The Mueller Investigation

Not just the report itself, but his investigation, too, that was the subject of his report. What were the circumstances of the investigation’s start?  What triggered it?  Who leaked so many parts of it?

Now that Mueller’s report of his investigation has been released, and especially since it largely exonerated President Donald Trump, it’s necessary to see what led to the expenditure of two years of personnel resources and millions of dollars on an investigation of a President of the United States that accomplished so little—and in some cases so redundantly.

The role of senior FBI personnel, the importance of the Steele dossier in the trigger event(s), the lies told the FISA courts to get warrants, the FISA court itself, the behaviors and roles of members of Mueller’s investigation team—these all have severely damaged the reputation of the FBI, and of DoJ generally in te case of the FISA court, and they have damaged more than that—they’ve severely harmed the ability of the FBI to function as a Federal law enforcement agency and of DoJ’s ability to handle actual justice.

Investigations into this, like the one to which AG William Barr has committed, are critical to restoring the FBI and DoJ and producing substantive sanction on those personnel who misbehaved during the run-up to the investigation, its start, and its conduct.

 

Largely exonerated: the putative purpose of the investigation was to look into Russia’s interference into our 2016 election process and attempted interference in that election itself.  On this, the investigation found conclusively that Russia did do those things, and it found that the Trump campaign, personnel involved, and Trump himself did not collude—had nothing at all to do with those attempts.  And that outcome, despite repeated attempts by Russian agencies to get those personnel to collude or to con them into colluding.

The investigation, on turning to claims of one form or another of “obstruction of an investigation/of justice/of…,” did find quite a bit of embarrassing information and a number of embarrassing incidents that will be used to attack Trump—and much of this derogatory information was cynically leaked over the course of the investigation.  Withal, a closer look reveals the overall exoneration here, too.

Much is made, in the report, of Trump’s public “attacks” on the investigation itself and its conduct.  This was, supposedly, pressure, interference, obstructive in nature.  This is, actually, nonsense—and it’s insulting to the personnel conducting the investigation, from Mueller on down.  Suggesting that Trump expressing his anger and distrust of the investigation and the investigators in Trump’s inimitable way is capable of influencing the investigators by the slightest iota is to suggest that those investigators—every single one of them, from Mueller on down—are such timid summer pansies that they would be bothered by those words.  On the contrary, there’s nothing more to these public remarks than those implied insults and textbook projection by those expressing concerns about the impact of Trump’s words.  Even when those expressions come from the investigators themselves via the report.  Perhaps those investigators didn’t belong on Mueller’s team—their weakness, if not their bias, is exposed by their “findings.”

Much is made, also, of Trump’s (at least according to the claims of Mueller’s interrogatees over the course of his investigation) ordering various staff members to fire Mueller, to “influence” witness/interrogatees prior to their interrogations, of Trump’s personal attempts (allegedly) of such tampering.  What’s ignored here, too, in assessing the meaning of these things (stipulating they’re accurately, if narrowly, described) are three things in particular.

One is that Mueller was never fired, nor was his investigation ever actually interfered with.  It proceeded to its full and Mueller-style objective finish.

Another, regarding the behind the scenes interactions, is that had Trump been serious about firing Mueller or interfering with the investigation, Mueller would have been fired, the investigation actually interfered with, witnesses/interrogatees actually interfered with, and so on.  In the realization, though, Trump did none of these things, staffers were not fired and replaced with those who would obey those “instructions,” Trump did not bypass those staffers and act himself, and on and on.  He did none of those things because he wasn’t serious, except in the anger of the moment, as a man falsely accused (not just wrongly so) and faced with a years-long drumbeat of biased publicity and petty partisan attacks (and not just on himself, but on his family and his friends and his advisors) vented his anger in those moments.  The fact is, despite the claims of interference, of outright obstruction, none occurred.  None occurred, not because staffers disobeyed Trump, as so many of the NLMSM would have it, but because there was nothing to disobey.

A third thing is all the information and documentation—millions of pages of it—that Trump willingly and voluntarily released to Mueller and his investigation.  All of this information was free for the asking.  All of this information would have exposed the contradictions of Trump’s…obstruction…and they did not because there was none.

And all of that information freely provided is cooperation, not obstruction, except in the Newspeak dictionary of Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM.

This is the backdrop that emphasizes the importance of Barr’s investigation, separate from that of the DoJ’s Inspector General.

Citizen’s Arrests

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) has no understanding of duty or of law.  It seems that an armed group of citizen militia caught 200 illegal aliens in the act of illegally entering our nation near Sunland Park, NM, and they detained those illegal aliens until US Border Patrol agents—which those citizens called—could arrive and take charge.

