The paradox in hitting a penultimate moment is that you can’t really be sure you have hit it until well after the fact. I mean, just because you feel this is almost the lowest point that can be reached, how do you really know until you see if things can actually get worse?
“Barring” the yet to be seen, in yesterday’s performance by Robert Mueller, we may have reached the nadir in American law enforcement history. The former head of the investigation that wore his name finally came before the public to address his thoughts regarding President Trump, the fake Russia collusion scandal, and his much-discussed report.
Mueller delivered his talk while Attorney General William Barr, whom he effectively called a liar, was far away in Alaska and not immediately available to offer rebuttal. This was not a coincidence. I’ll come back to AG Barr, but by speaking in his absence, Mueller set a cowardly tone for what would be his remarks.
Mueller has turned the Federal Government’s law enforcement efforts into what we otherwise would call cleverly scripted cinema. Have you ever left a movie where it ended in such a way that you say to a friend, “So what do you think really happened? What are we supposed to think that movie meant?”
Mueller just left one of those Hollywood endings for 330 million people in a already divided nation to “Mueller over.” He has encouraged people to infer that the president committed a crime and that he should be impeached. He also demonstrated that if he had Aristotle as a logics professor, he would receive an “F.”
Muller began by saying “…as set forth in the report after [the] investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Next, he went on to say:
We did not, however, make a determipresident cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.
Mueller is saying in one breath that if they had not found a crime, they would have said they had not found a crime, while in the next he says, if they had found a crime, they would not have been able to say so.
Ergo, in a syllogism so distorted it was painted by Picasso, Mr. Mueller wants you to conclude by pure inference that he felt they found a crime. Instead of offering any proof of anything, Mueller just pumped his elbow a couple of times into America’s collective ribs and said, “Get it?”
It is good that Mueller was not tasked with proving the existence of Bigfoot. The absence of confirmed sightings would have left him with no choice but to confirm the beast’s existence.
Mueller cites the DOJ policy of not being able to indict a sitting president. He said, “It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.” Mueller falling back and blaming “fairness” for his actions at least indicates he is familiar with the term; familiar enough to bastardize it.
This, of course, is a total red herring. Department of Justice memos and policies do not determine what is constitutional. The Constitution determines what is constitutional, along with the Supreme Court when required. Ken Starr was not at all inhibited when investigating Bill Clinton in making clear his criminal conduct and recommending impeachment. Alas, Starr was not struck down by a bolt of lightning tossed from the heavens by Madison and Hamilton.
The DOJ policy excuse used by Mueller yesterday also accuses AG Barr of lying. The AG has testified before Congress that he asked Mueller if the DOJ policy impacted his investigation and report. Mueller told him it did not.
Somebody’s lying. Hmm? Let me make an inference as to whom it might be.
Mueller further went on to say this about him being asked to testify before Congress:
Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress.
So, his report stands on its own and there is nothing in the report that explicitly says anything about President Trump that would indicate crimes had been committed; nothing saying impeachment is in order. By saying what he said, the way he said it, Mueller wants people to infer something from his report which is different from what he wrote in his report.
This is despicable. Mueller just made a special counsel’s dying declaration. Allow me to draw a few inferences. Mueller launched this investigation knowingly using a phony dossier for the purpose of nailing President Donald Trump. Mueller found nothing in two years from which to make a case. This left him only able to hint that there really is a case, but he just wasn’t allowed to share it.
Audience, figure it out.
In the movie telling his life story, we now know who should be cast in the role of Robert Mueller. Monty Python legend John Cleese gets the leading part in a movie to be titled A Fish Called Trump. Cleese has experience in playing a farcical barrister making ridiculous arguments before an imaginary court. All of that experience will be useful in portraying Robert Mueller; the most tragically ridiculous figure in American law enforcement history.