Header Image (book)


Thursday, May 30, 2019

Summing Up — Thus Far

A follow-on to Silverfiddle's blog post Howls of the DC Damned:

Then, again, we have what Robert Mueller said yesterday, May 29, 2018, in his statement, which has again ramped up calls for impeachment:
... [I]f we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so....
Full statement HERE, which some interpret as goading Congress to act and which some interpret as muddying the waters for the 2020 General Election.

Additional reading: Bob Mueller Runs and Hides in Eight Minutes to Avoid Having to Answer One Key Question by Roger L. Simon:
...When did you know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

If the answer, as many, including Andrew C. McCarthy [See THIS], are indicating, is somewhere in Fall 2017, what in the Sam Hill was Mueller doing putting the country through two years of prolonged agony? It's not likely he did all this to prop up CNN's faltering ratings.

Was it, just by chance, to induce obstruction from one Donald J. Trump who -- like a relatively normal person but with a shorter fuse than most, justifiable in this case -- would react like a stuck pig to being falsely charged for so long? That would have been essentially entrapment....


  1. We have a term for people not charged with a crime: Not Guilty.

    Here in the United States of America, we all enjoy the presumption of innocence until otherwise is proven in a court of law.

    No law or Justice Department memo prevented Mueller from plainly stating in the report that his team concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction of justice. But he didn't say that. Hiding behind the DOJ conclusion that a sitting president cannot be indicted is a weasel move. That does not preclude an internal report concluding the president broke the law.

  2. Another thought: Why didn't Mueller's team take the evidence against President Trump to a grand jury, and if it shook out so, go ahead and attempt to indict the president and challenge the DOJ in court?

    1. Because "Justice Department policy is that a sitting president may not be indicted." That strikes me as a nonsensical argument for several reasons. And he cannot "challenge the DOJ," because Mueller's team is an agent of the DOJ.

    2. Jayhawk: Balderdash. It is a policy, so it can be challenged. Departmental policies are challenged all the time in court.

    3. Not by people who work within that department.

    4. A federal prosecutor could indeed bring forward an indictment. DOJ would of course step it, but it would raise the legal question. A department policy is not law.

  3. So, in the end, was Donald Trump under investigation, or not?

    I still maintain it looks like the ABC's muddled and conflated a Counter-Intelligence investigation with a criminal one, and purposely made President Trump think he was under investigation to put him on his heels.

    This is Soviet Union territory.

    1. Donald Trump has not been "investigated," Siiver, he's been –– and continues to be –– persecuted.

  4. Dave Miller asked, “Doesn’t Congress have a right, some would say a duty, if they truly believe a Pres is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, to act?”

    Sure ... the Congress has a duty to act ... judiciously. When you consider the costs of impeachment, in terms of its monetary expense and its psychological impact on society, it is insufficient to “believe” that a man is guilty; there must be evidence pointing to that guilt. Before we go through the motions of yet another investigation, there must be probable cause. Probable Cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that (a) a crime has been committed, and (b) the individual under investigation committed it. We must emphasize the term reasonable belief.

    Is there a reasonable belief that Trump obstructed justice, or made attempts to do so? Did he threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against any federal judicial authority, any congressional investigation, or any law enforcement official by threatening a judge, bribing a witness, or did he encourage, by word or deed, the destruction of evidence? There may be a political belief that he did these things, but this is not the same thing as evidence of crimes. We should recall that before Trump took office, there were morons in congress threatening to impeach him. I’m not sure where Mr. Miller lives, but in the United States, proclaiming a man guilty in the absence of overwhelming evidence of that guilt, seems ... well, un-American. A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In some quarters of Congress, there is an oft-communicated assumption that Mr. Trump is guilty before he is proven innocent.

    At this point, Trump’s guilt or innocence is no longer the key issue. What does matter is that the Howlers “get Trump.” It is an effort that has been going on since before he took office and almost every single day since. They want to see him punished for defeating Hillary Clinton, and by extension, they want to punish every American who had the audacity to vote for him. Is this not also obstruction of the will of the people? Does the will of the people no longer matter?

    1. Well Mr. Mustang, I'm not sure where I live is germane, but it's Las Vegas, and yes, here too, people are accorded a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

      But impeachment is a political decision, not a legal one.

