May 30, 2019

"Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan."

"I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system. Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different. Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one sided.... Th[e] determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence.... No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other.... Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage."

Wrote Alan Dershowitz yesterday.

338 comments:

1 – 200 of 338   Newer›   Newest»
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

What is really going on?

“Here’s the real story with Mueller’s press conference: Mueller doesn’t want to be called by Nadler to testify before the House Judiciary because he doesn’t want to answer tough questions under oath. Nadler doesn’t want to call Mueller because he doesn’t want Mueller answering questions that undermine the Democrat’s plan to keep a cloud of suspicion floating over Trump until 2020.”

-Liz Sheld

chuck said...

Better late than never, I suppose. Andrew McCarthy was likewise slow to realize how corrupt the people involved in the investigation were.

tim in vermont said...

Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty

The whole charade was to underpin the suggestion by Hillary’s team that “Trump might well be guilty.” I am going to use the line Hillary used on Vince Foster a week before he killed himself, on Dersh.

“You’re just a hick lawyer and are never going to get it!"

Temujin said...

I was hoping you'd have a posted opinion on this. From my perspective, it just made Mueller look cheap. Yes, partisan. But clearly if there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute, then there was nothing more for him to report. To lay dirt on someone that he did not have enough evidence to prosecute would seem to not be a proper course of action. He basically said, 'this guy is guilty, but I don't have the goods on him. You get him because you won't need to prove guilt, just infer it through your congressional process.'

The obstruction to be proven, was in regard to a case that was a fiction from the very beginning. A bought and paid for piece of fiction that was manipulated through the system to get Mueller involved in the first place. When nothing was found in that claim, they said that Trump may not have done what the fiction accused him of doing, but he obstructed them from finding his guilt on the fiction based claim.

We've truly reached the bottom feeder level in our government.

BarrySanders20 said...

Herr Mueller is, was, and always has been a shitweasel. Of the swamp, by the swamp, and for the swamp.

stevew said...

Mueller has thus fully exposed his partisan bias, and he has exposed the ill motives and bad faith of the Democrats.

Dave Begley said...

No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict."

Brilliant.

By all rights, Mueller should be disciplined by the Bar. He has completely turned the role of a prosecutor upside down.

Mueller is worse than a partisan. He's a TDS nut.

My question: What happens after Trump wins in 2020? Will the Dems ever stop their insa

I'm Full of Soup said...

That is what we get for appointing a longtime Swamp Creature like Mueller.

wendybar said...

I agree with Alan, 100%. He didn't state anything new...so what was the purpose other than to give the Democrats the impeachment itch.

Hagar said...

Mueller's nuances are too much for me.
Jerry Ford was right that grounds for impeachment are whatever the House decides them to be at the time, but impeachment leads to a trial before the Senate, and you don't go to trial based on nuances; substantiated facts are needed - and they need to be facts that not only the Senate, but the electorate at large will accept as evidence of malfeasance serious enough to justify removal from office.

Browndog said...

I just spent an hour on Morrison v Olson, The Supreme Court ruling that now gave us Robert Mueller III.

Backstory/genesis is fascinating. So is the fact that the lone dissent in a 7-1 decision written by Scalia was right. Rest of the Court, wrong.

PJ said...

The accusations in the report itself were public-by-stealth. Mueller could put whatever he (and Andrew) wanted in the report, because the report was addressed only to the AG, and therefore was technically an internal DOJ document. Everyone knew that the report was going to be made public one way or another, but Mueller himself was not going to make it public, so he could say things in the report that prosecutors should never say in public about uncharged targets of criminal investigation. The AG decided (undoubtedly for political reasons) to make the internal DOJ document public. But that did not render any more ethical Mueller's decision to make the public statements he made yesterday, for exactly the reasons stated by Mr. Dershowitz.

BTW, I don't think I ever heard Mueller say that the OLC opinion about charging a sitting President was the *only* reason he decided not to make any recommendation about Obstruction. He tried hard to leave that impression, but did he actually say it?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I would like Mueller hauled before congress.

Narr said...

So NOW we have a Constitutional Crisis. For which I thank our political and cultural elites.

Narr
Thank YHWH for Dershowitz!

CWJ said...

Except for Manafort's years old white collar crimes unrelated in any way to Trump or the 2016 election which were already known to the authorities who declined to prosecute at the time, all we have is process crimes created by the investigation itself. Unbelievable had we not had the sorry history from Martha Stewart onward.

Big Mike said...

Poor Derschowitz. After eight years of Barack Obama he still believes in the rule of law. What a Putz!

Dave Begley said...

With Barr in charge, the worm is going to turn real fast. I can't wait for Strozk, Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Power et al. get indicted.

We do know one thing: Obama can be indicted for the crimes he committed in office. Susan Power and Val Jarrett aren't going to jail for Barack. Well, maybe Val will but Susan won't.

Ann, please archive this comment. I'll be proven right on this issue in 2-3 years.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Insufficient evidence, yes. Other reasons not to indict? But there is a reason to indict, per DOJ policy just not while Trump is serving as President.

Freder Frederson said...

Are you really all that dense, or just being willfully ignorant? Mueller did not say he had insufficient evidence to indict on obstruction, he said he couldn't indict a sitting President.

tim maguire said...

I never believed Mueller was per se unbaised, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt until his report came out. And the report seems professionally done. No complaints there.

But his behavior yesterday was bizarre and Dershowitz is right that he undermined his own credibility with his statements.

Wince said...

It does look like a way for Mueller to avoid being called to testify. Mueller should be called testify. But looks like Linsey Graham doesn’t have the interest in round so... yet.

Strategically, might the Republicans prefer to call Mueller later in connection with Barr’s findings in the FBI/DOJ scandal rather than in connection the Trump’s putative obstruction?

Tactically, do the Republicans actually want a Democrat battle over impeachment to proceed?

narciso said...

Boston anthrax bcci investifation shutdown why are we surprised we can also add the Enron taskforce that put Arthur Anderson to sleep, why are we surprised?

buwaya said...

The entire system is political and corrupt.

This was obvious at least from the Scooter Libby case, where it was known there was nothing to investigate, as the leaker was already known beforehand. It was all an exercise to entrap Libby, an innocent man (at least in this matter). That this obviously unjust and extremely high profile persecution was permitted to proceed, by the entire system of government and the controlled press, and moreover by the Bush administration, for its own reasons (and I still wonder about that), should convince anyone of the complete depravity of your government structure.

Why anyone expects better of this system - I can't understand such people.

narciso said...

Investigation, the scenario is like right of a scene from reversal of fortune where silver plays dershowitz in a law school seminar

buwaya said...

The only logical and prudential attitude to take towards your government, its actual structure and institutions, is that it is your enemy, and all its parts are operating against your interests at all times.

tim in vermont said...

But there is a reason to indict, per DOJ policy just not while Trump is serving as President.

Well in a country where Comey could get a conviction against Martha Stewart for “securities fraud” for protesting her innocence while never even proving she was guilty of what she said she never did, sure, prosecutor “policy” could indict Trump, or, has been famously said “a ham sandwich."

Shouting Thomas said...

Thank you, Althouse.

Amadeus 48 said...

The way this has played out, there is always going to be a cloud of suspicion over Trump, at least if you watch ABCNBCCBSPBSCNNMSNBC or read NYTWAPO. And if you are most Dems, Trump is a traitorous crook who defiles the White House by looking at it.

On the other hand, if you read WSJ (at least the editorial page) and IBDNYPOST and watch FOXNEWS, Trump is problematical in his behavior and sometimes wrong in his policies, but he is moving the needle to where it needs to be for America to remain an exceptional country dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I am glad that Alan D. is out there swinging away. The voters are going to have to decide what they want in 2020, but Mueller has been on my bad list for a long time. Glenn Reynolds quoted a witty Facebook post, "It is somewhat difficult to feel at ease in a republic wherein federal prosecutors feel comfortable pronouncing sentences of not not guilty."

Mueller remains a contender (Comey is leading through the 14th hole, with Brennan in the clubhouse) for the title of Worst Public Servant of His Generation.

tim in vermont said...

Mueller did not say he had insufficient evidence to indict on obstruction, he said he couldn't indict a sitting President.

