Robert Mueller is a Sleazy, Shameful, Partisan Hack

Robert Mueller should have been disbarred decades ago, along with his enforcer Andrew Weismann; that is how egregious his record of malfeasance is, all matters of public record.  

What he did Wednesday morning was his final IED tossed at the President to placate his Democrat overlords who desperately want to impeach Trump.  But for what?  Mueller gave no list of felonies in his report nor did he detail any crimes of which Trump is even amorphously guilty.

This entire enterprise, the fabricated notion that Trump and/or persons within his campaign colluded with Russians to cheat his way to the presidency was illegitimate from the outset.  It did not happen.  Not even a very expensive team of Trump-haters could find their way to naming anyone on the Trump side guilty of anything illegal having to do with the election.  And we can be certain that if they could have bent and twisted any relationship, any meeting, any friendship, any past association to find Trump guilty of anything, this band of malefactors would have run with it.  They found nothing but gossip and innuendo, rather like a clique of mean girls in middle school. 

Volume two of Mueller's report was entirely unnecessary but for this gang of thugs' need to vent and hopefully give the Democrats something with which to move ahead with impeachment.  

True to form, the dim bulb Democrats are such legal ignoramuses they have continued to insist the report found Trump guilty of all manner of crimes even though it did not.  We can be sure that if they had discovered anything useful, they would have used it and recommended charges.  But they did not.  

So on Wednesday morning, a shaky and seemingly anxious Mueller went before the cameras to say the opposite of what he had told AG Barr, that it was only the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) guidelines that prevented him for exonerating the President.  Barr has testified that on at least two occasions, Mueller told him those guidelines had nothing to do with his final report.  There were others present when he said this to Barr.

So, who had the gun to Mueller's jowly head?  (He resembles the canine Mastiff.) He has most likely been on the outs with the DC social establishment who were enraged by his report.  They had universally assumed it was their ticket to unseating the man.  So shocked by Mueller's findings, the ruling elites of the beltway have probably exorcised Mueller from their midst.  

Who made him embarrass himself by offering the Democrats a new path to impeachment?  Who has something on Bob Mueller?  He's weathered criminal accusations before and retained his positions when he should have been permanently kicked out of the legal profession never to practice law again. He should never have been assigned as a special counsel to investigate President Trump, especially when everyone knew by then that it was the Clinton campaign that had commissioned and paid for the fake dossier and that none of the principals involved were Russian.  They were paid operatives of the FBI, DOJ and CIA.   

Just who among the Trump trolls got the camera-shy Mueller to belittle himself Wednesday morning?  James Comey?  John Brennan?  Does someone in power have something on Mueller?  Wouldn't we all like to know.  The man seemed at the end of his rope.  Maybe it was all about fund-raising.  If so, how cheap is that?

Much has been written already about the sheer pettiness of what Mueller did and said on Wednesday morning.  Many actual legal scholars have commented; Alan DershowitzSean Davis, the guys at Powerline and of course Mark Levin.  Given their analyses, it is safe to say that Mueller stepped in a tar pit that may well fossilize this pathetic man.   He has sacrificed his entire career on the altar of the unscrupulous politics of the Democrats, who refuse still to accept the results of the 2016 election.  

I hope that they will suffer the consequences of their own bitterness.  It is likely that the several investigations into the origins of the collusion fakery will come to light.  Much of the truth has been part of the public realm for well over a year.  It is time for it to be forced upon the resistant media outlets who have bent over backwards to conceal it.  Chances are that CNN and MSNBC will shutter their operations rather than tell the truth of this coup attempt that is reminiscent of the 1964 film Seven Days in May.   

Many people have suggested for many months now that the counterfeit dossier that was used to jumpstart the investigation of Trump was devised to conceal the years of spying, egregious surveillance, begun under Obama, in fact ordered by Obama perhaps as early as 2012.  

Remember when Maxine Waters bragged about Obama's database; "He has  everything on everyone"?  We now know Samantha Power unmasked hundreds of people in her apparent drive to sabotage Israel and help the Palestinians.  Since Obama took office, the Democrat party has been transformed into a criminal enterprise, police-state in nature.   Obama's spies assumed they would never be exposed, that their pulling the strings of government would be their unimpeded mission in perpetuity, passed on only to their chosen successors.  

But exposed they have been and now they are desperate to change the narrative.  Maybe that was Mueller's goal Wednesday morning, an attempt to derail the declassification of documents that are sure to embarrass if not prove criminal acts by many denizens of the deep state. 

Clearly Mueller hopes to avoid any appearances before any congressional committees.  He appeared to be downright terrified of such a fate.  Why did he do it? He offered nothing new but the lie about the OLC being the reason he could not indict.   Not true.  If he had found anything, he would have used it.  And as Scott Adams asked on Twitter, what is the difference between these two statements: "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so." or "If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so." Are they equal?  Indeed they are.  

So, what did Mueller hope to achieve?  He did energize the legally illiterate, Trump-hating left and their candidates for the presidency but other than that, all he did was demean himself and his ridiculous report.  If he had been interested in the truth and the burnishing his legacy, he would have brought to light the falsity of the dossier and its provenance but he did not.  May we never see his kind again, the kind that abuses their positions of power for the indiscriminate destruction of innocents.

