I watched Mueller’s statement today and I was nauseated. Here we have a guy who has spent his life in the top echelon of American law enforcement, and he’s a coward. A completely gutless man. A liar, too. He is simply, in my view, running scared – and on his way out the door, twitching down a chair in front of his pursuers.
The crucial thing he said was that he won’t testify under oath – and that if compelled to do so, is just going to keep referring to his bogus report, which is filled with innuendo (as was his statement) against Trump, but without any proof – or even a logical chain of reasoning to back it up. Mueller was set to destroy Trump, and found there was no means to do so. Now, he’s just trying to get out of it – and by fueling the fires of Democrat impeachment talk, he probably figures that if there’s an impeachment, at least then people won’t pay attention to what Barr is doing, and that any indictment by Barr of Mueller or his people will appear politically tainted.
Now, why doesn’t Mueller want to testify? Because he’d have to lie. As Roger Simon points out, one of the key questions any GOPer would like to ask Mueller is “when did you know there wasn’t collusion?”. The answer to that is, probably, “within days of starting”. Had Mueller made that point early, then the whole thing would have fizzled…but, he didn’t. Why, not? Well, that would bring us to the second important question we’d like to ask: “why did you bring charges entirely un-related to the 2016 campaign?”. The answer to that is, almost certainly, “because we hoped by so doing to scare Trump people into lying about Trump”. Mueller simply can’t answer those questions truthfully – and while he would try like heck to dodge any such questions, it would eventually come out that his whole motivation from start to finish was political: to annul the results of the 2016 election.
Pelosi is now going to come under massive pressure to approve of impeachment hearings. So, Mueller might well have accomplished his primary task today: get himself and his troops off the hook. But I think that an impeachment will end up being a disaster for the Democrats and will go a long way towards re-electing Trump next year. There is nothing there: Trump didn’t break the law, and so couldn’t have obstructed an investigation into the law which wasn’t broken. Democrats control the House and can get their bill to say whatever it wants, and Democrats can get up on the House floor and say whatever they want…but, in the end, they’ll have to go before the Senate and prove their allegations and they simply can’t do it. At least the GOP in 1998 could prove their case against President Clinton…Democrats can’t do that against Trump. And while there may be one or two GOPers inclined to vote to convict simply because they hate Trump, they’ll shy away from it absent proof…while there are a couple three Democrats who will take their political life in their hands if they vote to convict. A majority Senate vote to acquit will be Trump’s exoneration. No doubt about it: the people will believe he’s innocent, and will really wonder why we were put through all this for nothing.
Blogs For Victory 
IMO, Mueller is one of the main reasons, if not THE reason we are even talking about impeachment. He originally promised that he would publish his findings before the 2018 mid-terms. Had he done that there’s a good chance Democrats would not have won control of the House, and all we’d be talking about is how great the economy is and how big a margin Trump will win by in 2020.
I think they are all getting desperate – that they’ve got nothing on Trump, the economy is good and Barr is fearless…they are going to pull out all the stops. I don’t exclude anything, and I hope Trump’s SS detail is up to snuff.
The real headline should be MUELLER DODGES REPUBLICAN GRILLING IN HOUSE TESTIMONY.
Silly bunny, he has to realize that all he did was postpone the inevitable. And probably make it worse. Being grilled in the House, by the likes of Trey Gowdy and Jim Jordan, would have been bad enough, but if it goes any farther he may have to face Ted Cruz, who has argued so many times in front of the Supreme Court.
You say “…one of the key questions any GOPer would like to ask Mueller is “when did you know there wasn’t collusion?”. I suggest that the first questions should be (1) Define collusion, and (2) Cite the statute saying this is a crime. Because if he can’t cite an actual crime he is admitting that the whole “investigation” is a sham. And then if he can, the next question would be yours—-when did you know it never happened?
I’m sure I could have questioned Mueller effectively.
If Donald Trump had reached out to someone he had dealt with in the past when he was working on building a Trump Tower in Moscow and asked him if he had any juicy information about Hillary’s dealings with Russia, would that have been a crime?
If so, cite the crime—by name and statute number please.
If it was not a crime, why did you waste more than $30 million of taxpayer money on an investigation?
You have implied that Donald Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. As “obstruction of justice” depends on obstructing an official investigation, please cite the crime that was the basis for the claim of obstruction of the investigation—by name and statute number.