A cite right now would be a really devastating blow against us on your part! Or are you saying that "he *clearly* was saying that because reasons."

tim maguire said...

PJ said...BTW, I don't think I ever heard Mueller say that the OLC opinion about charging a sitting President was the *only* reason he decided not to make any recommendation about Obstruction. He tried hard to leave that impression, but did he actually say it?

No, he was very careful to not say it while giving everyone the impression that that was the reason.

Francisco D said...

Are you really all that dense, or just being willfully ignorant? Mueller did not say he had insufficient evidence to indict on obstruction, he said he couldn't indict a sitting President.

What evidence did Mueller and his crack team of Democrats present that would warrant an indictment?

This charade has been going on a long time Freder. You should have a quick and thorough answer to that, unless you are dense and willfully ignorant.

SDaly said...

The farce that is the Mueller investigation was obvious at the point he hired Andrew Weissmann as part of the team. Mueller didn't even bother to give a pretense of impartiality.

Michael K said...

My question: What happens after Trump wins in 2020? Will the Dems ever stop their insa

I am just buying ammunition. I don't know what will happen.

We can hope that the Democrats getting an electoral spanking and wise up but I see too many crazies.

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Are you really all that dense, or just being willfully ignorant?


This kind of crazy.


tim in vermont said...

"Why anyone expects better of this system - I can't understand such people.”

We have been indoctrinated all our lives, repeating “with liberty, and justice for all” every day at school while saluting the flag. Although it is becoming more and more clear why the left found the idea of “justice for all” problematic, since that was never their intention.

I remember reading a quote from a guy who left England to live in France because he couldn’t bear to watch his country fall apart, ,and no, it wasn’t John Cleese, and somebody asked him why come to France, France is falling apart too, and he said “I don’t love France the way I love England.” That’s kind of how I feel now.

SDaly said...

FranciscoD -

Isn't it self-evident? Trump, using his constitutionally authorized (and necessary) power to control the Executive Branch, fired Comey (1) after Comey assured Trump that Trump was not a target of the investigation; (2) Congressional democrats had been calling for Comey's outster; and (3) Rosenstein drafted and gave Trump a memo recommending Comey's outster.

What clearer evidence of obstruction of justice do you need.

Caligula said...

It's The Trump Exception. Trump is considered such a great threat by his opposition that Exceptions Must be Made. Thus, Rule of Law is for others, but for Trump, the rule can only be BAMN.

Bystanders might reasonably wonder whether it is Trump or his increasingly lawless opposition that presents the greater threat to constitutional order.

Because if a president is impeached for, essentially, "I just don't like that man!" gut feelings then impeaching presidents whenever there is divided government will become routine. Much as blocking Supreme Court nominees for political reasons has become routine: it'll be done whenever it can be done.

buwaya said...

What is also difficult to get across - your problems are with your institutions of government, as collective entities. Comey, Brennan, Mueller - they don't really matter. They could be any other collection of names, they could be Doe or Roe. If not them, you would have other names that would do just as well. There is an immense pool of these people from which design or circumstance can draw a random individual.

narayanan said...

Temujin said... We've truly reached the bottom feeder level in our government.

As for "RULE OF LAW" - I can say with full conviction that it left the building when the Constitution was written and adopted - Exhibit A : Slavery

Change my mind

Leland said...

Way to knock that hook out of your mouth, Alan!

narciso said...

Add the kavalec memo fraud which was relayed to laycock by October 12th, and mark grants memo to general flynn.

JackWayne said...

Barr says that 3 times Mueller denied to him that he couldn’t indict because a sitting President can’t be indicted. So tell us, Freder, did Mueller lie to Barr or is Barr lying about the 3 times? I can’t help but notice the 3 times. Sort of biblical.

tim in vermont said...

The real “constitutional crisis” is that thousands of people are being prosecuted for missteps during the investigation when the original crime was never proven. At least that’s what Comey says. I have to believe that the Framers would have added a proscription to that to the Bill of Rights and if the Crown had been doing that to colonists, it would have been mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as a grievance agains the King.

Ken B said...

Bravo for Dershowitz.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The Mueller-Hillary god cannot be questioned. Obey.

Anonymous said...

Freder: Are you really all that dense, or just being willfully ignorant? Mueller did not say he had insufficient evidence to indict on obstruction, he said he couldn't indict a sitting President.

This is the piece of flotsam from the wreck of their dreams that members of Team Orange Man Bad all over the internet are now desperately clinging to.

They were glorious, those dreams, weren't they?

rehajm said...

Mueller and Comey with their press conferences. What hacks. Sure it might be Mueller and/or lefties don’t want him to be cross examined. More likely it’s just a little puff under the rain cloud they’re trying to keep over Trumps head. Boy did the media have fun with it- even Fox...

I’ll believe reckoning is coming for the leftie bad actors sometime after I see the first perp walk. Not interested in getting popcorn ready...

Amadeus 48 said...

It's back for another reading. First composed in October 2017. Even more apt today:

Mueller on the Hunt

Mueller and a pack of Dems
Set off to snare a Trump.
Instead, Bob tripped on Manafort
And fell upon his rump.
“He's laundered money shamelessly
And lived a hog on high!”
Trump zoomed by in motorcade
And twittered on the fly:
“Don’t be downcast, dear Bob,
There’s other prey out there.
Hillary deserves a look.
She played footsie with the Bear.”

Mueller and his pack of Dems
Set off 'cross bog and fen.
“There’s criminals in that there swamp.
We’ll catch ‘em if we can.
Anyone know that Hillary?
He sounds a nasty bloke.
Keep your eyes and noses clear
Cuz where there’s fire there’s smoke!”

So off went Mueller fearlessly
Seeking out a crime.
He’s got guns and men enough
Bought with the public’s dime.
He’ll huff and puff most mightily
Until he claims a prize.
The rest of us get on with life
And try to hide our eyes.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

"Does not exonerate"

Perhaps Althouse can expand of this new legal standard (that only applies to the enemies of Democrats). I'm sure it would be fascinating.

tim in vermont said...

I can’t help but notice the 3 times. Sort of biblical.

Faust had to invite Mephistopheles to appear three times.

Here’s a quote from Faust, at least the translation I have of it, that made me think of Mueller, Comey, and the Democrats

That brain, alone, not loses hope whose choice is to stick in shallow trash forevermore.
Which digs with eager hands for buried ore, and when it finds an angle-worm, rejoices!


Faust is full of stuff that applies today. It’s an amazing piece of art, BTW, Burgermeister Buttygig even makes an appearance.

Browndog said...

SDaly said...

The farce that is the Mueller investigation was obvious at the point he hired Andrew Weissmann as part of the team. Mueller didn't even bother to give a pretense of impartiality.


Jeannie Rhee, former Clinton Foundation lawyer, is even more obvious.

Krumhorn said...

Ammunition sales should be trending about now as should downloads of 3D CAD files.

- Krumhorn

tim in vermont said...

Here are two complaints from the Declaration of Independence which would apply to Mueller

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

Amadeus 48 said...

"I can’t help but notice the 3 times. Sort of biblical."

After Jesus was taken at the Garden of Gethsemane, Simon Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed the next morning.

The three-time betrayer has locked in his betrayal.

But Mueller isn't worth thinking about too much. He has no moral authority. He showed his colors years ago.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Are you really all that dense, or just being willfully ignorant? Mueller did not say he had insufficient evidence to indict on obstruction, he said he couldn't indict a sitting President.

Yes, this is the message Mueller delivered yesterday, not under oath, not subjecting to questions. How convenient a setting! However AG Barr clearly said UNDER OATH a couple weeks ago that Mueller denied (three times, just like Peter before the cock crowed) that the OLC opinion factored at all in his decision not to indict, or as Starr did, list the crimes alleged. So who are you going to believe? The guy under oath or the self-serving “news conference” guy? And if “the report speaks for itself” why say any more?

AZ Bob said...

Nobody posted: I remember reading a quote from a guy who left England to live in France because he couldn’t bear to watch his country fall apart, ,and no, it wasn’t John Cleese, and somebody asked him why come to France, France is falling apart too, and he said “I don’t love France the way I love England.” That’s kind of how I feel now.

