Tag Archives: Robert Mueller

national news

‘No report’ from Robert Mueller, Mr. POTUS? You’re joking, yes?

Innocent men and women don’t say things such as what came from the president of the United States late this past week.

Donald Trump continues to call Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russians who interfered in our 2016 election “illegal.” He calls the probe a “witch hunt.” He says now that there should be “no Mueller report” issued to the attorney general, let alone released to the public for its review.

Is that what an innocent man would say?

I don’t know what the special counsel has compiled. No one outside Mueller and his team of legal eagles knows what he’s going to submit to Attorney General William Barr. Donald Trump doesn’t know. The AG himself might not yet know.

As for the legality of Mueller’s investigation, I happen to believe — as do most Americans — that Mueller is conducting a perfectly legal and appropriate investigation.

A witch hunt doesn’t produce the indictments, guilty pleas and prison terms that have come from this investigation.

Robert Mueller is as former White House lawyer Ty Cobb described him; he is an “American hero.” He is a dedicated prosecutor, a former FBI director, a man of impeccable standing and reputation. Mueller has worked diligently for presidents of both political parties.

Mueller embodies many of the qualities that Trump lacks. Let’s try a dedication to public service. Or perhaps we can compare Mueller’s combat service in the Marine Corps in Vietnam to the bone spurs that kept young Donald Trump out of the military (allegedly) during the Vietnam War. Let’s also examine the air-tight manner in which his investigation has proceeded, compared to the sieve-like environment that plagues the White House.

Donald Trump doesn’t sound like an innocent man when he continues to rant about Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Let the man finish his task, Mr. President. If the POTUS is innocent, we’re all going to know about it in due course.

national news

House turns up the heat on AG Barr

The vote is not legally binding, but it represents the growing pressure from both sides of the aisle on the Justice Department to disclose as much of the report as possible.

So it was reported by National Public Radio on a stunning vote taken by the House of Representatives. The House voted 420 to zero demanding that Attorney General William Barr release for public review the report he soon will get from special counsel Robert Mueller on the issue of conspiracy and collusion (allegedly) by the Donald Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

Barr is under no legal obligation to follow the House lead, which NPR has acknowledged. However, William Barr is a seasoned Washington hand. He served as AG during the George H.W. Bush administration. He’s no novice. Barr knows all about the power inherent in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which lays out congressional authority line by line.

Mueller’s report must be made public. The House is demanding it of the Department of Justice, which appointed Mueller to the special counsel post in the first place.

The president has derided the Mueller investigation as a “witch hunt.” He calls the collusion matter a “hoax” and a product of “fake news.”

The public needs to see for itself whether the president is correct or if he is seeking to undermine a legitimate investigation into the attack on our electoral system by a foreign hostile power.

Let the public see it.

national news

The People’s House has spoken loudly about Mueller report

It doesn’t get much more explicit than that.

The U.S. House of Representatives, in a 420-0 vote, has approved a resolution demanding that special counsel Robert Mueller III’s report be released to the public once he submits it to Attorney General William Barr.

I want to thank the members of Congress for agreeing with me. And for agreeing with millions of their constituents who believe — as I do — that Mueller’s findings into whether Donald Trump’s campaign “colluded” with Russians who had attacked our electoral system be made public.

Hey, it’s our money that has paid for this excruciating examination into the president’s affairs. Mueller, a former FBI director and a stellar lawyer, has spared no effort in the eyes of many to get to the root of the questions that have swirled around the presidency since before Donald Trump took the oath of office.

Trump has said it is “totally up” to Barr to decide whether to release the report. I wish I could depend on the president to be true to his word. But . . . I cannot. He is a serial liar.

However, the People’s House has spoken with a clear voice. Its members want the report released to the public.

I agree with them.

Now, let’s just wait for the special counsel to finish dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

national news

‘No collusion’ mantra: another Trump lie

Read my lips: Paul Manafort’s sentencing for crimes committed had nothing — not a damn thing! — to do with whether the Donald Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

Are we clear? If not, I shall explain.

Manafort, the president’s one-time campaign chairman, has received roughly 7 1/2 years in federal prison on an assortment of tax fraud charges. He wasn’t charged with collusion. He did not stand trial on charges of collusion.

He was sentenced for unrelated crimes.

So, why is the president continuing to say the judges who sentenced Manafort to prison have found “no evidence of collusion”? Why did Manafort’s lawyer repeat that phony assertion today?

