• 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 ‘Politics’ Category

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.

 

MELANIE PHILLIPS/ The Squad/ Anti-Semitism

Thursday, July 25th, 2019

Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for “The Times of London,” her personal and political memoir, “Guardian Angel,” has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel, “The Legacy,” in 2018. Her work can be found at: www.melaniephillips.com

 This story should be read by all Americans, especially Americans of the Jewish faith. The” squad” are the problem in this case, not President Trump. Although he could have handled the problem a little less harshly, the squad are the perpetrators of hate, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and destruction of the Democratic Party.

In Trump vs. ‘the Squad,’ American Jews have picked the wrong target 

 

The president wasn’t attacking the women’s color or ethnicity. He was attacking their disloyalty to America. Racism is picking on people for who they are; Trump attacked them for what they do.

  

(July 18, 2019 / JNS) In the showdown between U.S. President Donald Trump and “the Squad” of four far-left minority congresswomen, Jewish organizations in America have overwhelmingly condemned Trump’s remarks.

Trump tweeted that certain “progressive congresswomen,” widely assumed to be Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), should go back to the “totally broken” countries they had come from and sort them out before telling America how to run its own affairs.

Jewish organizations, which are overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Trump, reacted viscerally, accusing the president of “echoing the racist talking points of white nationalists” and of being America’s “Racist in Chief.”

Only the Republican Jewish Coalition demurred, agreeing with Sen. Lindsey Graham that the Squad were “a bunch of Communists” who “hate Israel. They hate our own country.”

The anti-Jewish and anti-Israel prejudices repeatedly expressed by certain members of the Squad have disquieted many American Jews.

Yet the Democratic Party, which still attracts unquestioning support from some three-quarters of Jewish voters, has failed to discipline these women—not just for their Jew-baiting, but also for their deep-dyed anti-Americanism and anti-white racism.

Worse still, the broader party is itself enmeshed with extremism through its attacks on the enforcement of immigration law and its reluctance to condemn the supposedly antifascist but violent and nihilistic Antifa protest group.

Last weekend, Willem Van Spronsen, an Antifa member who was armed with a rifle and home-made bombs, attacked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Tacoma, Wash. and was shot dead by police officers.

Yet while hysteria erupted against Trump over his tweets, there was minimal coverage of this attack. That was because the Antifa terrorist was a leftist, whose incoherent “manifesto” parroted the Democrat and liberal mantra about the supposed atrocities in these detention centers.

Only a week ago, Omar denounced the border-control agencies and called for “a conversation about eliminating their existence.” And by an amazing coincidence, the terrorist’s “manifesto” called the ICE centers “concentration camps,” the wildly offensive and inappropriate term for them coined by Ocasio-Cortez.

Outrageously, she also complained about American flags flying over ICE centers. Hours later, the “Stars and Stripes” flying over a Colorado ICE facility was torn down and replaced by a Mexican flag.

Yet there was no condemnation from the Democrats of this contempt for the US flag and the country it represents—a silence described by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley as “disgusting.”

Even more troubling is the party’s support for breaking American law.

A number of high-profile Democrats have publicly advised how to avoid arrest by an ICE agent. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, said during her regular press conference last week that illegal aliens should simply not open the door if an agent came knocking.

The Democrats governing “sanctuary cities” are actually providing sanctuary from the law. They are actively thwarting due process against individuals whose removal has been ordered in court by an immigration judge.

The latest ICE report details how, over the course of two years, the “sanctuary state” of California refused to turn over 5,600 criminal illegal aliens to ICE agents for deportation. Of these, more than 3,400 had been charged with crimes, including homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, drugs and fraud.

Shamefully, American Jews have been in the forefront of campaigning against the enforcement of immigration law.

Over the past week, thousands have taken to the streets of U.S. cities to demonstrate against Trump’s immigration policies. Dozens of synagogues across the country have offered illegal immigrants protection during ICE raids.

For obvious historical reasons, Jews are instinctively sympathetic to immigrants. But all nations are entitled to limit the numbers entering the country. Without border controls, there can be no nation. Since when did Jews believe it right to display such contempt for both the rule of law and the very concept of citizenship?

