After Robert Mueller’s disastrous performance Wednesday before two House committees, the Democrats’ effort to remove President Trump and reverse the 2016 election is over.
They’ll have to wait until 2020 to try again.
The Democrats and all the Russia probe stuff they brought up just seemed like a lukewarm meal of tiresome leftovers. We’ve seen all this stuff before, and the country is tired of it. The efforts by the media to suggest that something important was said or happened – other than the evidence of the personal deterioration of Robert Mueller – was ludicrous and pathetic.
Democrats are done talking about impeachment and investigating President Trump. At least for now.
A day after former special counsel Robert Mueller’s much-anticipated testimony about presidential collusion and obstruction fizzled, House Democrats Thursday marched down the East Front of the U.S. Capitol led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and waving small American flags, determined to change the subject.
Lawmakers delivered a 20-minute press conference to awaiting media in which they brushed off the significance of the monthslong probes into Trump and his administration and all that talk about impeachment.
Nobody mentioned investigating the president.
Instead, Democrats touted the stack of legislation they have passed since taking over the House majority in January and offered a glimpse into what they would be talking about with constituents when they leave the Capitol Friday for a six week recess.
It had nothing to do with Trump.
“There is all this talk about oversight and investigations,” Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, said dismissively as he outlined the August agenda. “This is our opportunity to report back to our constituents on the work we are doing on behalf of the American people.”
“On my watch, Bob will be allowed to finish his work,” Attorney General nominee Robert Barr said during testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.
Is that a good idea? I don’t think so, but it may be he had to say this in order to get confirmed. But how does this conform to the rule of law? What if Barr decides that Meuller is abusing his power? Isn’t this a green light for Mueller to do so?
When is it ever a good idea to tell an employee, which is what Mueller is with respect to the Justice Department, that he or she can’t be fired??
Special Counsel Robert Mueller fired two FBI lovers from his investigation because they were clearly biased against the subject of the probe, President Donald Trump. And yet, instead of retaining evidence of whatever “collusion” they may have been involved in together, he failed to preserve evidence of their contacts. Why?
Shortly after being appointed in May 2017, Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller hired Strzok and Page. When he did so, he issued them work iPhones. A short time later, Horowitz, who was investigating the department’s Hillary Clinton probe, discovered that Strzok and Page, using their old FBI phones, had exchanged virulently anti-Trump text messages. Horowitz told Mueller, who thought the situation serious enough to remove Strzok and Page. Yet it appears the Mueller office stripped Page’s iPhone of all data without ever checking on its contents, and they stripped Strzok’s iPhone after a perfunctory check that may or may not have taken note of the content of its text messages. When Horowitz asked for and (belatedly) received the phones, he could recover nothing from them.
The iPhone affair leaves some real questions. How did Mueller not see the need to examine the Strzok and Page iPhones after Mueller learned of the anti-Trump texts they had sent with their FBI phones? If the texts were serious enough to fire Strzok and Page, were they not serious enough to warrant a search of the phones? How did Mueller not see the need to immediately hand the phones over to Horowitz, who originally informed Mueller about the Strzok-Page text issue? And what did the special counsel’s declaration of “no substantive texts” on Strzok’s phone mean, given that the Justice Department had earlier withheld many relevant Strzok-Page texts from congressional investigators? Finally, what does Mueller’s behavior in the text situation say about his willingness to submit to oversight, even by the Justice Department’s own inspector general?
Everyone’s talking about a New York Times story suggesting that White House Counsel Don McGahn may have been seeking to protect himself and harm President Trump by spending 30 hours talking to special counsel Robert Mueller.
A fifth column! Rats abandoning the sinking ship!
As the Wall Street Journal points out today, maybe just the reverse.
The thesis of the New York Times story is that Mr. McGahn cooperated in a way that could hurt Donald Trump in order to protect himself and because he doesn’t trust the President. This fits the media narrative that Mr. Trump is covering up his collusion with Russia and his obstruction of justice, and thus Mr. McGahn must be scrambling to save himself.
Yet lost in the resulting tempest is a crucial fact that appears to contradict this spin: Mr. Trump had to waive executive privilege for Mr. McGahn to cooperate with Mr. Mueller . . .
This in turn meant that Mr. McGahn would have to answer all of Mr. Mueller’s questions. Once privilege is waived, Mr. McGahn couldn’t decide to answer, say, what Mr. Trump told him about Attorney General Jeff Sessions but refuse to discuss the President’s state of mind when he fired James Comey at the FBI. Without invoking privilege there is no legal basis for Mr. McGahn to refuse to answer a question.
This isn’t what you’d expect if Mr. Trump is leading a coverup. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton fought extensive legal battles with prosecutors over executive privilege. Mr. Clinton invoked privilege to block aides Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal from testifying to Ken Starr’s grand jury.Yet when Mr. Trump doesn’t invoke privilege for his White House counsel, he gets no credit.
Exactly. Because the media have a particular storyline they are following. And Trump doing good things, or anything that might suggest he’s innocent, is not part of the story.
According to the Washington Post: Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III indicated this week that he is willing to reduce the number of questions his investigators would pose to President Trump in an interview, renewing negotiations with Trump’s lawyers about a presidential sit-down after an extended standoff, according to two people briefed on the negotiations.… Continue Reading
President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani is reversing himself and now support allowing Special Counsel Robert Meuller to interview Trump, according to the Washington Post. He made it obvious that this idea, which is not a smart one, was Trump’s not his. “I guess I’d rather do the interview,” Giuliani said. “It gets it over with,… Continue Reading
According to Fox News: President Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has told the president’s legal team he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump. Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox News that… Continue Reading
Yes, that’s right. A prosecutor with unlimited power, time and money to go after anyone to get Trump. That’s a problem. From the Washington Post: A federal judge in Virginia on Friday accused the office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III of pursuing a fraud case against President Trump’s former campaign manager to pressure… Continue Reading