey as being a basis for obstruction. How is that? The President has the absolute constitutional right to fire people in the executive department. Aside from the numerous reasons why Comey never should have been FBI Director in the first place, do we now get to second guess every Presidential decision? What does that do the power of the presidency?
In an Op-Ed in the May 31 USA Today, Noah Bookbinder, who wants to see Trump impeached, asserts: "It doesn't matter that there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign of conspiring with the Russians." What is he talking about? This entire investigation began with the Steele dossier alleging an ongoing years long conspiracy between the Russians and Trump campaign officials. There is a world of difference between Russians attempting to interfere in our elections, and the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians to do so. It appears, however, that Mueller had no interest in delving into the origins of that dossier, nor the ongoing efforts of Administration officials (think Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe) to undermine the Trump Presidency. Thankfully, AG Barr has decided that those issues do warrant further investigation.
Will the House go ahead and impeach President Trump? Who knows? We do know that many on the Left called for his impeachment from the day he took office. The Left's desire to impeach Trump is essentially based upon an intense dislike, nay hatred, of the man and his style. He offends their sensibilities. To undo the election results of a presidential election is no small matter. I'd like to be able to say that we have serious men and women in the House who understand the gravity of such a course of action. I'd like to be able to say that true statesmen, and not a bunch of political hacks, will make that determination. I'd also like to be able to say that I won the Lotto...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)