Now the Democratic Party has displayed further contempt for the rules of Congress. After the majority leader Steny Hoyer ruled that Speaker Pelosi was out of order in referring to Trump’s “racist tweets,” he was promptly overruled by his fellow Democrats. And so the House deemed Trump “racist.”

This will rebound on the Democrats because fair-minded people will see it as false and unconstitutional. Trump’s “go back” tweet was certainly offensive and stupid, since three of the Squad were born in the United States and all are U.S. citizens.

However, he wasn’t attacking their color or ethnicity. He was attacking their disloyalty to America. Racism is picking on people for who they are; Trump attacked the Squad for what they do and say.

The four of them constantly use their ethnic backgrounds to present themselves as different from other Americans. Tlaib literally wrapped herself in the Palestinian flag on the day she was elected to Congress.

They emphasize these differences in order to pose as victims of white America. Far from Trump being racist in differentiating them from other Americans, they themselves weaponize those differences against America and its core values.

Trump’s language was unpleasant and phrased with stupid carelessness. But it’s not racist to tell such people that if they hate America so much they can leave.

The crowd roaring “send her back!” at Trump’s rally this week weren’t racist either. They were roaring support for Trump because they understood that he had finally drawn a line in the sand, albeit rhetorical, against those who want to destroy America, Israel and civilized values, but who are generally indulged.

Most American Jews, though, appear to think that it is indeed racist. Downplaying or ignoring the Jew-baiting now tolerated by the Democratic Party, liberal Jews are so blinded by hatred of Trump that they actually attack him for supporting the Jewish people.

Thus the head of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, objected to Trump’s attacks on the Squad’s Jew-hatred with the Orwellian claim that “politicizing the widespread, bipartisan support for Israel and throwing around accusations of anti-Semitism is damaging to the security of Israel and the Jewish community.”

Hatred of Trump seems to have caused a number of Jews to lose their reason altogether. In The Los Angeles Times this week, Michael Hiltzik wrote: “What’s most striking about current administration practice is how it resembles the pre-Final Solution treatment of Jews in Germany and Nazi-controlled portions of Europe.”

This obscenely false analogy unforgivably trivializes the genocide of the Jews of Europe. Yet one after the other, liberal Jews are abusing the memory of the Holocaust and its victims by claiming that Trump is paving the way for Nazism.

Heaven only knows, Trump has his faults—many of them unattractive, egregious or alarming. But those who so hysterically anathematize him and have falsely made him into a figure of mythic malice, while themselves nodding along to bigotry, violence and seditiousness on their own side, are saying much more about themselves. And none of it is good.

It is the Democrats who are embracing anti-Americanism, anti-white racism, Jew-baiting, witch-hunting and contempt for the rule of law. It is Trump who is standing up for the defense of America and its values, for legality and due process and for the Jewish people.

By displaying Democrat and liberal partisanship that is shallow to such a horrifying degree, American Jews are disgracing their cultural heritage and destroying their own moral standing.

 

 

 

Colin Kaepernick Falls Flat on Face Again

Sunday, July 7th, 2019

The Western Journal

CT Conservative Tribune

KAEP  humiliated as public learns Betsy Ross was part of masses anti-slavery group

Ryan Ledendecker

July 5, 2019

 

Former quarterback-turned-social-justice-warrior Colin Kaepernick caused a stir right before the July Fourth holiday after somehow convincing Nike’s top brass that a patriotic shoe it was set to release represented slavery.

In a last-minute move as the Air Max 1 Quick Strike “Betsy Ross flag” shoes were hitting store shelves, Nike pulled its release and immediately made national headlines.

And Ross’ name was subsequently dragged through the mud.

But before Kaepernick — a man who once donned socks that depicted police officers as “pigs” — continues to push the narrative that Ross’ 13-star flag somehow connects connects her to slavery, he might consider a quick lesson in U.S. history.

According to Biography, Ross was born as Elizabeth Griscom in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in January 1752, and grew up as a Quaker — a religious group also known as the Society of Friends.

What social justice warriors like Kaepernick are unaware of is that the Quakers were one of the first religious groups in America to condemn slavery both in the U.S. and abroad.

According to a history of Quakers and Slavery by Bryn Mawr College, “The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) was the first corporate body in Britain and North America to fully condemn slavery as both ethically and religiously wrong in all circumstances.”

