Showing posts with label Mueller probe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mueller probe. Show all posts

Saturday, October 26, 2019

Barr Disgraces DOJ By Invoking Cockamamey "Russiagate" Conspiracy Idiocy - To Justify Criminal Investigation Of DOJ

Image may contain: 2 people
"You shall do my bidding catching  flies as a go-fer conspiracy toad until I say no more!"


"I think this is the most concerning development out of the Justice Department we've seen since Donald Trump became president.  Look, obviously if there was a crime committed it ought to be investigated. But we know more about the Russia probe than probably any investigation in the Justice Department's history.  Bob Mueller wrote a 450 page report that became public, the DOJ released a FISA application which it's never done before in its history...and through all of that we've never seen a single evidence of a crime, or an allegation of a crime that would give a single predicate for an investigation. 

I think it's notable in this story it doesn't say what the allegation of a crime is that the Department is now investigating.   I don't think it's a coincidence that the day after an ambassador goes up to the hill and gives incredibly damning evidence about the president extorting a foreign government that we see this leak from the Department of Justice. And I think it's incredibly concerning about the administration of justice and the rule of law in this country."  -   Matt Miller, former Director of Public Affairs, Justice Department, on 'Last Word' Thursday night.

"What do you do when one party stakes its faith — and ultimately government itself — on observable, measurable realities while the other has made the cynical decision to cast these principles away? How do you strategize? How do you cope?"  - Jennifer Senior, NY Times Friday,

Assume for the sake of argument there is a parallel reality in which one nation's political party believes it can control that nation's governance in perpetuity. Impose an indefinite rule of autocratic, one party fascism if you will.  That nation has a constitution which decrees a separation of powers and the existence of a co-equal branch of government to the executive. However, this political party fancies it can rig the system - with the right president-  to remain in power as long as it wants. Also to render the co-equal branch a neutered nonentity. How to do it?

First define a 'unitary executive' doctrine giving an authoritarian president not only total power over the executive branch but also transcendent power over all branches.  

Second, enable this power to be tested with the election of the "right" candidate. Preferably a flouter of norms who also believes the constitution is just a piece of paper and that he can bully or intimidate any group in the nation: intelligence agencies, media, any other political parties, or other voters, i.e. who never voted for him.

Get this character to then commit impeachable offenses, say collaborating or conspiring with a foreign power to steal an election to shoehorn him into office. Then challenge any supposed co-equal branch to hold him in check or administer  constitutional justice. Such that even if he shot someone on the parallel reality's 5th avenue there'd be no crime, and he'd get away with it.

Then third, to escape any predicament of accountability (by media and the co-equal branch), recruit an attorney general who will not be independent but do this odious autocrat's bidding and investigate the investigators of the original debacle and conspiracy, i.e. that got him into office.   This will come in especially handy when he's later caught shaking down the head of another foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

Far fetched nonsense? Nope, it's already unfolding even as we've seen William Barr now commence a criminal inquiry into the alleged "Russiagate" conspiracy despite Mueller's judicious probe (involving dozens of FBI agents and others) that led to the Mueller report, e.g.

www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

In other words, Barr and his Justice Department is in the process of opening a criminal inquiry into its own  Russia investigation.  See e. g.  NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
How can this head popping anomaly be, you ask? Well, because the DOJ has now been taken over by rank authoritarians and puppets of such who intend to push the specious doctrine of the unitary executive to its limits, devil take the hindmost.  

No surprise then that Barr has mutated into an officious, hop scotching  human toad -   hopping all over the world trying to dig up dirt on his own agency, the intelligence agencies under its roof (the FBI) and ancillary investigators who probed the Russian infiltration into the 2016 election.  Except in this case it isn't to go after the Russkies (and Trumpies who collaborated with them), but those who investigated the conspiracy to steal the election for Donald Trump. In other words Barr has debased the DOJ by converting it into an expeditious vehicle for Trump's political revenge.

