President Donald Trump's critics have spent the past 17 months anticipating what some expect will be among the most thrilling events of their lives: special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on Russian 2016 election interference.
They may be in for a disappointment.
That’s the word POLITICO got from defense lawyers working on the Russia probe and more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election case. The public, they say, shouldn’t expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump — not to mention an explanation of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller sleuths.
Perhaps most unsatisfying: Mueller’s findings may never even see the light of day.
The article goes on to suggest that Mueller himself (if placed under oath) probably would not be a very compelling public witness, given the parameters of his appointment providing him with the guidelines to stay relatively on point, not provide personal opinion, and stick closely to the facts.
His appointment (under law) requires him to submit his report "confidentially" to the Department of Justice, with the only true "requirements" being an explanation as to why some people were prosecuted, and why they fell short in charging others. Moreover, the various federal agencies involved will be allowed to "scrub" the report for any potential confidential or classified information. This would also likely involve White House counsel scrubbing anything that would be considered within the scope of executive privilege.
Moreover, what (if anything) from the report is released to Congress or the Public will be entirely up to the Department of Justice. While right now, much of these decisions would likely be made by Ron Rosenstein, there is no guarantee that Ron Rosenstein will still be employed by the time the report comes out. Trump agreeing that Rosenstein should stay on till after the midterms, could be perceived as part of some strategy to eventually control both the timing as well as what is or isn't released from the report. There is still a good chance that Rosenstein is canned after the election and someone else will oversee the final stages of the Mueller investigation and report.
The left (and Congressional Democrats) will likely have a meltdown of epic proportions if the final report is substantially redacted and/or even summarized by the Department of Justice. But that would be consistent with the law that was used by the Deputy A.G. to authorize Special Counsel. There simply isn't anything within our law that allows us to use our Law Enforcement as a political tool to come up with politically damaging information on a person who is otherwise not an actual criminal suspect. Special Counsel is limited to it's official law enforcement duties. I could see this playing out much like the whole Kavanaugh Ford FBI investigation issue, where liberals simply don't understand the law, the constitution, or fundamental American principles.
4 comments:
Two flaws in your closing arguments.
1; There simply isn't anything within our law that allows us to use our Law Enforcement as a political tool to come up with politically damaging information on a person who is otherwise not an actual criminal suspect. You have a presumption of innocence in all crimes. The investigation was triggered by credible evidence that the Russians had attempted to influence the results of the election. And credible evidence that crimes were committed by the law. You continue to accuse the investigation was triggered by partisan beliefs. We have to actually see what the investigation found.
Special Counsel is limited to it's official law enforcement duties. The investigation was triggered by evidence of the Russian intervention into influence the outcome of the election. This alone is an investigation into violations of the law.
You actually believe this shit.
This President has almost zero knowledge about the Constitution and the rule of law in regards to the office of the President.
1; There simply isn't anything within our law that allows us to use our Law Enforcement as a political tool to come up with politically damaging information on a person who is otherwise not an actual criminal suspect.
So what the FBI did was possibly illegal, certainly improper.
The investigation was triggered by credible evidence that the Russians had attempted to influence the results of the election.
The Russians can take a full page ad in the New York Times that said "Vote for Hillary" and that would be evidence of an attempt to influence the election but it's not necessarily a crime (that pesky 1st amendment again). They anever answered what is the crime.
I suspect the Democrats knew this all along but they ginned up the Russia, Russia, Russia story to cynically damage the Trump adminstration.
That is until it embarrassingly backfired on then when there was more evidence that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians using Richard Steele as an intermediary. And senior officers with the FBI conspired with her campaign.
That is until it embarrassingly backfired on then when there was more evidence that Hillary Clinton
The only evidence is that your opinion supports that premise.....once again....that is all and trump ever have....opinion and lies...
The investigation was triggered by credible evidence that the Russians had attempted to influence the results of the election. And credible evidence that crimes were committed by the law.
wrong on both counts. your first claim is not a crime, and both claims are supported by nothing other than team hillary's embarrassing excuse made up at the last minute to explain away their epic failure.
smart and honest prosecutors have been saying since day one that rosenpenis' memo to mueller was not an order to investigate a specific crime, but rather was an open ended fishing license. and that violates the first rule of a special prosecutor request - there must be a specific and ACTUAL crime being investigated.
you've been missing this point since day one. you can wish that "collusion" or "influencing" be crimes until the cows come home, but that doesn't make them so.
as cs pointed out - putin could've taken out full page ads in the ny times telling us to vote hillary and that is simply not a crime.
and if you were honest and consistent (which you are not) you would be demanding answers as to why US resources and tax dollars were used to influence an israeli election in an attempt to defeat netanyahu.
you see alky, that's the thing about liberalism...
...it's often nothing more than psychological projection, falsely accusing the GOP of behavior democrats have actually committed.
Post a Comment