The Quakers also spent considerable time attempting to sway public opinion on the evils of slavery. They even provided education and resources for formerly slaves.

How much more anti-slavery can a group possibly be?

It’s unfortunate that no one at Nike did their homework before the company kowtowed to Kaepernick’s demands. It could have saved everyone else a lot of time.

Nike issued a ridiculous statement concerning the decision to cancel the shoe’s release, according to ESPN.

“We regularly make business decisions to withdraw initiatives, products and services. NIKE made the decision to halt distribution of the Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July based on concerns that it could unintentionally offend and detract from the nation’s patriotic holiday.”

Ironically, the company went against its own intentions of not detracting from July Fourth by making such a poor decision that caused a national stir.

Nike sure doesn’t seem proud of its American heritage, given the fact the company pulled a shoe that had no connection to slavery whatsoever.

If Kaepernick hadn’t told his followers to be offended by the shoe, they wouldn’t have been. It was just another attempt to create division in America — something Kaepernick’s proven to be a master at.

The 13-star flag represents the Revolutionary War and the courage it took for people in that era to give us the freedoms we currently enjoy.

Ross was an anti-slavery Quaker who should be respected by all Americans, politics aside. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology from the washed-up former football player, but he certainly owes one to Ross and every other American.

 

Trump on July 4, 2019

Sunday, July 7th, 2019

BREITBART

Joel B. Pollak

July 4, 2019

President Donald Trump did more than defy his critics with his memorable Fourth of July address from the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday evening.

He likely established what will become an annual tradition —  one later presidents, decades from now, will continue to observe.

And he gave the American people the tribute that we have long deserved, but which we have somehow been unable, until now, to give ourselves, too afraid to pass along to the next generation.

The president’s opponents said that his revamped Fourth of July celebrations smacked of authoritarianism. They said that the ceremonial use of tanks in a parade, as well as the flyovers from every branch of the U.S. armed forces, were somehow un-American — even though they had certainly been used before.

They said it was the height of narcissism for Trump to deliver a speech on Independence Day, that he would be turning the day into campaign commercial.

Former vice president Joe Biden said, prior to the speech, that the event had been “designed more to stroke Trump’s ego than celebrate American ideals.” (This from a politician who served under Barack Obama, who not only made virtually every speech about himself, but dared to re-design the presidential seal in his own image.)

Biden could not have been more wrong. Trump’s speech was all about the country — its heroes, its people, and its democratic ideals.

Trump, in the rain, addressed the nation and re-told the heroic story of its founding. “With a single sheet of parchment, and 56 signatures, America began the greatest political journey in human history,” Trump said, recalling the battles that followed to secure the freedom for which the Founders had fought.

He went on to tell the story of American success — not just in politics and war, but also in science, medicine, technology, industry, exploration, culture, and civil rights.

Trump boldly spoke the truths that have been suppressed in our media and on our campuses. His speech was not only moving, but necessary. The history he related, and the achievements he celebrated, are unknown to a generation raised to see our country as flawed, if not evil.

The New York Times declares today that America is not the “greatest,” but “just OK”; Vice tells readers America “has always been bad.” That is the new poisonous orthodoxy; Trump provided the antidote.

More than that, Trump celebrated the ordinary people who constantly renew our country’s potential.

He acknowledged Tina “Angel” Belcher, who “turns her tiny kitchen into a disaster relief center” for hurricane victims; he thanked Sister Deidre Byrne for aiding the wounded on September 11, 2001; he honored Clarence Henderson, who led the historic sit-in at the Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1960; he also praised the suffragette movement.

Trump thanked the military, and law enforcement, and Gold Star families. And he offered a moving tribute to each of the five branches of the armed forces, recounting the history of each, noting its greatest deeds.

The military band sang and played the song of each branch as its aircraft flew overhead. Trump used the opportunity to urge young Americans to join the armed forces: how often has any president made such a direct appeal, against such a moving backdrop?

This was not a political speech: it was a patriotic milestone. Trump invited us to celebrate our country — boldly and explicitly. It was, somehow, something previous presidents were too timid to do.