Of course, by shamelessly acting on Trump's behalf, Barr has now put himself into impeachment jeopardy. . He's also created enormous embarrassment for the nation in his desperate antics, even as everyone with a brain knows exactly what he's up to: providing an alternative "criminal inquiry" to counter and offset the Democrats justifiable impeachment inquiry. One, I might ad, that now has even more ballast after a federal court judge deemed it legitimate and that the DOJ and Barr now must turn over all previously concealed (e.g. grand jury) materials from the Mueller probe.  See:

Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal, Judge Rules, Giving Democrats a Victory

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/house-impeachment-subpoenas.html

As for embarrassing the nation, Giuseppe Conte,  the  Italian prime minister was asked by Italian lawmakers to explain what in the world the U.S. attorney general wanted. The New York Times published this striking account yesterday:
Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte of Italy said his country’s intelligence services had informed the American attorney general, William P. Barr, that they played no role in the events leading to the Russia investigation, taking the air out of an unsubstantiated theory promoted by President Trump and his allies in recent weeks.
“Our intelligence is completely unrelated to the so-called Russiagate and that has been made clear,” Mr. Conte said in a news conference in Rome on Wednesday evening after spending hours describing Italy’s discussions with Mr. Barr to the parliamentary committee on intelligence. 
Mr. Conte publicly acknowledged for the first time that Mr. Barr had twice met with the leaders of Italy’s intelligence agencies after asking them to clarify their role in a 2016 meeting between a Maltese professor and a Trump campaign adviser on a small college campus in Rome, Link Campus University.
As bizarre as this may seem, Barr appears to have also gone to other allied nations in his Quixote- like tilting at fantasy conspiracy windmills. The toad was driven by the need to find something, anything to save Trump's butt, looking for damaging information about American officials involved in "Russiagate" , which he thought might help Donald Trump.

Italy, not surprisingly, had no such information, and seemed baffled as to what the United States’ top law-enforcement official was looking for.

The precise details of the relevant  conspiracy idiocy -  I can't dignify it with "theory" -  are mind-numbing in themselves.  They apparently involve George Papadopoulos, who served as an adviser to the Trump campaign, a London-based Maltese professor named Josef Mifsud, and assorted characters. The sum of the accusations, speculations and misinformation are enough to blow a hole into the sanity and mind of a normal person, but would do a QAnon zombie proud.  To be sure they are absolutely  ridiculous, almost on the level of the "Pizzagate"  rubbish that pushed the hare -brained malarkey that Hillary was operating a child sex slave ring in the basement of a D.C.  pizza parlor.

You laugh, but one Trumpie imbecile actually took a rifle to the suspected establishment to mete out justice and a tragedy was only averted by quick thinking - and reaction.  Needless to say I am not going to waste time (or blog space)  regurgitating this latest horse shit. Anyone who really wants
 more information can obtain it from Thursday night’s A block and this Vox piece from last month. Be sure you ration your neural exposure time!

In the end, sadly, the Trumpies and their cabal have succeeded in literally reducing our country to a laughing stock.  If my Revolutionary War ancestor Conrad Brumbaugh was alive to day to see this, he'd puke. The United States – the world’s preeminent superpower, ostensibly the global leader on matters of international affairs – has an attorney general who has gone to foreign countries, cap in hand, looking for dirt on his own country’s officials, begging for help with a ridiculous conspiracy, only to be told by our allies, “We don’t know what you’re talking about.”

If that doesn't embarrass any red-blooded American I don't know what would.

See also:

https://www.salon.com/2019/10/25/bill-barrs-alternate-universe-investigation-has-a-goal-right-wing-authoritarian-rule/


And:



And:





Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Mueller To Testify In Public July 17th: Will He Be A Hearings Hero Or.....A Withering Wimp?




"Mueller doesn’t get to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn’t political. And he’s not a flower that will wilt with too much exposure."- Blogger Cody Fenwick, 'Robert Mueller Is Acting Like A Precious Flower',  smirkingchimp.com, May 20

"I think Robert Mueller is a little bit too concerned that his work could be interpreted politically.  You cannot take quite so much of the politics out of politics. ..While I certainly understand the idea that when you get put in front of a camera - given congress the way that it is - a lot of people are going to be grandstanding to create that one viral moment. 

Nevertheless the idea you don't do it because it could be politicized to the American people, I mean you're working for the American people.  So that doesn't quite add up to me".  Ezra Klein on 'Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell', May 23rd



Well, at least a second major milestone was passed yesterday evening when it was announced on MSNBC that former Special Prosecutor  Robert Mueller will finally testify in public - scheduled now for July 17th.    There will be two sequential hearings, one in front of the House Judiciary Committee, the other in front of the House Intelligence Committee.  Make no mistake that Mueller's  agreement was not "friendly" but required a House subpoena for him to comply.  Something I strongly endorsed way back on May 24, when I wrote:

"If Mueller isn't courageous enough to don the patriot mantle, and disdains descending into the fray, then Jerrold Nadler has no choice but to issue a subpoena for him to testify publicly. No more "Mr. Nice Guy"!

