• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Archive for the ‘corruption’ Category

Republican Senators Enter the Impeachment Chaos

Thursday, October 3rd, 2019

The Daily Wire 

GOP Senators Say Hillary, DNC Colluded With Ukraine To Undermine Trump Campaign, Press DOJ To Probe

Joseph Curl October 1, 2019

Two top Republican senators have asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that Democrats sought dirt on Donald Trump from Ukrainian officials during the 2016 election. In a letter to Attorney General William Barr released Monday, Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa push the Justice Department to open a probe, saying they have “concerns about foreign assistance in the 2016 election that have not been thoroughly addressed.”

“Ukrainian efforts, abetted by a U.S. political party, to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored. Such allegations of corruption deserve due scrutiny, and the American people have a right to know when foreign forces attempt to undermine our democratic processes,” the senators wrote in the letter.

“The Justice Department has yet to inform Congress and the public whether it has begun an investigation into links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee. Ukrainian efforts, abetted by a U.S. political party, to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored,” the two senators wrote in the letter, dated September 27. “Are you investigating links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee? If not, why not?”

The senators claim Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic consultant, worked with Ukrainian officials to find dirt on Trump in 2016.

“At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative ‘who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee’ and who reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.[4]  Politico also reported on a Financial Times story that quoted a Ukrainian legislator, Serhiy Leschenko, as saying that Trump’s candidacy caused ‘Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election,’” the letter says.

Chalupa denies the allegations. “During the 2016 US election, I was a part-time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement program,” she told CNN in July. “I was not an opposition researcher for the DNC, and the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian Embassy to collect information.”

But the senators cited a news article from The Hill claiming otherwise.

“In addition, in May 2016, Chalupa emailed a DNC official stating that she met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists about Manafort and that there would be ‘[a] lot more coming down the pipe,’” the senators wrote. “Less than a month later, the ‘black ledger’ identifying payments made to Manafort from Ukrainian politicians was announced in Ukraine.[11] And finally, Nellie Ohr, the wife of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, stated during a congressional interview that Fusion GPS used Serhiy Leschenko, a Ukrainian politician that admitted Ukraine intervened in the 2016 election, as a source for derogatory material against then-candidate Trump.”

The senators asked for a response by Oct. 14.

Read the full letter below:

Dear Attorney General Barr:

We write to follow up on Senator Grassley’s July 20, 2017 letter, which highlighted brazen efforts by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign to use the government of Ukraine for the express purpose of finding negative information on then-candidate Trump in order to undermine his campaign.[1]  That letter also highlighted news reports that, during the 2016 presidential election, “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump” and did so by “disseminat[ing] documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggest[ing] they were investigating the matter[.]”[2]  Ukrainian officials also reportedly “helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.”[3]

At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative “who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee” and who reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.[4]  Politico also reported on a Financial Times story that quoted a Ukrainian legislator, Serhiy Leschenko, as saying that Trump’s candidacy caused “Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.”[5]

The July 20, 2017 letter further noted that the Democratic National Committee encouraged Chalupa to work with Ukrainian embassy staff to “arrange an interview in which Poroshenko [the president of Ukraine] might discuss Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych.”[6]  In March 2016, Chalupa met with Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., and Oksana Shulyar, a top aid to the Ukrainian ambassador, to share her alleged concerns about Manafort.  Reports state that the purpose of that initial meeting was to “organize a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine.”  However, another Ukrainian embassy official, Andrii Telizhenko, told Politico that Shulyar instructed him to assist Chalupa with research to connect Trump, Manafort, and the Russians.  He reportedly said, “[t]hey were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa” and that “Oksana [Shulyar] was keeping it all quiet…the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.[7]  In a May 2019 article, Telizhenko was quoted as saying,

[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.[8]