When Navy SEALS killed Osama bin Laden in 2011, it took a visiting leader, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to urge us to celebrate, weeks later.

No longer. This is the greatness Donald Trump promised to restore. Future presidents will bear a duty to do the same.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

 

The Mueller News Conference/5/29/2019

Friday, May 31st, 2019

      The bizarre news conference called by Robert Mueller did not help clear up the mess he had made of his 2-year effort to bring down President Trump. To follow are 2 excellent reviews of what Mueller said and what it all might mean.

 

Richard Viguerie’s

CONSERVATIVEHQ

Mueller’s Bitter End

George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 5/30/19

Note to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his band of angry Democrats: There is insufficient evidence to charge me in the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, but that doesn’t mean that you should encourage Congress to spend the next two years harassing me about it.

Robert Mueller’s hastily called press conference yielded one thing, and one thing only; a last opportunity for Mueller to encourage the overthrow of the President he despises, but was incapable of overthrowing himself.

Beyond infuriating Democrats by announcing that “…the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress…” Mueller stated only the obvious: “…there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” and “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

The further problem for Trump-haters is that buried in Mueller’s statement was an important statement of fact that further exonerates President Trump:

“…the [Department of Justice] 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.” (Emphasis ours.)

In other words, had there been evidence uncovered that Donald Trump conspired with anyone to obstruct justice, the co-conspirators could have and would have been charged, even if the President is shielded from such a charge by the Constitution.

After Mueller’s exhaustive investigation no co-conspirators in any cover-up or conspiracy to obstruct justice were charged and the Special Counsel announced when the final report was filed there would be no further indictments, ergo, there is no conspiracy to obstruct justice or cover-up for House Democrats to investigate.

Many anti-Trump media commentators and all of the radical Leftists vying for the Democratic nomination for President seem to have interpreted some of Mueller’s remarks as an invitation or referral to Congress to begin an investigation and impeachment hearings.

And that may be Robert Mueller’s fervent wish for the outcome of his investigation and yesterday’s press conference, but that is not what he said. What he said was not a reference to specific conduct that might be impeachable, but rather a simple statement of fact:

“…second, the [Department of Justice] 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 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 — that is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.”

The Department of Justice “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing,” but there is no statement of any fact that constitutes criminal wrongdoing to trigger that process, no co-conspirators charged in an alleged cover-up or obstruction of justice. Far from making an “impeachment referral” to Congress, all Mueller did was to state the well-known constitutional law that governs the decision not to charge a sitting president, any sitting president, with a federal crime.

Somewhat like those of the ancient oracle of Delphi, Robert Mueller’s pronouncements will be interpreted to justify the desires of those hearing them. So, regardless of what Robert Mueller said yesterday, or what is in the plain language of the Special Counsel’s report, in the end Trump-haters, House Democrats hungry for TV time during impeachment hearings, and the radical Far Left Democrats running for President, will all do what they perceive to be is in their political self-interest. And, recognizing that that is their motivation, fair-minded Americans should not allow them to get away with claiming otherwise.

 

Daily Wire

4 Key Takeaways From Robert Mueller’s Farewell Address

Alex Wong/Getty Images

By Ben Shapiro

@benshapiro

May 29, 2019

On Wednesday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller finally emerged from the shadows to make a declaration: he’s leaving, and he’s taking the dog. According to Mueller, his job here is finished, since his 448-page report on Russian election interference and Trump administration obstruction has concluded. What’s more, according to Mueller, the country is better off for the Mueller investigation having taken place, despite two years, billions of dollars in media coverage, and no actual conclusion.

 

Trump Reacts To Mueller Statement: ‘Nothing Changes…Case Is Closed’

Well, then.

There were a few key messages in Mueller’s valedictory.

  1. Mueller’s Original Brief Was Limited. Mueller began his statement by recognizing that his original brief was to investigate “Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.” He proceeded to outline the fact that this interference was highly damaging to the political process: “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.” All of this is fine and dandy; there’s little controversy over any of it.
  2. Mueller’s Investigation Never Should Have Included Obstruction by Trump. Mueller then moved on to his explanation of his investigation of obstruction. Unlike the election interference investigation, which began as a counterintelligence investigation inside the FBI, the obstruction investigation began as a criminal investigation — and a criminal investigation that Mueller admits he never had the authority to conclude. Mueller stated regarding Russian interference, “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.” That would be true of Trump’s associates. That would not be true of Trump himself — Mueller recognizes that he never had the authority to indict a sitting president. He explained:

[U]nder 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.

