President Trump’s first tweet after the Robert Mueller hearing on his report’s findings was right on, “TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE!”
The truth is that matters didn’t proceed according to the Democrats’ plans in their failed “do-over” witch hunts. Robert Mueller, their star witness, who appeared feeble and ill-informed of facts contained in his report.
To put it charitably, the Special Counsel’s performance was less than robust. He seemed hesitant and at times lacking a command of facts. Embarrassed democrat committee members had to coach the former FBI Director through chapter and verse of his own report.
We didn’t need the hearing to know this, but it bears repeating (Democrats listen up) the report found two premises to be true:
- No one on the Trump campaign ever relied on Russia’s help to win the election.
- There was insufficient evidence to accuse the President of obstruction of justice.
If Mueller had stopped at finding number 1, he would have fulfilled his mandate—end of investigation; so, let’s move on. But, no, Mueller had to write the passive-aggressive opinion that, though there was no evidence of obstruction, the report does not exonerate the President of said obstruction.
Back in May 2019 Mueller said, “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”
Say what? Since when is it a prosecutor’s job to exonerate someone from a crime where there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the crime? What happened to presumption of innocence?
Democrats must have seen the writing on the wall when the first Republican Congressman to question Mueller made that point. Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) blasted the Special Counsel for his biased report saying it violated U.S. Justice Department and the “bedrock principle of our justice system.”
Ratcliffe asked Mueller, “Can you give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?”
Mueller’s response: “I cannot but this is a unique situation.”
Oh so that means Mueller and his team went into this with the presumption that Trump was guilty. Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up Grandpa.
The split TV screen showed a grimacing and somewhat distraught looking Mueller, who had to endure the Rep. Ratcliffe’s next zinger, “The special counsel’s job didn’t say you were to determine Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him. It’s not in documents; it’s not in the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, any justice manual.” It was “not the special counsel’s job” to conclusively determine Trump’s innocence.
Ratcliffe’s stunned the courtroom when he pointed out, “You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided.”
That putdown set the tone for the rest of Mueller’s day. He didn’t do much better during the afternoon session with the House Intelligence Committee.
Led by California’s Adam Schiff, who has for months accused President Trump of treason and other crimes, Mueller appeared a bit more in command, but the Democrats, according to President Trump, didn’t have much to work with.
There was no ambiguity about Mueller’s finding on collusion with the Russians. Trump and company didn’t do it and the report said so. Nevertheless, Schiff and company nibbled around the edges to whine, “Well, maybe they didn’t break laws, but shouldn’t he be held to a higher standard?”
When Schiff asked Mueller about those “higher standards,” Mueller wouldn’t take the bait. Like the majority of questions he fielded during the previous four hours, Mueller declined to answer.
In fact, Mueller set and met low expectations. Mueller’s guidelines were to stick to the “four corners” of the report. He did that, and there were no fireworks. In fact, much of the session was a boring, pathetic Democrat side show making a senior citizen uncomfortable.
So, returning to the President’s “THE TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE,” in this case it was a whirlwind that blew down the Democrats’ house of cards. After over two years and about $25 million of taxpayer’s money, we have a report that says essentially:
- No collusion with Russians occurred to win the 2016 presidential election
- Here are some anecdotes we squeezed out of people under threat of prosecution and financial ruin.
- Those stories kind of point to a President who wanted this unfair investigation to stop. That’s not exactly obstruction, but we still can’t exonerate him.
Point number 3 points to the passive-aggressive nature of Mueller’s report: What he did was throw the crazy-dog democrats Nadler and Schiff the raw meat premise to yet again try to destroy Donald Trump.
That meat is undoubtedly settling like a lump in Democrats’ throats after Mueller’s failed performance.