Evidently Messrs. Nadler and Schiff paid some attention.  But no one should feel any sense of total satisfaction or that Mueller will be a willing testifier.  No, he will likely drive lawmakers nuts either reading selected portions that partly answer their questions, or responding in obscure (as opposed to direct) language that will need to be further parsed.  Partly this will be to protect himself from what is likely going to be a Repuke counter attack led by No. 1  House GOP asshole Jim Jordan.  So Mueller will plausibly figure that being taciturn and indirect with his responses will spare him from a 3-ring circus spectacle.  The latter is precisely what the traitor-enabling Republicans embrace and why their objective will be to make a mockery of the hearings.  This the Dems cannot allow, even if they have to call the sergeant-at -arms to lock a few of the Reeps up if they transgress on the contempt side.

At the very least, Mueller needs to be pressed in respect of his response to William Barr's disingenuous presentation of the report 3 months ago.  Mueller wrote in the wake of Barr's egregiously slanted release: "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel to assure public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

So we need to hear Mueller come out and in no uncertain terms condemn, or at least rigorously criticize,  Barr's misleading interpretation.  His response needs to be sufficiently robust that Barr's spin can no longer be used to stoke the narrative that there is no there, there.  And  must skewer the widespread canard that Trump is innocent of all the charges and besides, "it's all a witch hunt."

Let's acknowledge here that yes, Mueller is averse to public testimony because: 1) he doesn't want too many millions of Americans directly seeing and hearing what he said or concluded - because of the political heat he might take, and 2) he doesn't want to lock horns with his old pal and original "mentor" Barr.  But look, that cow escaped after the barn door was left ajar - not long after Barr issued his spurious summary of Mueller's report - when Mueller left that 'door' open to mischief.  In other words, Mueller himself left the door open to further inquiry on his findings so he can't play the victim or cry about the consequences now.

Besides, as former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld pointedly noted (on MSNBCs 'Last  Word'' May 23):
"I suspect he wants to avoid a circus. But he's testified many times before in high pressure situations with a lot of members from both parties from time to time being angry at the performance of the FBI. And he always stood there and took it. And he can do that again, believe me, he's a tough guy. I've worked shoulder to shoulder with him and he can more than hold his own."

Terrific that Mueller is - or was - a "tough guy"  and "could hold his own" in open hearings, but we need him to do that now in defense of the country. Especially now in an environment in which Trump has implemented a total blockade of all relevant witnesses, aides for any House hearings.   This is the time to be a hero, not a wallflower too delicate to take political blowback or heat, see e.g.



As for the foolish trope that Mueller didn't come to a firm conclusion in his report out of fairness, NY Times' Maureen Dowd had the best retort to that:

At many of the most consequential moments in American history, I have watched officials bend over backward to be equitable, only to end up faltering and doing enormous damage to the Republic.



It is possible to be “fair” in a way that is not at all fair. It’s simply bad judgment, ceding the ground to malevolent actors who use any means to achieve their ends, including flattening and sliming the proponents of “fairness.”

Ms. Dowd at the time was referencing Mueller's overwhelming reluctance to render definitive positions on Trump in his report. Indeed one NY Book Review take on it was that Mueller sought to be scrupulously  "fair".  Well, he was indeed that, to the point of folly and enabling the bad guys to get away with their evil deeds - and now put the good guys in their sights.  This is what Mueller needs to address now, as he hopefully rejects the pose of a political wallflower.  Still,  Rep. Adam B. Schiff is rightfully trying to tamp down expectations.  Though as a report in today's Denver Post  (p. 11A) put it:

"Even Mueller's repeating aspects of his report in a public setting could be politically damaging for Trump."

In any case, I am confident that any response vocalized by Mueller will be better than no response, such as the Trump puppet Hope Hicks delivered. The only thing that can derail what the NY Times has referred to as the "potential to reshape the political landscape"  is a Trump  distraction.  In Janice's words - and she's seldom cynical like me:  "Look for a U.S. cruise missile attack on Iran the night before July 17."

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Mueller's 9 Minutes of Fame Punts The Ball To Congress As Trump & Co. Continue Spinning More Lies


Image result for brane space, mueller
Robert Mueller delivering his nine minute statement earlier today, which left most Americans seeking courage, unimpressed.