Moi aussi.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The nexus of Comey-Brennan-Clapper-Mueller-Hillary will not be denied.

tim in vermont said...

The nexus of Comey-Brennan-Clapper-Mueller-Hillary will not be denied.

You forgot Eric Holder, mentor of Comey and Mueller, per the WaPo’s piece called “Brothers in Arms."

Francisco D said...

I don't think Freder has an answer that would make sense to a person with an IQ above room temperature.

The leftists have reverted to repeating their mantra, "Hand up. Don't shoot!"

Oops. Wrong mantra, but same point.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Most of Donald Trump’s acts of obstruction occurred in plain sight, in full public view. I suppose that might be a defense. The ones he took in private could have gotten people like McGahn charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice. But they wouldn’t do it! Trump couldn’t find anyone willing to conspire with him on stopping the Russia investigation. We can take some comfort in that.

Trump did conspire with Michael Cohen, but that’s another matter and Cohen wasn’t a federal official. And whatever you might think of Michael Flynn’s crime, it must be admitted that there is no evidence he conspired with Trump in their commission.

As to the silly talking point that there can be no obstruction without an underlying crime, there were crimes uncovered by the Russia investigation that people were prosecuted for, so that predicate is there.

traditionalguy said...

Mueller is up to his eyeballs in the decades of Clinton / Bush / Obama corruption. His only chance to stay out of jail is to cooperated with Trump's careful plans. My guess is that he has played out his assigned role perfectly. He just triggered the Dems and their Propaganda Media to totally lose control and go for Impeachment based on NOTHING. That contest will be Trump's Austerlitz.

buster said...

As much as I'd like to rant, I really don't have anything to add to the comments above. So I'll just say wow. Short of outright corruption, it's hard to imagine a more unethical and intellectually dishonest prosecutor.

narciso said...

Tax fraud in his personal capacity is not related to Russia, but poorly considered medallion investments, same with Manafort, Podesta committed fraud with his clients Monday and as yet has not been prosecuted.

Drago said...

Left Bank of the Charles: "Most of Donald Trump’s acts of obstruction occurred in plain sight, in full public view."

LOLOLOLOL

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

there were crimes uncovered by the Russia investigation that people were prosecuted for, so that predicate is there.

Really what crimes “uncovered” by Mueller were prosecuted? Whom was prosecuted?

Michael K said...

There is an immense pool of these people from which design or circumstance can draw a random individual.

Michael Ledeen has a suggestion.

It’s an opportunity. For decades, Congress and various special committees and duos (such as Robb-Silverman) have invariably responded to intelligence failures by adding more bodies to the agencies and expanding their budgets. The predictable result? Today we’ve got too many spooks collecting too much money, with predictably bad results. Among other bad consequences, intelligence is typically churned out by committees, guaranteeing that we don’t identify our best analysts. We need to drastically reduce the numbers of both budgets and bureaucrats, in order to figure out who’s good. Then we need to promote them, within a much smaller system.

It’s hard to imagine this happening under normal circumstances, but today’s circumstances aren’t normal. As the investigations of the intel malefactors go forward, there will be numerous opportunities to remove lots of bad and incompetent actors, and put the whole community on the cutting-room floor.


Maybe we need to go back to the spoils system.

narciso said...

Thise Russian gremlins found out by crowdstrike dont count.

Drago said...

Francisco: "The leftists have reverted to repeating their mantra, "Hand up. Don't shoot!"

Indeed. See Left Bank.

MadisonMan said...

What happens after Trump wins in 2020?

Honestly, it's worth voting for him just to see the repercussions.

Michael K said...

Trump couldn’t find anyone willing to conspire with him on stopping the Russia investigation. We can take some comfort in that.

So, resisting a hoax that included foreign intelligence creating false "evidence" is a crime?

narciso said...

Yes the Robb silberman and 9/11 commission was regarding mishandling or omission of already available info, curveball was a totally controlled German intelligence asset for instance.

traditionalguy said...

To reach the process crime of Obstruction you really have to decide that Trump pleading that he is Not Guilty is Obstruction.

And the Declassification of the super secret Dems collusion with foreign governments to loot and destroy America going on for years before Trump ran has yet to show its face.

tim in vermont said...

Nothing related to “collusion” with the Russians was found, nothing.

Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence under subpoena and federal records regarding her work as Secretary of State while taking in scores of millions from the Russians, and nobody could see any crime anywhere!

So it goes like this. If there is any possible interpretation of the law that allows someone to skate, even if it means ignoring evidence and testimony to the fact that crimes were committed, as long as that person is a Democrat, they skate.

If the target is a Republican, and there is any conceivable way to interpret the law to implicate them, then they are charged.

This is how the left has always worked and how they always will work. They still wear T-shirts with pictures of a guy who used to shoot his political opponents in the head personally, against his garden wall, before settling down to breakfast, so why we should expect them to change is a mystery to me.

TJM said...

Mueller has exposed himself to legal and professional jeopardy by his little stunt yesterday. Federal statutes and the US Constitution bar him from what he did. He's a moron, because as so many of learned, you don't mess with Trump

traditionalguy said...

Incidentally, for whatever Dersh is guilty of for his years of being a Dem partisan, he has earned a Presidential Pardon.

tim in vermont said...

Trump couldn’t find anyone willing to conspire with him on stopping the Russia investigation. We can take some comfort in that.


Yes, we can take hope that the deep state conspired to continue a bogus investigation based on faked up evidence bought and paid for by the losing campaign, all the while using the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, FEC, etc for partisan political purposes.

It seems quaint now what they did to Gibson Guitars over their support for Republicans. “Punish your enemies, reward your friends!’ - BHO

iowantwo said...

I saw a report on TV that claimed Barr has responded to Muellers contradictory statement from Barr.
Barr explains there is no daylight between the two statements. Barr explains( my interpretation) that Mueller never looked far enough into the question of obstruction because he knew the sitting President could not be charged. Therefor, Mueller could not render an opinion.
So to sum up were we are at now. Mueller spent two years on this investigation. He knew almost immediately that the conspiracy was null. Muller spent zero effort into varifying the oranges of the investigation. He took over an investigation more than a year old, that had zero evidence, and he was informed there was, as of yet, no evidence.
He supposedly spent the rest of his time investigating obstruction of Justice. But never looked into it enough to present an opinion.

To accept Barr's explanation of events, is to nullify the entirety of the Special Counsel labor.

tim in vermont said...

Trump pleading that he is Not Guilty is Obstruction.

Comey convicted Martha Stewart for protesting her innocence.

tim in vermont said...

Would it be an “emolument’ for your charitable foundation to take in hundreds of millions of dollars which you then control from entities with business before your department?

NO! Because Democrat!

madAsHell said...

Ammunition sales should be trending about now as should downloads of 3D CAD files.

My completely unscientific survey of ammunition pricing at Cabelas does not show any trends.

Which kinda surprises me, but I'm also hoping that cooler heads will prevail.

Mike Sylwester said...

Even Andrew McCarthy managed to figure out Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller a long time ago.

Nonapod said...

For the deranged Dems, the Media, the DC Swamp, and Mueller, Trump's not-not guilty and he can never be proven innocent. It doesn't matter that they can't find hard evidence of a specific crime. It doesn't matter that the best they have is maybe some vague, ephemeral scent of obstruction. He must be guilty of "crimes".

But when there's irrefutable proof of a crime by Hillary Clinton, they declare that there was no intention to commit a crime. So somehow there was no prosecutable crime.

That so many people on the left are so out-of-touch with reality is frightening.

Bruce Hayden said...

“My question: What happens after Trump wins in 2020? Will the Dems ever stop their insa”

“I am just buying ammunition. I don't know what will happen.’

Guns. Don’t forget guns too. Just got back from visiting a friend who lives at other end of the lake where your daughter would be this summer, if not in a family way. We had a build party Tuesday night, and completed our first lower receiver yesterday morning. Bought a serialized lower at Cabellas last weekend, which frankly surprised me that they sold them. And the price - $49 for an Anderson forged serialized lower receiver, and since bought in MT, no sales tax. And since I have an MT CCW license, no background check.

