Congress (and the Media): Please Keep the Mueller Report in the Spotlight
I hate to keep harping on the
Mueller Report, but frankly, the Administration’s delaying tactics in
responding to the House’s attempts to question witnesses who provided the meat
of that document are serving to push it into the background. That is their aim.
Out of the spotlight, out of mind.
To them, the Attorney General’s whitewash was the end of the story
and moved it into history, where any excuse for delay can further push it back. The Mueller
Report contained enough to sooner or later put Donald Trump behind bars. Nancy Pelosi alluded to this a few
weeks ago, but even that is fading away.
That’s why this blog will not ignore the
Mueller Report and continue to try to keep it in the spotlight.
I really wish someone would confront the President
with the following request asking that he read the Mueller Report aloud, as
quoted below, in the questioner’s presence, ideally under oath before a
Congressional Committee. Of course, this
will never happen. An alternative might
be to write a kind personal note to the President in which the same request is
made. Such a polite letter might read as
follows. (Feel free to copy it and send
it off, if you wish.)
Mr.
President:
I
know you are a busy man but it is important that you take the time to read a
little bit of the Mueller Report. Here’s
the conclusion drawn at the end of Volume Two of the Mueller Report, dealing
with obstruction of justice,. It reads
as follows:
“If we had confidence after a thorough
investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit
obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that
judgement. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and
intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining
that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate
him.”
Surprised? It doesn’t exonerate you, despite what the
Attorney General says. Listening to him
can get you into trouble, sir. Read it
for yourself! If it exonerated you, the
Report would have said so! And it didn’t. Please, sir, read it yourself.
As for you claiming
that it also said that there was “No Collusion,” please next go back to the
Introduction to Volume One of the Report, where it deals with Russian
interference in our election process. It goes out of the way to clearly state
that:
“In evaluating whether evidence about collective
action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of
conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In doing so, the Office
recognized that the word “collude” was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and
that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the
investigation. But collusion is not a
specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code., nor
is it a term of art in federal criminal law.
For these reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing the question of joint
criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”
Yes,
Mr. President, because there is no such crime as “collusion,” the lawyers who
wrote the Mueller report considered the evidence under the closest thing to
that in the law, and that is the law regarding “conspiracy.” While the evidence
was not bad enough to meet the tough standards that the crime of conspiracy
requires, the Report never said that there was “No Collusion.” In fact, in the sentence preceding the above
quote, the Report also states:
“A statement that the investigation did not establish particular
facts does not mean that there was no evidence of those facts.”
This means that
while the standards required to establish the crime of “conspiracy” were not
met, the evidence was still there.
Now that you know
what the Mueller Report really said, sir, you at least will be prepared
when Congress fulfills its responsibility and points out to you that the Report
did not exonerate you of the charge of obstruction and never came out with the
verdict of “no collusion” either.
A Friend
Three “Politicklers”
1.
In his Orlando 2020 campaign kick-off rally, Trump defined
his supporters as “a great political movement … that believes a nation must
care for its own citizens first.” That reminds me to suggest, if you haven’t
done so yet, to check out my recent review of the Okrent book, “The Guarded
Gate” on this blog. Better yet, read the
book.
2. Recently, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd
reminded us that “The Trump White House may be a
clown show and a criminal enterprise.
But it’s also an actual presidency. It’s turning out to be a genuinely reactionary administration led by a
wannabe authoritarian who refuses to recognize constitutional checks on
power. The real danger is not the antics
but the policies.” Friends, this is a warning to us all. He’s no longer a joke, as other despots
throughout history have sometimes been initially viewed by their public, much to their
later regret. That's why I no longer laugh at the amusing cartoons about the President occasionally forwarded to me. Dowd is absolutely
correct. The White House 'clown show' is no longer a laughing matter.
 |
| Dowd |
3. One of the most interesting postings on this blog was the
one dated March 1, 2016. Other than my ultimately
disproven conviction that Donald Trump was not electable (I called him a “sure-to-lose” candidate), it was otherwise
right on the mark in regard to the cowardice of the Republican Party. It also dwells upon the significance of the
folk song “The Blue Tail Fly.” Go back
and check it out and find out what “Jimmy Crack Corn” REALLY may have meant.
No comments:
Post a Comment