The Mueller report’s second half: special counsels and political documents
One of the many problems with the Mueller report is that it is not evenhanded, nor is it meant to be. I found the following description in a comment at National Review and it’s quite apt:
Mueller’s report is essentially a prosecutor’s charging document that does not charge anyone with a crime, yet it tells a biased story in its interpretation of what happened and what people said.
It’s biased not just because the people who worked on it may have had (and probably did have) an anti-Trump agenda. It’s inherently biased because of its very nature as a document prepared by the special counsel, which is essentially the same (with some minor differences) as a special prosecutor. His report is not necessarily made public, and yet Trump allowed it to be. Why is it not automatically supposed to be made public (not just Mueller’s report, but all such reports)? One reason is that it presents evidence, insinuations, and conclusions that wouldn’t hold up in court, and it therefore can (and will) be used to smear innocent people and create a false impression of guilt where none exists.
Remember the Ken Starr report that was used as the basis for Bill Clinton’s impeachment? That was under a slightly different governing statute:
Barr is currently operating within the confines of the special-counsel regulations, which were written as a reaction to the independent-counsel rules. Those rules expired in 1998 at the end of the Whitewater investigation. Unlike Mueller, Ken Starr, the independent counsel at the time, was obligated to send his final report to Congress rather than the attorney general. Congress then made the report public, which prompted a backlash among those who were angry that Starr had aired details of President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky—an episode that went well outside of Starr’s original mandate to probe a land deal in Arkansas. “We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute,” Janet Reno, Clinton’s attorney general, told Congress at the time. “The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry.”
Whereas the old rules required that the independent counsel tell Congress about “substantial and credible information that an impeachable offense may have been committed,” the new rules are much more narrow: The special counsel’s office, in its report, need only explain to the attorney general its prosecution or declination decisions. In other words, Mueller’s “solemn obligation is not to produce a public report,” Starr wrote for The Atlantic earlier this month. “He cannot seek an indictment. And he must remain quiet.”
The Democrats, meanwhile, argued that the Republican-controlled 115th Congress set a precedent for asking for and receiving highly sensitive and classified material related to the probe into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election, which Mueller then took over— and they’re demanding the same degree of transparency now.
The positions keep changing depending on who is the target.
I have long been against the entire idea of a special counsel or special prosecutor. I understand the impulse that went into the creation of the role, but the potential for harm is IMHO greater than the potential for good. I’m with Alan Dershowitz on this; he has repeatedly criticized such laws in general as both unnecessary and invitations to political machinations and manipulation.
Here’s Dershowitz on the Mueller report [emphasis mine]:
Barr takes the view — a view that I have argued for many months — that the act requirement of a crime (actus reus) cannot be satisfied by a constitutionally authorized action of the president, such as firing FBI Director James Comey. Mueller takes the view that a constitutionally authorized act can be turned into a crime if it is improperly motivated.
Mueller’s view is extreme and dangerous to civil liberties because it creates pure thought crimes. According to Mueller, the corrupt motive is the crime because surely the constitutionally authorized act cannot be criminal. The implications of this view for all Americans are frightening. They are especially frightening if applied to a president. Do we really want prosecutors or members of Congress to probe the motivations of presidents when they take constitutionally authorized actions?
Presidents, like the rest of us, have multiple motivations in virtually everything they do. Some are altruistic, others self-serving. Some are patriotic, some are partisan. A president may be motivated by revenge, friendship, family loyalty or countless other factors. We should judge presidents by what they do, not by why they do it.
In any event, neither Mueller nor Barr could find sufficient evidence of criminal motive to conclude that President Trump committed a crime. That was the right decision, even if Mueller made it for the wrong reason…
The Democratic leadership has already said that it makes little sense to try to impeach the president. Instead, they will try to hinder him by 1,000 cuts — subpoenas, hearings and other partisan maneuvers. They will use the critical contents of the Mueller report to further their partisan aims. That is one good reason, among many, why prosecutors should not issue public reports containing negative information about subjects of their investigations.
