By Michael Goodwin | New
York Post
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Getty Images
Among his talents, Donald Trump has a special
gift for driving his detractors so crazy that they do really stupid stuff.
The
decision by Democrats to force
Robert Mueller to testify before Congress is Exhibit A.
Bumblin’ Bob was a train wreck of epic
proportions. The fallout is immediate, starting with this: impeachment is no
longer an option.
It had a slim chance before Wednesday’s
painful slog and no chance after it.
Mueller was that bad, seemingly hard of
hearing, often confused and contradicted himself several times.
The Dems’ fantasy of having him breathe life
into his report backfired.
His dismal performance killed any possibility
that his 450-page tome could serve as a road map for overturning the 2016
election and driving Trump from office.
Although Mueller’s
general demeanor was disturbing, it was also instructive. He did not
project the mental and physical vigor of someone capable of leading the complex
two-year probe into Russian meddling, possible Trump collusion and obstruction
of justice.
More likely, the 74-year old former FBI
director was something of a figure-head for an investigation that was carried
out by the team of zealots he assembled.
That is not an incidental issue. As Andy
McCarthy at National Review has written, and as Trump has repeatedly charged,
the prosecutors were primarily people who had donated to Hillary Clinton and
other Democrats or who otherwise made known their support for her.
Perhaps Mueller’s detachment explains his
failure to remedy these obvious conflicts of interest that undercut his
credibility from the moment they became known.
Oddly, Mueller removed agent Peter Strzok
because his bias against Trump became public, but apparently had no concerns
about public reports showing that chief prosecutor Andrew Weissman and others
were in Clinton’s camp.
Mueller’s detachment may also explain the
bizarre standard his team created, where Trump’s presumption of innocence was
shredded because they could not find sufficient evidence to “exonerate” him.
Several Republicans pointed out that prosecutors either file charges or don’t,
but have never imposed the impossible standard of exoneration.
Those flaws are among many that undercut the
report, including the fact that much of it reads as if it were written by
Trump-hating reporters from The New York Times.
As one GOP member noted, the report cites
nearly 200 articles and broadcasts, giving the impression that the media set
the probers’ agenda. At the very least, Mueller’s team and the media were
joined at the hip from the get-go.
Because of its pro-Clinton bias, the probe
was the evil twin of the initial FBI investigation it inherited. Recall that
the crooked James Comey relied heavily on the infamous Steele dossier, which
Clinton’s team funded.
So from start to finish, Trump was targeted
by partisan law enforcement officials who had no business being on the case.
And yet, despite a probe that ran a combined three years, involved hundreds of
witnesses, thousands of subpoenas and surveillance on Trump associates and
maybe the president himself, investigators could find nothing — nothing! —
worthy of a criminal charge.
That can only help the president in his
re-election campaign. While there is a long way to go, the cloud of possible
impeachment, which existed since Mueller was appointed, finally has been
lifted.
There are two other major developments
growing out of the hearing.
First, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now has the
responsibility to get her party back to its job of governing. She gave
the impeachment caucus and its fanatical leaders, Reps. Jerry Nadler and
Adam Schiff, time to gin up public support, but they have gotten nowhere
because the facts were not as they promised.
If Pelosi is as smart and practical as her
supporters say, she will make it clear that the hearing was the end of the
Mueller era. If, on the other hand, she hesitates and lets the wing nuts chase
their fantasies, she will recklessly waste the next year and increase the
chances the GOP will retake the House in 2020.
The other development is that Washington’s
focus now shifts to the two investigations into the investigators. The first to
drop will be the review of the surveillance warrants obtained against Carter Page,
which is being carried out by the Inspector General in the Justice Department.
The chief questions center on what Comey and
others told the secret court’s judges about the Steele Dossier. Did they
disclose it was paid for by Democrats?
Did they concede that Steele said he was
motivated to make sure Trump did not become president? And did the judges know
the allegations were unverified before granting four warrants?
The ultimate probe, though, is the one
Attorney General Bill Barr launched. He said he was appalled at FBI bias
against Trump and that he wants to get his hands around the origins and scope
of the initial scrutiny.
“The use of foreign-intelligence capabilities
and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to
me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed,” Barr told
CBS in May.
He also warned of the dangers of weaponizing
law enforcement against political opponents, saying “the idea of resisting a
democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him” is a
real threat to our nation.