As (mostly retIred on my part) IP attys, we have been enjoying enjoying the weekly battles between Chinese cloners and grey market manufacturers, and the American and European companies that own the trademarks and patents, for optics can be mounted on firearms. Got a red dot sight recently from the Chinese at maybe 1/4 the normal US price that had the US trademarks and patent number on it. Screwed the sighting up badly before I knew what I was doing. Bore sighted it Tuesday, and hope to try it out today at the range. No complaints about what we have received so far. Really good optics for dirt cheap prices.

I shop ammo all over the place. Couple times a year, there is a sale at Cabellas that is pretty good for bulk ammo, and picked up 1k 9mm, and 350 .380 and .40 (all in cans) there around Thanksgiving. But consistently, best prices, if you factor in shipping, seems to be WalMart. Picked up 700 9 mm Sunday for current needs at the Walmart in Kalispell.

Francisco D said...

So, resisting a hoax that included foreign intelligence creating false "evidence" is a crime?

Sadly, that is getting close to the heart of the matter.

The Deep State wants to convince us that looking into phony FISC applications is a way of obstructing justice.

Mueller and his cronies were hoping that FISA information releases could be construed as obstruction. They waited as long as they could, but the Trump team showed admirable patience.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

In Dershowitz's statement, that passage is broken up into four paragraphs.

rcocean said...

Messiah Bob spends a year writing a 450 page tome on "Obstruction" and now can't admit that Trump did NOT commit a crime. He MAY have committed a crime, but Mueller can't say precisely what and how.

That is pathetic. Lets get Moses Mueller to stop talking to God, and start talking to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let's see him answer some tough questions.

rcocean said...

The villain who's skating in this whole thing is the man who started it. Rosenstein. He's the one who appointed Mueller. Why appoint Comey's best friend forever? Why give Mueller a blank check and no due date?

This is a guy who was talking with Andrew McCabe about wearing a wire when he talked to Trump.

rcocean said...

Difference between liberals and conservatvies when things go bad:

Liberals: We need to organize, change the government, organize strikes, etc.

Conservative: I'm going to buy another gun and go off to my cabin in the woods.

LOL.

Anonymous said...

buwaya: Why anyone expects better of this system - I can't understand such people.

C'mon, buwaya. I doubt you have any trouble understanding perfectly well why people who aren't ex-pat cosmopolites like yourself "don't want to know".

It's perfectly understandable to me that an American - especially an older, moderately prosperous American who has always felt secure in his person and property - would resist accepting the evidence that he lives in a banana republic. A lot of us grew up in a country with a system that, relative to others, appeared to be a pretty sturdy rule-of-law joint, which maintained a reasonable approximation to the ideal of "laws not men". (Relative, because no human system is without corruption and injustice.)

I live around typical examples - nice, "educated", prosperous, kind and decent - if teeth-grindingly parochial - middle-Americans with all the "right", "sophisticated" prog opinions. I don't think they believe everything the NYT or The Atlantic or NPR tells them because they're stupid, or even because of the limits imposed by their parochialism. The propaganda from such organs is now just too crude and stupid for an otherwise intelligent and literate naïf of mature years to swallow, in itself. I suspect that they happily bamboozle themselves into believing that they're afraid of that ogre Trump, not just for the pleasures of moral vanity, but because, unlike the real threats to themselves and their posterity, ogre Trump can be dealt with by the procedural apparatus of A System That Works. Otherwise they'd have confront the fact that the system underpinning their security is broken. That's *really* scary, not fun-scary, like bemoaning Dictator Trump.

They exasperate me, but they aren't inexplicable to me.

Mike Sylwester said...

It would be really cool if Dershowitz, in all his future statements, would use the expression Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller.

rcocean said...

So, now the next page in this soap opera is the IG report on the FBI. Which is due next month. Which means we'll see it in July or August.

tim in vermont said...

Was it obstruction of justice when the Secretary of State deported several caught dead to rights Russian spies who were involved with Uranium One and very close to same SoS before they could even be questioned, when we had every right to simply leave them rot in a US prison ’til they talked?

No! Democrat!

Do you Democrats honestly want to live in a country where this is how “justice’ is administered? If the FBI had done its job, we would all be on this site today bitching about the latest bone-headed thing President Bernie Sanders had done.

Hagar said...

Either Barr perjured himself or Mueller told him a quite different story than what he went on TV with.

So, why would Barr perjure himself thus with Mueller free to go public and call him on it?
Does Barr look to be unusually stupid for a high-ranking D.C. lawyer?

tim in vermont said...

But when there's irrefutable proof of a crime by Hillary Clinton, they declare that there was no intention to commit a crime. So somehow there was no prosecutable crime.

Well, she was just a girl, and couldn’t be expected to understand the law!

buster said...

Some of the comments are unduly pessimistic about the state of our political system. It's important to remember that in the end Comey, Mueller, Hillary, et al. we're unable to pull it off and got caught.

Tommy Duncan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...

"Most of Donald Trump’s acts of obstruction occurred in plain sight, in full public view."

Could you please enumerate those acts of obstruction for those of us who missed them?

buster said...

were

Amadeus 48 said...

My thesis: Mueller was nervous yesterday because he knew that he was violating every norm of DOJ practice for the last 100 years. He SHOULD have been nervous. He ought to be nervous today.

I can't believe I'm wasting more time on this sad, pathetic hack.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Trumps crimes were so obvious, Mueller's only legal option was to imply guilt. Seems like an open and shut case to me.


Just imagine if these same standards were ever applied to Democrats. Nope, sorry, I can't.

Anonymous said...

Tommy Duncan: Could you please enumerate those acts of obstruction for those of us who missed them?

I've lost count of how many times this has been asked here, and not answered.

mikee said...

Why would Pelosi want to delay impeachment? Because if Trump loses in 2020, the NY DA will prosecute Trump & everyone who ever knew him, for "crimes" involving Trump's foundation & businesses (insert contemptuous 'whatabout' argument over the Clintons' unprosecuted grifter history here). And if Trump looks like he'll win (Narrator: "TRUMP LOOKS LIKE HE WILL WIN."), impeachment is ready to roll just before the election as an October putsch.

Why waste a good impeachment that might not be necessary, when it can work better later for the Dems?

Triangle Man said...

There is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump for his role along with the already charged co-conspirators, but DoJ policy prevents charging him while he is President.

buwaya said...

rcocean,
You are correct. Buying a gun is the American conservative security blanket.
The statistics are compelling.
It’s an oddly unrealistic displacement of anxieties, as if one need only to prepare for “der tag”, as the old pre-WWI German Imperial Navy toast went, wishing for the day of battle against the RN.

But “der tag” will be a very bad day, no matter who wins.

tim in vermont said...

What really gets me about the finding that Hillary didn’t understand that she was committing a crime is that she was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate of our august republic, and dubbed the “smartest woman in the world” by so many, but when it came to understanding the laws, our law school grad who failed the bar, was just, ... well, “math is hard!” Who understands all of this men’s stuff and what difference does it make at this point?

A question that will never be asked of Obama would be “Why was there no IG at the State Department while you were there, for those four years, or whatever it was?

Nonapod said...

It's important to remember that in the end Comey, Mueller, Hillary, et al. we're unable to pull it off and got caught.

Have they gotten caught though? Some of them should probably be in jail. Maybe that will change in the future. Maybe the notion of Rule of Law is not just some quaint anachronism. It remains to be seen.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

But when there's irrefutable proof of a crime by Hillary Clinton, they declare that there was no intention to commit a crime. So somehow there was no prosecutable crime.

They huffed and they puffed but even Bleach Bit and hammers (with a dash of Russian collusion) couldn't bring ole Gams to justice. Who could've guessed?

Francisco D said...

There is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump for his role along with the already charged co-conspirators, but DoJ policy prevents charging him while he is President.

Again, please give us a glimpse of said evidence.

iowantwo said...

Could you please enumerate those acts of obstruction for those of us who missed them?

NO

Specifics can be challenged. The accuser must then defend the charge. The loopy left abhors specifics. Charging the category of the crime is ambiguous, it can mean what the accuser wants it to mean and the standards are ever shifting, making hard for a finder of fact to prove anything.

