By Jon Dougherty
As Democrats continue bleating about how Americans ‘deserve’ to see the full report by Robert Mueller regarding his hoax “collusion” investigation into POTUS Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, seasoned Washington watchers were certain that eventually “leaks” from the former special counsel’s team would emerge to form a ‘narrative’ unfavorable to the White House.
The New York Times has now filed the first of these stories.
The Times, allegedly quoting unnamed members of the Mueller team, claims that the report is “more troubling” for the president than Attorney General William Barr stated in his letter to Congress.
But of course, no details are provided about what could be so “troubling” for the White House and the president in particular. Rather, there is only a vague hint that it could be related to the president’s alleged ‘obstruction’ of the probe:
The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation.
So what I’m afraid is going to happen is this special counsel whose job it is only to find crimes, not sins, only crimes, will blur the line between crimes and sins and write a report designed to put the president in a bad light. But in the end, they won’t be able to find any specific violations of federal criminal statutes unless they stretch these vague laws like obstruction of justice beyond any recognition.
Recall two things: 1) Mueller was appointed as part of the Deep State’s coup against the president, as prior reporting revealing the “collusion” narrative to be a hoax has laid out; and 2) Mueller did not specifically “exonerate” the president for “obstruction” in his report.
The Times indicates that Mueller’s team members, 13 of whom were documented and registered Democrats (zero Republicans), are also concerned about who will ‘win’ the public narrative battle:
At stake in the disputed — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.
Never mind what this investigation has done to the social fabric of our country; it’s about ‘winning the narrative’ and political power — at any cost.
Regarding obstruction of justice, Barr wrote in his March 24 letter to Congress:
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
“I don’t see any crimes,” Dershowitz also said in December, adding that Mueller’s prosecutorial team of Democratic donors will have to “stretch…vague laws” in order to charge the president.
“Collusion itself is not a crime. Using information given by Russia to Wikileaks would not be a crime unless the campaign participated with Wikileaks in the hacking itself. There’s no evidence to support that,” he said.
Whatever happens next, the president holds all the cards. He can (and should) declassify all documents related to the Spygate operation. He can instruct Barr to launch criminal probes of all Deep State figures involved in the coup attempt (which he has now labeled, correctly, as “treason“). And he can deny Democrats’ access to anything he deems “executive privilege.”
As for collusion, there was never any evidence for that, either. Mueller’s garbage investigation continued long after the president fired former FBI Director James Comey, so trying to make ‘obstruction’ stick will be a stretch.
That said, in the days and weeks ahead of Barr’s eventual release of a redacted Mueller report, we expect more of these ‘narrative battle’ stories to emerge, compliments of “leaks” from the Deep State to a compliant, role-playing “mainstream media.”
- Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10