Reportedly, Telizhenko was instructed by the Ukrainian government to meet with an American journalist about Paul Manafort’s ties to Ukraine.[9]  In addition, in May 2016, Chalupa emailed a DNC official stating that she met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists about Manafort and that there would be “[a] lot more coming down the pipe.”[10]  Less than a month later, the “black ledger” identifying payments made to Manafort from Ukrainian politicians was announced in Ukraine.[11]  And finally, Nellie Ohr, the wife of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, stated during a congressional interview that Fusion GPS used Serhiy Leschenko, a Ukrainian politician that admitted Ukraine intervened in the 2016 election, as a source for derogatory material against then-candidate Trump.[12]

After two years, more than 2,800 subpoenas, approximately 500 search warrants and witness interviews, and $30 million in taxpayer money, Robert Mueller reported that then-candidate Trump did not collude with the Russians or any other foreign government to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.[13]  In contrast, however, the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research against candidate Trump, which included, among other efforts, the hiring of former British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele to compile the “Steele Dossier” that reportedly used Russian government sources for information.  These facts continue to raise concerns about foreign assistance in the 2016 election that have not been thoroughly addressed.

According to the Justice Department, U.S. Attorney John Durham is “exploring the extent to which…Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation” during the 2016 election.[14]  However, the Justice Department has yet to inform Congress and the public whether it has begun an investigation into links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee.  Ukrainian efforts, abetted by a U.S. political party, to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored. Such allegations of corruption deserve due scrutiny, and the American people have a right to know when foreign forces attempt to undermine our democratic processes. Accordingly, please provide an answer to two questions from the July 2017 letter related to the Democrats’ collusion with Ukrainian officials:

  1. Are you investigating links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee?  If not, why not?
  2. Why hasn’t the Justice Department required Alexandra Chalupa to register as a foreign agent under FARA?

In addition, information has surfaced that raises new questions.  A recent report described a note purporting to memorialize a meeting in Kiev between the Ukrainian Acting Prosecutor General, Yuriy Sevruk, and Burisma’s American legal team.[15]  Yuriy Sevruk was the temporary replacement for the Prosecutor General that Vice President Biden demanded be fired, Viktor Shokin.  The note, reportedly written by Sevruk, states that “[t]he purpose of their visit was an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures on the activities of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine [Shokin] in regards to the investigation of criminal activities of Zlochevsky [Oligarch owner of Burisma Holdings].”[16]

The article also reports that Ukrainian prosecutors have unsuccessfully been trying to get information to Justice Department officials since the summer of 2018, possibly including “[h]undreds of pages of never-released memos and documents … [that] conflict with Biden’s narrative”[17] that his actions in Ukraine had nothing to do with his son’s connections to Burisma.  In light of this reporting, has the Justice Department obtained or been offered documents from Ukrainian officials related to these matters?  If so, what were those documents?

We respectfully request that you respond to all of these questions no later than October 14, 2019.

We anticipate that your written reply and most responsive documents will be unclassified.  Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee.  In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committees, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security.  Although the Committees comply with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information, they are not bound, absent their prior agreement, by any handling restrictions.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to these matters.  Should you have any questions, please contact Joshua Flynn-Brown of Chairman Grassley’s staff at (202) 224-4515 or Brian Downey or Scott Wittmann of Chairman Johnson’s staff at (202) 224-4751.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Senate Finance Committee

Ron Johnson

Chairman

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

-30-

[1] Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (July 20, 2017), available at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/constituents/2017-07 20%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20%28Ukraine%20DNC%20FARA%29.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stern, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017). https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stern, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017). https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446.

[8] John Solomon, Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016, The Hill (May 2, 2019).  https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016

 

Impeachment marches on and Trump fights back

Thursday, October 3rd, 2019

The march to impeachment goes on with wild statements being thrown back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, important legislation is ignored because the House of Representatives cannot move on such legislation since Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats care about only one thing: Destroy the Trump presidency. The following posts might shed some light on where this is all going, or maybe not.

Daily Wire/ October 1, 2019

Conservative News/ October 2, 2019

Giuliani: ‘Pretty Close To Overwhelming Evidence’ That Obama Ordered Hillary, Democrats To Dig Up Dirt In Ukraine On Trump

Ryan Saavedra

Trump lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani suggested on Monday night that there was serious evidence that the Obama White House directed Democrats to work with Ukraine to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump.

