Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s American justice! And the wheels are coming off!
"Under long-standing department policy, a present president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited," he said. "Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."
At least he finally admitted it: the sole intent of the Mueller investigation from the start was to create a road map to impeachment. If Mueller knew at the offset - as he clearly did - that he could not indict a sitting President why was he investigating? I assume that Deep State determined that the body responsible for pursuing Presidential wrongdoing – Congress – was too incompetent to do so, absent any evidence. Or could it be that Congress doesn’t have the Justice Department’s powers at their disposal to abuse in the pursuit of creating such evidence? You know, the power to spy on targets, threaten and/or prosecute for failure to cooperate and ruin them financially in the pursuit of evidence of guilt.
A slightly different angle, put forth by Roger Simon, is that the Mueller investigation was intended to induce obstruction of justice on the President’s part:
Robert Mueller's eight- to nine-minute statement Wednesday morning at the DOJ was designed for one thing only: to avoid having to answer one key question in his testimony. When did you know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
If the answer, as many, including Andrew C. McCarthy, are indicating, is somewhere in Fall 2017, what in the Sam Hill was Mueller doing putting the country through two years of prolonged agony? It's not likely he did all this to prop up CNN's faltering ratings.
Was it, just by chance, to induce obstruction from one Donald J. Trump who -- like a relatively normal person but with a shorter fuse than most, justifiable in this case -- would react like a stuck pig to being falsely charged for so long? That would have been essentially entrapment.
So let’s see: we have a staff of Democratic prosecutors seeking evidence – real or manufactured - of wrongdoing by anyone in order to use it against the sitting President in an attempt to take him down by any means possible but preferably impeachment. Our job is to sit by silently and assume it is all unbiased, nonpolitical and fair. Tough sell as it smells a lot more like a witch hunt. Which provides me with an opportunity to reprise my March 23 observation on the Ferris Mueller report:
With apologies to Ben Stein 
“In 2016, the Deep State controlled Department of Justice, in an effort to undermine the administration of…Anyone? Anyone?…Donald Trump, launched the…Anyone? Anyone? The Russian collusion investigation, which, anyone? Indicted or cleared?…Cleared the President. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effect? It did not work, and the Deep State sank deeper into their corruption and judicial overreach.”
Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? Fake News. Anyone know what this is? It’s when news is presented in a way that slants facts or makes them up out of whole cloth. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what President Trump called this in 2017? Anyone? Something-h-u-n-t. “Witch Hunt.”
So far we have the E-word, entrapment, the I-word, impeachment, the O-word, obstruction and the U-word, unconstitutional. All we need to finalize this charade run by a batch of gameshow hosts is to buy the missing vowel. And remember: A is for America…not the other A-word.
Posts
