The Mueller Report – some early takes (updated 20apr19)

George Rebane

The long-awaited report from special counsel Robert Mueller has turned out to be a disappointment on all counts to all sides.  The following summarize my initial take on it.

1. From a legal perspective, the report is an iconic nothing-burger. A 400-page embarrassment that documents the failure to conclude anything definite about the commissioned purpose for the drawn-out investigation.  It is a collection of legal pabulum as a CYA disguise for spending tens of millions over two years to no avail.
2. From the gitgo the Mueller investigation was an obviously composed effort to nail the president and derail his administration. The composition of the investigative team and its flailing, off-the-mark, subsequent indictments gave evidence that it really was a desperate witch hunt which had to fire off a few legal pyrotechnics now and then to keep the effort looking credible to the light thinkers.
3. From a political perspective, the report is a success. Since there was no credible prosecutorial evidence for either ‘collusion’ or ‘obstruction’, the investigation’s redoubt terminus was always to deliver a product that would dissemble its conclusions so as to invite and enable follow-on probes which the Democrats took every opportunity to specify during the 22-month fiasco.  Team Muller got its marching orders early and often from the Left and its lamestream.
4. President Trump and his administration have been isolated, perhaps, like no other administration in our history. The Dems could never accept the election results, and the Repubs have carried on a feckless relationship with a president who obviously was not their first choice from their retinue of available candidates.  And Trump’s incurable foot-in-mouth disease did not endear him to anyone in the Washington political establishment.  Mueller’s investigation was drawn out for the obvious collateral damage it was inflicting by hobbling and diverting Team Trump from governing.
5. Mueller’s work has also served 1) to firmly entrench the public’s longstanding opinion of the dodgy legal profession and our convoluted and corrupt justice system in which it operates, and 2) to highlight and further widen our country’s ideological divide. The report’s dearth of evidence and painfully wordsmithed syntax made sure that it would change no minds already secure in their beliefs about Trump’s guilt or innocence.  All sides can now put their own particular spin on it, and never look back.

WSJ Washington columnist Kim Strassel adds more meat to these points in her ‘Mueller’s Report Speaks Volumes’.

[20apr19 update]  Upon reflection on Volume 2 of the report dealing with obstruction, it strikes me as more than utter bullshit that would be below the standards of any other profession other than those populated mostly by sleazebag lawyers.  I add point #6.

6. “… while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” A little thought immediately causes one to ask, ‘is there ANY investigation that cannot have such a codicil appended to its conclusion, should the investigator desire to leave a cloud over the individual investigated without the finding of any illegality or indictable criminality??’ To conclude with such an unnecessary assertion is an act of desperation which confirms that the investigation was carried out with an agenda unfulfilled.  Such a dangling innuendo strongly implies that guilt could yet be uncovered with more effort, and forces the so accused into having to prove his own innocence – not exactly the way our system of jurisprudence was intended to operate.  (That is one of the many reasons I assess our judicial system to be invitingly corrupt.)

In Mueller’s case he was not able to indict someone for not obstructing an unobstructed investigation that terminated without finding any evidence of an indictable crime.  About that the Dems are pissed to the gills, and will now do everything to correct the situation.  Go figger.

Comments

[Bill Tozer]

Seems to me that the media used e-mails more than Trump did by 1,000%. Bad NYT, bad. Bad Wa Compost, bad, bad, bad. Bad Morning Joe. Bad menagerie of investigative journalists, talking heads, and Ivan Q. Public. Too bad they are protected by the 1st Amendment, despite what CNN originally spouted.
Trump’s reading e-mails lines a couple here and there at joyful electrifying rallies is like comparing Wiki-Leaks to a swimming pool full of salad and Trump tosses a cup or two of salt and pepper on it.

The Mueller report Part 2 was just like a fancy name for sleazeball op research, like the Yellow Shower Dossier was in Part 1. Boy, the Bernie Bros where hotter than a goat’s butt in a pepper patch when they got their hands on those e-mails. They are still pissed about it. I’m not in the least. Matter of fact, it makes me feel gooood. Makes me want to go out and poke fun at a disabled NYT reporter or some mentally disabled popinjay. Jow with a ponytail.

