“Special counsel did not find anyone with the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,” Barr wrote in a four-page letter to lawmakers that summarized his “principal conclusions” after reviewing the report.
Barr similarly explains in the letter that the special counsel declined to reach a conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice. “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Here’s what inquiring minds want to know: as we twice note at the top of the page, why, if Mueller’s report does not conclude the President committed a crime, would he require exoneration? At the risk of being repetitive…
“…The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.“
The party that does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption of being correct, they are presumed to be correct, until the burden shifts after presentation of evidence by the party bringing the action.An example is in an American criminal case, where there is a presumption of innocence by the defendant. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.“
Here’s the juice: we can’t blame a career deep-state bureaucrat like Mueller from trying to have it both ways, particularly after the time, effort and money he expended only to be forced to conclude the opposite of what those who arranged this farce wanted. But we can and do fault Bill Barr for not including in his letter to Congress a disclaimer emphasizing such an unprovable statement not only is outside the scope of the special prosecutor’s charge, but runs against long-held DOJ guidelines and regulations, as detailed in these commentaries by Ken Starr and Hans von Spakovsky:
“…Under Justice Department regulations, it is up to the attorney general to decide to what extent release of the Mueller report or any parts of the report is in the public interest or can be released without compromising national security or violating executive privilege.
In the letter he sent Friday to the Senate and House committee leaders, Barr said he would be consulting with both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to determine what information from the Mueller report could be released “consistent with the law” including the Justice Department’s “long-standing practices and policies.” Barr added that he remained committed to being as transparent as possible.
One of those policies Barr is committed to following is that the Justice Department does not release reports that make unproven allegations against the targets of a criminal investigation. If a prosecutor decides there is insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, the case is closed.
The prosecutor does not issue a public report saying that although the Justice Department is not prosecuting an individual, the prosecutor has a low opinion about the character or behavior of that person.
To release such derogatory information without levying formal charges would be fundamentally unfair, since it would besmirch the reputation of individuals who do not have the opportunity to contest the prosecutor’s assertions in a court of law as they do in a prosecution…”
So much for respecting precedence, not to mention the inadvisability of hiring a life-long RINO as your Attorney General.
“…a concession Democrats are sure to cite as they proceed with the myriad ongoing Congressional investigations into Trump, his associates, his campaign and transition team.“
So Bill Barr, here’s to you and your first important act as Attorney General:
Trump just can’t seem to find an AG dedicated to draining the swamp. Such is the result of surrounding oneself one’s entire working life with scum and yes-men.
Yogi Berra may have believed it ain’t over ’til it’s over. But for Dimocrats intent on bagging the biggest political game of all, when it comes to The Donald, it ain’t ever over…EVER!!! (Deroy Murdock’s contention notwithstanding!) Even without Mueller’s elephant-in-the-room-like equivocation quoted above, the Dims’ reaction was predictable:
“The news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has closed his investigation without recommending criminal chargesagainst President Trump is a relief. It is not a surprise.
Nor is it a surprise that the news has Trump antagonists clamoring for full disclosure of the special counsel’s final report. Mind you, when skeptics of the Trump-Russia investigation asked what the criminal predicate for it was, and on what basis the Obama administration had decided to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign, we were admonished about the wages of disclosure – the compromise of precious defense secrets, of deep-cover intelligence sources and methods.Why, to ask for such information was to be an insurrectionist seeking to destroy the FBI, the Justice Department, and the rule of law itself. Now, though, it’s only the uncharged president of the United States at issue, so disclose away!
Well, if we’re going to have disclosure, fine. But let’s have full disclosure: Mueller’s report in addition to the FISA applications; the memoranda pertinent to the opening and continuation of the investigation; the testimony in secret hearings; the scope memorandum Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued on August 2, 2017, after failing to cite a crime when he appointed Mueller – let’s have all of it.
As far as the special counsel’s report goes, because of the way the regulations work (at least when the Justice Department deigns to follow them), we now have Mueller’s bottom line, but not his reasoning and the underlying facts.