That's a feature. Not a bug.

tim in vermont said...

There is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump for his role along with the already charged co-conspirators, but DoJ policy prevents charging him while he is President.

Clearly!

Democrats don’t fear being held to standard of conviction by half truths and persiflage because they own the deep state.

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger Triangle Man said...

"There is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump for his role along with the already charged co-conspirators..."

Please provide that evidence.

buwaya said...

What you really could use is an alternate media system subsidized with several billion.
An ideological version of the NRA, but many times larger.

iowantwo said...

There is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump for his role along with the already charged co-conspirators, but DoJ policy prevents charging him while he is President.

Read the report. No conspiracy of anyone connected to President Trump, or his campaign. OR ANY AMERICAN.

Mueller, the GOD of law, investigated the Russians interfering with the US elections. NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN HAS BEEN INVOLVED.

tim in vermont said...

What you really could use is an alternate media system subsidized with several billion.

Billionaires want a govt that is for sale. Democrats are more than happy to offer that.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Maddow's seal clapping hivemind audience probably upticked.

404 Page Not Found said...

"Trump tried to obstruct our fraudulently predicated investigation!"

Democrats: Heads we win, tails you lose.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"Mueller did not say he had insufficient evidence to indict on obstruction, he said he couldn't indict a sitting President."

Nor did Mueller say he had sufficient evidence to indict.

404 Page Not Found said...

"We can't (or won't) clear him, so he's guilty."

Jesus Christ

hombre said...

Dershowitz is correct as well as courageous. He will no doubt be maligned by the minions of the left because candor and courage are not qualities they value. As a veteran of 28 years in the prosecutorial ranks, much of it as an elected DA (Democrat), I can find no fault with his reasoning or his conclusions.

Mueller undertook this investigation without benefit of reliable probable cause and with a bevy of Democrat political actors as his assistants. During the course of his efforts facts came to light indicating a probability of serious misconduct by the FBI hierarchy, some of whom were his former subordinates when he was Director. Thus, his reputation, and perhaps more, were likely in jeopardy creating the appearance of a conflict. The portions of his report dealing with the so-called “obstruction” issue served no legitimate prosecutorial purpose, breached well-established prosecutorial ethics and could only have been intended to serve illegitimate political purposes. In an honorable world he would be facing disciplinary action from the relevant Bar Association. In Democrat World he will be lauded.

tim in vermont said...

Maddow's seal clapping hivemind audience probably upticked

You can’t blame Maddow, she’s pulling down 1.6 million $ a year dishing out this slop. Who wouldn’t?

Michael K said...

But consistently, best prices, if you factor in shipping, seems to be WalMart. Picked up 700 9 mm Sunday for current needs at the Walmart in Kalispell.

My son built himself two AR 15s using lowers that he bought before the ban in CA. I have mine plus some handguns.

For ammo, I use Ammo.com.

There's an indoor range 15 minutes from the house and a nice county owned outdoor range about a half hour away. I need to get out there again before it gets too hot.

My biggest gun problem has been replacing the rod for my flintlock, which has a long barrel. It's fun to shoot but somewhere I lost the rod. I used to have a whole collection of black powder guns but the pistols disappeared in a move. I thought I had given them to my son but maybe movers got them.

hombre said...

Blogger Triangle Man said...
“There is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump for his role along with the already charged co-conspirators, but DoJ policy prevents charging him while he is President.”

Spoken like a true partisan without benefit of legal knowledge or a sense of justice.

Paul said...

Mueller don't care... Mueller just retired with a bunch of $$$ courtesy of the Democrats.

tim in vermont said...

A new book out says that Hillary cheered when Comey was fired.

https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1133508908482539525

tim in vermont said...

Hillary "had to be talked out of publicly applauding the decision."

walter said...

Blogger Dave Begley said...With Barr in charge, the worm is going to turn real fast.

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Mueller did not say he had insufficient evidence to indict on obstruction, he said he couldn't indict a sitting President.
--
Remember when Mueller jumped to correct the record when Buzzfeed lied?
If Barr was ltying about asking Mueller repeatedly whether inability to indict influenced his conclusion, why didn't Mueller jump similarly?
I believe there were other witnesses to that.

If Mueller is calling Barr a liar, that's likely to bolster Barr's resolve.

Regarding The Dersch, did he not notice the unique membership of Snoop Bob's investi-gators?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Hagar said...

Either Barr perjured himself or Mueller told him a quite different story than what he went on TV with.

I've seen a couple comments along these lines. Do you have specific quotes that you believe are contradictory?

My understanding is that, due to the justice department policy of not indicating a sitting president, Mueller decided to not even try to decide if Trump's actions met the legal definition of obstruction.

Since that decision was not made, then he is not saying that without the DOJ policy he would have indicted. He can only say that, without the DOJ policy he would have made a decision one way or the other.

I don't see the contradiction between Mueller's statement and Barr's testimony of what Mueller told him.

Yancey Ward said...

The House is doing a dance with the Mueller team. Each want the other to take the heat for impeachment. What the House wanted from the Mueller report was for the Mueller team to write explicitly that Trump committed a prosecutable crime, and the Mueller team didn't want to do that. This why Volume II is written the way it is- it lays out the only theory on obstruction that Weissman etal could come up with, but because the theory is so weak, they weren't willing to actually recommend it be used in a prosecution, either during or after Trump's presidency. Once the report was publicized, the House leaders realized that Mueller had left them on their own in regards to impeachment.

It is important to note that Mueller did not invoke the OLC legal position when he declined to prosecute within the report itself, nor did he apparently invoke the OLC position when discussing the finalizing of the report on March 5th with Barr and Rosenstein. Barr explicitly said so in sworn testimony that he and Rosenstein pressed Mueller to clarify whether or not the OLC legal analysis was why Mueller didn't make a recommendation, and Mueller said no three times. As I wrote yesterday, Mueller did this in the report and the March 5th meeting because he didn't want to have to state a firm position on the obstruction theory itself. If Mueller had written in the report, or had told Barr at the meeting, that the OLC was the only reason he didn't recommend seeking an indictment, then that position would have been a firm opinion of the obstruction theory itself. Mueller would have been asked to include that firm opinion in the report itself, though I think Barr would still have overruled him in announcing his own opinion of the theory. I think this is what Mueller was attempting to prevent- Barr's issuing his own counter-opinion on the theory of obstruction. Mueller was thinking that if he didn't recommend an indictment either directly or indirectly, then Barr's hands would be tied and he would offer no opinion on a "moot" issue. Of course, Barr refused to play this game and made the decision anyway, thus undercutting the impeachment plan Mueller obviously was in support of all along.

Democrats in the House were stuck- they really needed Mueller to recommend indictment/impeachment, but Mueller had failed to do this in the report. However, Nadler couldn't call Mueller to testify to this because Mueller had already written the report and had explicitly told Barr that the OLC legal analysis wasn't the reason behind the non-decision- to say otherwise in Congress would set Mueller up for perjury charges. Yesterday's statement was Mueller's Hail Mary- he changed his story about the OLC analysis, but did so in unsworn testimony, but also refused to take questions on the matter, even in an unsworn venue. He is gambling that Barr has no recording of the March 5th meeting, and is hoping that he said/they said (remember, it wasn't just Barr at that meeting with Mueller) will give him enough cover to get away with the lie he told yesterday. The question is this- will it be enough cover for Pelosi and Nadler? I don't think so- Mueller made himself look really bad in that public announcement- he might have done better to just issue the letter.

Mark O said...

There were two things in the presser that merit review. First, Mueller changed his standard in the Collusion case from "could not establish" to "insufficient evidence to charge." Those are very different and signal that there was evidence of collusion but not enough. That was a clear nod to the Democrats.

Second, using only the allegations from his Russia case, Mueller warned the country about a vast Russian effort to interfere with the elections. This was a nod to Brennan and Clapper. The problem with this is that no one has any idea what could be the basis for this claim. All we have is his word. We don't know the source of the allegations. Moreover, in his Report, he admits he does not know how the emails were "stolen" or how they ended up at Wikileaks.