Giuliani joined Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Monday night(9/30/2019) where he detailed the latest developments into the situation regarding Ukraine, which stems from a 2017 Politico investigation that found that Ukraine was working with operatives for the Democratic National Committee to sabotage Trump.

“The reason why the president of the United States had an obligation to ask the president of Ukraine to follow up on these allegations because there is substantial — I don’t want to exaggerate it but pretty close to overwhelming evidence, including a finding by a Ukrainian court that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats cooperated with Ukrainians with the order coming directly from the White House … to dig up dirt on her political opponent, and they did,” Giuliani said.

Giuliani then shifted his comments to focus on then-Vice President and now current Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden and the allegations surrounding his Ukraine corruption scandal.

“In this case, Biden sold his office for millions,” Giuliani said. “Is there anybody that believes that Ukraine or China were paying for Hunter Biden’s expertise? Or do you have the common sense to realize they were buying Joe Biden’s office? And that is very damaging to the United States. Joe Biden was sent to Ukraine to, in part, deal with corruption, and he helped to corrupt the Ukraine. He is a laughingstock.”

“We are [a laughingstock] because we talk about corruption and this guy puts his incompetent son to work for the most crooked oligarch in Russia? I mean, it is outrageous,” Giuliani continued. “The only really sad part of this … is how much in the tank and how corrupt this media has become. They have corruption staring them in the face and they closed their eyes to it, and then they make up charges against President Trump that aren’t true. They don’t look at this whistle-blower. He is giving them hearsay evidence.”

“And I’m going to tell you one other thing — Biden’s corruption helped to cover up all of the allegations of collusion because there was a company involved run by George Soros which was involved in the investigation, and that was closed down to cut off all of the proof, the additional proof, of just how far the Democrats went in corrupting the 2016 election and in corrupting the Ukraine,” Giuliani concluded.

Allegations surround the Biden-Ukraine corruption scandal stem from comments that Biden made last year when he bragged to an audience that “he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin” who was investigating a company that employed Biden’s son, The Hill reported.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden said. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

 

Bernie Sanders /Authoritarian Dictator or Crazy Old Man?

Tuesday, August 27th, 2019

After Reading this would you really want him to be President of the United States?

Godfather Politics

Warner Todd Huston

August 24, 2019

Like all leftists, Bernie Sanders is a fascist authoritarian at heart, and now he wants people arrested and made into “criminals” just for engaging in legal businesses he doesn’t like.

Like all fascists, Sanders wants to use the iron boot of government to criminalize his opponents. Like any tinpot dictator would.

Herr Sanders jumped to Twitter on Thursday afternoon and called for executives of fossil fuel companies to be “criminally prosecuted.” Now

“Fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused,” the aged fascist tweeted adding everyone’s favorite Communist hashtag, “#GreenNewDeal.”

“Fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused.” #GreenNewDeal

Sanders’ tweet came on the same day that he released an economy-crushing $16 trillion plan to address the mythological “climate change” crisis. Sanders exclaimed that his personal version of the communistic “Green New Deal” as a way to “end the greed of the fossil fuel industry.”

… and replace it with the greed of the new green energy industry, obviously.

Sanders posted a second tweet attacking the idea of “clean coal.”

“There is no such thing as ‘clean coal.’ There is no such thing as ‘sustainably fracked” natural gas,’” the crackpot tweeted, adding, “We are going to end the greed of the fossil fuel industry and move to 100% renewable energy.”

On his website, Sanders goes off on fossil fuels.

“These executives have spent hundreds of millions of dollars protecting their profits at the expense of our future, and they will do whatever it takes to squeeze every last penny out of the Earth,” his about section reads.

“Bernie promises to go further than any other presidential candidate in history to end the fossil fuel industry’s greed, including by making the industry pay for its pollution and prosecuting it for the damage it has caused.”

This decrepit crackpot would tank the one industry most responsible for America’s high standard of living.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

 

The New York Times/ Media Outlet or Activist Organization?