      I for one can't say whether Trump is guilty of any offense and my question was not posed that way. I'm simply asking if Congress believes a president, any president for that matter, is guilty of an impeachable offense, don't they, for the good of the country, have a duty to act?

      I'd argue they do. Just as they were prepared to do with Nixon, and did with Clinton.

      As for the legal question, you said this...

      I’m not sure where Mr. Miller lives, but in the United States, proclaiming a man guilty in the absence of overwhelming evidence of that guilt, seems ... well, un-American. A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

      I'd agree with you and ask you, and most others this question... Do you support according Hillary Clinton the same presumption of innocence? After all, she herself, under fear of a "perjury trap" personally sat for hours of testimony and has never been charged with breaking and laws as Sec of State.

    2. @ Dave Miller

      I absolutely do support the proposition of innocence until proven otherwise. It is a standard that must apply to everyone, regardless of their political or economic influence. Our judicial system is one of the adhesives that holds our society together. If the American people believe that some people are treated differently than others for similar offenses, then they lose confidence in one of our more important institutions. This would be disastrous for our country.

      I believe that if there is sufficient evidence of a crime, then Mr. Trump should be held to the same standard as every other citizen of the United States. If there is insufficient evidence to indict, then we ought to stop making frivolous accusations about his criminality.

      There is a saying among lawyers: in the United States, it is possible to indict a ham sandwich. Since a House Impeachment Committee serves as an equivalent to a grand jury, I suppose we can say that it is possible to impeach a ham sandwich. Trump will not get a fair shake in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in the same way that Bill Clinton didn’t get a fair shake in the GOP House of Representatives, in the same way that Nixon didn’t, or Johnson. And you know, it may not even be important because the Senate will decide this issue, as they did for Clinton and Johnson.

      Not being privy to any details involving Clinton’s mishandling of classified material, I can’t say whether she “escaped” justice. What I do know is that General Petraeus was convicted of mishandling classified material. Petraeus had his day in court. Clinton’s case never even got that far. Many people believe that the not-so-secret meeting between Bill Clinton and the Attorney General of the United States at a remote tarmac location was the reason Hillary was never indicted. True? False? I can’t say. But what I do know is that perceptions can be as damaging to our society as reality. What would have been a better course of action in Clinton’s case? Should it have been indictment, trial, and a finding of not guilty, or the perceived notion that the law doesn’t apply to Clinton as it did for General Petraeus?

      I doubt if many people realize there is more at stake here than two politicians who, in another 300 years, won’t be remembered by anyone. What will be remembered is whether the United States of America behaved in a manner consistent with its stated values: Equal Justice Under the Law.

  5. Replies
    1. Sounds like Mueller basically said "I can't by policy say I've found the president to have committed a crime. Now, had I found that he didn't commit a crime, I would absolutely state that. It just isn't my job to inform you the president is a crook."

    2. "Sounds like..." One problem: He didn't say what you said. He had his chance to say it, but didn't.

      His job was to determine whether there was enough evidence to charge the President with a crime. DOJ guidance did not prohibit him stating in his report that he found evidence sufficient to charge the President, were it not for DOJ policy.

    3. Without Googling or researching, do you know what that white stuff in chicken shit is? It's thew same as the black, it's chicken shit.

      What Mueller said needs no clarity. To argue otherwise is simply picking the white out of chicken shit and pretending it's not chicken shit.

      Actually, the entire Mueller report is a chicken shit distraction. We know Russia interfered with the election. And we know they are gearing up for more. The reality that McConnell and Trump are refusing to correct this, in my opinion, is treasonous, regardless of previous collusion, or not not.

    4. Calm down, little Ronald and knock off the vulgarity.

      Do you have a point in there somewhere in all the manure you just spewed?

    5. @ SF...
      'Manure spewed', both figurative and literal.


    6. Yes and thanks for asking.

      My point (other than Trump et al welcoming adversaries to manipulate our elections by their refusal to do anything about it) is there's nothing ambiguous in Mueller's statement- “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” and “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”.

      No clarity needed. Not even none.

    7. Mueller's report is not a formal accusation, nor is it a charging document. It is a report of an investigation made by the special prosecutor and delivered to the Atty General.