In her response to this, Grisham said,

It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone[.]

On the contrary, it should go without saying that regular citizens have both the authority and the duty to arrest and detain until the arrival of formally constituted authority—police or Border Patrol agents, for instance—persons committing crimes in the presence of those citizens.  It also should go without saying that that authority and that duty derive from the plain duties of citizenship.

It’s both instructive and illustrative that this Progressive-Democrat does not understand the obligations of citizenship.

Vaccination and Quarantine

Various jurisdictions in a number of States have begun barring unvaccinated students from schools following an outbreak of a contagious disease, particularly measles and chicken pox (so far).

Some school districts in the US are booting unvaccinated students from campuses where infectious-disease cases have been confirmed, as the spread of measles accelerates in some states.

“Quarantining” on the basis of vaccination status (not the classic quarantine, which blocks departure from a specific location, but one that prevents entry into specific locations) is hitting the courts, too.

In Kentucky, 32 cases of chickenpox at Our Lady of the Assumption Church and Academy in Walton resulted in unvaccinated students being removed from school in March for three weeks, the time it would take for symptoms to appear. An 18-year-old unvaccinated student lost a lawsuit challenging the ban on religious beliefs.

The court ruled entirely correctly on that suit.  A family is entirely within its rights to decline vaccination on religious grounds.  However, that right does not extend to exposing others to the outcome of that non-vaccination; that family may not expose others’ children to the disease targeted by the vaccination.

Nor do such families have any right to expose other families’ pocketbooks to the costs of outcomes from non-vaccination.  Families exercising their right to not vaccinate cannot, legitimately, inflict the costs of treatment on other families, whether those other children have been vaccinated or not.

The Tyranny of Progressive-Democrats

In the ongoing saga of the Progressive-Democrats, and others, to get their hands on President Donald Trump’s personal and business tax returns, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Congressman Richard Neal (D, MA) requested demanded the IRS surrender several years of those documents to him by 10 Apr.  The deadline came and went as IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said they needed more time to study the Neal-cited law to be sure they could turn over the returns.  After all, other laws demand that tax records be kept private, as the personal information they are, for all Americans, and the cited law only permits tax records to be given to the House Ways and Means Chairman (and/or to two other Congressional positions) and only under tightly circumscribed conditions.

Since neither Rettig nor Mnuchin said, “Yes, Sir” and meekly and unquestioningly submitted, Neal now has sent a letter to Rettig giving a 23 April deadline or he, Neal, would yank Rettig into Federal court over the latter’s disobedience.  That letter says, in part,

It is not the proper function of the IRS, Treasury, or Justice to question or second guess the motivations of the Committee or its reasonable determinations regarding its need for the requested tax returns and return information[.]

Because the Executive Branch is not a coequal branch of our Federal government with the Legislature and the Judiciary.  It, together with its subordinate Departments and Agencies, are the obedient servants of Progressive-Democrat committees of the House of Representatives.  The Executive is not permitted to make its own determination of the legality of complying with Neal’s demand.  They’re supposed merely to shut up and deliver.

Law be damned.  Constitution, especially, be damned.  These are just more-or-less guidelines to be ignored whenever they show themselves inconvenient to the Left and their Party.

Of What are they Afraid?

Attorney General William Barr, during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he thought the Trump 2016 Presidential campaign had been spied on by Federal authorities, and he wanted to be sure whether that spying was legitimately done or not.

I think spying did occur.  The question is whether it was adequately predicated. …  Spying on a political campaign is a big deal.

Oh, the hoo-raw.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA):

I don’t trust Barr, I trust Mueller.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D, MD) now insists that Barr’s “loyalties were compromised.”

He is acting as an employee of the president.  I believe the Attorney General believes he needs to protect the president of the United States.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D, NY):

Barr’s vow to probe the FBI’s 2016 counterintelligence probe amounted to nothing more than “Republican conspiracy theory nonsense.”

And there’s the manufactured whine over petty terminology.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA):

[Barr] should not casually suggest that those under his purview engaged in “spying” on a political campaign.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D, CT)

said Barr should immediately retract his statement and apologize.
“The only spies interfering in the 2016 campaign were Russian ones.”

Senator Brian Schatz (D, HI):

took issue with Barr’s word choice, saying “the word ‘spying’ could cause everybody in the cable news ecosystem to freak out.”

And:

NBC News‘ Chuck Todd said this was a “conspiracy theory”

Of course, contra Schatz, the only folks who will “freak out” are those looking for excuses to display their virtuous outrage.  And those with something to hide.

Instead, Progressive-Democrats should welcome the Barr’s investigation; they then could use his finding of nothing to see to further impede Trump and to get their own candidates elected far and wide.

Unless….