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab

Robert Mueller should have been disbarred decades ago, along with his enforcer Andrew Weismann; that is how egregious his record of malfeasance is, all matters of public record.  

What he did Wednesday morning was his final IED tossed at the President to placate his Democrat overlords who desperately want to impeach Trump.  But for what?  Mueller gave no list of felonies in his report nor did he detail any crimes of which Trump is even amorphously guilty.

This entire enterprise, the fabricated notion that Trump and/or persons within his campaign colluded with Russians to cheat his way to the presidency was illegitimate from the outset.  It did not happen.  Not even a very expensive team of Trump-haters could find their way to naming anyone on the Trump side guilty of anything illegal having to do with the election.  And we can be certain that if they could have bent and twisted any relationship, any meeting, any friendship, any past association to find Trump guilty of anything, this band of malefactors would have run with it.  They found nothing but gossip and innuendo, rather like a clique of mean girls in middle school. 

Volume two of Mueller's report was entirely unnecessary but for this gang of thugs' need to vent and hopefully give the Democrats something with which to move ahead with impeachment.  

True to form, the dim bulb Democrats are such legal ignoramuses they have continued to insist the report found Trump guilty of all manner of crimes even though it did not.  We can be sure that if they had discovered anything useful, they would have used it and recommended charges.  But they did not.  

So on Wednesday morning, a shaky and seemingly anxious Mueller went before the cameras to say the opposite of what he had told AG Barr, that it was only the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) guidelines that prevented him for exonerating the President.  Barr has testified that on at least two occasions, Mueller told him those guidelines had nothing to do with his final report.  There were others present when he said this to Barr.

So, who had the gun to Mueller's jowly head?  (He resembles the canine Mastiff.) He has most likely been on the outs with the DC social establishment who were enraged by his report.  They had universally assumed it was their ticket to unseating the man.  So shocked by Mueller's findings, the ruling elites of the beltway have probably exorcised Mueller from their midst.  

Who made him embarrass himself by offering the Democrats a new path to impeachment?  Who has something on Bob Mueller?  He's weathered criminal accusations before and retained his positions when he should have been permanently kicked out of the legal profession never to practice law again. He should never have been assigned as a special counsel to investigate President Trump, especially when everyone knew by then that it was the Clinton campaign that had commissioned and paid for the fake dossier and that none of the principals involved were Russian.  They were paid operatives of the FBI, DOJ and CIA.   

Just who among the Trump trolls got the camera-shy Mueller to belittle himself Wednesday morning?  James Comey?  John Brennan?  Does someone in power have something on Mueller?  Wouldn't we all like to know.  The man seemed at the end of his rope.  Maybe it was all about fund-raising.  If so, how cheap is that?

Much has been written already about the sheer pettiness of what Mueller did and said on Wednesday morning.  Many actual legal scholars have commented; Alan DershowitzSean Davis, the guys at Powerline and of course Mark Levin.  Given their analyses, it is safe to say that Mueller stepped in a tar pit that may well fossilize this pathetic man.   He has sacrificed his entire career on the altar of the unscrupulous politics of the Democrats, who refuse still to accept the results of the 2016 election.  

I hope that they will suffer the consequences of their own bitterness.  It is likely that the several investigations into the origins of the collusion fakery will come to light.  Much of the truth has been part of the public realm for well over a year.  It is time for it to be forced upon the resistant media outlets who have bent over backwards to conceal it.  Chances are that CNN and MSNBC will shutter their operations rather than tell the truth of this coup attempt that is reminiscent of the 1964 film Seven Days in May.   

Many people have suggested for many months now that the counterfeit dossier that was used to jumpstart the investigation of Trump was devised to conceal the years of spying, egregious surveillance, begun under Obama, in fact ordered by Obama perhaps as early as 2012.  

Remember when Maxine Waters bragged about Obama's database; "He has  everything on everyone"?  We now know Samantha Power unmasked hundreds of people in her apparent drive to sabotage Israel and help the Palestinians.  Since Obama took office, the Democrat party has been transformed into a criminal enterprise, police-state in nature.   Obama's spies assumed they would never be exposed, that their pulling the strings of government would be their unimpeded mission in perpetuity, passed on only to their chosen successors.  

But exposed they have been and now they are desperate to change the narrative.  Maybe that was Mueller's goal Wednesday morning, an attempt to derail the declassification of documents that are sure to embarrass if not prove criminal acts by many denizens of the deep state. 

Clearly Mueller hopes to avoid any appearances before any congressional committees.  He appeared to be downright terrified of such a fate.  Why did he do it? He offered nothing new but the lie about the OLC being the reason he could not indict.   Not true.  If he had found anything, he would have used it.  And as Scott Adams asked on Twitter, what is the difference between these two statements: "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so." or "If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so." Are they equal?  Indeed they are.  

So, what did Mueller hope to achieve?  He did energize the legally illiterate, Trump-hating left and their candidates for the presidency but other than that, all he did was demean himself and his ridiculous report.  If he had been interested in the truth and the burnishing his legacy, he would have brought to light the falsity of the dossier and its provenance but he did not.  May we never see his kind again, the kind that abuses their positions of power for the indiscriminate destruction of innocents.

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab