By Jon Dougherty
Now that special counsel Robert Mueller has turned in his report to the Justice Department, all of official Washington is waiting for details about what’s in it.
Did MuellerÂ really find the goods on POTUS Donald Trump, his ‘corrupt criminal enterprise’ of a business, and those darned kids? Did he find enough evidence to indict POTUS but, knowing the current Justice Department rules prohibit indicting a sitting president, just couldn’t do it?
Or will the report simply be critical of the president’s persona, his demeanor, his unorthodox way, his boorishness, his ‘mental fitness to be president?’
Time will tell; Attorney General William Barr has vowed to make as much of the report public as DoJ rules permit. The president himself has supported making the report public, as have a number of Republicans.
But anything short of naming the president as a co-conspirator with Mother Russia to “steal the 2016 election” from Hillary Clinton will satisfy Democrats. For more than two years they have been accusing our president, sans evidence and, in many cases contrary to the existing evidence, that he committed a treasonous act to plot with a foreign power the takeover of the highest elected office in our country. It’s stuff that movies have been made about (“The Manchurian Candidate”), and there’s no evidence it happened.
To the contrary, there isÂ plenty of evidence that the Obama administration weaponized top federal law enforcement and intelligence community officials to perpetuate a hoax known as Spygate to hamstring our duly elected president, inhibit him and his administration from functioning, and drive down his approval numbers to the point where impeachment would be a lay-up.
Of course, the president has managed to survive this coup attempt — which brings us back to the Democrats. They have already vowed to ‘move beyond’ the Mueller investigation, which, translated, means that they won’t accept his findings that Trump isn’t guilty of colluding with Moscow, so they’re going toÂ continue ‘investigating’ — which means they’re going to continue working to undermine him and everything he’s trying to do to improve our country.
That includes keeping us safe — as in, keeping us out of a major conflict, which in and of itself is a 24-7-365 job, considering the growing number of threats around the world. Russia, China, and — to lesser degrees — Iran and North Korea are legitimate threats to global stability, peace, and security. And yet, Democrats are planning to continue perpetuating the hoax, the witch hunt, the lie, and all with the help of the so-called “Mainstream” media.
During a segment Friday night onÂ Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show, fellow network host Laura Ingraham touched upon a subject we wrote about nearly a year ago: That Mueller’s probe had become so cumbersome to our president that it reached the level of a national security threat.
She noted that because of the Mueller investigation and the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” hysteria driving by the media and Deep State, Trump was effectively prevented from engaging with Vladimir Putin on any level becauseÂ any level of engagement would be seen as “proof of collusion.” To prove the point, House Democrats are now pursuing transcripts from a private meeting that POTUS held with Putin in Helsinki, Finland, in 2018; that’s none of their business,and the White House is pushing back (see our video report below).
Watch Ingraham at about the 5:30 mark:
That’s prescient and poignant and it’s a point that very few pundits have made regarding the ancillary damage this hoax “collusion” investigation has caused. And again, we made similar arguments in a column by J. D. Heyes onÂ May 3, 2018.
We are republishing it today.
Muellerâ€™s â€˜witch huntâ€™ probe has now risen to the level of a national security threat
By J. D. Heyes
I awoke to the headline on Drudge this morning, â€œMueller Warns: May Subpoena Trump,â€ followed by a second, â€œObstruction Key Focus.â€
The firstÂ articleÂ reports details from a meeting between President Donald J. Trumpâ€™s legal team in early March and special counsel Robert Mueller, in which the presidentâ€™s attorneys insisted he had no obligation to sit down and answer questions posed by Mueller.
TheÂ secondÂ is an analytical piece byÂ The Associated PressÂ assessing the potential meaning of a series of leaked questions that Mueller ostensibly wants to ask the president during a sit-down, notably whether Trump â€œobstructed justiceâ€ when he fired FBI Director James Comey and whether Trump â€œcolludedâ€ with Russia to â€œsteal the electionâ€ from Hillary.
Letâ€™s unpack the second report first.