And so on. These should be the foundational questions of any questioning of Mueller. Not only have none of these questions been answered, none have been asked.
Just curious—how does an impeachment hearing proceed? Is it like a grand jury, where only one side presents a case, or is it like a trial, with questions from the attorneys on both sides? Does the accused have an attorney? Is there a single formal prosecutor, or do all the clowns get to line up to posture for the cameras? Do they have to cite a specific crime or misdemeanor or high crime, or is it like the Mueller “investigation” where they can just bounce from one accusation to another without ever being pinned down to anything?
For example, if Nadler gets up and starts flapping his mouth again, going on and on about all the things Trump supposedly did, can a Trump attorney then ask him to be specific, pin him down on details and definitions? Or does the Trump side just have to sit there and listen to hours and hours of hysteria, slander and spite and malice?
What I’m getting at is, would an impeachment hearing offer the Right a chance to point out that in free nation the process is to first identify a crime and only then seek a suspect, but under tyranny the government picks a person and then seeks a crime to blame him for. I think that is a concept that would resonate with a lot of Americans, especially if phrased and delivered well—if possible including the quote from Stalin’s head of secret police, Beria: “Show me the man and I will find you the crime”. If there is a fuss made about things Trump SAID, like supposedly “ordering” that Mueller be fired, rather than just saying he wished he could fire him (which is a possibility) I would love to have someone point out that in a nation of laws and liberty a man is only on trial for what he does, but under tyranny he can be put on trial for what he thinks.
Depending on the way an impeachment hearing is handled, one could provide an excellent stage for making some very strong points. As we can be sure the clown car brigade will all be elbowing each other out of the way for camera time, to make long winded gasbag speeches, it would be lovely to have someone point out the insanity of taking up time and resources for a bogus hearing which is, evidently, nothing more than a chance to campaign for the presidency, on the taxpayer’s dime. I think there is already some anger building directed toward the representatives who have not been doing their real jobs but using their positions to advance their own name recognition and mount a coup against a sitting president, and sucking up even more time and money and energy to strut and posture and howl at the moon would offer a wonderful opportunity to take them down now and in the next election as well.
In Clinton’s case the House Republicans filed several articles of impeachment, four, IIRC. They presented the case for each article. I don’t remember if Clinton had defenders who presented his side. It only takes a simple majority in the House to impeach. Impeachment is essentially like an indictment by a grand jury. The trial takes place in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with prosecutors and a defense. It takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict and remove from office.
But, isn’t the whole affair political in nature? Should they convict, would Trump simply be removed or would he also be a felon? They couldn’t get the numbers to convict in Clintons 98 Trial, but they went on later to prove him guilty in court and he was disbarred and sentenced. The whole affair is just surreal. Was Sessions really that stupid to allow this to happen or was he working for the other side? The information in the press concerning the transfer rate of the data stolen from Podesta’s computers was transferred at a data rate consistent with bus speeds not via the internet, so in the first lines of his Statement didn’t Muelller mislead? Wouldn’t that mean whomever took the data was in the DNC’s building not in Moscow? Why wouldn’t the DNC allow the FBI to examine the computers? Haven’t the Russian been doing this, since the end of WWII when the Cold War started, so why go nuts now? Wouldn’t that prove the urgency to put a stop to it once and for all is manufactured, so there must be another angle? Why is the assumption made Mueller has anything at solid to contribute concerning the charges of Russian Intel officers who have been charged but not convicted? Why would such weight be attributed to suspects that cannot be tried? How can you determine the motive behind something or even what they were attempting when you don’t have access to question those involved? That’s all pretty convenient if you ask me.
Pelosi has a dilemma. She’s politically savvy enough to know that impeachment will almost surely guarantee Trump’s re-election, but it will also likely lose the House back to the GOP. The vast majority of freshman Democrats are from moderate swing districts, many of which Trump won in 2016. The Dems can kiss a lot of those seats goodbye if they pursue impeachment.