      "confidence someone did not commit a crime" doesn't fit in our system of justice. It is a nonsensical statement meant to insinuate and obfuscate.

      Unless you can pull out a statement from Mueller saying he found sufficient evidence to charge the President--evidence the DOJ memo says can be retained for after the President is out of office--you have no case.

      Mueller has no case. If he had a case, he would have stated so in his report. That was his mandate.

      Keep foaming and grasping; we're getting a good laugh from your pathetic little jig.

    8. I'm not sure where you acquired your law degree but your interpretations of the law is suspect.

      Me quoting Mueller's report word for word is hardly me foaming or grasping but your accusation of that is consistent with today's protect-Trump-at-all-cost mindset of the Trump base.

      That and the need of being condescending.

    9. You would have a case if you could cite Mueller saying he had evidence to support charging the president.

      He didn't, so you don't.

      Keep blathering.

    10. Me having a case is irrelevant.

      It's kinda like arguing with a Coke machine that just took your money but gave no soda.

      At least Mueller gave a rationale, unlike a Coke machine.

      You seem to be siding with the Coke machine. Argumentatively speaking, well, never mind.

    11. Mueller "gave a rationale" for what?

      Please provide the quotation where you believe he did that.

    12. I don't know if you are arguing the validity of the quotation or the existence. If I provided it for you the third time, or the 33rd, I really doubt it would steer you from spin mode.

      Trump enablers don't rely on actual quotes, facts, or reality in their binary world where the J in Donald J. Trump stands for Jesus and/or the D in Democrat stands for demon. Such inputs are rejected in their Boolean truth tables to make logical conclusions be what they want to be. Kinda like a Coke machine taking your money and giving no soda.

    13. @ Ronald Ward.
      What you are telling us is; I don't got nothin!

      You type in what you think he said without citation. (You know, that thing called a link) to a reputable source. You are only typing in something you think he said, which judging from the total amount of bullcrap you've posted is purist fantasy resulting from your inability to accept reality in favor of your TDS.
      I don't think you even know what a quotation is and a good course in elementary logic might enable you to sleep without forgetting to breathe.
      I'm tired of your crap.
      Admit you're wrong or preface every comment you make, with the first sentence beginning "I'm an idiot but...", or I will delete every comment you make. You're a low rent troll and a waste of time.

    14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. We do not discuss other bloggers here (blog gossip). See the guidelines for commenting at this blog.

  7. Mueller cannot possibly have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Department of Justice as to expect us believe that the purpose of this investigation was to clear Trump of the assumption of guilt with respect to various crimes, that he was attempting to find evidence to demonstrate Trump's innocence of these crimes, and that he was unable to find such evidence.

    "...if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

    In this nation it would be unnecessary for him to "say so," since by operation of law innocence goes without saying. He knows that. Out of his own mouth comes clear evidence that he was conducting a witch hunt, a search for dirt with which to overturn an election and subvert democracy.

    1. Indeed. Under this new standard, Nancy Pelosi has not been proven innocent of using her office to greatly increase the wealth of herself and her husband, so we cannot conclude no crime was committed by her or her husband.

  8. Replies
    1. Good find, AOW. So now I wonder if we should assume that Mr. Mueller knew of this opinion and intentionally ignored it, owing to the fact that there is no evidence strong enough to render an indictment of Trump, or should we assume that Mueller was negligent in the performance of his duty? Surely the Special Prosecutor would have had access to all previous investigations back to 1973.

  9. There has been only NE objective in mind regarding this entire FABRICATED Fracas:

    The Sore Losers in the DemonRat Party AND the RINO Establishment Creeps in alliance with ENEMEDIA, which I believe is largely financed and govened by HOSTILE FOREIGN (INTERNATINALIST) INFLUENCES wanted to:

    A. Harass and Torment Donald Trump

    B. Insult, Defame and Browbeat Donald Trump

    C. Injure Donald Trump

    D. Discredit Donald Trump

    E. Undermine Public Confidence in Donald Trump

    F. Overturn the Results of the 2016 election

    G. Ruin President Trump's Chances of Getting Reelected

    H. Drive President Trump Crazy so that they can impliment Rule 25 or whatever it is, and FORCE President Trump OUT of OFFICE and into a Mental Ward

    "THEY" don't give a Rat's Rump about Truth, Democracy, Foreign Interference in our Electoral Process, Integrity, Public Safety, International Relatiions or skirting fine points in "The Law"

    "THEY" just want to get THEIR WAY no matter what it costs the country. –– and that's ALL there is to it.