As to the charge of obstruction: Until this president, firing Executive Branch employees like FBI directors was a fully-recognized and unchallenged presidential authority. Such firings were not always universally approved of by various political factions, but no one questioned the presidentâ€™s lawful authority to do so. Suddenly, because itâ€™s Trump â€” and because it was one of Muellerâ€™s best buddies and former colleagues, firing an Executive Branch employee is â€œobstruction of justice?â€
As to the charge of collusion: There is no evidence for this â€” and there never will be. Mueller knows this because the allegation is based on a bogus â€œdossierâ€ paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That document is as fictitious as this investigation; even the House Intelligence Committee, in a recent report, has fully cleared Trump and his campaign by stating as plainly as it can be stated:Â There is no evidence of collusionÂ on the Trump side (though the chairman of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., says there is plenty of evidence to suggest Clinton campaign collusion, since the guy hired to write the dossier â€” Christopher Steele â€” reportedly got his â€˜informationâ€™ fromÂ Russianoperatives).
Which brings me back to Mueller and his quest to question the president.
During that early March meeting, the story linked above claims, Mueller responded to the Trump legal teamâ€™s claim that the president had no obligation to talk to Mueller with a threat: The special counsel may resort to issuing a subpoenaÂ requiringÂ our sitting president to appear before the grand jury for questions under oath.
That drew the ire of Trumpâ€™s lead attorney at the time, John Dowd.
â€œThis isnâ€™t some game,â€ Dowd said, according to two people with knowledge of his comments. â€œYou are screwing with the work of the president of the United States.â€
Let me be as clear as I can be:Â Dowd is exactly right.
This pretend investigation, where there is butÂ oneÂ objective â€” to undermine and potentiallyÂ removeÂ a duly-elected, sitting president â€” has reached the level of a national security threat.
President Trump is on the precipice of settling one of the thorniest, most dangerous situations in modern times â€” North Korea â€” and in the process not only ending a 65-year state of technical war but also a rising nuclear threat against U.S. allies in the region and the American people.
At the same time, Trump must deal with two near-peer revisionist powers â€” Russia and China â€” while attempting to contain a third regional revisionist power with nuclear ambitions in the Middle East â€” Iran.
And these are just the most visible national security issues and threats to our country. As president, you can bet that Trump is aware of far more threats than you and I because he has access, daily, to all the threat information being tracked by our intelligence community.
For this reason alone, Mueller has no legal right to subpoena Trump.
The problem is, Trump doesnâ€™t seem to have any support in the places he needs it most. The Justice Department is led by a man Trump trusted to be his attorney general, but who has willingly taken himselfÂ outÂ of the loop regarding anything relating to Russia. Jeff Sessions is perhaps the biggest error that Trump has made thus far in his appointments.
The deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, is complicit in the scandal; he has signed off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court requests to spy on Trump and Trump campaign figures based on the â€œdossierâ€Â everyone knowsÂ is phony. Plus, Rosenstein just signed off on an FBI raid of Trumpâ€™s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
There are a few Republican lawmakers in Congress who are attempting to cover Trumpâ€™s back with a threat to impeach Rosenstein, but they are too few and thus, the threat is empty.
So the question remains: If MuellerÂ doesÂ subpoena the president, what should Trump do? WhatÂ canÂ he do?
He can invoke Executive Privilege, which is not in the Constitution, but which has been invoked by many presidents including George Washington. Trump could make a national security claim as his reason for invoking the privilege, and some of his aides have already declined to answer categories of questions in appearances before congressional committees in the premise that Trump may, at some point, invoke it formally.
That could lead to a legal challenge from Mueller, which â€” in this environment â€” is likely given the purpose of this â€œprobe,â€ which is entirely political.
But then Mueller may be forced to reveal more than he cares to in court while arguing against Trumpâ€™s claim of executive privilege. And at that point, the presidentâ€™s lawyers may even produce findings that prove this entire investigation is based on a lie.
That may be the presidentâ€™s best legal option because he doesnâ€™t have enough friends in high places to help him.
WhatÂ isÂ clear is that this investigation is dangerously distracting to our president at a time when we need him to be fully focused on the veryÂ realÂ threats to our country.
Fake investigations should never outweigh real-world challenges.
Never miss a story! Sign up for our daily email newsletter â€”Â Click here!