Mark, you put together an excellent list of questions, all important, all relevant, but all existing independently and not integrated into a coherent narrative of the wrongdoing of the Left. So few people know of the DNC “hack”. Assange repeated many times that his people were given the DNC info personally, physically handed from one person to another, yet the Complicit Agenda Media kept repeating the lie about an electronic hack. Few know, or understand the significance, of the independent audit of the DNC computers and the presentation of the hired gun’s analysis to the FBI that Russia had hacked their files. They think the FBI revealed that Russia had hacked their files, even though the FBI said what they could discover did not have the same fingerprints as other Russian hacking but seemed, by contrast, amateurish and clumsy.
Who’s going to compile this into a coherent and understandable narrative? The Right? We can’t even get out of our own way.
Amazon, Mueller was lying to save his butt. The questions, as you point out, are relevant and go to whether Mueller’s statement held a shred of truth. Once asked, it becomes abundantly apparent it doesn’t. Mueller’s exposed his bias in this case by making this unnecessary BS statement. Not that anyone on this site was confused about what it was, but Amazon, it butters my biscuit! Ignorance is a poor excuse for losing the republic! The Russians could not have done this unless they were physically in the DNC and had direct access to Podesta computer equipment housing the files. It is ignorant to maintain anything else. This was an inside job. Where did they bury Seth? Republicans need to make it clear they will be questioning Mueller very critically concerning these and a host of very uncomfortable questions he’s going to have to answer under oath or plead fifth. The Dems know the whole affairs will be publicly tried. They won’t be the sole prosecutors. They are putting themselves on trial along side Trump. The American people, become the jury. If Mueller takes the fifth it’s over, as he’s admitted he recognizes he’s in jeopardy and he has something to hide or someone to protect. He lose the façade of being a patriot whose above it all. If he answers, he’ll have to lie or he’ll expose the underbelly of the beast. They may have something on him, but for whatever reason, Mueller is scared. He’s in jeopardy and he knows it. Anyone whose followed this closely knows it. The Dems know it. Heck, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed and I know it!
My opinion of the “investigation” was always that it was designed to smear Trump but even more to provide a firewall between the miscreants who committed fraud upon the FISA court, committed perjury, spied on fellow Americans using the power of the State, etc. and justice for their wrongdoing.
The Left is clever, very very clever, and they play chess—planning ahead several moves—while we play reactive tic-tac-toe. They saw the dangers ahead, so they first laid down the concept of “obstruction of justice” and tied the firing of Comey into this. That allowed them to establish a perception that if Mueller were to be fired, it would just be “more” obstruction of justice. They put the administration into a corner, and it was the ongoing interminable “investigation” that kept them there, kept them from going after all the bad actors in this serial abuse of power and blatant criminality.
My image of the matter was a line of miscreants strutting, laughing, and making obscene gestures at the DOJ from behind a minefield, with each mine labeled “obstruction of justice”.
When the pressure got too great, thanks mostly to Barr, to end the charade, all Mueller could do was fall on his sword for the good of the Cause and basically admit he was impotent, incompetent and a liar but still fulfilling his directive to throw as much crap at Trump as he could and try to keep the fires burning. The members of the Left that are not in the inner circle but just useful idiots and attack dogs, like Nadler, were convinced that if they could get Mueller under oath they could direct questions to him that would, as they kept insisting, “blow the whole thing wide open”. But someone took Nadler, et al to the woodshed and pointed out that putting Mueller under oath in a public hearing, or even a private one, where Republicans could question him, would blow it all open in a way Nadler was not considering. So he stopped pushing for Mueller testifying before the House, and they came up with a compromise—Mueller would make a public statement that did most of what they hoped his testimony would do, accompanied by the assertion that this was his final word on the matter and he would not engage in any more discussion or questioning. As if he gets to decide if he will have to testify or not—it was a bluff, and I hope it will be called.
I think Mueller really cherishes the image of being upright and ethical and respected, and he is watching this legacy being destroyed, first by his hubris and then by other Dems who either don’t realize what they have been doing to him or simply don’t care. He somehow managed to hang in there for decades, even after participating in things like the coverup I cited in a link here, and rose to the top of his field. What he has to lose is the tattered remnants of that reputation and the revelation that it was always a sham, that he was always a political whore with no ethics to speak of, in addition to some pretty serious civil and possibly criminal penalties for his more recent actions.
His sand castle is being washed away, and people like Strzok and Comey et al are watching this happen, knowing they will be next.