    All the Fancy Talk, Prissy Moralizing, Attempts at Rationalizing, Quasi-Erudite Theorizing, Feigned Concern about Ethical Considerations, et al. is just window dressing in the flamboyantly fraudulent effort to put a "Respectable Face" on a frankly NAKED ATTEMPT at staging an old-fashioned Banana Republic-Style COUP D'ETAT.

    If yu think it's anything ELSE, I've got a fabulous island in San Francisco Bay I'll sell you CHEAP –– a former prison, but now a genuinely HOT SPOT ripe for the developmnt of a few Luxury Waterfront Condominiums each room of which would be guaranteed to enjoy splendid water views.

    I'll let YOU have it for a mere $5,000,000.00 (FIVE-MILLION DOLLARS) which would still be cheap at twice the price.

  10. "You can't prove or disprove a negative"

    "Innocent until proven guilty"

    Concepts ignored by this tool hack POS (among much else). And he ran the FBI for 12 years and wanted to again under Trump, no doubt to undermine him from a closer distance. Tells you where the upper levels -at least- are in terms of being American. Toss all this garbage in jail. Or at least expose them to sunlight.

  11. Now that Muller pissed off Barr, we will see how many Rats will jump ship. I suspect to see more, and more of them to do so soon. They still have not gotten over Trumps election which is so pathetic that they still can’t get over it.

    The Democrats choices for Presidential candidates are filled with low IQ sleaze bags, and corrupt Socialist with Zero new ideas, like Abolish Immigration Laws.. Abolish Ice, Green Extremism, and Jew Hatred, Entitlements after Entitlements, withe Ideas like these, th”ey will lose every time.

    I wish that Ilhan”some people did something” Omar could, and would run for President! I’d bet that she would get even more votes than Hillary did.

  12. Alan Dershowitz on Robert Mueller:

    ...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....


  13. Does anyone seriously believe that if Mueller had the goods on the President, had ironclad evidence he obstructed justice, he would not directly say so in his report? Seriously?

    1. Correct. His "tweet" that Barr had incorrectly summarized was an effort to imply without directly stating that Trump is a criminal. It didn't really "take," so this "press conference" was another attempt to get out the tar brush and make the implication of Trump as a criminal without actually saying so since he has no actual evidence to that effect.

  14. Discouraging news on Fox Business last night. Di Genova and wife were on. When asked when they thought the I.G. report would come out the statement was 'not for a long time.' - to that effect.
    Their statement included that FBI Director Wray was not giving up information and had retroactively classified information.
    So much for any day now...

  15. Turley on the DOJ Memo stating a sitting president cannot be indicted.

    Nothing in the memos even remotely bars a special counsel from reaching conclusions on the basis of possible criminal charges.

    Indeed, the memos accept that the Justice Department needs to establish such evidence to preserve a record for possible later charges.

    That is why Mueller was told by his superiors that there was no policy barring him from finding criminal conduct, only the policy against indicting while the president is in office.

    Even if you twist the memos to suggest some prohibition to reaching conclusions on criminal conduct, that debate should have ended when his two superiors, the attorney general and deputy attorney general, told him there was no such policy and asked him to reach a conclusion.

    Keep bangin' that drum, Dems! You're looking stupider by the day.

  16. Note Weissman(sp?) resignation and Mueller ENDEX right after Barr.

    I think this has a ring of truth:


    1. I remember reading that when it first came out. Fascinating.

      The law and the justice system in this country has become weaponized, and that spawns never-ending partisan screaming matches. We are a long way from William Blackstone, unfortunately.

  17. Nancy Pelosi could only be called particularly large malodorous end-product of the Devil's Digestive system.

    Back in Brooklyn, where people tend to speak clearly, directly an unequivocally, we'd say, "She stinks on ice."


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.