I am beginning to understand better why Trump keeps saying it. He’s trying to divert attention from the issue at hand: the conviction and sentencing of his former campaign chairman. Trump says things without thinking because, well, he’s the president of the United States. He’s also not nearly as smart as he keeps telling us he is.

Manafort’s lawyer, an officer of the court, surely should know better. But there he was today, bellowing over the shouts of demonstrators that it’s been proved that Trump’s campaign didn’t collude with Russians.

C’mon, man! Stick to the issue of the day. It is that Paul Manafort has apologized for the crimes he committed. None of it had anything to do with collusion.

Now . . . are we clear? Good!

national news

Democrats take page from Republicans

It wasn’t that long ago when congressional Republicans were clawing at each other. You had the TEA Party wing vs. the Establishment wing.

The TEA Party cadre was far more ideological, far more zealous in pursuit of its agenda. The TEA Party wing ended up driving John Boehner out of the speaker’s chair and out of public office. They tore a page out of the Democrats’ playbook that called the shots during the 1960s, when the Hawks battled the Doves over whether to fight the Vietnam War.

A decade later, Republicans have (more or less) settled in behind the president of the United States, Donald Trump.

Which brings me to the Democrats’ current state of play. The progressive wing is battling the Democratic version of the establishment wing.

The progressives want to impeach the president now. The more seasoned of them say “no.” They’re fighting openly with each other.

One big difference? I do not expect Speaker Nancy Pelosi to give up the fight. She doesn’t want to impeach the president, at least not  yet. The progressives in her caucus aren’t hearing the last part of it; they seem to hear “no impeachment” and go ballistic.

My own advice to the Democrats’ far-left wing is to wait for the special counsel, Robert Mueller, to finish his job. Attorney General William Barr is going to let his collusion probe finish under its own power.

If Mueller produces the goods, then they can talk openly about impeachment. Not beforehand.

national news

Democrats split over impeachment

So, here we are.

Congressional Democrats comprising the fiery left-wingers and the “establishment” wing are at each other’s throats over whether to impeach Donald John Trump.

The firebrands want to impeach the president now. They’ve heard and seen enough to persuade them that Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, it’s time to impeach — in the words of one of the House rookie Democratic bomb throwers — the “motherf*****!”

Oh, but wait. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is slamming the breaks on that move — at least for the moment. She opposes impeachment. Pelosi, one of the experienced hands on Capitol Hill, doesn’t want to go there.

“I’m not for impeachment,” she says.

Pelosi speaks wisely

I happen to agree with Pelosi. Yes, that’s right. Critics of this blog think I am frothing at the mouth to impeach the president. Not true.

I want to wait for special counsel Robert Mueller III to finish his job of investigating whether there was “collusion” between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russian government goons who attacked our electoral system.

Moreover, I also believe Pelosi’s mind can change if Mueller’s report reveals some impeachable nastiness. There’s also the Southern District of New York, the federal judicial district that is looking deeply into possible criminality. The SDNY also needs to finish its work as well before we should determine whether there are grounds to impeach Donald Trump.

But for now the speaker is speaking wise words of caution. She is a seasoned politician who knows if she has enough bipartisan support to proceed with impeaching the president. She has calculated that she doesn’t have it. Impeaching the president would be a loser for her and House Democrats.

Pelosi is a wise woman.

Just as Republican members of Congress engaged in fights between establishment politicians and TEA Party fanatics, Democrats are engaging in something quite similar at the other end of the big political spectrum.

The GOP establishment had the country’s best interests when it fought with the TEA Party over spending. The Democratic establishment has the upper hand over the issue of impeaching Donald Trump.

But . . . let’s wait.

Donald Trump, national news

‘No collusion,’ Mr. President? Let’s wait on that one

 

Donald J. Trump has a “no collusion” fetish.

He keeps invoking the “no collusion” mantra even when it’s irrelevant to the issue of the day.

Take the Paul Manafort sentence handed down the other day. The president’s former campaign chairman got a 47-month sentence for tax fraud and assorted other crimes. None of them had a thing to do with the allegations that the campaign “colluded” with Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

Yet there was the president of the United States, crowing about how the judge found no evidence of collusion with Russians.

Hey, Mr. President? That issue isn’t even on the table in this discussion. Manafort’s sentence didn’t have a single thing to do with collusion.

Oh, and Mr. President, we’re still awaiting Robert Mueller report that he supposedly is preparing to submit to Attorney General William Barr.

That is where we’re going to find out — more than likely — whether there is any Russian hanky-panky related to your 2016 presidential campaign.