Yet Mueller proceeded to write two hundred pages about Trump himself, and his conduct. This means that Mueller spent tens of millions of dollars and years of time investigating unindictable conduct. So what the hell was he doing? Mueller provided two separate explanations for the investigation of Trump’s conduct: first, he said, the investigation was permitted because it is “important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available.” Evidence of what, though? A crime? But Mueller refused to allege a crime. So evidence of something — something that wasn’t prosecutable right now, and that Mueller refused to suggest amounted to a crime for the future. Mueller himself said the investigation was justified because perhaps it would have resulted in evidence that “could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.” But Mueller didn’t charge co-conspirators in obstruction. This is bizarre, at least.

Mueller’s second justification is more obvious: he essentially said he was doing Congress’ impeachment groundwork for them. “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Mueller stated. This is an invitation to impeachment.

But that’s not Mueller’s job. He is a member of the executive branch. He is not an independent counsel. He is not a legislative investigator. A criminal investigation that cannot possibly result in charges is a conflict in terms. Mueller never should have agreed to such an investigation under the law, and Mueller’s own standard makes that clear.

 

  1. Mueller Wants Trump To Go Down, But Wouldn’t Call For Prosecution. Mueller infamously stated that there was “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” So far, so good. That’s a prosecutorial statement in prosecutorial language. But then Mueller wildly exceeded his brief. In fact, he pulled a James Comey: he effectively indicted Trump for supposed non-crimes publicly, the same way Comey did Hillary Clinton. Of course, he said he would never do that: “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.”

That’s pretty rich, coming just paragraphs after Mueller accused Trump of a non-crime without the possibility of resolution of the actual charge:

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….we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.

Trump’s opponents have hung their hats on this statement to show that Trump only escaped prosecution because he was the president, and because of the Department of Justice regulations. But that’s not quite right. In actuality, Mueller said that the DOJ regulations created a threshold barrier to a decision: he had no right to make a decision, he said, because no prosecution was available. Thus, he made no decision. Instead, he decided to publicly say he could not exonerate Trump. Now, presumably that remark was directed toward Trump’s false statements that he had been totally exonerated. But it was partisan and inappropriate for a man of Mueller’s stature: the comments effectively shifted the burden of proof from Mueller to Trump himself.

It’s not Mueller’s job to exonerate anyone. It’s his job to prosecute or not prosecute. Instead, he told everyone that Trump might be prosecutable, but he couldn’t really say, but still, there might be impeachment available. The proper language here would have been the same as the language surrounding collusion: “insufficient evidence.” But instead, Mueller refused to say even that.

Was any of this supposed to be in the purview of Mueller’s activity?

 

  1. Mueller Didn’t Expose Barr As A Perjurer Or Obstructor Of Justice. Barr stated in public testimony that Mueller told him “several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.” Here, Mueller stated that he could not prosecute, and that he would not say whether Trump had committed a crime. These two statements are not actually in conflict. Mueller may well have told Barr that he had not reached a determination on obstruction, and that he saw no reason to do so. That’s what he told the public, after all. Furthermore, Mueller explained that he didn’t question Barr’s “good faith” in his decision to “make the entire report public all at once.” So much for Barr’s supposed obstruction.

Then, Mueller said that he was out. Done. Finito. He explained that, having created a political Rorschach test, he would now act like Watchmen’s Rorshach: “all the whores and politicians will look up and shout: ‘Save us!’ And I’ll look down and whisper, ‘No.’” Mueller stated, “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.”

Did Mueller clarify anything today? Only that he exceeded his original mandate — that after conducting a thorough investigation, he was willing to inject himself into the political process rather than sticking to his role. That’s damning not just for Trump — who will now have to face down Democrats calling for his political head — but for a career prosecutor who decided that the business of criminal prosecution was too difficult, and that he’d prefer to serve as a roadbuilder for impeachment.

 

 


William S. Frankl, MD, All Rights Reserved