That tells me that the presser was designed to bolster impeachment and give cover to the Deep State in the coming investigations.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

DOJ, special counsel say there is 'no conflict' on Mueller, Barr statements about obstruction inquiry

Will J. Richardson said...

After Mueller's oral statement,

"Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements."

DOJ, Mueller’s Office Release Joint Statement Clarifying Mueller’s Comments

Swede said...

I think most people began to suspect that Trump wouldn't be indicted over a year ago.

The reason being the lack of leaks from Mueller's office regarding any evidence.

They simply didn't have it, couldn't manufacture it, and couldn't say they had it because eventually it would come out that they didn't.

Instead, we had Schiff and the MSM telling us, literally every day all day, that it was a sure thing.

This was Mueller's last hope of getting a dig in on the president before he went away.

And no, he really doesn't want to testify because he doesn't want to have answer questions, under oath, that he knows the Republicans will ask. Thus, his semi-veiled message to Nadler about not saying anything that wasn't already in the report.

Steven said...

I'm perfectly willing to see Trump impeached and removed from office for obstruction of justice without an underlying crime. If and when every single Democrat in Congress who voted against the impeachment or removal of Bill Clinton for obstruction of justice without an underlying crime has resigned from office in shame for that act and forsworn seeking further Federal office.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, et al. established the standard that a President should not be removed for obstruction of justice without an underlying crime. As long as they remain in office or are candidates for office, their standard should remain the standard for impeachment and removal of a President.

Skippy Tisdale said...

If I had confidence that Robert Muller didn’t engage in torrid, incestuous anal threesomes with his two daughters, I would have said so.

walter said...

Barr, in his testimony to the Senate panel, said that the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion came up in his March 5 meeting with Mueller: "Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction," Barr testified. "He said that in the future, the facts of the case against the president might be such that the special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case."
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-05-01/attorney-general-william-barr-surprised-robert-mueller-didnt-decide-on-obstruction

effinayright said...

Triangle Man said...
There is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump for his role along with the already charged co-conspirators, but DoJ policy prevents charging him while he is President.
***************

Another genius joins Fen and Left Bank with specious and unsupported allegations.

Where did Mueller report such conclusions in his report? Or in his statement yesterday?

I suspect, that Trinagle Man--like Fen and Left Bank---will not be heard from again in this thread.

Drive-by sliming is all they've got.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Yippy, Skippy!

Yancey Ward said...

And Mueller is apparently already retracting yesterday's statement- see the link above given by Will J. Richardson at 11:20 a.m. I guess Barr had a talk with Mueller about that March 5th meeting.

Dad29 said...

I am just buying ammunition.

--Michael K, the most sensible commenter on Althouse.

Fen said...

rcocean: Difference between liberals and conservatvies when things go bad:

Liberals: Throw a 2 year tantrum and stage a coup


FIFY

walter said...

I love how that DOJ guideline (or per Mueller, "policy") is there to prevent undue interference of executive branch to do its work.
Meanwhile, investi-gators, spies etc released to find fault based on a knowingly faulty dossier and FISA apps just hunky-dory

Fen said...

Triangle Man: There is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump for his role along with the already charged co-conspirators, but DoJ policy prevents charging him while he is President.

wholelottasplainin: Another genius joins Fen and Left Bank with specious and unsupported allegations. Where did Mueller report such conclusions in his report? Or in his statement yesterday? I suspect, that Triangle Man--like Fen and Left Bank---will not be heard from again in this thread.

I think you are confused. I disagree with Triangle above and am a Trump supporter.

Who are you and what the fuck are you talking about?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Yancey Ward said...
And Mueller is apparently already retracting yesterday's statement...

What, exactly, do you think Mueller said yesterday that needs retracting?

To me it seems more that pundits were reading more into yesterday's statement than was ever there. Barr and Mueller are jointly pushing back on that.

walter said...

The Dersch: "..the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment."

Is it really that inconsistent?
Oh..those cocktail parties were good times.

readering said...

Last week Trump was saying House has to get over its anger at the Mueller Report. Today he should take his own advice.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"You can’t blame Maddow, she’s pulling down 1.6 million $ a year dishing out this slop. Who wouldn’t?"

I wouldn't.

walter said...

readering,
That is the funnniest comment, given the reality.
Good one!

Snoop Dog Mueller..not content to drop a turd in the punchbowl and risk questioning, tosses another from the exit.

Leland said...

I don't think Trump's angry over the Mueller Report. He and his constituents are pissed off about the official abuse of power by the FBI and DOJ. Mueller Report is just more evidence that no initial crime was ever identified to even initiate a special counsel investigation. You can't cover up a crime that never occurred, but you can certainly be railroaded by authorities that abuse their power.

readering said...

Watching POTUS frothing shows Mueller presser a good move.

Michael said...

Mueller failed to note that he could not prove that Trump was not a co-conspirator with Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK.

walter said...

Blogger readering said...Watching POTUS frothing shows Mueller presser a good move.
--
Another knee slapper!

dreams said...

Robert Mueller is a dirty cop just like his protege Jim Comey.

tim in vermont said...

Watching POTUS frothing shows Mueller presser a good move.

Sure, Meuller’s whole purpose was to act as a stalking horse for impeachment when there weren’t any crimes, he had to do his best to sorta kinda whip some up, in a way, if you squint just so in just such a light.

Rabel said...

"You can’t blame Maddow, she’s pulling down 1.6 million $ a year dishing out this slop."

Seven million.

hstad said...

Dershowitz has finally come around, since in the past he has bend over backwards for Mueller.
This Pathetic CYA attempt by Mueller - his speech. YOU get to charge or not. YOU have nothing to charge and you don't get to say there might be something but we never found it. Since he can't be proven guilty he's not guilty.

Michael K said...

Blogger readering said...
Watching POTUS frothing shows Mueller presser a good move.


Yes, abusing the federal government to achieve petty triumphs appeals to you creeps.

By the way, the latest on the SSZ John McCain is that some idiot in the Navy hung a tarp over the stern before Trump got there.

It was gone by the time he arrived.

The McCain was the scene of the latest success of female Naval officers when it collided with a cargo ship. Crew IQ unavailable at this time.

The ten sailors who died could not be reached for comment.

victoria said...

I think finally Dershowitz has shown us that he may have some dementia. However, this is the marching orders that every "conservative" has from the Cheeto and his band of merry pranksters. This is so much drivel, not to be believed.


Vicki from Pasadena

Yancey Ward said...

Ignorance is Bliss:

"So that was Justice Department policy (YW here- the OLC position). Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime."

Barr explicitly says he asked Mueller three times if the OLC position was the reason Mueller didn't "reach a determination", and Barr says Mueller said no three times. And yet, Mueller says exactly that yesterday as quoted above. Here is the relevant part of Barr's testimony:

"We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction."

It is difficult to not see the contradiction between the two statements, isn't it? In the first, Mueller is explicitly saying they didn't make a determination because they couldn't file an indictment on a sitting president, nor could they file a sealed one for the same reason. It is hard to misinterpret such a statement, nor can one reasonably think Mueller miswrote such a sentence. In the March 5th meeting, Barr was clearly trying to pin down Mueller on the why of no determination.

Mueller could have written that the evidence would have been used against any defendant except for the president because of the OLC position and DoJ regulations, but Mueller didn't do that either. Note how Mueller undercuts his own reasoning:

"And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge."

Did you notice that? He talks of "fairness" while making a public statement about how DoJ policy prevented the investigation from charging Trump with obstruction, and yet proclaims they could make no determination. Actual "fairness" of the kind described by Mueller in this situation would have led him to omit Volume II of the report in its entirety. Really, if you can't bring a case because of DoJ regulations, and it is unfair to accuse someone, directly or indirectly, without the ability to bring a case to court, then how is it fair to write Volume II of that report? The entire fairness argument advanced by Mueller is a contradiction of the reasons he gave for making "no determination", and also directly contradicts his "non-exoneration" statement to boot.

Yancey Ward said...

So, the question you have to answer is this- if Mueller were really interested in "fairness", what was the purpose behind Volume II of the report?

For me, this question is easy to answer, but I am curious how others see it.

Oso Negro said...

