Why Mueller Won’t Be Bringing More Indictments

Special Counsel Robert Mueller will not be bringing more indictments.

But, but, but… why?

“It’s possible Mueller didn’t find evidence federal crimes were committed. It’s also possible he concluded crimes were committed but he lacked sufficient evidence to bring charges. And as to the president, it’s possible Mueller concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge him, but DOJ policy forbade indicting a sitting president.” LINK

There must be a pony under all this horse crap! We need to get to the bottom of this.

“We won’t know the truth unless and until Attorney General William Barr makes the fullest possible release of the Mueller report, consistent with his commitment to transparency. Based on what we know at this point, be skeptical of any claims of innocence.” LINK

 “If Barr understands his job is to be the people’s lawyer, not the president’s, he will disclose the Mueller report publicly. But it doesn’t stop there. Each of us must read it carefully and draw our own conclusions about to its contents. We shouldn’t accept the spin of a president or of pundits. This is the time to think critically about the facts – because there are facts and they still matter.” LINK

Here are some facts:

  • On November 8, 2016, Trump won the U.S. presidential election. LINK
  • On May 17, 2017, Robert Mueller becomes the Special Counsel to investigation Russia-Russia-Russia. LINK
  • The first stated goal of Mueller’s investigation was to determine if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 U.S. presidential election. LINK
  • The second stated goal of Mueller’s investigation was to determine if Trump has unlawfully attempted to obstruct the probe. LINK
  • As of December 2018, the Mueller investigation has cost the taxpayers $21,000,000. LINK  LINK
  • On March 22, 2019, Robert Mueller’s investigation came to an end. LINK
  • Attorney General William Barr is not the president. He is not a pundit. He is the head of the Department of Justice and he is the chief legal counsel to the president.
  • According to Attorney General William Barr (a man who ought to know), Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia. LINK The first stated goal of Mueller’s investigation has been met.
  • According to Attorney General William Barr (a man who ought to know), Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not find enough evidence to justify charging Trump with obstruction of justice. LINK The second stated goal of Meuller’s investigation has been met.
  • Despite all the interrogations conducted, despite all of the interviews, despite of the documents collected and seized, despite all the media support, despite all of the money spent, Mueller couldn’t pin the Russia charge to even one single American. Not one.

But, but, but…

Whether Trump could be indicted for any of his conduct, absent DOJ policy, is [a] question reserved for the judgment of the prosecutors who analyzed all of the evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory, and assessed its sufficiency.” LINK

DOJ policy forbids indicting a sitting president. Policy. Not law. Not the Constitution. Just policy. Does anyone honestly believe that Mueller would pass up the opportunity to perp-walk Trump if he had evidence of a crime? Oh, you do? Consider how the FBI treated Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.

On July 25, 2017 Paul Manafort (Trump’s former campaign chairman) met the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. On July 26, 2017, FBI agents raided Manafort’s house to seize documents and other materials. They could have waited until he met with the Senate Intelligence Committee (which he was scheduled to do the next day). Manafort had been providing documents to congressional committees; it’s not like he was uncooperative. LINK   Apparently, it was a better optics, to have 12 armed FBI agents enter his house, guns drawn, and check Mr. Manafort and his wife for guns (before she even got out of bed). Classy. LINK

Which seems more likely: Cooperative men in their 60’s pose an extreme danger to armed federal agents, despite all evidence to the contrary; or maybe, just maybe this was political theater?

ON January 25, 2019 a dozen FBI agents wearing ballistic armor and carrying automatic weapons executed a pre-dawn action to arrest one of Trump’s campaign advisers, Roger Stone. LINK  Interestingly, CNN was on hand to video tape the incident! What a coincidence! Which seems more likely: The CNN team had a mystical hunch and sent a journalist and a camera team to stake out Roger Stone’s house an hour before the FBI arrived… just, you know in case something would happen; or maybe, just maybe the FBI coordinated with CNN for the purpose of political theater? LINK

Gee, I wonder if there are any guidelines on this sort of behavior. Oh, look!

The FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG)  Section 4, “Privacy and Civil Liberties, And Least Intrusive Methods” presents six basic principles designed to ensure FBI investigative activities respect civil liberties and privacy and conform with the Constitution and law. One of those principles is: Employ the least intrusive means that otherwise do not compromise FBI operations (particularly if there is the potential to interfere with protected speech and association, damage someone’s reputation, intrude on privacy, or interfere with the sovereignty of foreign governments). LINK

If the FBI is willing to apply the double secret probation exception against people Mueller wanted like to squeeze, in order to take Trump’s scalp, why wouldn’t he do the same against Trump?

He has plenty of reason to do so. Imagine the glory. Imagine the fawning adoration of the press, the celebrities, and the politicians! Imagine the speaking fees, the book deals, the TV deals, the movie deals! He would have succeeded where Everyone Else Failed. The adoration and admiration would literally have been historic; it would be trumpeted in history books forever. He would have been canonized.

Then again, maybe he’s just a super patriotic guy, selflessly serving his country in a wholly non-partisan manner, who was nobly seeking the pure truth and may have been technically overzealous in that pursuit.

What do I know? I’m Justa Gaibroh.













Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.