by WorldTribune Staff, May 31, 2019
Rather than say President Donald Trump did not conspire with Russia to rig the 2016 election, Robert Mueller says he found “insufficient evidence” to prove it. Instead of saying the evidence did not support an obstruction charge, the special counsel said that “if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
“Mueller refuses to indict (or exonerate, which, of course, isn’t his job). Instead, he insinuates,” Dan Flynn wrote for The American Spectator
Mueller “wants us to see him as the man in the arena even as he sits safe in the grandstand,” Flynn wrote.
During his press conference on May 29, Mueller announced: “I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.”
The special counsel refused “to take the press’s questions” and “the press refuses to question. See how that works?” Flynn noted.
Mueller also “refuses to take Congress’s questions under oath, under the hot camera lights, and under the same duress experienced by the 500 or so people he questioned during his recently concluded investigation,” Flynn wrote. He “refused to tell Congress to impeach and remove the president. Instead, he nudges them toward this even as he talks of a presumption of innocence, an indulgence few in the Democratic caucus seem eager to grant and even as the makeup of the Senate seems unlikely to convict. Rather than clearing up matters, Mueller used his position to muddy the waters. He attainted the president.”
Flynn continued: “The opaque manner in which Robert Mueller concluded his investigation mirrors its origins. Opposition research marketed by the media as an ‘intelligence dossier’ tricked the public into imagining partisan dirty tricks as factual information. The presence of a foreign agent, utilizing Russian sources, ironically charging the president with using foreign agents to gain advantage did not become clear to the public until months after the accusations gained currency in the press. The extreme partisanship of Trump’s Justice Department antagonists, speaking of an ‘insurance policy’ should Trump win, came to light only after a lengthy investigation by the Inspector General. So, too, did the proven fact of the government spying, through use of surveillance and its agents, on the Trump campaign — a notion laughed as preposterous and mocked by so-called fact checkers when the president raised it.
“An investigation launched on a pretext from information gleaned from a political smear campaign ends with a smear.”
Meanwhile, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani slammed Mueller during a May 30 telephone interview on “The Brian Kilmeade Show”.
“I dare [Mueller] to testify,” Giuliani said. “I’d love to see [Rep. Mark] Meadows and [Rep. Jim] Jordan cross-examine him on when did he find out there was no collusion? Exactly why would you hire Andrew Weissmann, who is the most notorious and unethical prosecutor of the last 20 to 30 years?” he continued.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said.
Giuliani took issue with this statement, arguing that through the eyes of the court system, one is innocent until proven guilty.
“When I conclude as a prosecutor and I’m not confident that a person committed a crime, that’s called exoneration,” Giuliani said. “The person is innocent until proven guilty. That’s not a slogan, it’s not a joke, it’s a basic fundamental of our Constitution, of the Magna Carta, of elemental fairness.”
Giuliani said that he spoke with Trump after Mueller’s remarks on May 29, adding that he had “never seen a president give a better press conference” than the one Trump gave following Mueller’s statement.
“The president of the United States, thank god for America, is a fighter,” Giuliani said. “He doesn’t let you punch him in the face or even throw a jab without hitting you back a lot harder.”