Remarks on the Mueller Report

AT: I wrote a book about the Mueller report — before the report was published.  The published report shows that I have overestimated the Mueller team.

The report is a completely one-sided accusation against Trump, like a criminal complaint or an indictment; it is very long and written for the consumption of the media rather than legal professionals.

It consists of two volumes.  Volume I is devoted to the supposed subject of the investigation: the allegation of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and any Russian in alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.  Its conclusion manifests in two lines: “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  Given almost unlimited power, resources, and practically two years spent on the investigation, it finally proves that there was no conspiracy and no coordination.

Having found no conspiracy, the Mueller report then uses about 200 pages to fully develop a conspiracy theory.  This conspiracy theory repeats almost every insinuation made by the Democratic Party, the Obama administration, and the media against Trump.  The fake news publications are seriously cited as sources, even the articles that are known as information dumps by the DNC.  The Washington Post is cited as a source 47 times, CNN is cited 24 times, and so on (counting both volumes).  The Mueller Report also recursively cites the earlier Mueller indictments against Russian persons his team made earlier, although they were not heard in a court.  Finally, it uses coerced statements that his team suborned from Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, and other individuals during the witch hunt.  Insinuations are reported as facts.

Volume II attempts to make the case that Trump might have obstructed justice by exercising his duties as president.  Inexplicably, it is longer than Volume I.  Mark Levin called it an essay and op-ed for the liberal media, and I agree with him.

The report indicates that the Mueller team accepted the talking points of the Democratic Party and Spygate perpetrators as the final truth and didn’t even attempt to verify them.  It also didn’t investigate any of the multiple real connections between the Clinton campaign and the Russian government or the possibility that the Democratic Party courted Putin for electoral support.

An unexpected discovery in the report is that Rosenstein and Mueller launched an investigation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October 2017.  It seems as if they illegally took control of the Department of Justice.  Rosenstein and Mueller are called registered Republicans.

(This seems to be a trick of the Democratic Party: using its supporters — possibly former Republicans — disguised as registered Republicans in place of real Republicans.)

The Mueller report never mentions Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Chris Steele, Bruce Ohr, or Nellie Ohr, except when quoting someone’s words from 2017 or later.  To be precise, the published report is slightly redacted, and some of these names might have been on the list of witnesses, which was blacked out.  That doesn’t affect the argument.  more here

10 Comments on Remarks on the Mueller Report

  1. People choose to believe what they want to believe, with things like truth and facts playing only a small role, at best, in their choice.

  2. My question to Mueller: How would you like it if someone did that to you? He is supposed to be a Christian but doesn’t seem to apply the Golden Rule.

  3. This is why President Trump would not agree to a sit-down interview. The first question would have been “Have you stop beating your wife?” and gone downhill from there.

  4. This is a material quote from the Mueller report:

    “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 judgment. 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.”

    The first thing that strikes me is that it is a double negative. “We CANNOT conclusively determine that NO criminal conduct occurred.” They are NOT able to prove that NOTHING occurred. Really? And the meaning of that sentence (unless you are in the mainstream media) is…nothing. It is meaningless word salad.

    The second thing that leaps off the page is that it is not up to the investigators to prove that nothing happened, but, rather, to determine whether a crime did occur (that SOMETHING HAPPENED) and whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a crime with a likelihood of proving the crime occurred BEYOND AND TO THE EXCLUSION OF A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    So Mueller doesn’t even address the blatantly clear insufficiency of evidence to prosecute, but implies (improperly) that Trump couldn’t prove he didn’t commit obstruction of justice. Really, how interesting, thank you, Mueller, for sharing.

    Perhaps someone could inform us whether this blatant abuse of his power and false posturing constitutes a crime and if so what is the citation for the law violated. To me it looks like libel.

    Just sayin’.

  5. Mark Levin called the Mueller report an ill-written Op Ed. Something like that. I haven’t read it but I trust Mark’s judgement.

  6. “…implies (improperly) that Trump couldn’t prove he didn’t commit obstruction of justice. ”

    …yeah, the Democrats pretty much threw that whole “presumption of innocence” concept into the toilet back during the “Obama” years, didn’t they.

    At least as it pertains to Consevatives.

    Democrats are presumed innocent and if you PROVE they’re NOT, YOU’RE presumed racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, trabsphobic, and in need of a two year lawfare assault until you run out of money to pay lawyers and have to sell your house…

    …unless your evidence disproves Hillary’s presumption of innocence. In THAT case, sorry about the airplane accident you’re about to die in…

  7. The Weissman Report is nothing more than the Trump dossier, volumes 2&3, and instead of Felonia paying for it, we the taxpayers got to take it up the ass without Vaseline.

  8. Seems to me that there’s supposed to be PROOF, or at least probable cause, of an offense being actually committed, before a 2 year investigation that looked more like a fishing expedition than an investigation.
    And also where it seemed “We couldn’t hang anything on Trump, but we fucked over some of his friends & business associates really good” should never be forgotten either.


Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!