There is no known deadline for Barr’s report,
but my guess is that he will work relatively fast, certainly faster than the
special counsel. And because Mueller’s day in the spotlight turned out to be a
dud, Barr’s findings have the potential to be the real bombshell.
______________________
Congressman Ratcliffe Rips Mueller For Making
Up a Bogus Standard of Guilt for President Trump
By Katie Pavlich |
Townhall.com
Congressman John Ratcliffe - Source:
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
On Wednesday morning, former Special Counsel
Robert Mueller testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee about his
448-page report. It was released to the public in April after a two-year-long
investigation.
Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe didn't
waste any time with his brief, five minute questioning period and ripped
Mueller for making up a standard of guilt only applicable to President Trump.
"Now your report, and today you said
that, 'All times the Special Counsel team operated under, was guided by, and
followed Justice Department policies and principles,' so which DOJ policy or
principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not
exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively
determined?" Ratcliffe said.
"Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Let me make it easier, can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?" he continued.
"I cannot but this is a unique situation," Mueller responded.
"Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Let me make it easier, can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?" he continued.
"I cannot but this is a unique situation," Mueller responded.
"Ok, well you can’t—time is short, I’ve
got five minutes—let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because I’ll tell you
why: it doesn’t exist. The Special Counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you
were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the Special
Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in
any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the
Special Counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, it’s not in the
Justice manual, and it’s not in the principles of federal prosecution,"
Ratcliffe continued.
"Nowhere do those words appear together because,
respectfully, respectfully director, it was not the Special Counsel’s job to
conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him, because
the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It
exists for everyone, everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents.
And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never ever need to
conclusively determine it."
Katie Pavlich's Latest Books, Assault and Flattery: The Truth About
the Left and Their War on Womenand Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest
Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up are available on Amazon
___________________
Michael Moore Blasts Mueller: All those
Liberal Pundits Who Told Dems To Have Faith In Him Can 'STFU'
By Matt Vespa | Townhall.com
Special Counsel Robert Mueller - Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
It was not a good day for the
pro-Trump impeachment Democrats.
There was no re-ignition of that fire aimed at
booting the president solely based on the fact that he won the 2016 election.
Ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a double-header of hearings before the
House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.
He refused to answer close to 200
questions, even those within his purview.
He totally avoided any question on
the Trump dossier compiled by ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele, which set off
this whole Russian collusion myth.
That document was funded by the Clinton
campaign after they contracted the research firm Fusion GPS. This group then
hired Steele.
The irony is that the Mueller report nuked the Trump dossier,
which was already largely unverified. Mueller claimed to not be familiar with
the firm, which is just too good to be true. You didn’t know? Who are you
kidding, man?
Often times, Mueller appeared
frail, aloof, and unable to hear. He asked congressional Democrats and
Republicans to repeat their questions multiple times and the answers he did
offer really didn’t highlight much or add anything that what we already know.
If anything, it appears the Mueller didn’t read or write his report.
And some
of the explanations, were, well trash. They didn’t make sense.
Here’s Jerry
Dunleavy and Caitlin Yilek of The Washington Examiner dissecting Rep. Brad Wenstrup’s (R-OH) question
concerning whether the Trump campaign was involved in stealing Hillary campaign
emails:
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, a Republican from Ohio, asked
Mueller whether it was “accurate to say that your investigation found no
evidence that members of the Trump campaign were involved in the theft or
publication of Clinton campaign-related emails?”
Mueller first paused and then asked Wenstrup to
repeat the question, which the congressman did.
Mueller paused again, and then answered, “I don’t
know, uh, uh, well — ”
Wenstrup got specific, quoting from Mueller's
report. “On page five, it says your report ‘did not establish that any members
of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in
its election interference activities.’ So therefore it would be inaccurate,
based on this, to describe that finding as open to doubt, that finding being
that the Trump campaign was involved in the theft or publication of the Clinton
campaign emails," he said
“Are you following that, sir?” Wenstrup asked.
“I do believe I am following it,” Mueller replied.
“But it is, um, that portion of that matter does not fall within our
jurisdiction, or fall within our investigation.”
But this statement from Mueller
seems to contradict the very basis for his appointment as special counsel,
since he was specifically selected to investigate Russian election interference
efforts — which, in his own report, he concludes involved the Russian
intelligence’s hacking of Democratic emails and their provision of those emails
to Wikileaks to publish — and to what extent, if any, the Trump campaign was
involved in those efforts.
