27 SHARES Facebook Twitter

In his brief address Robert Mueller said he would say no more about his work as a Special Prosecutor







Special Counsel Robert Mueller vowed Wednesday to never speak again about the Russia investigation in a press conference on Wednesday announcing his resignation. “Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter,” he said. He did not explain why he did not want to discuss the investigation again, but left hanging members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who had hoped he could answer lingering questions. He said any testimony he or anyone else from the office gave would not go beyond their report.

The problem is that he had once again done damage. He muddied the waters even more:

Robert Mueller, in his only public remarks on the Russia investigation since being appointed special counsel, said his team did not have the “option” to charge President Trump with a crime while indicating he does not plan to testify before Congress. Mueller, speaking from the Justice Department Wednesday morning, announced the closing of his office and detailed the findings of the Russia investigation, underscoring that there “was not sufficient evidence to charge a conspiracy” with regard to whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election. But Mueller did not mince words on his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.” Mueller explained longstanding Justice Department policy, which states that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. “Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller explained, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.” “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing,” Mueller said Wednesday, echoing his report which states that Congress “may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

His comments set of a torrent of liberal drool:

After Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his first public comments since concluding his Russia probe, CNN and MSNBC personalities took to social media to share their thoughts. CNN’s Don Lemon shared a quote from Mueller’s statement and told his audience to “read that over and over” to draw a conclusion. “ # RobertMueller, ‘If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.’ Read that over and over and draw your own conclusion,” Lemon said in a tweet. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough reacted on Twitter, where he shared two individual quotes from Mueller’s statement and included the well-known Latin term “Res ipsa loquitur,” which translates to “the thing speaks for itself.

Mueller even sucked in Bret Baier

Baier said, “This was not – as the president says time and time again – no collusion, no obstruction. It was much more nuanced than that. He said specifically they couldn’t find evidence to move forward with the crime of collusion for the investigation of the Trump campaign. He said specifically if they had found that the president did not commit a crime on obstruction, they would have said that, and then went into specific details about the DOJ policy and why they couldn’t move forward with anything else than their decision.” He added, “It was not anywhere as clear-cut as Attorney General Bill Barr. In fact, it was almost exactly the opposite: not clear-cut.”

Judge Nap once again pounced all too quickly. He accused Barr of “whitewashing” Mueller’s report:

“Why did Bob Mueller take to the microphones today? I don’t know, but this was not good news for the president because he’s ginned up all the Democrats to believe there must be a there there. And it was a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss Bill Barr, who basically whitewashed what Mueller said in the four-page summary he distributed back in March,” Napolitano said Wednesday.

Then late last night a statement on behalf of both Barr and Mueller was released- and this is important:

“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said. Mueller spoke publicly for this first time on Wednesday about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election at the Justice Department. Citing long-standing Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel policy, Mueller said he never considered charging a sitting president with a crime and noted that doing so would be unconstitutional. (emphasis mine)

It’s not a small distinction.This blows all the criticisms clean out of the water.

Mueller is trying to have it both ways. He wants the public to buy into the notion that he is not biased while stoking the fires of impeachment by insinuating guilt. Mueller does want his pound of flesh. He wants American to think they got something of value for the $30 million and the 2 years or so we spent on him and his merry band of Trump haters.

Alan Dershowitz, who’s been on target more than pretty much anyone else over the last two years, pounded Mueller:

Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system. Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different. Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes. That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.

His comment “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that” was wrong and out of bounds. It wasn’t for him to say. It wasn’t his job. Mueller has turned the law upside down into “Guilty until proven innocent.”

If the statement released jointly by Barr and Mueller is accurate, then Mueller misled everyone. He came off as a man bitter that he could not put the President in legal jeopardy.

Mueller has joined James Comey in the pantheon of high profile FBI Directors who who have abused their positions. Comey laid out a perfect case for the prosecution of Hillary Clinton and then took on the role of the Attorney General in deciding she would not face charges. Mueller made no recommendations for the prosecution of Donald Trump but then made public all the reasons he might have. It was a local DA releasing the grand jury testimony despite the grand jury deciding against prosecution.

Both actions were very wrong. Both Comey and Mueller were unethical, acting as arms of the DNC rather than fair minded lawmen.