Special Counsel
Robert Mueller held a surprise press conference Wednesday morning, May 29th,
in which he deliberately and premeditatedly fanned the flames of the impeachment
fire already burning in the Democrat-media-academia complex.
Mueller spoke
of “multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election,” on the part of
Russians, deserving of “the attention of every American.” He stated: “And at
the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private
Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed
as Americans in order to interfere in the election. These indictments contain
allegations.”
He added: “The
indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to
interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and
understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established
our office.”
Yet, he said
of the Russians who he averred had interfered in our elections, “We are not
commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant
is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.” That certainly
was very American of him, given that that standard has been the basis for our
justice system for centuries now.
Mueller made
sure to pat himself and his fellow investigators on the back, saying: “And
beyond Department policy, we
were guided by principles of fairness,” while noting, “The matters we
investigated were of paramount importance.”
Since a
sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime, he admitted that “It
would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no
court resolution of an actual charge.”
Then he said,
of the collusion investigation as a whole, “It was critical for us to obtain
full and accurate information from every person we questioned.” (Yes, all 500 of them).
And then, in an act of staggering hypocrisy,
hubris and asininity, he remarked: “As set forth in our report, after that
investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a
crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to
whether the President did commit a crime.” What the hell happened to “presumed
innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.” Does Mueller think that applies
to Russian hackers but not to the president of the United States? What about
those “principles of fairness?” And what about it being “unfair to potentially
accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution?”
Mueller ended
by refusing to take questions and stating, “That is the office's final position
and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the
President.” After two years of desperately yet fruitlessly searching for something
that would take down Trump, two years of not commenting, he delivers a baseless
cheap shot that contradicts his own words and then says he will never comment on
this matter again? There is a term for this type of man: jackass.
“If we had
confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said
that?” By that standard everyone in the world would be suspect. There isn’t one
person alive of whom any investigators could definitively say, “We have clear
and incontrovertible proof that this
person has never committed a crime.” It is hard to prove a negative. Russel’s
Teapot and all of that.
Mueller ended
his investigation—and communication thereof—by essentially (potentially?) accusing President Trump of a crime, though he has no proof......something
he said he would not do.
That is
slander, itself a crime.
If there is to be anything like justice, we must investigate the investigators.
Brilliant!
ReplyDelete