"Bob, your trail of bread crumbs just isn't good enough. We're just not that smart anymore! America is now an aging shortstop.  You have to hit it right at us."  Bill Maher on Real Time, Friday, April 26, on why Mueller's indirect, detached approach is useless

"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."  - Robert Mueller, earlier today.


Well, at least one major milestone was passed earlier today, we finally got to hear Mueller's voice live and in person. No filters. The problem is it was mostly pro forma and the message enunciated: "If you want to see what I found, read the report."  Righto, like 100 million Americans will now rush to read it ASAP. Hell, I already published the 'juiciest' parts of Vol. II (with all the obstruction behavior involving WH Counsel Don McGhan that- propelled  GOP Rep. Justin Amash to call for impeachment) and  42  have read it to date. Not an auspicious sign.  On the upside, reading between the lines - or rather interpreting between Mueller's careful words- one beheld he wasn't letting Trump off the hook. Also, it was now time for House Dems & Pelosi to get some cojones and initiate impeachment inquiry - at least.

Bottom line: Mueller punted again but basically - in his Volume II - left the means to bring impeachment proceedings against the Vulgarian criminal fouling the highest office.  On the other hand, he isn't keen for any more public appearances, basically averring if the House Dems subpoena him to testify all he will do is read what's already been published, nothing more. Well, hell, at least it will be kinda like a parent reading a bedtime story to his kid - when the kid wouldn't have opened the book on his own.  It would be better than nothing, and hey, for each question Mueller could direct willing readers to the key parts of Volume I or II as he reads. It sure beats the Mr. Silent Sphinx Act we've beheld the past two years. At this point we will take anything, and so should Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems.  Pelosi claims she's still seeking facts and evidence of obstruction, but what do you call Trump's universal blocking of all subpoenas  - laughing them down, blowing them off - as he metaphorically pisses down the Dems' throats and laughs?

Finally launching an impeachment  might even shut up Trump and his top sycophant ass licker, Sara Sanders, who predictably came out with their own forlorn lying spin and distortions, yapping crap like "case closed", and "it's time to move on."  No, it's time for impeachment!

Mueller himself in his 9 minute spiel gave the usual reasons cited earlier for not going the whole hog and failing to issue and indictment: basically that DOJ policy (from the Office of Legal Counsel) "doesn't allow it".  Which is bull pockey. It's only a guideline, a policy after all, not an iron clad law or rule. And we've seen in the past two months how Dotard has spit on norm after norm blocking subpoenas  while congress is made to sit on its fingers fuming.  The correct interpretation of Mueller's citation of limits in issuing an indictment is:  "We found Trump guilty but the DOJ wouldn't allow us to say it."

Never mind. Dotard and his retinue of sycophants tried to spin this to mean "exoneration".   The first tool they used was to interpret a partial affirmation as a total negation. Thus, Mueller admitted he found "insufficient evidence" to identify a conspiracy with the Russians (in Vol. I). But Trump, his malleable cow press secretary Huckleberry Sanders and others tried to portray that as meaning "nothing was found" and hence "exoneration".  Nope, because insufficient evidence is not the same as zero evidence. One may have insufficient evidence a neighbor bludgeoned his wife with a hammer, as there are bloody fingerprints on it. But there is no confirming DNA evidence to match the suspect to the actual weapon and crime.

Mueller did (in Vol. 2) identify 10 incidents in which Trump attempted to obstruct justice, for example by firing the director of the FBI, though he stopped short of charging the Dotard with a crime.  Never mind, because again by the OLC guidelines Mueller's hands were cuffed on the issue of finding crimes. (As already explained.) But again, he clearly left the process open for congress to pursue "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Article I powers allotted to it.  

Mueller himself fucked up badly during his soliloquy,  asserting:

"A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.  That is unconstitutional."

No, it would not. As one legal specialist and former prosecutor noted on MSNBC, "there hasn't even been a court decision to render a verdict on constitutionality".  Adding, he could find just as many to assert it was constitutional as not. In the end it is an OLC "guideline" that appears no where in the Constitution per se.

As MSNBC legal specialist Ari Melber and others put it (e.g. former DOJ spokes person Matt Miller) it wasn't a 100 % nothing burger. There were some actual ounces of 'meat' in the statement terms of Mueller saying (between the lines, as it were): "I could not deliver a criminal prosecution but congress can still act on its own".