Thinks about what the DOJ could do, legally, ethically and morally, if it so desired. When the news about Hillary’s illegal server broke, I looked up the document she signed when she became Secretary of State. It was the same document she signed as First Lady and Senator. It is the same one every federal employee and official signs, agreeing among other things to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information, under penalty of prosecution. Now look at every person who communicated with Hillary or her office on that illegal server, knowing it was not official, and cross reference those names with people who also signed that same confidentiality agreement.
Every one of these people, including Obama, is guilty of a crime, and theoretically the DOJ could indict and prosecute every single one of them. And I wish they would.
They will pursue impeachment, they have to. They have put themselves in a corner and that’s the only way out.
Unless they apologize to the country and admit they were wrong hahahahahahahahaha
There has to be a crime in order for there to be a guilty party. There is no crime, therefore no guilty party. No admittance of guilt, because there is no crime to be guilty of.
Mr. Mueller wanted there to be a crime, but there was no crimes. And the Democrats , they are using this so-called ‘vestigation to cover up their crimes x 1,000,000 + 1 by Hillary Clinton, who organized this coup in an effort to destroy the votes of millions of Americans. This is treason and they should be handed over to the executioner, and then to the undertaker. Wave them goodbye! See ya wouldn’t wanna be ya! 👋⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️
You’re damn right Mueller is a coward and incompetent. How many men falsely went to prison because of him? Only to be released by over turned convictions. Trump may be the only person in America who is guilty until proven innocent. After detailing Hillary’s lengthy list of crimes, Comey said that “no reasonable prosecutor blah blah” because of her “lack of intent”. Well Mueller found no crimes but suggested Trump had intent and referred to Congress. What’s wrong with that picture folks?
Tucker had an excellent segment last night on Mexico’s interference in our elections courtesy of the Democrats and no one in the media cares. In fact the former Mayor of Mexico City was a Hillary staffer and encouraging Hispanics to vote Democrat in 2016. Not one word from the media. Can you imagine if the former Mayor of Moscow worked for Trump?
What Mueller was really saying was that in the unConstitutional, tyrannical, government he and his fellow travelers yearn for, one can be tried, sentenced and punished for what he thinks or just considers doing, not for his actual actions.
This is a point that must be made over and over, loudly and strongly and repeatedly. This is the heart and soul of Leftist tyranny—the power to punish people not for what they do but for what they think. They have been building up the Thought Police for years now, as we see in the ridiculous term “hate crime” and the demands to force people to use Leftist-approved pronouns to refer to people whose personal preference is to deny their true gender. That may all seem silly and superficial to people who dismiss it as such, but it is just the opening salvo in a campaign to force people to believe certain things or face consequences for Wrongthink.
This is a point that must be made over and over, loudly and strongly and repeatedly. This is the heart and soul of Leftist tyranny—the power to punish people not for what they do but for what they think.
We’re not there yet, at least as insofar as the general population goes, and I don’t think we’ll get there any time soon. The Left would have to disarm 100 million of us first, and they don’t have the means, the support, or, quite frankly, the cajones to attempt that.
But they are already doing it. They are getting people fired for using the “wrong” pronouns, they are making some crimes worse than others based on projections of what the perpetrator had in mind when he committed the crime, they are trying to make it illegal for priests to respect the sanctity of the confessional, etc.
They don’t need to disarm us to do this. They just have to have enough judges to enforce radical Leftist agendas, and enough “journalists” so far in the tank they won’t report on it. When they control the schools and control the judiciary they don’t need to take away our guns, at least not if we roll over and refuse to fight back, or fight back ineffectively because organizing the Right is like herding cats.
I saw this coming when Comey excused Hillary because of what he claimed she thought, not what she did. The other side of that coin had to be prosecuting someone else for what he thought, not what he did. Comey’s statement was the first I could remember that overtly stated that thoughts matter more than actions, and it was chilling, because it was an admission that the Thought Police were in the wings, ready to step out and go to work.
But back to what I said: We can do it, if we have the focus and the will. We have a lot of people, millions of people, listening to talk radio shows, and if those hosts can step away from Identity Politics and focus on political structures and history and point out the dangers of Thought Police enforcing Thought Crimes and link this to the despotic tyrannies of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. the message will start to get out. If members of Congress can start asking questions of Leftists like “Don’t you think it is dangerous to start going after people for what they think or believe instead of what they do? Isn’t that what Stalin did, and Hitler?” it would create a lot of hysteria but also force those Leftists into trying to defend what they are doing. And we are seeing how much deeper they dig themselves in when they start to “explain” themselves. Let conservatives who appear on Leftist TV shows start asking these questions. Let Mika and Lardball answer them.