@ Buwaya - YES! "Der Tag" will be most frightful. I hope to be out of the country if it happens on my dacha in a quiet corner of Eastern Europe. I do have lots of guns and ammunition (really normal quantities for a Texan), but I am afraid that if it ever came to shooting American progressives/Democrats I would not easily be able stop once I started. It would include plenty of friends and relatives. No house would be left untouched by sorrow. Who wants that?

Drago said...

victoria: "I think finally Dershowitz has shown us that he may have some dementia."

The Soviets and other murderous communist regimes would routinely label dissidents and those advocating for a freer society as mentally incapacitated and/or insane.

It comes as no surprise that our own leftist acorns, like victoria, did not fall far from that marxist tree.

tim in vermont said...

You see how full of evidence and logic Vickie’s post was?

walter said...

Vicki is right..in the sense that The Dersch gave Snoop Dog Mueller the benefit of no doubt.
Mueller's delivery, however, suggested at least nervousness..and some feebleness.
It's understandable that he wants to avoid answering questions.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Last week Trump was saying House has to get over its anger at the Mueller Report. Today he should take his own advice.”

Now that is funny.

Drago said...

Nobody: "You see how full of evidence and logic Vickie’s post was?"

The left has already declared unequivocably that logic and evidence are simply racist and misogynistic tools of the patriarchy.

Little wonder lefties recoil from them.

Drago said...

walter: "Mueller's delivery, however, suggested at least nervousness..and some feebleness.
It's understandable that he wants to avoid answering questions."

In the words of Hoax Dossier Truther Inga, that is funny...and understandable, given his lies.

Drago said...

Btw, Inga STILL literally believes every claim made in the Hoax Dossier.

Every single one of them.

Now that is funny!

h said...

In my imagination, Mueller is called to testify before COngress in some committee or other, and a clever Republican asks:

You have said "If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so."

A. Do you have confidence that the president has clearly not committed the crime of bank robbery (murder, arson, etc.)? If so where is that in your report?

B. Do you have confidence that President Obama or Secretary Clinton or Vice President Biden has clearly not committed a crime?

Nonapod said...

To me it seems more that pundits were reading more into yesterday's statement than was ever there. Barr and Mueller are jointly pushing back on that.

Well, who's fault is that? Mueller's the one who went out of his way to say that he couldn't indict a sitting president. Why make that statement at all? Why muddy the water with irrelevant information?

Yancey Ward said...

As I wrote a few weeks ago, you can see the ebb and flow of the Mueller investigation in the appendices. The collusion investigation was done by the late Summer of 2017, and only picked up again in September of 2018 when they targeted Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone's connections to Wikileaks (they didn't find any connections there, either- they found Stone Twitter lying about having connections when he really didn't). So the question is- what was Mueller etal doing for the year from late Summer 2017 to late Summer 2018?

It basically has to be that they were investigating obstruction- Volume II supports this conclusion, but why did it take another 18 months? There really is only one explanation for the time taken- they were hoping to induce real obstruction in the form of Mueller/Rosenstein getting fired, or Trump invoking executive privilege and withholding documents and witnesses. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Trump refused to take any of those additional actions- at best all he did was talk about taking such actions. Trump's legal team was smart enough to prevent Trump from taking such actions, or at least talking him down from it.

By September 2018, Mueller's team hadn't succeeded in goading Trump into actual obstruction nor had they found evidence of actual obstruction. I think a key event was missed, though- McCabe's outing of Rosenstein's offering to wear a wire on Trump (this may have been a joke all along, but its revelation undermined whatever public bipartisan credibility Rosenstein had), and I think Rosenstein, with the Barr memo in hand, told Mueller that if Mueller couldn't establish collusion with the Russians, then he, Rosenstein, wouldn't support any recommendation for indicting on obstruction. This is why Mueller restarted the Stone/Corsi angle- to try to establish an underlying crime Trump was guilty of, but that failed to pan out, too.

Clyde said...

If Mueller had not been a partisan hack, the whole thing would have wrapped up in late 2017 when he realized that he had no case for collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Instead, knowing that he had nothing, he let the whole situation fester to the benefit of the Democrats in the 2018 elections. To Hell with Mueller.

alanc709 said...

OT. Nevada's governor vetoed the "Popular Vote" bill. Hard to fathom a Dem doing something so sensible, but there you are. He even said that the bill would have weakened smaller states. Maybe Dershowitz's honesty rubs off on some people.

tim in vermont said...

There once was a Biden small fry
Who with daddy to China did fly
He stuck in his thumb
He pulled out a $1.2. Billion dollar plumb
And said “What a good boy am I!”


But you see, getting a 1.2 billion dollar investment in your brand new fund from the ChiComs so soon after daddy’s visit is not any kind of emoluments problem for Biden, because, well, frankly, because he’s a Democrat.

There are rules here, we just don’t publicly admit to them, but there are rules for all. to see.

PJ said...

@Yancey Ward -- I think the nature of the Mueller Report as an internal DOJ document was the fig leaf that allowed Mueller to pretend (and cautious observers like Mr. Dershowitz to accept) that Volume 2 was not inconsistent with "fairness" to Mr. Trump. There is nothing unfair about a DOJ investigator submitting a written report to his boss detailing the evidence uncovered in an investigation and explaining the reasons for the writer's recommendations (or lack thereof). It was always a charade, because everyone knew the report would be made public. But it explains why yesterday's performance, in which the fig leaf was discarded and the investigator made a direct public statement about evidence gathered against an uncharged subject of investigation, was something new, and something sufficiently different to change Mr. Dershowitz's mind.

tim in vermont said...

Everybody knew what Mueller knew! Not a thing came out in the report that had not been previously leaked.

Inga remind anybody of Linus in the pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin? “Don’t question the Great Pumpkin or He will never come!” And now Halloween is over, no Great Pumpkin, and she is still making excuses.

tim in vermont said...

Just like the Scott Walker case, the prosecutors were doing oppo research for the Democrats, nothing more. Mueller was just one more mule on the team that included GPS Fusion.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Yancey Ward said...

Barr explicitly says he asked Mueller three times if the OLC position was the reason Mueller didn't "reach a determination", and Barr says Mueller said no three times. And yet, Mueller says exactly that yesterday as quoted above. Here is the relevant part of Barr's testimony:

"We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction."

It is difficult to not see the contradiction between the two statements, isn't it?


It is easy to not see a contradiction that is not there. The key is that making a determination is not synonymous with finding obstruction. If not for the opinion of the OLC, Mueller would have made a determination. The determination might have been to prosecute for obstruction, or it might have been to not prosecute for obstruction. We don't know, because the determination was never made.

I agree with criticisms that the decision to not make a determination was in no way required by the OLC opinion, and does nothing to promote fairness.

Drago said...

Nobody re: Dossier Truther Cultist Inga: "And now Halloween is over, no Great Pumpkin, and she is still making excuses."

And giving advice! About not being a cultist!!

LOL

Too funny.

Yancey Ward said...

PJ,

Mueller may have expected Barr to redact or withhold that part of the report, or demand it be taken out. I am not convinced of this, but it is plausible, and if true, Mueller and his team would have just leaked it, or appeared before the Nadler committee in the role of John Dean. Thankfully, Barr really was committed to transparency and foreclosed that avenue.

PJ said...

Yancey Ward, I'm not yet prepared to conclude that Barr released the report with minimal redactions because he was committed to transparency in principle. Maybe he's just a cleverer snake than Mueller. But either way, I share your thankfulness.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Btw, anyone keeping up with how the Brits are falling all over themselves to get out from under this dem/lefty/LLR coup attempt?

The latest is the Brits telling the media that an actual warning was sent to the US about the unreliability of Ingas hero Christopher Steele...a full week before Trump was inaugurated!

LOL

Inga hardest hit...along with Comey....

Yancey Ward said...

Fair enough IiB- but then Mueller is trying to have his cake and eat it, too, which again makes it hard to understand why Volume II was written in the first place. If you can't make a determination on the stated first principles, why write Volume II, and especially why write it the way it was written?