Sunday, August 25th, 2019

For those of us who read the paper regularly, we knew this was the case. However, this information reveals it in a most solid manner and serves as a blot on the character of this old and highly respected newspaper.

 

The Heritage Foundation

The Daily Signal

Morning Bell

The New York Times Works for the Left, and Now Everyone Should Know It

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / August 20, 2019

Is The New York Times a media outlet or an activist organization?

It appears that it’s leaning toward activism. A recent town hall meeting of Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Times staffers revealed a publication struggling to maintain any meaningful independence from its aggressively left-wing readership and staff.

The leaked transcript is well worth reading, as it demonstrates how far-left voices now dominate the direction of the Times and how closely the newspaper’s work aligns with the progressive political strategies of the moment.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.

The paper’s left-leaning readership, which includes many self-styled progressive politicians, earlier this month pushed the Times to change a Page One headline for a news story about President Donald Trump’s official remarks about the El Paso shooting.

The original headline read: “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”

Editors soon changed it to “Assailing Hate, but Not Guns” after the Times was inundated by criticism from readers and, according to reports, angry staff members.

Many critics were furious that the paper didn’t outright call Trump a “racist.”

Was there any meaningful pushback to this attempt to label the president a racist? No.

Instead, Baquet simply noted at the meeting that outright labeling the president a racist wasn’t the most effective tack, and that implying or demonstrating that he is a racist was more powerful.

On top of discussing headlines and wording in articles, Baquet addressed the Times’ coverage strategy going forward.

It appears that the newspaper was banking on the Trump-Russia collusion narrative to placate readers who are eager to see Trump removed from office.

The result of special counsel Robert Mueller’s 22-month investigation, though, left the publication “a little tiny bit flat-footed,” Baquet said.

“Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy s–t, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,’” the executive editor said. “And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago.”

What’s the new narrative? Race and racial division, apparently.

In the transcript of the meeting, one anonymous Times staffer says: “I’m wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know?”

The staffer continues:

Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn’t racist. I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism, and sort of how we’re thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country.

Baquet responds by saying that “race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story,” and that the Times would begin a project to address it.

The newspaper’s recently released “1619 Project,” based on the arrival of African slaves in the British colony of Virginia, is clearly a big part of focusing coverage of American politics on race. While the project could be an important historical look at the history of slavery in America, it instead announces its revisionist intent from the very beginning:

The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.

Despite denials from the project’s supporters, the ideological intent of the 1619 Project is clear and unfortunate, although predictable, given what is happening behind the scenes at the Times.

The fact that The New York Times is a progressive paper with a left-wing slant is fine. A publication can have an editorial line and still do objective, fact-based reporting.

But we shouldn’t be deluded into thinking, especially after the leak of this transcript, that the Times doesn’t have an obvious ideological bias and that its editorial decisions are not being swayed by its increasingly far-left staff and readers.

This shift should have been an obvious development to  Americans, but now it couldn’t be clearer.

David Marcus, writing at The Federalist, summed it up nicely. Marcus wrote:

I read The New York Times, I enjoy it, sometimes I do the crossword, but to the extent I ever did, I can no longer see it as a straight paper with limited bias. This transcript makes that blatantly obvious. So, by all means, read the Times. But make sure you go in with your eyes wide open.

The New York Times essentially is bowing to leftist demands and becoming an activist organization. It has abandoned even the pretense of being dedicated to covering important news and evenhandedly informing readers.

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, The Heritage Foundation needs for conservatives to come together as a group of likeminded citizens.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone. We need conservatives to unite, and this Candy accomplished by joining The Heritage Foundation.

 

 

The Mueller Report to the House of Representatives

Saturday, July 27th, 2019

Finally, Mueller came to testify before the House of Representatives. The Democrats expected a gang buster destruction of Trump. Well, not so fast.

Godfather Politics

Robert Mueller’s House Testimony a Bust: Impeachment’s Over

Warren Todd Huston

July 24, 2019

Democrats had high hopes that former special council Robert Mueller’s testimony would ring the bell for impeachment, but instead it has fizzled and led some in the media to pronounce the hopes of impeachment to be dead.

