You Might Like
Spread the love

[sg_popup id=97]

When former Special Counsel Robert Muller made his infamous television appearance last week, it seems that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. The real reason for his carefully selected wording might have been to send two very different messages. One to Democrats and the other to Republicans.

What the mainstream media isn’t mentioning is that Muller told Attorney General William Barr and officials at the Department of Justice a completely different story back in March.

According to Alex Little, “It’s pretty clear he had two audiences — I think one was congressional Democrats, one was congressional Republicans.” The former assistant U.S. attorney explains, “He is telling people like Adam Schiff, I’m not going to save you, I’m not going to be your savior and I sure don’t want to testify.”

Little thinks, “he also is telling congressional Republicans: ‘There’s a lot in my report you need to look at. You need to read it, and you need to consider your constitutional duty about how to go forward and investigate it.'” In other words, dropping the hot potato into the laps of lawmakers.

“It’s pretty clear he had two audiences — I think one was congressional Democrats, one was congressional Republicans”

The message he was trying to send Democrats is that there’s nothing he can add to his report, because there isn’t anything that can be added. His remarks seem to be aimed squarely at Schiff.

The California Democrat is Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and still can’t seem to get it through his head that Mueller isn’t going to be his “savior.” As soon as Mueller stalked off stage, Schiff took to the airwaves.

“Bob Mueller said, ‘I really don’t want to testify,’ but he should… It was insufficient for Mueller to speak for 10 minutes and drop the microphone.”

Muller went out of his way to imply, in some vague and unspecified way, that President Trump could somehow be guilty of some crime.

What he did say, was that he didn’t have the authority under the constitution to prosecute the president if there was a crime.

Mueller carefully hinted, without actually saying, that if it wasn’t for the fact his hands were tied, he would have filed charges — but that is exactly the opposite of what he told Justice Department investigators on March 5.

AG Barr was asked in testimony to the Senate on May 1, about why Mueller didn’t reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice charges in his final report.

Barr explained that the team of DOJ officials and himself questioned Mueller extensively about that very question. “We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this,” Barr testified.

Referring to the Office of Legal Counsel guidance, that Mueller relies on to say he didn’t have the option to charge a sitting president with a crime, AG Barr clarifies:

“Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

Likewise, Barr told reporters at a press conference when Mueller’s report was published:

 “We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz explained in an ABC interview that it isn’t Mueller’s job to “exonerate” anybody. “They are presumed innocent, are they not? It was not a matter of whether you can indict a sitting president.” Not only that, he believes Mueller’s team was trying to come to a conclusion that “a president could obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2.”

“The fact is that no president can be indicted for doing what he is constitutionally empowered and entitled to do. That is not obstruction of justice. Trump could have fired Mueller just as  he did Comey and closed his entire investigation at any time and it would not have been obstruction of justice.”

Most Americans believe in our Federal Bureau of Investigation, and know that most of the agents are honest and work very hard, but it isn’t right to destroy someone’s life because you want to score brownie points with the forces of darkness.

Spread the love

Leave a Reply