…If a victorious Democratic nominee had been subjected to such an investigation, there would never have been a special counsel, but we would already have chapter and verse on every investigative action. If we’re going to have accountability, let’s have complete accountability.“
“Keep in mind the story that isn’t being told: the FBI’s mucking around in the 2016 election.“
Next, in a bizarre twist which could only unfold in the stifling atmosphere of politically-correct insanity Progressives have persistently promoted, there’s one noted individual who would welcome the scrutiny to which The Donald and Brett Kavanaugh have recently been subjected:
“…It is hard to imagine #MeToo accusations with more-compelling evidence of innocence than mine. In virtually every other case, there is evidence—and often no dispute—that the accuser had a relationship of some sort with the accused. The dispute is over consent or other issues, which are often matters of degree. In my case, there is no evidence that my accusers and I were ever even in the same place at the same time, and documented evidence that we were not. Yet a journalist for the New Yorker told me she regards the evidence of my innocence as “inconclusive.”
My accusers refuse to make their accusations in public, outside of court documents. That shields them from defamation suits and leaves me with no legal recourse unless prosecutors decide to bring perjury charges. But it’s rare for prosecutors even to investigate false filings in civil cases.
I’ve decided, therefore, to do something unusual: I’m asking federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to open a criminal investigation of me. But not of me alone—of my accusers as well. All three of us have filed sworn affidavits in federal court. These affidavits are in irreconcilable conflict: I have sworn that I never met either of them; they have both sworn that I engaged in sexual acts with them. Either I have committed perjury or they have.
Someone has committed a serious felony, a crime against America’s justice system. I’m asking law-enforcement authorities to figure out who.I will cooperate, showing them my evidence, testifying before the grand jury, invoking no privileges. I will challenge my accusers to do the same.
It’s no fun to be investigated for a felony by the FBI, but the current state of the law and public opinion gives me no alternative if I want to be vindicated.
In more than half a century of litigating criminal cases, I have never seen one in which the evidence of innocence is so incontrovertible and the evidence of guilt nonexistent. If my evidence is “inconclusive,” then no falsely accused person can ever clear his name.“
Since we’re on the subject of the bizarre, writing at The Week, Matthew Walther wonders…
“I wish I could say that the worst thing about John Hickenlooper’s CNN town hall on Wednesday night was the part where he talked about watching Deep Throat with his mom.The former governor of Colorado, who is one of roughly 173 declared candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, explained that the porno-with-mom thing was not an accident. He said he knew that the movie was “naughty” but thought his mother might enjoy getting out of the house. Apparently after the infamous X-rated flick began she was “mortified.” That poor woman.
Possibly even more cringe-inducing, though, was Hickenlooper’s response to a question about whether he would consider selecting a woman as his running mate. “Of course,” he told Dana Bash. Fair enough. What else is there to say? But for some reason he felt compelled to go on. “I’ll ask you another question. How come we’re not asking, more often, the women, ‘Would you be willing to put a man on the ticket?'” Did you hear that, Governor? That was the sound of a hundred thousand American woman groaning simultaneously.
Why are Democrats so weird?Only a few days after his long-shot candidacy had begun to attract some interest from the mainstream press, Andrew Yang came out strongly against circumcision, surely one of the most pressing political and social issues of our time. He even doubled down on this by agreeing on Thursday to debate right-wing Wunderkind Ben Shapiro on the subject. Last month Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) told a painfully obvious lie about listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac while smoking weed in college (she graduated many years before either of them released their debut albums).Even her own father told her to cut it out.Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (Mass.) insistence on releasing the results of a DNA test in the hope of vindicating her past claims of Native American heritage was one of the most bizarre events in recent political history.
Meanwhile, there is Beto.I don’t particularly care that in 1988 the young Robert Francis O’Rourke posted some erotic verses about cows (“Oh, Milky wonder, sing for us once more, / Live your life, everlusting [sic] joy” is one of the only bits I can quote on this family website) online. I didn’t even know until yesterday that there was such a thing as “online” in 1988.Nor am I going to get all worked up about his weird murder spree fantasy story, which is the kind of thing stupid teenagers write every day. But what I do want to know is whether he actually took a handful of greenfeces, put it in a bowl, and served it to his wife once, telling her that it was avocado.Asked by a journalist recently to confirm the anecdote, which had been reported by a supposed friend of the candidate, he responded that while he didn’t remember this happeningit “sounds like the kind of thing I would do.”Come again?If you fed excrement to the mother of your children, I feel like you would recall.I almost certainly think she would. If there was ever something to lie about as a politician, this is it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that no one in this gang of hardcore porno-with-mom-watching, pretend-weed-smoking, bovine-horny ex-teenage hackers could ever be elected president.The guy they are all running against is a twice-divorced serial philanderer and pathological liar addicted to social media and fast food who once bragged about the size of his genitalia during a formal debate. Maybe Democrats even think that by embracing their inner weirdness they can channel some of Trump’s electoral magic. Or maybe they just think that the American people can no longer be bothered to care about the sorts of things that would have been career ending for any politician back in the remote past — 2014 or so.