Like I wrote above- Mueller could have made the determination, or he could have just written, these are the actions we looked at, but couldn't bring or make a case based on them- a sort of "Comey no reasonable prosecutor" statement. I mean, given Mueller's stated principle, you don't even need to create the novel theories of obstruction- you can just stick to the normal definitions of obstruction, and make your non-determination on that alone. Of course, the answer to the why is easy- Mueller etal couldn't use the standard definition of obstruction because any non-partisan person would understand that Trump wasn't guilty of obstruction in that case. There are lots of ways to describe Volume II of the report and Mueller's actions yesterday, but fair is about as incorrect a description as I can think of. This is what set Dershowitz off, I think- the betraying of the principle of fairness while using the principle itself as support for doing so.

Yancey Ward said...

PJ, maybe not on principle, but self-interest is good enough for government work in this case.

MayBee said...

I watched CNN's 40-person panel after Mueller's talk yesterday, and I watched them convince themselves Mueller had just announced that Trump *had* committed a crime but couldn't be indicted.

But if that is true- what's the point of siccing a prosecutor on a sitting president? If he can't be indicted anyway?

effinayright said...

Fen, my apologies.

I confused you with Feder.

IOW I EFFED up.

My bad.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Yancey-

Agree with you on the fairness issue. I'm just a stickler for accurate quotes and sound reasoning. After all, we are a random blog comment section. If we give up accuracy and reason, we are no better than the major network newscasts.

Yancey Ward said...

IiB,

I look at the whole of the what Mueller said and is reported to have said, and I look at the effect it had on the partisan divide. What I see is a man trying to imply something without having the courage to take full responsibility for it. Perhaps I shouldn't infer in this instance, but it is hard to avoid doing so. This is why I still consider the two statements at odds, but you are right- absent an inference, they aren't at odds. I think this is far too generous to Mueller, but that is on me.

gadfly said...

Mueller didn't write the Constitution and he did not write DOJ guidelines that say that ordinary law enforcement doesn't apply to sitting presidents. Mueller was hired by the DOJ to conduct an investigation in order to document the illegal acts that Trump engaged in - and he did so with efficiency. Unfortunately he chose not gather evidence with regard to Trump's supposedly private racketeering activities or else Barr shut that down by ending the term of the special counsel.

Meanwhile the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin made up tales about Mueller deliberately ducking questions about his work, when in fact, he is no longer permitted to conduct investigations. The special counsel team has been disbanded.

Trump poured water on the coals by reinventing, yet again, his tale that Mueller was pissed because Trump would not return golf membership fees. Donald called ill-reputed Bill O'Reilly to tell this tall tale one more time - but all Trump did was show his stupidity by not reading or having someone else help explain that Volume 2, Page 80 of the Mueller Report covers this entire presidential lie as admitted by Whitehouse staff.

tim in vermont said...

A colossus bestrode Air Force Two
Whose big swinging dick awed the crew
How often they’d laughed
apres scoring fresh graft
over chicken Kung Pao and a brew!

Rules don’t apply to Democrats. Imagine if the country was Russia not China and the name was Don Jr and not Hunter Biden.

tim in vermont said...

A Podesta there was name of John
Whose p@ssword was sussed in a con
Imagine his shock
crony millions in stock
after Hillary’s loss was all gone!

Circulez! Rien a voir!

Jim at said...

Most of Donald Trump’s acts of obstruction occurred in plain sight, in full public view.

Then you should have no trouble listing them.
Go.

Skeptical Voter said...

Gadfly--I've not seen you here before. Did you just stumble out of a bar while making that "private racketeering"charge up? Lay off the sauce before you post.

tim in vermont said...

There once was a Trump card named Don
Whose election was thought a black swan.
Each day is his last!
But if prologue is past,
The party will rage on and on.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Most of Donald Trump’s acts of obstruction occurred in plain sight, in full public view."

“Could you please enumerate those acts of obstruction for those of us who missed them?”

The basic problem there is that the examples of possible Obstruction in the Mueller report are only arguably Obstruction under Weissman’s strained, aggressive and out of context interpretation of one clause from one Obstruction statute - that Barr countered and rejected in his memo to Rosenstein last June. Using DoJ/OLC statutory interpretations, there never was anything even close to Obstruction. How can Trump firing Comey for cause be Obstruction? Only with Weissman’s interpretation, that essentially criminalizes any attempt, no matter how fruitless, to impede a criminal investigation, could you, find Obstruction from firing Comey for cause, because he had started an investigation of Trump by then. The cute part of Weissman’s interpretation was that Trump didn’t need to have known about the investigation. Indeed, he didn’t, because Comey had lied to him, telling him that he wasn’t under investigation (lying to the President like this is, of course, also just cause for firing - but Trump didn’t find out until after Comey was already fired).

Someone commented about above how long it took to shut down the Mueller investigation. The reason it took so long is that using the Weissman Obstruction statute interpretation, ordering the Mueller investigation shut down would have been Obstruction. Never mind that, by then, the only thing that they were investigating was Obstruction (having long before determined there not to have been any Russian Collusion). They had an Obstruction investigation going, with effectively an unlimited budget, that Trump couldn’t shut down because that would be Obstructing the Obstruction investigation. Circular as it possibly could be, which is why it is so cute.

It was finally shut down the only way that it could be shut down without triggering a circular Obstruction charge. Otherwise, I have little doubt that they would have tried to run out the clock on Trump. The weakness to the circularity was that Mueller was never a Senate confirmed Principal Officer, so needed the AG to oversee him. AG Sessions was conflicted out, and DAG Rosenstein appears to have been compromised, or at least was compliant, so couldn’t rein Mueller in.. When Barr was sworn in as AG, he automatically became Mueller’s boss, and the one who would have to approve any charges made against anyone, including President Trump. It was supposed to have been a Collusion investigation, and with that long settled, Mueller couldn’t justify keeping his investigation open.

Let me reiterate my point. There never was any Obstruction by Trump, pursuant to DoJ rules, regulations, and statutory constructions, even ignoring that the DoJ won’t indict a sitting President. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. It is only Obstruction under Weissman’s out of context aggressive definition. But neither Mueller nor Weissman were in a position to set their own Obstruction interpretation, since, at a minimum, they weren’t principal officers, nor were they OLC.

Drago said...

Skeptical Voter: "Gadfly--I've not seen you here before. Did you just stumble out of a bar while making that "private racketeering"charge up? Lay off the sauce before you post."

Gadfly is our Poor Man's LLR Chuck. Even dumber and more ridiculous than Chuck combined with the mental deficiencies of an Inga resulting in cut and paste nonsensical jabberings.

Sometime back gadfly attempted to use Althouseblog as a springboard to drive traffic to his/her "blog" where "interesting" and "intuitive" postings were to have been deposited for all of our benefit.....

........LOL

Yeah, its difficult not to laugh.

Bruce Hayden said...

“It is easy to not see a contradiction that is not there. The key is that making a determination is not synonymous with finding obstruction. If not for the opinion of the OLC, Mueller would have made a determination. The determination might have been to prosecute for obstruction, or it might have been to not prosecute for obstruction. We don't know, because the determination was never made.”

Mueller couldn’t prosecute for Obstruction since there was only possibly Obstruction utilizing the aforementioned Weissman statutory interpretation, and AG Barr, and not Mueller or Weissman, is entitled to determine which Obstruction standard to use, since he is the Presidentially nominated, Senate confirmed, principal agent, legally in charge of making this determination. And it very much appears that one of the reasons that Barr was nominated and confirmed as AG was to make this determination, implementing an Obstruction standard that wouldn’t allow the sort on nonsense practiced by Mueller’s prosecutors.

Michael K said...

the examples of possible Obstruction in the Mueller report are only arguably Obstruction under Weissman’s strained, aggressive and out of context interpretation of one clause from one Obstruction statute

Remember, Weissmann has the distinction of having a previous "obstruction" charge reversed by the USSC 9-0.

He did manage to kill Arthur Anderson and 5,000 jobs of its employees and I have no doubt that was his intention with Trump.

Michael K said...

Unfortunately he chose not gather evidence with regard to Trump's supposedly private racketeering activities or else Barr shut that down by ending the term of the special counsel.

gadfly, are you out without your minder again ? How often do they let you use a computer ?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 338   Newer› Newest»