Mueller Tried to Entrap Trump
Robert
Mueller knew there was no collusion the first time he read the Steele
dossier, which reads as if it was written by a high school sophomore who
spent most of his time huffing inhalants behind the gym. “Hey Dude,
let’s get some more gas at the Lukoil…”
At the latest, the indictment of 12 Russians on 02/16/2018 should have been the end of his “collusion” investigation. Why did Mueller keep going? To entrap the president into obstructing justice, of course.
Mueller had a plan. He would use his witchhunt to anger the president enough that he would try to stop the investigation and if he didn’t, compile as much information that could be painted as obstruction for his report, which could then be used as a template for impeachment, where the threshold is lower because the House decides what are “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Attorney General William Barr put a stop to that.
Prior to the report’s submission, Barr ordered Mueller to highlight the 6e (grand jury material) that by law could not be publicly released. Mueller disobeyed that order, thinking it would force a delay in releasing the report because redaction would take time. This would impel Barr to release Mueller’s summaries if he didn’t want to be accused of a cover-up, thus allowing Mueller to set the narrative for the Democrats’ push (putsch?) to impeach.
Instead, Barr created his own summary. Hence, Mueller’s subsequent letter (which Barr called “snitty”), written to be leaked and promptly leaked, was a means of regaining control of the narrative. In the letter, the special counsel complained about Barr’s four-page memo, which incidentally, he refused an offer to review.
He
didn’t expect his old friend Barr to call him and ask him directly
whether there were any inaccuracies in the summary, to which Mueller was
forced, multiple times, to admit that there were not. We know this
because Barr testified to it under oath.
On Wednesday in front of the press, a visibly shaken Robert Mueller (Sean Davis called him “doddering”) resigned from the DoJ, smeared the president as probably guilty, said he wouldn’t take questions, and if forced to testify in front of Congress, would only reiterate what was in his report. Since when does a witness get to decide which questions he will answer?
Highlights include:
When talking of the indictment of the 12 Russians Mueller said, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” He added in Clintonesque fashion, “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” (emphasis mine)
A prosecutor does not exonerate. In America, we have the presumption of innocence. A prosecutor either indicts or he doesn’t indict. Yet, according to Mueller, the Russians deserve their presumption of innocence, but the president is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Mueller stated that because of Justice Department guidelines, “Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.” While that may be true, it doesn’t preclude him from determining a crime had been committed in his report, which was his job; and leave it to the attorney general as to whether to indict, which is his job.
What’s more, Mueller told Barr three times that Justice Department guidelines were not the reason he didn’t make a decision on obstruction. We know this, once again, because Barr testified under oath that he did.
Mueller knew indictments for obstruction of justice would never hold up in court. An innocent man screaming. “I’m innocent and this is a witchhunt,” is no more committing obstruction than a guilty man screaming the same thing. Also, an innocent man screaming, “I want that SOB fired” but then who doesn’t fire him is not obstructing either. In addition, the president allowed Mueller to interview any executive officer, never declared executive privilege, or attorney-client privilege, and submitted 1.4 million requested documents.
Failing at entrapping Trump, and because Barr’s summary was controlling the narrative, he had to get the conversation back to impeachment, which is what he did Wednesday. An added benefit was getting Nadler off his back to testify -- he’s betting on the Republicans being too weak-kneed to subpoena him.
It has been pointed out that in smearing Trump while not charging him, Mueller did the same thing Comey did to Hillary Clinton. The difference, however, is that she was guilty of everything Comey said she would not be charged with and Trump is guilty of nothing.
Mueller’s shaky demeanor, refusal to take questions, and declaring that his report would serve as his testimony shows Mueller is afraid to testify; he certainly looked afraid. It’s possible that with the leaks, the prosecutorial misconduct, the destruction of evidence, the entrapment, he could face indictment himself and it would be a good bet the “determination” he committed crimes will be made with “confidence.”
At the latest, the indictment of 12 Russians on 02/16/2018 should have been the end of his “collusion” investigation. Why did Mueller keep going? To entrap the president into obstructing justice, of course.
Mueller had a plan. He would use his witchhunt to anger the president enough that he would try to stop the investigation and if he didn’t, compile as much information that could be painted as obstruction for his report, which could then be used as a template for impeachment, where the threshold is lower because the House decides what are “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Attorney General William Barr put a stop to that.
Prior to the report’s submission, Barr ordered Mueller to highlight the 6e (grand jury material) that by law could not be publicly released. Mueller disobeyed that order, thinking it would force a delay in releasing the report because redaction would take time. This would impel Barr to release Mueller’s summaries if he didn’t want to be accused of a cover-up, thus allowing Mueller to set the narrative for the Democrats’ push (putsch?) to impeach.
Instead, Barr created his own summary. Hence, Mueller’s subsequent letter (which Barr called “snitty”), written to be leaked and promptly leaked, was a means of regaining control of the narrative. In the letter, the special counsel complained about Barr’s four-page memo, which incidentally, he refused an offer to review.
He
didn’t expect his old friend Barr to call him and ask him directly
whether there were any inaccuracies in the summary, to which Mueller was
forced, multiple times, to admit that there were not. We know this
because Barr testified to it under oath.On Wednesday in front of the press, a visibly shaken Robert Mueller (Sean Davis called him “doddering”) resigned from the DoJ, smeared the president as probably guilty, said he wouldn’t take questions, and if forced to testify in front of Congress, would only reiterate what was in his report. Since when does a witness get to decide which questions he will answer?
Highlights include:
“The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”I’m sorry, but didn’t Hillary pay her lawyers, Perkins Coie, to pay Fusion GPS, to pay Christopher Steele to pay Russian agents for information to compile a dossier that her campaign could use to steal a presidential election?
When talking of the indictment of the 12 Russians Mueller said, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” He added in Clintonesque fashion, “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” (emphasis mine)
A prosecutor does not exonerate. In America, we have the presumption of innocence. A prosecutor either indicts or he doesn’t indict. Yet, according to Mueller, the Russians deserve their presumption of innocence, but the president is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Mueller stated that because of Justice Department guidelines, “Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.” While that may be true, it doesn’t preclude him from determining a crime had been committed in his report, which was his job; and leave it to the attorney general as to whether to indict, which is his job.
What’s more, Mueller told Barr three times that Justice Department guidelines were not the reason he didn’t make a decision on obstruction. We know this, once again, because Barr testified under oath that he did.
Mueller knew indictments for obstruction of justice would never hold up in court. An innocent man screaming. “I’m innocent and this is a witchhunt,” is no more committing obstruction than a guilty man screaming the same thing. Also, an innocent man screaming, “I want that SOB fired” but then who doesn’t fire him is not obstructing either. In addition, the president allowed Mueller to interview any executive officer, never declared executive privilege, or attorney-client privilege, and submitted 1.4 million requested documents.
Failing at entrapping Trump, and because Barr’s summary was controlling the narrative, he had to get the conversation back to impeachment, which is what he did Wednesday. An added benefit was getting Nadler off his back to testify -- he’s betting on the Republicans being too weak-kneed to subpoena him.
It has been pointed out that in smearing Trump while not charging him, Mueller did the same thing Comey did to Hillary Clinton. The difference, however, is that she was guilty of everything Comey said she would not be charged with and Trump is guilty of nothing.
Mueller’s shaky demeanor, refusal to take questions, and declaring that his report would serve as his testimony shows Mueller is afraid to testify; he certainly looked afraid. It’s possible that with the leaks, the prosecutorial misconduct, the destruction of evidence, the entrapment, he could face indictment himself and it would be a good bet the “determination” he committed crimes will be made with “confidence.”
No comments:
Post a Comment