They’re probably right about this. At this early stage in the race, about 17 living Americans who are not either journalists or residents of Colorado know who the guy with the Dr. Seuss character name who legalized marijuana years ago even is. All of this nonsense is just going to blend together until the powers that be in the Democratic National Committee decide that some safe-ish, middle-of-the-road liberal like [Kamala “Homewrecker”] Harris (you know, the normal one…who slept her way to the top!) is the candidate who can beat Bernie Sanders, at which point the junior senator from Vermont will probably fall on his sword by endorsing North Korea’s bid for the U.N. Security Council or confessing that he doesn’t know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I can’t be the only person who sometimes thinks there’s something to be said for, you know, normal people in politics.It is certainly difficult to imagine poor Jeb Bush ever inviting his late beloved mother to view a smut film with at the local cinema in Kennebunkport. It is even harder to imagine President Obama feeding the former first lady the contents of one of Sasha or Malia’s diapers.
The water is still warm,Hillary.
Yeah, that oughta do it; a rematch betwixt The Donald and the Wicked Witch of the West Wing, the only creature on the planet with a higher unfavorable rating than he!
Further proof Progressivism is a mental disorder.
Moving on, the WSJ recounts yet another Train to Nowhere:
“The train through paradise should have been complete by now.
The dream was an elevated rail system to bypass what has been some of the country’s worst traffic, whisking commuters from the farmland and swelling suburbs of West Oahu into the heart of Honolulu. The 20-mile route parallels one of the world’s most glorious tropical shorelines.
More than a decade after inception, having spanned the tenures of three mayors and three governors and outlived its most powerful benefactor in Congress, the project is only half built. Hopes it might transform the crowded island city anytime soon(if ever!) are fading.
Among the cascade of problems: Honolulu pushed ahead before fully planning the project, and nearly 100 contracts had to be reworked, causing delays. The city began construction before fully checking Native Hawaiian burial grounds, and a judge halted the project for over a year.Planners built too close to power lines, so Honolulu must shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to move them.
Dogged by such blunders, the project has seen its price tag soar to more than $9 billion from about $5 billion. The cost overruns are among the largest that transportation experts say they’ve ever seen…
…Some federal officials had long been worried. A 2006 note from one FTA official to another, unearthed in a lawsuit, said, “We seem to be proceeding in the hallowed tradition of Honolulu rapid transit studies: never enough time to do it right, but lots of time to do it over.”Even so, the FTA approved its grant in December 2012…”
Once again, just like almost every other tax-payer funded boondoggle or disaster you can name, from the Challenger and Columbia to California’s equally-indefensible bullet train, no one has been fired, no one has been demoted and no one has been held the least bit personally responsible.
Being a Progressive bureaucrat means never having to say you’re sorry, let alone admit you were wrong…
…or suffer the consequences of your ill-advised decisions.
Which brings us to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s this string of rather humorous memes forwarded by Balls Cotton:
And last, but certainly not least:
Finally, we’ll call it day with yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, and this just in from the Big Apple:
Man slugs woman on city sidewalk in seemingly random attack
“...The attacker was described as 40 years old, with black facial hair. He was last seen wearing a navy blue jacket with the word “Yale” across the front, a black wool hat, blue jeans and black sneakers.
Police have asked anyone with information on the suspect to call 800-577-TIPS (8477).“
Holy “political correctness run amok”, Batman. Hell bells, even news reports refused to mention the attacker’s race:
Which begs the question how serious authorities actually are about apprehending the assailant?!? Talk about getting the government one deserves.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.