Robert Mueller investigated Donald
Trump for more than two years, interviewed 500 witnesses, spent $30 million, and
wrote a 448-page report about his investigation. After all that time, effort,
and expense, he could not say that Trump had broken any laws. In the words of
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), it was a big “nothing burger.” Democrats and other
never-Trumpers were irate and pledged to get Trump another way.
Democrat leaders in the U.S. House
finally convinced Mueller to give sworn testimony to two different House
committees. He defended his investigation before the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee. Lisa Mascaro at Associated Press (AP) wrote that Mueller’s testimony “sent the clearest signal
yet that impeachment may be slipping out of reach for Democrats” and that the
final verdict on Trump will be left to the voters in the 2020 Presidential
Election.
Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal
shared eight takeaways from Mueller’s appearance before Congress: First, he could not cite Department of Justice
(DOJ) policy or principle on exonerating an individual because the “bedrock
principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence” until proven
guilty. Mueller did not prove that Trump was guilty of collusion with Russia or
obstruction of justice.
Second, when questioned about the
possibility of indicting a sitting president, Mueller said, “We did not reach a
determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Third, there was some confusion
about whether “collusion” and “conspiracy” are synonymous terms. Mueller’s
report says that they are, and he said that he would “leave it with the report.”
Fourth, numerous Democrats set the
stage for Mueller to recommend impeachment, but Mueller declined to step into
their trap. He “refused to state that impeachment was what the report means in
referring to other venues to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice.” Representative Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana)
asked Chairman Nadler if “the point of this hearing [is] to get Mr. Mueller to
recommend impeachment.” Nadler responded, “That is not a fair point of inquiry.”
Fifth, Mueller was asked when he
made the decision to “put conspiracy to rest.” Mueller replied, “I can’t say
when.”
Sixth, there were questions that
Mueller refused to answer. Why did his team fail to prosecute Joseph Mifsud who
told “George Papadopoulos that Moscow had some of Hillary Clinton’s emails? Did
he interview Steele or Fusion GPS had Glenn Simpson? Did he read the Steele
dossier? Did the Russian meddling sway the outcome of the presidential
election? There were several other answered questions.
Seventh, Mueller defended the
alleged conflicts that he created when he hired Democrat lawyers, many of whom
donated to Democratic candidates, to work on the Trump case. He said that he
never asks people about their political affiliation. “What I care about is the
capability of the individual to do the job.”
Eighth, Mueller’s report said that “the
Trump campaign was aware of Russian election meddling and expected to benefit
from it.” What is the “new normal” for politicians’ responsibility to report
hostile foreign powers trying to influence an election? Do they still have duty
to report to the FBI or other authorities? Mueller replied, “I hope this is not
the new normal, but I fear it is.”
The bottom line is that Mueller
conducted his investigation of Donald Trump and could not find enough evidence
that would convict Trump of collusion or obstruction of justice. He should have
said so in his report because Trump should have been considered innocence until
proven guilty. Mueller should not have written his report in the way that he
did, and he should have confirmed more strongly before the Congressional
Committees that there was not enough evidence to convict Trump. It was Mueller’s
job to prove Trump was guilty or to set him free. He served up another big “nothing
burger.”
No comments:
Post a Comment