Die-hard liberals like Michael
Moore reacted more intensely. He had an ‘I told you so’ moment, telling those
pundits who said to put faith in Mueller to “STFU.”
I think you can fill in the
blanks there. Laurence Tribe, a liberal lawyer, even admitted that today’s
hearings were a disaster for Democrats. CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, the network’s
legal analyst, also conceded that Trump won the day.
Who knew Wednesdays could
be so good.
_____________________
What They Are Saying: More Disastrous Reviews for House Democrats’
Mueller Train Wreck
♦ “A Nightmare” ♦ “A
Disaster” ♦ “An Extraordinary Miscalculation” ♦ “One has to
wonder… where Democrats go from here.” ♦
ABC News’ Terry Moran: “Impeachment
is over. I don’t think Nancy Pelosi is going to stand for he members bringing
forth something that is going to obviously lose in the Senate, lose with the
American public.”
Cheddar’s J.D. Durkin: “Mueller
has told multiple Democrats today that he doesn’t agree with how they’re
characterizing parts of their arguments, on things like obstruction and the
framing of the Trump Tower meeting”
CNN’s Marshall Cohen: “Mueller’s
style deprived Democrats the made-for-TV moments they hoped to create, possibly
to move the needle on impeachment.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper: “There
were also times when it seemed like he was unfamiliar with parts of the
investigation like he didn’t seem familiar with the name GPS”
CNN Commentator Alice Stewart: “What
a nightmare Robert Mueller’s testimony has been for Congressional Democrats and
their dreams of impeachment momentum. In his much-anticipated bombshell
performance, Mueller bombed. Aside from difficult to watch testimony, there has
been no new information and no elaboration on the 448-page report.”
The Federalist’s David Harsanyi: “If
Democrats believed that Robert Mueller would provide them with additional
ammunition for an impeachment inquiry, they made an extraordinary
miscalculation.”
Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: “Here’s
some advice. Don’t build a big hearing around a lawyer who told you he
didn’t want to be there.”
Fox News Contributor Sara Carter: “Dems
disappoint with #Mueller show...while Bob Ducks and Weaves”
Former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “I
think the Democrats have to be disappointed that he didn’t more vigorously
defend his process and the team.”
Harvard Law School Professor Laurence
Tribe: “Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s
hearing was a disaster.”
MSNBC’s Jeremy Bash: “He
kind of sucked the life out of the report.”
MSNBC’s Ari Melber: “[Mueller]
did not build on a case for impeachment the way some House Democrats hoped”
NBC News’ Jonathan Allen: “WOW:
Big reversal. Ratcliffe undercuts Lieu, gets Mueller to go back on OLC memo
testimony.”
NBC News’ Richard Engel: “Painful
to watch Mueller testimony. So few answers. So many unanswered
questions. No flow. Hard to understand the larger issues. Confusing, even if
you are deeply steeped in the case.”
NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “On
optics, this was a disaster.”
New Yorker’s Susan Glasser: “Sometimes
the book actually is better than the movie. #MuellerReport”
New York Post Editorial Board: “By
all accounts, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hoped that
dragging in former special counsel Bob Mueller for a hearing would jump-start
his drive to get going on impeachment. Oops: It was a total waste of time.”
One America News Network’s Liz Wheeler: “No
collusion, no conspiracy, no proof of obstruction. Oh wait... we already knew
this. Big winner in today’s hearings was @realDonaldTrump.”
Politico’s John Bresnahan: “Getting
worse as hearing goes on, similar to morning session”
Politico’s Blake Hounshell: “[I]t’s
pretty clear that today’s hearings haven’t been the televised Mueller report
that many on the left were hoping it would be.”
Politico’s Blake Hounshell: “One
has to wonder, too, where Democrats go from here.”
Politico Playbook Headline: “Mueller
gives impeachment crowd little to work with”
Radio Host Hugh Hewitt: “SC
Mueller just walked back everything Democrat’s thought he had given them this
morning even though it was the thinnest gruel to begin with.”
Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff: “Mueller
seems increasingly befuddled.”
Washington Examiner’s Keith Koffler: “Democrats
inviting Mueller to testify is working out about as well as the prosecution
asking O.J. to try on the glove.”
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake: “Mueller
corrects his exchange with Lieu. It’s not what Democrats wanted it to be.”
COMPILED
BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
