So now the most ethical, professional, and honest lawyer in Washington DC has allowed another leak from his “team” of
[An update in the interest of fairness: A NY Times story reads, “The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, recently provided President Trump’s lawyers a list of questions he wants answered in an interview. The New York Times obtained the list …”. That story makes it seem as if the list came from Mueller. Now, however, erupts a dispute over where the NY Times got a list of the questions. Some stories say the list was or may have been compiled by Trump’s lawyers or even “the White House,” although it’s reported that the list did not come from Trump’s “legal team.”]
“So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were ‘leaked’ to the media,” Trump tweeted. “No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see … you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!” …
The president added: “It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt!”
According to federal law, someone can obstruct an investigation of a potential crime even if that inquiry ultimately finds no crime was committed. In other words, someone only has to interfere with a federal investigation to be guilty of obstructing justice.
It certainly sounds as if the media and Mueller’s team hope to use against President Trump the same gambit that worked (to a point) against Scooter Libby. (Not-so-fun fact: Mueller, Comey, and Fitzgerald go way back together as friends and
Needless to say, President Trump would be beyond foolish to be interviewed by Mueller, without at least insisting upon equal treatment with Hillary Clinton: not under oath, no recording, no leaks, anyone Trump wants in the interview so they can compare notes, and no verbatim transcript, not to mention interviewers with an overweening presumption of total innocence (exoneration report already written) and a stress upon the lack of intent to break the law.
Let’s just say the President shouldn’t talk to these snakes at all or, if he must, then use the Clinton standard and be unable to recall (39 times!).
Scooter Libby was convicted because his memory differed from a reporter’s memory.
What Comey and his fellow
conspirators co-workers (the cabal who instigated the “witch hunt”) tell Mueller is guaranteed to differ from Trump’s memory of events. We’ve already seen how Comey has shaded his version of events in his leaks to the media versus what actually can be deduced from the context of a conversation, as deduced from Comey’s own written memos.
For example, Comey’s spin is that Trump, like some Mafia don, demanded Comey’s absolute loyalty. The truth is seen in Comey’s memo, however: Trump said he expected loyalty in the context of a conversation about illegal leaks, not absolute loyalty in all circumstances. In other words, Trump merely meant that he expects his employees to follow the law.
Nevertheless, if there’s any difference in interpretation, which version do you think Mueller will accept as truth, in a case where the only “evidence” is a series of self-serving, one-sided, supposedly contemporaneous “personal” memos (written by a liar and admitted leaker who was writing a book)?
Let’s look at the notion that a president can obstruct justice.
President Trump was James Comey’s boss. The president was Jeff Sessions’s boss. The president was Michael Flynn’s boss. The president is the top dog running the entire executive branch, which includes the Department of Justice, which includes the FBI. As such, the president is the ultimate authority running any federal investigation. The notion that the president can “obstruct justice” by enquiring about, by influencing, by controlling, by suggesting paths, by being briefed on any investigation is ridiculous.
When Loretta Lynch instructed Comey to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter” instead of an investigation, was she obstructing justice? In that case, did Comey leak that fact to the media in hopes of having a special counsel appointed to investigate Lynch for obstruction of justice?
Did Comey himself obstruct justice by leaking information about on-going investigations to the media?
Did Comey refer Hillary Clinton for indictment for obstructing justice when she destroyed evidence?
None of the alleged questions leaked to the media seem to be any of Robert Mueller’s business.
Where is it written in the Constitution that a person who holds what’s potentially an unconstitutional office and who ultimately reports to the president has a right to second guess how the president fulfills his duties under the Constitution?
Who is Mueller to second guess the president’s decision to fire James Comey (a decision that looks wholly justified)? Who is Mueller to second guess Trump’s handling of Jeff Sessions’s recusal? Read the questions for yourself to see how dangerous and unconstitutional this Mueller “investigation” has become.
We the People of the United States elected President Donald J. Trump. The Deep State, including the likes of Clinton, Comey, and Mueller, didn’t like the election results. Since then, by hook or by crook, they’ve done everything in their power to undermine the President, if they can’t remove him from office, which they’re still trying hard to do.
It’s long past time for this “special counsel” to end this sham of an investigation, to stop wasting the taxpayers’ money, and to accept the results of the election.
It’s also long past time for Jeff Sessions to do his job. Indict the people who committed perjury, who truly obstructed justice, who engaged in an illegal conspiracy to use the powers of the federal government to overturn the results of an election, who illegally leaked, who illegally destroyed evidence, who illegally conspired with foreigners (UK subjects, Russians, and Australians) to corruptly influence the 2016 election.
Get off President Trump’s back and let him continue the fabulous job he’s doing of making America great again.