[Don Bessee]

Just enjoying the pony tail of ignorance floor show @808! LOL

;-)

[Paul Emery]

Glad you're enjoying yourself Don.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Just a heads up

You still have a problem with your website. Differeint brouser, different website. Here you go

Did Not Connect: Potential Security Issue

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to www.sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com because this website requires a secure connection.

What can you do about it?

www.sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com has a security policy called HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), which means that Firefox can only connect to it securely. You can’t add an exception to visit this site.

The issue is most likely with the website, and there is nothing you can do to resolve it. You can notify the website’s administrator about the problem.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery fails the simple test of backing up his allegations and positions. That is what extremist liberals always do. Sad that you are so transparent in your failures.

Yes or NO one more time. Do you have the backup to your position that Congress has Constitutional Oversite? YES OR NO!

Wink wink, we all know you are a phony baloney.

[Paul Emery]

Yes

Read the constitution idiot. You are such a bore. I even sent you a link.

[Todd Juvinall]

We knew you would dodge you always do when cornered. What a hoot!

[Paul Emery]

More from Fos's own legal expert.

“I’m disappointed in the behavior of the president,” Napolitano said in his video. “His job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to uphold and enforce federal law. Not to violate it.”

He said if Trump violated the law to save a life, he could have a moral defense.

“But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable,” he wrote on the website.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/andrew-napolitano-criminal-trump_n_5cc26532e4b081706966eb7f

[Paul Emery]

sp

Fox's own legal expert

[Ozz]

No Todd, we are not averting our eyes because you try to dodge the subject when cornered:

NOT SECURE-http://sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com

"We knew you would dodge you always do when cornered. What a hoot!"

Speaking of dodge. You have been warned by several people using several different browsers that you are peddling your wares under a non-secured website. Just whose interest do you have in hand? Yours or your visitors? Perhaps you are planting malware in your "friends" computers? You willingly lie to them and then don't apologize. Let your history speak for itself.

[scenes]

lol. Ozz&Paul, internet sleuths.

You'd probably better email these people what with 'non-secured' websites and all.

www.indianbloggers.blogspot.com
www.freedomrider.blogspot.com
www.ncfocus.blogspot.com
www.craftguildnevadacounty.blogspot.com
www.karenaterrey.blogspot.com

If your hands weren't so busy, maybe you could find your ass with both of them.

[Don Bessee]

Now the real fun will begin, the IG report, the FISA report and oh, then there is this fun one -

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-barr-will-look-at-incredible-possibility-of-ukraine-clinton-collusion

;-)

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 25 April 2019 at 09:13 PM

sp

Fox's own legal expert

Ken Jones approves this message.

[scenes]

Joe Biden, ready to give America what it needs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNRQoK3lek

Holy Crap!! It looks like GeorgeR is trying to steal Paul's credit cards!!!

www.rebaneruminations.typepad.com

[Bill Tozer]

Don @ 10:01 pm

At this rate we will have a dozen investigations going on just like the police state Stalinist Leftinistas.
——————————-
Poor Bobbie Sue.

“I cannot be satisfied by simply saying ‘I’m sorry’”

Well, perhaps a little Long Dong Silver will lift your spirits.

https://news.yahoo.com/anita-hill-refuses-accept-joe-211035563.html

[scenes]

re: Anita Hill

"Ms Hill also said she cannot support Mr Biden until he takes responsibility for his actions. She told the newspaper she’s "troubled" by allegations that he touched women in ways that made them uncomfortable."

You just know he's going to crawl around on his belly like a reptile to please the various parts of the (D) coalition. The Creepy Uncle Joe Apology Tour is just starting up, get yer tickets now. Gotta love a campaign that consists of (a) I HATE TRUMP! (b) I'm sorry for anything I've ever done (c) I'm sorry for anything the US has ever done (d) I'm sorry for anything white males have ever done. This'll be sweet.

[Bill Tozer]

It is possible to impeach a former president. That has never been tried, yet. The link below is most likely too complicated for our lefties to follow

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/440730-how-the-obama-white-house-engaged-ukraine-to-give-russia-collusion

[Don Bessee]

BT - No need to impeach, 0 is on the hook for tearing up the constitution and the police state use of the 17 intelligence agencies for political advantage. Looks criminal in a lot of ways. Hey 0 could always petition for a pardon.

;-)

[stefan]

Thanks for summarizing it, its a good report.