default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

More Memorable Moments With Mueller

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, August 2, 2019 9:44 am

According to a May Harvard/Harris poll, two-thirds of Americans don’t want Congress to start impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump and 80 percent would rather it focus on real priorities like infrastructure, health care and immigration. Pro-impeachment progressives must not be reading the polls or they just don’t care about the people’s priorities because they just can’t seem to get over their myopic obsession with removing this president from office, even if it costs them the election. That’s good news for the GOP because this obsession is an insult to the 47 percent of the voters who elected him and don’t want their votes invalidated. Why would you insult 62 million voters if you want to win an election?

In spite of no solid evidence of impeachable offenses and a Republican-controlled Senate that would never convict him even if the House could manage to get articles of impeachment passed, the liberal impeachment warriors, led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, Rep. Adam Schiff and the freshmen impeachment cheerleaders who think they have a mandate to impeach, press on, neglecting legislative duties. If not a sign of madness, it will be at least a terrible political strategy if it continues to distract from their 2020 campaign. Trump supporters must hope that it does.

As we know, the two-year Mueller investigation found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. It found wrongdoing on the part of a number of lesser actors but no collusion, the main purpose for the investigation. It noted angry language used by the president about firing Mueller but he was not fired. When asked during his recent appearance before the Judicial Committee if at any time his investigation was hindered, he answered, “No.” (Translation for Democrat Committee members: No is defined as the opposite of yes.)

The Democrat impeachment campaign had pinned its hopes on the Mueller Report and it bombed. But that didn’t stop them. They demanded that Robert Mueller appear before Congress to answer questions. Mueller insisted that the report speaks for itself and that any responses he would give would be limited to the language in the report. Democrat questioners hoped to mine his words for evidence of obstruction of justice but Mueller, to his credit, didn’t fall for it, even refusing to read aloud portions of the report that Democrats could use out of context as sound bites to suggest obstruction of justice. Democrats were left with nothing but frustration and embarrassment.

Mr. Mueller was also embarrassing. His robotic, halting responses suggested that he was not as familiar with details of the investigation as Democrats expected. He was given permission to be accompanied by a close advisor, Aaron Zebly, but only Mueller was permitted to speak in response to questions. He did not appear entirely up to the task. If any responses really needed to be provided during his testimony, none were more important than those concerning the origins of this investigation. There was no evidence that a crime had even been committed, only media speculation. Why, then was an investigation by a special counsel ordered? How was a FISA warrant obtained to spy on an American citizen and a presidential campaign based on a discredited Steele dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign? What did Mr. Mueller know about Fusian GPS, the research firm that Democrats used to gather dirt about Trump? The answer to these and other legitimate questions asked by Republican committee members was: “This was outside my purview.” Seriously? Why was it? Weren’t you supposed to “look under every rock” and “go wherever the investigation took you”? These questions still need to be answered. We anxiously await the results of the Justice Department’s investigation into these matters.

And how about the actions of former FBI Director James Comey, who actually did affect the outcome of a national election by reopening the Clinton security investigation on the eve of the 2016 election and who had also previously exceeded his authority by declaring that she should not be prosecuted? And how about the obvious anti-Trump bias on the part of some of his investigators? His response to this was ”I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years and in those 25 years, I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. Perhaps he should have. The standard in his business was to avoid even the appearance of bias in an investigation. The actions of Peter Stryzok and Lisa Page alone tainted this investigation from the outset.

Mr. Mueller seemed to want to dwell on past and present efforts by Russia to interfere in our elections. But we already knew that. We didn’t need a two-year, costly investigation to identify what we already knew. What we need is to do something about it. A valid question would have been “What did the Obama Administration know or do about it?” Mueller also said that foreign interference in elections may be the new normal. No kidding? What may also be the new normal are continued attempts by the losing political party to delegitimize elections and override the vote of the people. That could preface the end of our democracy.

Perhaps that’s what the Socialists have in mind.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.