Mueller should have refused the special counsel appointment

Robert Mueller's appearance before the Nadler and Schiff committees, otherwise known as the 2020 DNC campaign committees, has generated discussion of whether he was incompetent or mentally unfit to conduct the investigation, or some combination thereof.  Some even seem to feel sorry for Mueller.

AT's Thomas Lifson pointed out that Mueller testified in 2013 that he did not know that the Boston bombers had attended a terrorist mosque in Boston, which supports the theory of incompetence.  One would think that the FBI director would know the details of an Islamist terrorist attack in Boston during the Boston Marathon. 

Mueller refused to, or could not, answer important questions about the origin of the investigation and the FISA warrants and said he did not know about Fusion GPS.  Mueller may be an example of the Peter Principle, and his appearance and testimony clearly show that he was unfit to handle the investigation.  If an attorney knows he cannot handle a case properly for whatever reason, such as a conflict of interest or incompetence in the area of the law, or for health reasons including physical and mental, then he has a duty to notify the client he cannot do the job.

The basic rule for attorneys from the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct is this:

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Mueller should have notified Deputy Attorney Rosenstein about his health, specifically his mental condition, which prevented him from fulfilling his duties to his client, the United States.  Further, the Clinton-Obama attorneys, assuming they knew or cared about the Rules of Professional Conduct, had a legal duty to inform Rosenstein about Mueller's condition, which they must have seen during the two-year investigation.

Moreover, there are special duties imposed upon a prosecutor:

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

  1. refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause ...

During the Schiff-Nadler show, there was a discussion that Mueller did not indict Trump because he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt whatever crime Trump supposedly committed.  While a prosecutor should not indict if he believes he cannot prove his case, a prosecutor does not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to indict or charge.  He needs only probable cause.  The rule in preliminary hearings is that a charge will be held for court if there is probable cause to send it to court.  Aside from the Democrats' deliberate misrepresentation that Trump was not indicted because of the OLC opinion that a President may not be indicted during his term, there was no probable cause to charge Trump.  Mueller had to clarify that the OLC opinion was not the reason for not indicting Trump.  Mueller first agreed with Democratic congressman Ted Lieu that he did not indict Trump because of the OLC opinion, but then, after lunch, Mueller had to "clarify" his statement, most likely after his staff wrote a clarification that there was no indictment because they did not "reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime."

The relevancy and importance of this is that Lieu tricked Mueller into agreeing with him that the reason for no indictment was the OLC opinion.  This is clear evidence that Mueller was not fit.  If Lieu was able to mislead and trick Mueller on such an important question, imagine what the Obama-Clinton attorneys were able to do during the two-year investigation.

In sum, Rosenstein should have known about Mueller's condition.  Mueller should have refused the appointment and should have notified Rosenstein after his appointment about his condition.  Rosenstein probably was afraid to do anything to remove Mueller because of his condition because it would appear that he was removing Mueller to help President Trump.

The Obama-Hillary gang knew they could do and write whatever they wanted with a clueless Mueller.  Had Mueller been removed by Rosenstein, as he should have, the Obama-Hillary gang were afraid that a competent, honest prosecutor may have been appointed, who would have shut down the inquisition immediately upon confirming what everyone knew: there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and the voting was not affected.

The client is the United States.  Mueller failed to properly inform his client, the United States, about his condition that prevented him from doing his job.

Image: James Ledbetter via Flickr.

Robert Mueller's appearance before the Nadler and Schiff committees, otherwise known as the 2020 DNC campaign committees, has generated discussion of whether he was incompetent or mentally unfit to conduct the investigation, or some combination thereof.  Some even seem to feel sorry for Mueller.

AT's Thomas Lifson pointed out that Mueller testified in 2013 that he did not know that the Boston bombers had attended a terrorist mosque in Boston, which supports the theory of incompetence.  One would think that the FBI director would know the details of an Islamist terrorist attack in Boston during the Boston Marathon. 

Mueller refused to, or could not, answer important questions about the origin of the investigation and the FISA warrants and said he did not know about Fusion GPS.  Mueller may be an example of the Peter Principle, and his appearance and testimony clearly show that he was unfit to handle the investigation.  If an attorney knows he cannot handle a case properly for whatever reason, such as a conflict of interest or incompetence in the area of the law, or for health reasons including physical and mental, then he has a duty to notify the client he cannot do the job.

The basic rule for attorneys from the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct is this:

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Mueller should have notified Deputy Attorney Rosenstein about his health, specifically his mental condition, which prevented him from fulfilling his duties to his client, the United States.  Further, the Clinton-Obama attorneys, assuming they knew or cared about the Rules of Professional Conduct, had a legal duty to inform Rosenstein about Mueller's condition, which they must have seen during the two-year investigation.

Moreover, there are special duties imposed upon a prosecutor:

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

  1. refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause ...

During the Schiff-Nadler show, there was a discussion that Mueller did not indict Trump because he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt whatever crime Trump supposedly committed.  While a prosecutor should not indict if he believes he cannot prove his case, a prosecutor does not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to indict or charge.  He needs only probable cause.  The rule in preliminary hearings is that a charge will be held for court if there is probable cause to send it to court.  Aside from the Democrats' deliberate misrepresentation that Trump was not indicted because of the OLC opinion that a President may not be indicted during his term, there was no probable cause to charge Trump.  Mueller had to clarify that the OLC opinion was not the reason for not indicting Trump.  Mueller first agreed with Democratic congressman Ted Lieu that he did not indict Trump because of the OLC opinion, but then, after lunch, Mueller had to "clarify" his statement, most likely after his staff wrote a clarification that there was no indictment because they did not "reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime."

The relevancy and importance of this is that Lieu tricked Mueller into agreeing with him that the reason for no indictment was the OLC opinion.  This is clear evidence that Mueller was not fit.  If Lieu was able to mislead and trick Mueller on such an important question, imagine what the Obama-Clinton attorneys were able to do during the two-year investigation.

In sum, Rosenstein should have known about Mueller's condition.  Mueller should have refused the appointment and should have notified Rosenstein after his appointment about his condition.  Rosenstein probably was afraid to do anything to remove Mueller because of his condition because it would appear that he was removing Mueller to help President Trump.

The Obama-Hillary gang knew they could do and write whatever they wanted with a clueless Mueller.  Had Mueller been removed by Rosenstein, as he should have, the Obama-Hillary gang were afraid that a competent, honest prosecutor may have been appointed, who would have shut down the inquisition immediately upon confirming what everyone knew: there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and the voting was not affected.

The client is the United States.  Mueller failed to properly inform his client, the United States, about his condition that prevented him from doing his job.

Image: James Ledbetter via Flickr.