Bingo! But most Americans - even with IQs in the normal range- might have missed that. As Bill Maher once put it in a New Rules segment (see top quote) on Real Time, Americans are like aging shortstops. They need the ball hit directly at their midsections to make the play. Or in this case, the connections. The perfect illustration was one of the Michigan voters  highlighted at a recent question-answer session held by Justin Amash. This woman was astonished to learn- after Amash educated her- that Trump was NOT "exonerated" in the Mueller Report. She'd only heard that by having been isolated in the conserve media (i.e. FOX, Rush Limburger ) echo chamber the past 8 weeks.

At least a number of Senators - following Mueller's performance- have sounded the proper perspectives to counter the balderdash of Trump and his minions, e.g.

Julian Castro:

Mueller made clear this morning that his investigation now lays at the feet of Congress. No one is above the law—Congress should begin an impeachment inquiry.
May 29, 2019

Elizabeth Warren:

Mueller leaves no doubt:

1) He didn't exonerate the president because there is evidence he committed crimes.

2) Justice Department policy prevented him from charging the president with any crimes
.
3) The Constitution leaves it up to Congress to act—and that's impeachment.
May 29, 2019

Kamala Harris:
What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral. Now it is up to Congress to hold this president accountable.

We need to start impeachment proceedings. It's our constitutional obligation
.
May 29, 2019

Again, I present the link to the full Mueller report which readers can access here:

www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Please read it yourselves to see why the above takes by the D-Senators are correct. If pressed for time, at least read my transcription of Vol. II to do with obstruction of justice involving Trump White House Counsel Don McGahn! (May 22 post).

Your country will thank you for it, and so will Democrats when they begin impeachment proceedings.  (IF they do!)  It will mean one less segment of citizens to have to educate.  In any case, I am for the Jerrold Nadler and House Judiciary Committee bringing Mueller in to testify - even if it means only seeing and hearing him read sections of his own report.

Something is better than nothing!   

See also:


And:


And:


Alex Henderson's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Saturday, March 30, 2019

The "Chicken Shit" Theory Of Why Mueller Didn't Call Out Trump's Crimes Is The Best So Far.








"That the Wall Street titans who blew up the financial system suffered little more than slight reductions in their bonuses only reinforced the perception that the “system” is 'rigged'—with the consequences we know only too well. Many people simply want to live in a world that is fair. As Eisinger shows, this one isn’t."—James Kwak, The New York Times Book Review


"Any book that can definitively answer the question of why no executives have gone to jail for the Financial Crisis deserves our attention. And in this case a Pulitzer Prize. The Chickens--t Club is a fast moving, fly on the wall, disheartening look at the deterioration of the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, written sympathetically, thoroughly, but mostly - engagingly. It is a book of superheroes.

There are 94 US Attorney offices around the country. They operate on their own, independent of the Justice Department, their dotted line overseers. They fight over cases, work (and fight) with the FBI and the SEC, or work around them, and seem to take their cues from the news. From the 60s to the 90s, they developed into the good guys, fighting the good fight and taking great pride in their accomplishments. They turned up clues, did forensic accounting, and turned (“flipped”) lower level criminals to get the executives. They were saving the country from itself. But the days of young aggressive lawyers nailing an Ivan Boesky or a Michael Milken are gone."  Reviewer on Amazon


Bill Maher was nearly apoplectic on Real Time last night about how no crimes - including collusion and obstruction of justice -  were definitively identified by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.  Barely containing his rage,  he bellowed at the panel:

"You know I'm right. You know these are illegal things. 'We have dirt from Russia, I love it, let's meet'.  Eight Russians show up. Or: 'Hi, I've got polling data. You close to Putin? We give you the polling data' . What the fuck? Are you kidding me?"

Former SDNY  prosecutor Preet Bharara did correct him on the first, noting that the statute is for conspiracy, not collusion.   But Maher dug in, he wasn't budging that whatever the name for the deeds committed they ought to be named crimes, not flouting  norms.  Others also have puzzled as to why Mueller could consume 22 months using 500 search warrants, 19 lawyers  and generate over 400 pages in his report,  but basically come up with nothing definitive on Trump.

But blogger Larry Beinhart, for my money, remains the one with the best hypothesis to explain Mueller's punt.   He called it a theory - 'The Chickenshit theory'-   taken from the title of the book 'The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives,'  by Jesse Eisinger.  As Beinhart writes in a recent blog post on smirkingchimp.com:

"White collar cases are the toughest to make and there are multiple reasons for this. They tend to take place in linguistic fogs. Instead of money taken at the point of a gun, it's taken by promises and claims that can be made to appear as merely over-ambitious, misunderstandings of complex rules, just careless, or actually made by underlings."