Mueller’s testimony broadcast all across the country was very bad for Democrats. Mueller looked confused and ill-informed throughout the event. He stumbled over answers, repeatedly asked for questions to be asked a second time, and often seemed unaware of what was going on. And, according to CNN’s Jake Tapper, he refused to even answer a question over 155 times.

The appearance before the House Judiciary Committee was so bad that NBC’s liberal newsman Chuck Todd said that the hearing had created a series of “narrative nightmares for Democrats.”

During a break in the testimony, NBC shot over to Todd who said that the whole thing was not working well for Democrats.

As Breitbart News reported, when asked if the testimony is bringing the report to life like a movie Todd said, “In no movie would the best actor, the lead person here has the fewest words spoken. And the problem here is you — basically the narrative that Democrats were hoping that Bob Mueller would be telling is essentially they are telling him and he is saying, ‘that’s true. yes, that’s correct.’ I wrote it down two narrative nightmares for the Democrats, one was ‘I stick with the language I have in front of you,’ or ‘whatever was said will appear in the report.’ He has no interest in helping to providing color, context and that does, I think take away some drama.

Meanwhile over at ABC, the network’s Senior National Correspondent, Terry Moran, was also seen lamenting the loss of the Democrat narrative by insisting that Mueller’s latest testimony finally put an end to their hopes of impeaching Trump.

Moran said, “Impeachment’s over. I don’t think Nancy Pelosi is going to stand for her members bringing forth something that is going to obviously lose in the Senate, lose with the American public. And the problem with Mueller’s testimony on this issue is that he had to carry the ball for them some way, whether he wanted to or not, at least by being a vigorous, strong, rock-solid prosecutor. And he looked like somebody who’d slowed a step or two, and perhaps, as the Republicans are starting to put out there, maybe he wasn’t in control of all those angry Democrats, maybe he’s a figurehead, somebody from the past that they put there so they could do their dirty work. That’s the theory they’re coming out with. It’s not going to be bought by Democrats, but they needed more fuel for any kind of impeachment effort.”

Even the left’s favorite lawyer, Laurence Tribe, said that Mueller’s testimony was a “disaster” for the left.

Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it. The effort to save democracy and the rule of law from this lawless president has been set back, not advanced.

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) July 24, 2019

Indeed, Politico is saying that there is relief and even “euphoria” at the White House over how bad Mueller’s testimony was for the Democrats.

“The Democrats built up these two Mueller hearings as their Super Bowl, and at half time, it is not looking good for their side,” said Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who has kept a low profile since she was tapped for the job late last month, said in a statement, “The last three hours have been an epic embarrassment for the Democrats. Expect more of the same in the second half.”

“So far, so good,” a senior White House official said in a text message when lawmakers took a brief break about 90 minutes into the Judiciary Committee hearing. Another Trump ally described the mood in the White House simply as “euphoria.”

Perhaps one of the best Republican moments during Mueller’s testimony came when Texas Republican John Ratcliffe proved that Mueller’s entire second book of his report was essentially an illegal document because Mueller’s legal job was not to convict or exonerate anyone but was only to present the evidence so that a decision over prosecution could be made.

Ratcliffe’s time at the mic was devastating to Mueller’s credibility: “Can you give me an example other than @realDonaldTrump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?”

Mueller: “I cannot.”

So why was Mueller such a dud? Was it because he did not want to be the reason for a political catastrophe? Or was it because he really did not compose the report and that it was actually done by his staff of attorneys, all of whom hated Trump? Or was it that he is ill and just too tired to to be able to go through all these questions? Or is the supposedly innocence on collusion with the Russians and that he did not obstruct justice actually the case? I suppose we’ll never know.

In all, whatever, Mueller’s testimony was a huge bust for the Democrats.

In the end, we are still left with the facts being that there was no proof that Trump “colluded” with anyone, nor that he worked with Russians to change our elections. There was also no obstruction. the Democrats are now left with nothing on which to hang an impeachment trial.

 


William S. Frankl, MD, All Rights Reserved