Another good reason is that prosecutorial reports are, by their nature, one-sided. Prosecutors do not look for exculpatory evidence, as Mueller has admitted in this report. That is why it is important to wait for the Trump legal team’s rebuttal to the Mueller report before coming to a final conclusion.
More here from Dershowitz.
And I wonder whether the final paragraph of this article by former prosecutor George Parry will come true:
Now that we have a sentient adult running the Justice Department, the true facts about the state sponsored coup are about to be unearthed. And, when that happens, Team Mueller’s shameful report will become an insignificant albeit sleazy footnote to the exposure and massive cleansing of the deep state that is about to occur.
I want that last paragraph to come true but sadly history tells us it won’t.
May come closer than usual but none of these clowns are going to be charged with any crimes.
Hope I’m wrong.
For those who are beyond itchy that Pres. Trump get to moving on the investigation of the investigators and other miscreant actors in this political drama, be apprised that there is a good deal of chatter on the Twitter channels today to the effect that the Pres. will begin declassification of large tranches of FISA apps and other related FBI materials next week. So far it’s chatter in the nature of reports of reports not yet published, and yet one may still say . . . Let loose the hounds, and may the chase begin!
Last Paragraph – it will never happen.
I would hope that President Trump would release all the FISA docs, but I imagine that will not happen either.
Am I cynical? You bet cha.
According to Müller/Weissmans logic, if an innocent Jewish man is being tortured by a Spanish Inquisitor, and turns the tables and kills his torturer, that would be obstruction of justice.
Also if Müller knew early on the there was no collusion and he and Weissman were going after “obstruction” by creating actions against Trumps people to get trump to overreact so they can accuse “obstruction”.
Does anyone else see a major ethical problem with this? Is it appropriate for Müller to try to create a crime?
Is this the America we grew up in or is this the land of Roland Freisler( likely Herr Müllers mentor, in addition to Heydrich and Heinrich Müller)?
I’m not expecting much to change at the Department of Justice, now or later. It’s a reasonable inference that the institutional culture is characterized by Monovox and the Monovox is just a social marker among professional-managerial types these days. Lawyers who dissent are rank-and-file small practice attorneys or they work for firms which have oil companies on the client list or they work for a tiny corps of starboard public interest outfits.
Ideally, legal representation of the federal government would be split between two departments (as it is on the local level) and protective services would be distributed between a half-dozen departments (as it commonly is at the state and local level) with the FBI broken up and distributed between at least two of those departments. And, ideally, the inspector-general’s office in every department and consequential agency would be staffed with employees over the age of 55 committed to working for the IG until retirement. Of course, none of this will ever come to pass.
Three thoughts:
1. If Mueller could have recommended prosecution for obstruction, he would have. Because he couldn’t, he didn’t. Because he didn’t, he couldn’t. Case closed.
2. Trump’s lawyers outsmarted Team Mueller. The over-disclosure was brilliant. They stuffed the channels with information and waived all privileges. The only way Trump could get into trouble would be a process crime, and everyone made sure he didn’t commit one. Mueller couldn’t even make a plausible case to interview Trump. This only worked because Trump was innocent on the collusion issue.
3. In an over-criminalized world where we all commit three felonies a day, Mueller came up with nothing on Trump. He must be the most honest man we have elected president in the last 30 years.
The secret combinations and cabals are winning.
https://medium.com/@thomas.mcfarlan/a-leading-edge-california-bill-proposal-that-fully-outlaws-organized-stalking-is-currently-under-9a2c539a52cf
Meanwhile, the Deep State gathers its forces.
All is not well and the battle is almost over even if the war is not. The secret combinations have gained status and sanction, merely by Americans ignoring them and allowing it.
If I had talked about everything I knew and suspected after 2007, that would probably have been a red flag event.
Another good observation from Parry:
“If you are looking for a high crime and misdemeanor to justify impeachment, there is no such crime as “obstruction of coup”. As a matter of fact, obstruction of coup would seem to be a patriotic act for which the president should be praised not impeached.”
