Robert Mueller — the "ramrod" conniver — who keeps oozing under the door

02 May 2019

Washington DC lowlifes

There are people you respect.

Then there are those DC types.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is one of those.

A while back

I asked whether we would ever be rid of Mueller's odoriferously weaseling presence.

Alas, we are still not.

That conniver . . .

. . . has returned to the public eye with an implicitly chiding, and evidently intentionally leaked, letter to Attorney General William Barr.

Here extracted:

[T]he introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions.

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions.

There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release . . . that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials.

Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.

© 2019 Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Letter to William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States (27 March 2019) (contained in Jason Breslow, Mueller's Letter Expressing Concern About Barr's Summary Of His Report, NPR, 01 May 2019)

This latest Mueller jibe takes the Attorney General . . .

. . . (who may — or not — be the partisan hack that Democrats claim) to task for mischaracterizing the Mueller Report.

This belated attack occurs after Mueller himself reportedly refused an offer to review Barr's summary before Barr released it to the Senate.

The unseemly squabble also comes after Mueller had every procedurally accorded chance — in the Known Universe and Beyond — to initiate — or clearly request — whatever he thought was appropriate in dealing with the allegedly "colluding" and "obstructing" President.

Peter van Buren . . .

. . . who appears to be as repulsed by Mueller's non-existent professional integrity as I am, wrote — in introduction to a precisely reasoned piece asking Mueller 15 questions:

Why wasn't Trump given an opportunity to defend himself in court?

1) You didn’t charge President Donald Trump with “collusion,” obstruction, or any other new crime.

Tell us why. If the answer is “the evidence did not support it,” please say so.

2) Your Report did not refer any crimes to Congress, the SDNY, or anyone else. Again, tell us why.

If the answer is “the evidence did not support it,” please say so again.

3) Despite making no specific referrals, the Report does state, “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of the office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

Why did you include such a restating of a known fact? Many have read that line to mean you could not indict a sitting president and so you wanted to leave a clue to Congress. Yet you could have just spelled it out—”this is beyond my and the attorney general’s constitutional roles and must/can only be resolved by Congress.”

Why didn’t you?

4) Similarly, many believe they see clues (a footnote looms as the grassy knoll of your work) that the only reason you did not indict Trump was because of Department of Justice and Office of Legal Counsel guidance against indicting a sitting president.

Absent that, would you have indicted?

If so, why didn’t you say so unambiguously and trigger what would be the obvious next steps?

Van Buren continues with 11 more process-inspired questions that would occur to anyone concerned with either the practice of law or simple fairness.

From my perspective

Being an attorney myself, Mueller's long drawn out failure to be comprehenibly straightforward is his most obviously reeking flaw.

In painful actuality

Mueller was chosen to be part of a Democratic Party and Deep State plot to unseat a lawfully elected American president.

That Mueller apparently relished this role is obvious from the still-meddling way he (and his crew) have acted since inferably not finding enough evidence to follow through on their coup-plotting job.

When you cannot come up with the necessary neck-splitting legal axe, you keep poking your target with a public relations pin. Until he or she dies an aging balloon's shrinking death.

The moral? — Robert Mueller is a prime example of the metaphorical Feces Humans, who dominate the top ranks of American government

He will, I hope, go down in history with the same lack of acclaim that the equally loathsome (and then also eternally present) Ken Starr did.

It is not that I fervently object to legitimate "independent" investigations. It is that I object to those pursued without a sense of fairness, lawful clarity and professional integrity. Mueller, the alleged "prosecutor of ramrod integrity" has been anything but.

Attorney General Barr may indeed be protecting the President. But that was predictable, and Mueller knew it.

If Special Counsel Mueller had wanted something lawful to have taken place with regard to President Trump, he should have stepped up and initiated (or clearly stated) it himself.

Having done neither, Mueller's sly and cowardly plotting continues to be an embarrassment to Rectitude and Law's practice.

PeteFree.com

Robert Mueller — the "ramrod" conniver — who keeps oozing under the door