Posted on 05/30/2019 2:54:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
I bought into the earnest, Boy Scout description back in 2016. I wanted to believe our nation’s top law enforcement officials were straight shooters who were in search of nothing but the truth no matter who it hurt or helped.
I was in the car listening intently the late morning of July 5th, 2016 as the laundry list of misdeeds was read aloud. Surely, we were about to hear justice was going to be delivered to Mrs. Clinton.
Instead, FBI Director James Comey torched the rule of law and broke millions of Americans’ trust in him and our institutions forever. It was a new precedent that would be used again – in a different, but similar way – nearly three years later.
As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I’m a fan of keeping this simple. I’m not going to bring in lots of different names and dates and timelines. Let’s just look at a couple of simple facts that brought us to where we are today.
First, Mrs. Clinton mishandling, routing, sharing, and ultimately destroying classified information gave way to a Comey-led investigation under President Obama. After a clear, unambiguous set of facts was presented by Comey at that infamous July 5th, 2016 press conference, he unilaterally absolved Mrs. Clinton.
He concluded she was reckless, but didn’t intend to break laws. He went further and said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against her.
Here’s the thing about that.You aren’t supposed to do that when you’re leading an investigation.You’re supposed to investigate, hand over the information, and your boss – the Attorney General of the United States – decides whether to prosecute.
Further, if you don’t believe a crime has been committed – you say nothing. You don’t hold a press conference and tell everyone what a bad person you believe the target of your investigation to be, only to then absolve the target.
This is critical to understand. Beyond the ensuing scandal of investigating Trump and Russia, Comey had already shown himself to be a bad actor.
You Hillary Clinton voters remember? You hated that guy. He trashed your girl, left a lot of questions about her guilt hanging out there and walked away. Many of you feel he cost her the election. Remember?
Well, you’re right to feel that way about Comey. This should be a bipartisan issue, but I know, it’s Trump now so you don’t care.
The second piece of the timeline is Trump firing James Comey. Ostensibly, it’s what kicked off the entire notion he was “obstructing justice” in doing so. Setting that aside, what no one seems to remember is who first recommended Comey be fired and why.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Yes, he’s the same guy who appointed Muller to investigate Trump, and yes, I have concerns about his role in the entire “deep state” orgy trying to take the president out. Again, set that aside for a moment.
Rosenstein wrote a 2017 memo to then Attorney General Sessions and the President laying out reasons why Comey violated FBI protocols and should be terminated. TERMINATED FOR THE WAY HE HANDLED THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION FINDINGS. (Emphasis mine, again for you Trump haters.)
Fast-forward to Special Prosecutor Robert Muller who’s been ruthlessly turning over every Trump affiliated rock with unlimited money and a team of partisan attorneys in an attempt to discover whether Trump colluded with Russia and whether he tried to obstruct that investigation.
You know the outcome. Two years, millions spent, hundreds of witnesses and zip. Nothing. Nada. Muller again confirmed in a press conference this week he could not prove Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
But, when it came to the accusation of collusion, Mueller pulled out of his hat the 2016 trick Comey pulled with Mrs. Clinton.
Here are the salient quotes that have media and Democrat tongues wagging:
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
“We did not make a determination as to whether (Trump) did commit a crime. That is unconstitutional. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.”
Folks, it’s Comey all over again. But this time, Mueller pulls a reverse Comey. While Comey had all the obvious evidence in the world of criminal behavior, he tarred and feathered Clinton but let it slide on her “lack of intent.”
In Mueller’s case with Trump, he can’t find evidence Trump’s done anything illegal but can’t prove for sure he DIDN’T do something wrong. (WTF is that legal standard?!) Plus, he says he didn’t have the option of charging Trump because rules say you can’t charge a sitting president.
Wait. Remember what I said about Comey? Same thing applies to Mueller. His job was to investigate, hand over the facts to his boss the Attorney General, and let his boss decide. Instead, Mueller implied Trump engaged in bad behavior, and while he can’t prove it, there was nothing anyone could do about it anyway.
Once again, like Comey, this was not Mueller’s job. His job is not to opine or speculate or even discuss whether to charge. That’s the Attorney General’s job. Turn in the facts. Shut up.
But not Mueller. In his parting minutes this week, he reminded everyone Congress is the remedy if a sitting president needs disciplinary action. (Wink-wink, Democrats).
So, there you have it. Mueller and Comey, old friends pulling the same trick. Both abusing their positions. Both undermining our institutions. Both in it for their own vanity and partisan wishes to save or tarnish the reputation of the politician in question while attempting to make themselves out to be straight-shooting paragons of virtue.
I summarized it in a tweet this way:
Deep State Clinton investigation: “We have conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but we don’t believe she intended to."
Deep State Trump investigation: “We can’t find any conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but we’re certain he intended to.”
There’s not much to agree on in this country anymore, but one thing is for certain. Our Department of Justice is broken and whether you’re a Clinton voter or a Trump voter – we should demand outcomes like these investigations never happen again.
Otherwise, your favorite candidate will be next.
The truth hurts.
WE will be next
Very succinct summary. Helps to cut through the rabid nonsense flooding the “news” outlets.
Reg’ler Sherlock Holmes, are ye? Nothin’ gets past you guvner, no sir! /s
Mueller and Comey, swamp Oracles.
Deep State Clinton investigation: “We have conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but we don’t believe she intended to.”
Deep State Trump investigation: “We can’t find any conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but we’re certain he intended to
the above sez it all, we must persist and indict!
That’s only the beginning of it. In Hillary’s case the law expressly says motive doesn’t matter, whereas in Trump’s case it expressly says it does.
In sum:
Deep State Clinton investigation: “We have conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but we don’t believe she intended to."
Deep State Trump investigation: “We can’t find any conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but we’re certain he intended to.”
Barr has said everything we want to hear..... but my guess is he is an insider. We will be dissapointed with him when this is over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.