As related by Eisinger,  it's all about manipulating the language so that - by the end of the judicial process- there is no clear proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" by which to rest a case.  In other words, like the agnotologists who muddied the waters on the causes of climate change - delaying action by sowing doubts for decades-  it's nearly impossible to prove a crime attributed to a white collar crook. Especially one with tons of cash to toss around, i.e. to buy the best lawyers, meaning the best at manipulating the language for their client's own ends.

Reading  a WSJ piece  from today (p. A3, Parents Talk Plea In College Case') it occurred to me the 33 white collar, elite  parents charged with "honest services fraud" will also get off any prison time thanks to high paid lawyers (like Brian Kelly ) who will make their defense by parsing the language of the allegations to such an extent the jury will be too bleary brained to know which way to turn. Hence, to find for a reduced transgression - or even a slap on the wrist.   As noted in the piece:

"Mr. William McGashlan's attorney Jack Pirozzolo said he 'wanted to make crystal clear that the defense contests 'the way the government characterized and explained the allegations.""

Of course he will, because that's how so many white collar criminals and executives have gotten off!  The language manipulation succeeds because it questions whether the prosecutors "really" had firm evidence of the "intentions" of the accused.  How could they know, after all, what was actually going on inside their craniums? Might they not merely have had the interests of their offspring and their future service to the nation at heart?

Colorado Springs Independent columnist Mike Littwin has dug even more deeply into the parsing of language for the elites, in order for them to be 'teflon-protected' against any and all accusations.  As he writes (COS Indy, March 25-29, p. 4):

"As for collusion it is fair to ask, as Washington Post anti-Trumper Max Boot does: If Mueller determined that Trump had not 'conspired' or 'coordinated' with the Russians isn't it obvious, from Trump's own statements, that he welcomed Russian interference?"

Just to remind readers, the most outrageous statement to that effect was (July 27, 2016):

"I will tell you this, Russia if you're listening, I hope that you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. You will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens."

But again, Trump's lawyers could parse that event and the words a hundred different ways, just like the lawyers for the bankers who got off in the wake of the 2008 derivatives fiasco that led to the credit crisis.  For example, they might have told Mueller: "That was just his typical braggadocio - nothing serious with malicious intent. He says stuff like that all the time. Look at his campaign rallies!"

Don't forget also, as Beinhart notes, Mueller already telegraphed  he'd capitulated to the chickenshit idiom before the report was released, e.g.:

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller sent out clear - though silent - signals before the release of the report that he had joined the chickensh** club. He didn't indict Donald Trump, Jr and Jared Kushner for possible offences they may have committed, like lying to Congress and failing to disclose foreign contacts, and then interview them, if they were to be charged. That would have set up an interview with the president himself."

Then what could  Mueller have done, if he couldn't get inside Trump's head, and never forced him to answer questions in real life, in real time, one on one?

How much would Mueller have needed to get to a crime? Littwin avers:

"Trump's Fifth Avenue shooting hypothesis still holds."

Meaning he'd virtually have to plug some one on one of New York's busiest streets to be found guilty. A true "smoking gun".   Anything less, as Littwin and Eisinger explain, can be dissolved with enough fuzzy lingo or semantics.

Littwin' conclusion - like that of Beinhart - is that "the impeach and replace movement was never going to happen."

That does not mean, of course, that the Dems just roll over for Barr and Trump.  No, they need to get the entire Mueller report released to see what was actually found, not what Barr claims was found in his brief (4 page) memo-summary.

That means keeping the April 2nd deadline ironclad, given the more time allowed for Barr to delay the more Trump's specious "vindication" road show can do damage. If need be, the Dems need to haul Barr (and Mueller) before open hearings, as well as subpoena any redacted versions of the report that emerge.  This is not a game, but the future of a constitutional democracy at stake. And you can be damned sure if the shoe was on the other foot, and an Obama (or Hillary-appointed) AG had just done the summary dump that Barr did, the Repukes would be like rabid rats demanding everything.  Oh, and holding hearings that would put their Benghazi side show to shame.

No way now or ever would they follow the advice they've given House Democrats, to "just move on."

See also:
by Laura Flanders | March 30, 2019 - 6:31am | permalink

And:



Sonali Kolhatkar's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)