The Mueller Statement – with Reactions

These are my reactions to the Mueller “Statement” made today. I’m taking it paragraph-by-paragraph because line-by-line would take too long

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

What the media colloquially referred to as “collusion” until the President started using the term.

Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel’s office, and as well, I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself. Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

You’re speaking out today because Barr beat you to the punch and announced the results of your “report” before you could get it to the media.  And if the written work “speaks for itself,” then why are you making a statement?!?

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cybertechniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.

Or, to be more precise, Russian hackers took advantage of the DNC’s poor security practices and shared that data with WikiLeaks.  Mueller is using slight of hand here to tell you what the GRAND JURY INDICTMENT alleges, not what he can prove actually happened.  There is NO TIE to Hillary’s emails and WikiLeaks.

The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. 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 influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The “social media operation” was about $100,000 in facebook ads.  My company purchases that much in facebook ads in a month.  It’s not that hard and I doubt very much that a facebook ad would change a voter’s mind.

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. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Oh you little weasel.  Could you be any more blatant and transparent?  You are all but accusing Trump of obstruction without actually SAYING it.  And the reason you don’t is because then you’d be disbarred or worse.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.

Whoa.  So there’s insufficient evidence to make charges on “conspiracy,” huh?  So in short hand could I simply say “no collusion?”

The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

Ah so there it is.  You’re throwing Rosenstein under the bus.  I think we’d all like to see the scope memo that authorized your obstruction investigation.

And since when do we need “confidence” that a person did not commit a crime?  That’s not how American jurisprudence works.  You said yourself only moments ago that “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”  Sure doesn’t sound like you believe that.

In truth you did “make a determination.”  You determined that you couldn’t prove he committed a crime and therefore you decided to play word games to keep your investigation going.

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.

Yes, you can’t indict a sitting President.  Because if a federal prosecutor could then a single unscrupulous lawyer somewhere in America could sideline a Presidency with endless depositions and testimony and court appearances.  That would be disenfranchisement as well as a separation of powers issue.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

It must be so annoying that you can investigate him but your hands are tied to do anything about it.  But if you had such a hard time “clearing” him surely you had enough evidence to indict these so-called “co-conspirators?”  No?  Nothing?

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. 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.

So you’ve now said (a) “it’s unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” and (b) “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.”

In other words, you’re a god-damned hypocrite.  You just “unfairly” accused the President of obstructing you.  On top of that, you whined about the fact that the only thing that stopped you was the Constitution itself. 

So that was Justice Department policy. 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. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.

Or, to be more precise, once you discovered you couldn’t indict Trump you made damn sure you couldn’t clear him either.  And you aren’t bashful about saying that are you?

The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.

So Barr didn’t mis-represent your report?  He acted in “good faith?”  And you don’t have a problem with how he chose to release the report?  Isn’t that interesting….

Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

Clearly you’re sick of being harassed by the Left on why you didn’t bring charges and why you won’t testify.  Normally I’d feel sorry for someone in your shoes, but I can’t say I do.

So beyond what I’ve said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.

It certainly would not be appropriate.  You’re not Attorney General.  You’re not even part of this government.  So you did well to refer the media to the DOJ.

Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the F.B.I. agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel’s office were of the highest integrity. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

“Highest integrity.”  Choice words for bitter partisans.  You ran an Inquisition for two years and you used process crimes and 15-year-old infractions to build a portrait of a conspiracy.  You wrote a “report” whose sole purpose is to provide a roadmap for impeaching the President, and House Democrats are dying to run the playbook you so thoughtfully wrote for them.

Your concern for election interference is touching, but we all know that you were never investigating that.  You wanted your modern-day Capone.  And you think you have him.