A major New York City litigator—famous from his appearances on cable news—and one who runs one of the most effective law firms in New York City—said on my show, “This practically never happens. Not only did the federal judge strongly attack the prosecutor (which in itself is fairly rare.) But he went so far as to accuse the prosecution of outright lying.”
That’s what Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis claimed the representatives of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller prosecutorial team did, specifically in order to “prosecute or impeach” President Donald J. Trump.
Game, set, match.
If a federal judge (on the circuit since 1987) sees through the charade that the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller is putting forth to this degree, what else need be said?
Do we need wait for this case to be tried in several courts and make its way to the Supreme Court? Or can we now just admit what most of the American people have felt for some time?
But before you answer let’s consider the following...
1. No One Believes The Process Is Credible. Engage almost anyone in America, whether they voted for the President, or opposed him, whether they hate him or adore him, does anyone really believe there is zero ounce of bias, compromise, waste, and quite possibly fraud involved in how the Special Counsel’s office has conducted its actions? If one can’t answer surely that there is zero bias in the matter—the very rationale for it’s existence is toast. Most liberal I know, those who support the Counsel’s existence, don’t claim it acts free of bias. They state instead that the “ son of a b-tch has it coming” (direct quote.) So their argument is in favor of bias, not the credibility of the lack there of.
2. Many Believe The Foundation Of The Special Counsel's Existence Was Fraudulent. Now that it has been established that the FISA application that was used to surveil a low level Trump “advisor” based almost entirely on salacious accusations that have zero level of credibility many are caused to ask, “Why exactly did the early ‘collusion’ investigations (DOJ/FBI) even begin?” This is driven home much more precisely when one realizes that every link to this claim from George Papadopolous, to drunken Australian secret agents, to Russian hookers, to FISA extensions were all cooked up. The external “news” sources supposedly documenting the same, were leaked by the same “cookers.” Lastly—all the “cookers” had direct links to the Democrats, Hillary, the campaign, and/or the Clinton Foundation.
3. He Has Over Played An Empty Hand. The idea so many people in the media were speculating up front, that Robert Mueller was using a “classic mob technique,” in the indictment and charging of Manafort and Flynn, indicated (from the beginning) that the evidence acquired over the previous eighteen months from the FBI and DOJ investigations added up to "jack nada” (technical term for bupkis.) The consistent leaking of every “development” no matter how tiny or insignificant also seemed to display an operation that was either wholly incompetent in its ability to keep a secret, or were working with the worst possible of scenarios to try to develop greater leads from such leaks. All it has really demonstrated is that now after a year of Special Counsel attention, following the ground work of close to 15-18 months of FBI/DOJ work—on the matter it was established to investigate—Mueller’s got “squat" (a technical term for bupkis.)
4. The Partisan Percentage. From the very beginning anyone of integrity noted and had concerns about the fact that at any time the public was being billed office hour rates for 17-21 high dollar lawyers. But to note that the overwhelming majority of them—15 by best estimates had direct connections to the Democrats and the Clintons—left all people of integrity utterly gob-smacked. It does however easily proffer an explanation as to why the Special Counsel’s office—who actually was empowered to investigate all campaign 2016 connections to Russia—somehow never even bothered following up on the sizable amount of material that seemed to indicate intricate connections between the Democrats and the Clintons and Russians. With such obvious numbers working against the President, does anyone think the process is actually fair?
5. The Media Bias. For the past few weeks, President Trump has enjoyed a higher approval rating (on the record) than President Obama did at this same apples-to-apples point in his new administration. Obama enjoyed 95% positive press coverage. Trump has it with 95% negative coverage. As unemployment numbers take on record good news for all demographics, as enemies prepare to beg us for peace, as terrorists are learning we don’t have to fight wars on land to send them packing, as the discouraging opioid issue finally has an administration that is taking it on head to head, as illegal immigration is plummeting even before building the wall, and as speech and religious freedoms are being protected by court appointments, and as tax reforms help everyone of every wage bracket—somehow ABC, CBC, CNN, NBC, PBS The New York Times & the Washington Post seem obsessed with stories of Russian collusion, and obstruction vis-a-vie non-publicly disclosed settlements to porn stars more than anything else. If Mueller goes away—they are forced to look elsewhere to fill their hours of yammer time on network air and in news print.
6. The Voters Know The President—And Believe Him. David French, one of the famous “Never Trumpers” that nearly ran as a third party candidate for President, attempted to scold Christians (evangelicals specifically) this week for supporting the President. Like Mueller, French, and the never-trump movement at large (though it is tiny) keep hoping that if they make the right alliances with the right progressives, that eventually they will see the President gone. Sadly they believe everyone who accepts their rather binary view of the matter is being a person of false faith. (Which is completely hypocritical given that they rejected the “binary” argument of the general elections—which actually existed!) They even go so far as to say that Christians supporting the President also support him bedding a porn star, grabbing a p-ssy, lying to investigators and doing anything necessary to stay in power. Every single one of these assertions of are completely false. Unlike (Bill) Clinton the electorate had a chance to measure Trump’s past behavior add to it his campaign agenda, and compare it to Hillary’s past and her promises. Based on those comparisons voters in 33 of 50 states decided to live with his past, hope he kept his promises, and gave him the Presidency. Memo to French, (MacMullen, Finn & the other six never trumpers that still exist) none of us support his past actions. None of us believe bedding porn stars is suddenly ok. And our faith is not somehow compromised because he said something about grabbing someone that we ALL disagree with. IF this behavior happens from this point forward, I will guarantee you that I won’t be the only who screams about it loudly. But as long as you have Mueller making mischief you are empowered to believe your crusade (as expired as it may be) is still alive.
7. Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis. I’ll let the words of the judge—as recorded by that great conservative news outlet CNN say it directly: "Ellis expressed his concern with past independent investigations and asked how Manafort's case could connect to Russian influence in the 2016 US presidential election. The Special Counsel’s representative gave little new information about the scope of Mueller's investigation and Manafort's Russian ties, but offered that both the Justice Department's national security and tax divisions had signed off on Manafort's charges.
'We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants,' Ellis told Dreeben. 'The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power.’ When Dreeben answered Ellis' question about how the investigation and its charges date back to before the Trump campaign formed, the judge shot back, 'None of that information has to do with information related to Russian government coordination and the campaign of Donald Trump.’"
If the Special Counsel can do no better than grab a campaign manager who was fired from the campaign on twelve year old charges that are utterly unrelated to anything resembling the 2016 election, and need to “outright lie” (in the judge’s opinion) to simply try to “prosecute or impeach” the President on a charge which itself isn’t even a crime (collusion,) then what it appears you have here friends, is what the President has been saying since the beginning—a witch hunt.
And shouldn’t the lawfully elected public servant number one of the free world be hunting terrorists, jobs, and solutions?
Present your evidence Mr. Mueller, make it as direct and obvious as you can. If the President has committed a high crime or a high misdemeanor then he should be impeached.
Your fear to do so, and the need for your prosecutorial team to lie to even snare an underling, is a fairly strong indication that you’ve got…
Nothing. (A technical term for bupkis.)