Cluster, you ask “How many men falsely went to prison because of him? “
His responsibility for the imprisonment of innocent people in his reckless and immoral abuse of power goes back a long time. This is one example:
A sordid story about the FBI’s involvement with organized crime in Boston has shed new light on the character of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a man that the media has assured us is “beyond reproach.” Mueller was a central figure in an FBI cover up that kept four completely innocent men in prison for decades, in order to protect the FBI’s reputation. Protecting the Deep State was so important to Mueller that he perpetuated an FBI cover up that allowed innocent Americans to rot in prison for more than 30 years.
http://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/robert-muellers-dirty-past-comes-to-light/
Mueller is a vile human being …. as is Clapper and especially Brennan. In fact, Brennan is right out of central casting depicting the very person who should NEVER have power.
That report just flabbergasted me – and not even so much Mueller’s part in covering it up, but in the raw, hideous fact that the FBI helped frame men innocent of the crime (not innocent, in general, of course: they were gangsters…but that fact merely aided the FBI). It made me reconsider my whole view of the FBI, and now I want it abolished. No Republic can survive as a free nation with such a secretive and really unaccountable organization. The Swamp talks about the independence of the FBI – and DOJ – as if that should be a thing. They’re not supposed to be independent – they are supposed to under our thumb via whomever we, the people, place in the Executive. And if we don’t like how that Executive does things, then we, the people, can make a change…
So what about this? Start a Go Fund Me account to buy an hour of time on a network, or two or three hours on consecutive nights or weeks, and present this whole mess, kind of the way Glenn Beck used to do with his whiteboards. Put the shows on DVDs and offer them for free, just pay postage and handling. Do it like a documentary: An hour on the decline of the FBI, an hour on the decline of the DOJ, an hour or two on the attempted coup.
Glenn bought a movie studio in Dallas—–a good production crew could put together a great, professional, show or shows at little cost. That’s a great thing about the Internet—research and citations are easy to come by. Hire someone respected and untouchable—-Tom Selleck or Gary Sinese or Jon Voight or someone—to do the narration. Provide online links to information, so viewers can go online and read and even print out references and details. Maybe even put together a booklet, a transcript, of each show and send them out to anyone who asks for them.
Maybe a lot of people would not watch, but a lot would. And the exploding heads of the Left would call attention to these shows. Carefully put together, without drama or hyperbole, the facts would be impossible to deny, but the Left would be incapable of simply letting them sit there unchallenged, and the ensuing debates and discussions would drown out the wild-eyed claims of the Leftist hysterics about Trump. We KNOW they can’t just shut up. Sometimes they remind me of the Ron White line about being arrested for being really drunk: “I had the right to remain silent, I just lacked the ability”.
Look how hard they worked to shut down the play about the emails between Strzok and Page—-threats made the theater refuse to let them put on the show there. The Left was freaked out about having two actors read the emails out loud, showing that they constituted conversations. Dean Cain was willing to do the show—have him narrate the documentary.
It isn’t cowardice, it is evil.
It is more important now than ever before that this attempted coup is uncovered and exposed. The American people need to see the full extent of Democrats and the Deep State’s attempt to circumvent the will of the American people and to over throw the duly elected President …. with full compliance from our media.
Heads need to roll.
On Tuesday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough compared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi impeaching Trump to President Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves.
I have news for you Joe …. we are still trying to free your slaves … but you are resistant and evidently want to continue killing them via abortion.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/gregory-price/2019/05/29/scarborough-pelosi-impeaching-trump-lincoln-freeing-slaves
In the meantime, to keep the loony tunes sector of the Left happy, they are busy inventing new words. The latest (at least as far as I know, as I pay less and less attention to their antics) is the non-word “Latinx”. Huh?
From my experience, Latinos are pretty intense about gender, so I doubt this effort to unsex the word came from any actual Latinos or Latinas.
They could have just started using “Hispanic” but hey, where’s the fun in that? They need to keep the kids happy, and playing with words seems to entertain them.