One of his commenters quotes a comment I saw on CTH earlier today:
“Democrats lost an election they rigged, and now Democrats have lost an investigation they rigged.”
“Another good reason is that prosecutorial reports are, by their nature, one-sided. Prosecutors do not look for exculpatory evidence, as Mueller has admitted in this report. That is why it is important to wait for the Trump legal team’s rebuttal to the Mueller report before coming to a final conclusion.” – Dershowitz
One thing that struck me in the punditocrats’ telling of the report was that everyone took the negative “evidence” from Trump’s aides & officials as hand-on-my-heart-absolutely-true.
I haven’t read the report (in 2 minutes or otherwise*), but it seems to me that the president has disputed some of their “recollections” of events.
So, yes, we need the rebuttal.
And if the Left gets stuck any further in Dersh’s craw, he may volunteer to join Trump’s team.
*Unlike CNN’s talking-heads:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/19/oddly-enough-jake-tapper-is-not-lying-here
“The video snippet below shows within 10 minutes after the 448-page Robert Mueller report was publicly released, Jake Tapper identifies two reporters, Laura Jarrett and Manu Raju, who Tapper says have “read the report.”
…
It’s almost guaranteed Jake Tapper is not lying in that segment. Yes, it is impossible for two journalists to read 448 pages of the report and prepare to discuss it within minutes… but that’s not what they did.
The Mueller people who wrote that report; the same Mueller people who tipped off CNN to the raid on Roger Stone; the same Mueller people who coordinated leaks to Buzzfeed, New York Times and Washington Post; almost certainly gave copies of the full and unredacted report to their media allies well in advance of AG Barr’s formal release.”
President Trump disputes aides’ memories:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/439758-trump-frustrated-with-aides-who-talked-to-mueller
Mark Penn gives some perspective:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439691-mueller-done-dems-should-be-too-trump-is-no-nixon
“Most people don’t understand what it is to not only be personally investigated for something you didn’t do but also have your friends, family members and associates placed in legal jeopardy over it. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team systematically targeted the people around the president, squeezing them like lemons, indicting them on mostly process crimes created by the investigation itself. They reviewed everyone’s emails, text messages, phone calls, bank statements — and yet their conclusion on collusion was clear and definitive. It has to be believed.
I was there working with former President Clinton in 1998 when he pondered whether to send missiles against Osama bin Laden but was concerned it would be viewed as “wagging the dog.” We missed bin Laden that day. It was symbolic of how everything in the White House was affected by the Monica Lewinsky investigation; it changed everything we did. And, yes, there was a good bit of cursing then, too.
The big difference between today and what happened in 1998 or during the Nixon era is that, at the end of the day, the Mueller investigators found no stained dress, no break-in, no hush money, no enemies list. There never was a crime, and what seemed far-fetched was simply that — this time, a duly elected president was investigated for a crime that never even existed. In fact, evidence is mounting that the investigation itself was launched on phony grounds.
And so, the screaming partisan antics of Democrats in the House are likely to set the Democratic Party back a decade if they do not get a grip on themselves. In partisan unison, with scripted talking points, they keep calling everyone else “partisan.” It simply does not pass the laugh test at this point.”
The re-quote by AesopFan has it exactly right:
“Democrats lost an election they rigged, and now Democrats have lost an investigation they rigged.”
(One might add the Kavanaugh “Investigation” AKA Public Lynching.)
Stalinists (and their “fellow travelers”, alas) don’t like to lose. Not at all.
They “KNOW” that they are always right. They KNOW that they hold all the cards. And they KNOW—absolutely—that “tomorrow is theirs”….
Ergo, it is NOT over.
One despairs that it will ever be….
Stalinists are just disposable condoms and expendable weapons. The Deep State funds and throws them away the same as people do with condoms.
Or Hussein the US President, did with terrorists in Al Qaeda.
