Thursday, May 30, 2019

An Important Omission

     In the foofaurauw over the Mueller investigation and Mueller’s ponderous, tendentious, meandering report, the critical facts are all too often glossed over:

  • The extent of “Russian interference” in the 2016 election was a modest amount of entirely legal advertising, mainly on Facebook.
  • Robert Mueller could not show that any American had colluded with any Russian agent or agency.
  • Therefore, Mueller could not establish that any crime had been committed.

     The investigation began, not because a crime had demonstrably been committed, but because of the Democrats’ allegations of such. They could produce no evidence to that effect; they merely shrieked it at the top of their collective lungs until Attorney General Jeff Sessions unwisely decided to recuse himself. That allowed the acting AG, Rod Rosenstein, to appoint a special prosecutor. What followed departed radically from normal prosecutorial procedure.

     Consider: If Smith were to allege that Jones had committed a prosecutable crime – i.e., an offense defined by the penal laws of the United States or one of its interior jurisdictions – he would be expected to provide the district attorney’s office with substantiation that a crime had indeed been committed. If Smith were to allege a murder, he would have to offer some evidence that a murder had occurred. If he were to allege a robbery, he would have to present a credible victim who could at least show a loss. And so on, for whatever accusation Smith might lodge against Jones. Lacking such substantiation, neither the police nor the D.A. would be disposed to get out of bed.

     President Trump’s accusers could not provide any such substantiation. Indeed, over the three years they’ve been screaming for his head, nothing of any relevance to the possibility of a crime has come to light – and you may be sure that Robert Mueller, as much an Establishmentarian as anyone in the Washington orbit, looked most diligently for it.

     President Trump was justifiably incensed about the smear against his victory. He said so on many occasions. Yet he did not do one single thing to impede the Mueller group’s operations. He did stand on his right not to testify against himself, as any American in legal jeopardy is entitled to do. Otherwise, he merely criticized the investigation as what it has proved to be: a fishing expedition whose true aim was to undo his unprecedented national victory against fearsome odds.

     So Mueller’s recent statement that he could not prove that the president had not committed obstruction of justice is both laughable and contemptible. What event occurred that could be construed as an impediment to the investigation?

     That hasn’t silenced the Democrats, of course; nothing could. They want Trump out of the Oval Office at any cost. They’re terrified not only that he’ll win a second term, but that the national mood, owing to his successful implementation of his policies, will be so good in 2024 that he’ll be able to pick his successor. So they’ll continue to shriek until they lose the assistance of the media and the attention of the general public: events about as likely as the Earth crashing into the Sun this coming Tuesday at 9:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time.

     David Horowitz summed up the Democrats’ allegations rather pungently: they can’t establish that he committed the crime they allege, but he’s obviously guilty of protesting his innocence, so hang him anyway. Welcome to American “politics,” 2019 edition.

2 comments:

NITZAKHON said...

I was listening to a local talk show host, and he and a caller agreed that the Left is behaving precisely like a kid throwing a tantrum.

Unknown said...

Collusion, in and of itself, is not a crime. That's why the final narrative turned to collusion, it was all just a pejorative narrative. What Mueller would have had to prove, was that not only did collusion occur but a FedCo. statute was broken during said collusion. He struck out on both counts.