So . . . POTUS needs to settle down and wait for the report silently.

Yeah, I know. I’m asking for the impossible.

national news

Make the Mueller report public, Mr. AG

1 Comment

I am ready for the Robert S. Mueller III saga to end.

The special counsel reportedly is wrapping up his report, which he will deliver to Attorney General William Barr, who then will be faced with a most monumental decision.

He must decide how much of it to release to the public.

My plea: Release every single detail you can, Mr. Attorney General, without endangering our national security.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it until my fingers turn bloody from beating on my keyboard: This report from the special counsel comes at enormous public expense. The public, therefore, has a right to know what it contains.

Is there “collusion”? Is there conspiracy to obstruct justice? Is there a violation of the clause that bans the president from taking money from foreign governments? Are there tax issues to consider? Did the president lie about his business dealings with Russia?

This stuff is vital, Mr. Attorney General. We need to know what’s in the report.

I’ve also stated before — and this, too, bears repeating — that I am willing to accept whatever findings Mueller reaches. If he can find no evidence of collusion or conspiracy, I accept that. If there are no tax matters to examine or if he didn’t lie to us about Russia business dealings, I can accept that as well.

Would I like it? Would I embrace those findings? No, but I have placed my trust in the former FBI director — Mueller — to do a thorough job. I believe he has done what he has been charged to do by the Department of Justice.

Do not hide any of this report from us, Mr. AG. We need to see as much of it as we possibly can.

Would an exoneration from Mueller be free of any negative blowback? Certainly! It would reveal itself in the incessant yammering from Donald J. Trump.

To be honest, though, I am enough of an adult to understand what that entails. I’ll just have to suck it up . . . and accept that as well.

national news

Former WH lawyer makes it clear why he left

Ty Cobb’s departure from the White House counsel’s office wasn’t altogether apparent to me when he announced it.

Now, though, I get it.

Cobb has said, according to the Washington Post, that special counsel Robert Mueller is not conducting a “witch hunt.” Cobb calls Mueller an “American hero.” He is contradicting directly the wild assertions thrown around by Donald J. Trump about Mueller’s probe into The Russia Thing.

I continue to stand foursquare behind the initial reaction to Mueller’s selection as special counsel to examine allegations that Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

That reaction consisted of bipartisan praise for Mueller. Democrats and Republicans alike praised the former FBI director as a man of impeccable integrity, a brilliant mind and an intrepid spirit.

The president has taken an entirely different tack as it regards Mueller. He has hurled “witch hunt,” “hoax,” “angry Democrat” and “illegal” insults at Mueller’s team.

It now appears that Ty Cobb, once one of the president’s closest legal advisers, has staked out an opposing view.

I believe Cobb’s view of Mueller.

I also want to point out that Cobb doesn’t believe Mueller is going to find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

Still, the special counsel appears to be the “class act,” as Cobb has called his friend. Trump’s act, however, is quite the opposite.

national news

Cohen saw ‘no evidence’ of collusion

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee today called Michael Cohen everything but the spawn of Satan himself.

Cohen, the former lawyer and fixer for the president of the United States, spent a full day talking to the committee about Donald Trump.

Republicans weren’t in the mood to listen intently to what Cohen had to say. They called him a liar repeatedly during the day. Cohen has acknowledged as much already.

But Cohen did say something that should have given the GOP committee members some pause in their attack on Trump’s former confidant. Cohen said today that he has seen “no evidence” of collusion between Trump and the Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016 and who had dirt to deliver on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Now, what does that mean? It doesn’t mean that there is no evidence. Cohen’s statement merely acknowledges that he hasn’t seen it. He has no personal knowledge of collusion. Cohen doesn’t speak for special counsel Robert Mueller, who reportedly is wrapping his lengthy investigation into alleged collusion.

Cohen’s lack of personal knowledge of collusion, though, does buttress his credibility as a witness before the House panel. Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings did warn Cohen at the start of the hearing that lying to the committee is a crime and asked Cohen if he is aware of that fact. Cohen said “yes,” he is aware.

So, he spoke the truth quite clearly about his lack of personal knowledge of collusion. I also believe that his acknowledgment of such gives the rest of his testimony today more credibility than committee Republicans were willing to give.

However, I am not going to accept Cohen’s lack of personal knowledge of collusion as a declarative statement that collusion did not exist. I’m waiting for Robert Mueller to provide that testimony.

If that is what he has learned.