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.