The big difference between today and what happened in 1998 or during the Nixon era is that, at the end of the day, the Mueller investigators found no stained dress, no break-in, no hush money, no enemies list
They would have found or fabricated something, if nobody had tipped off Trum that he was being wire tapped and surveiled. Nixon’s cover up was due to a combination of the investigation and how he knew he was being spied on. If he knew he was being recorded, why did he say it? Because he didn’t know. Nobody tipped him off in time.
So they got him. If Trum had been under 24 surveillance during the investigatioin, he would have made a mistake.
Last paragraph?
I have strong doubts…but large hopes.
We’ll see.
If he knew he was being recorded, why did he say it? Because he didn’t know. Nobody tipped him off in time.
If you are referring to Nixon, it is inexplicable that he did not destroy the tapes. I suspect he did not know what all was on them. He thought he was doing it for history. Plus, of course, he knew that Johnson had a tape system but it was never revealed. Sam Irvin was uninterested in Johnson’s tapes.
Sam Irvin was uninterested in Johnson’s tapes.
The Ervin committee wasn’t commissioned to hold hearings on anything done during the Johnson administration.
I’ve tended to think of Mormons as a cut above most people in terms of morality and honesty.
However, I note that newly minted Senator Romney has said that he was “sickened” by what was revealed in the Mueller Report.
Actually, I used to have some respect for Romney–even considered voting for him–but this comment of his has destroyed that respect.
It appears that he, like the Bush family, has also been very good at concealing his true nature.
Just another crappy politician.
However, I note that newly minted Senator Romney has said that he was “sickened” by what was revealed in the Mueller Report.
Aren’t Trum loyalists sickened by what’s in the Mueller Report too? Or rather what isn’t in it.
Mormons have the same problem with secret societies as every other rich organization in existence. Meaning they have been infiltrated, although hijacking that organization is extremely hard due to their foundations.
Just look at Harry Reid. he was trying to jack up some Mormon clan named Bundy, with Reid’s goon boys in BLM. And Reid is a Mormon, Of the same LDS branch, not the polygamy child trafficking lineages.
Most of the problems with Mormonism started due to the wars declared against them and Utah by the United States government, pro slave Demoncrats, and so forth.
When the railroad went to Utah, that brought in a lot of Free Masons, secret society cabalists, and so forth. Nobody could purify the organization then, even though Young tried to get rid of the Masons as Masons killed Joseph Smith (who was also a Mason, sorta like an internal civil war going on there).
Also George Washington was a Mason Scottish Rite. So lots of things in US history go back to Masons, for good or ill. Many Protestant Christians would say Free Masons are an evil organization. They were a secret organization, true. But all human organizations are “evil” in some respect or another. Ya humans just ain’t as good as you all think you are.
I suspect he did not know what all was on them.
He likely thought he had turned the system off. However, he wasn’t the one who installed that system nor the one that knew the backdoor controls to it. That would be the FBI/CIA, or at least a faction that Mark Felt had access to.
Everybody was spying on everybody in DC. Nothing unusual about it.
Trum does not use phones given to him by the CIA and FBi for a reason. He knows a lot more than Americans do by this point.
Well, well, well, lookie here.
It turns out that Mueller testified to Congress waaay back in 2003, about how the FBI, which he was head of at the time, was revising the procedure for applying for a FISA warrant, by implementing what were known as the “Woods procedures,” which, Mueller testified, were designed to “minimize factual inaccuracies in FISA packages.”
See https://politicallyshort.com/2019/04/20/fisa-court-woods-procedures-and-carter-page/
P.S. These bureaucrats, no doubt, took some steps to disguise the fact that they were attempting a coup, but, bureaucrats being bureaucrats, they were still enmeshed in a web of paperwork, which does trace their steps, and testifies to just how many standard practices, rules, and procedures they trampled on or simply ignored in trying to mount this coup.
I recommend Sundance for his document-based unraveling and exposure of this coup attempt.
Pingback:Mueller Report Reactions – No Collusion, but a wimp-out over obstruction – now we wait for indictments of deep state criminals – Tom Grey – Families, Freedom, Responsibility