And now my take on the Mueller Report

E.  Ablorh-Odjidja

April 19, 2019

The Mueller report was released yesterday, April 18, 2019. It's a shame it took this long, in fact more than two years, to arrive at the conclusions in the report; mainly that the Russia Collusion charge was patently false.

But, at least, there was a conclusion from Mueller and his team of investigators.

One aspect of the conclusions, strangely, could best be described as a non conclusion – a poisoned pill that sought to keep some aspect of the charge alive and this was on the question of Obstruction of Justice .

It is speculated by Trump supporters that the obstruction charge was left there in a manner to encourage House Democrats to continue the resistance. 

And indeed, the House Democrats have already confirmed the suspicion by calling the Mueller's pill their “road map” for the impeachment of Trump. 

Special Counsel Mueller was charged to investigate two specific areas that might have affected the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won and Hillary lost.  They were:

a) Whether there was collusion with the Russians
b) Whether there were Russian Interferences in the 2016 presidential election.

But once Mueller's investigation got underway, the approach quickly betrayed the nature of its mission.  Suddenly, the two aspects of the mission became illogically conflated into one: 

The signs were there to get Trump because he won in 2016.  The assumption was Trump couldn't have done it on his own without the Russian help.

Funny enough, it was Hillary and the Democrats who had invented the "collusion" theme.  And that happened soon after the 2016 election loss and long before Mueller was appointed.

How did Mueller and his team pick up on the same theme as Hillary and the Democrats?  A shared coincidence - a happenstance?

Definitely no.  But it could be part of the plan conceived by Hillary and the Democrats to get rid of Trump.  And the effort was in plain sight for all to see.

Right from start, the Mueller assembled team of investigators showed a perception of bias problem.

None of the 17 of his special investigators was a known Republican, except, by hearsay, Mueller himself.

Thirteen of his investigators were known donors to Hillary and the Democrat party campaign of 2016.

One even served as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation; a brass knuckle bias that went uncommented on by the Trump hating media.

Not odd enough, on the matter of Russia's Interference, the same media didn't seem to bother much about the mechanics of presidential elections in America:

That election to the presidency involved more than one candidate. Hence, the logic for investigation into a Russia interference ought to embrace two targets, Trump and Hillary.

Hillary was exempted and never investigated at any stage of the process. The investigations were solely on Trump, his family, campaign and affiliates.

Both sides of the investigation into the Russia matter, the Russia Interference as well as the Collusion, led to Trump and his campaign. 

One would have thought at this stage that Media types like CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, all liberal outlets, would step in to comment on the unfairness in the way the oivestigation was headed.  After all, they are the only institution left with the "capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues" so as to inform correctly the public.

Instead, what came out of the media was so toxic an anti-Trump response that it made it impossible for sane citizens to question the investigators' rationale and approach; or the bias nature of the Muller's probe.

Finally the report came out and the result was hilariously predictive. How could Russians have elected an America president and if so why was Trump's the first time, one ought to have asked before starting the investigation. 

Still, Mueller and his team of anti-Trump investigators didn't find a single evidence of the collusion.  None. 

In a real system that sought justice Trump would have been completely exonerated on that charge and there would have been no need for Democrat to move to their "Road Map" option, the poison pill left in the Mueller's report.

But then it made evident at this stage that those opposed to Trump were not looking for the TRUTH.  They were out to get him by any means necessary.

 A new outrage grew immediately for the failure to indict Trump, from both political rent seekers and the liberal media. And it was directed at the new Attorney General, Bill Barr, for his part in reading out loud and his subsequent release of the Mueller's team report. 

Why is Barr the target and not Jeff Sessions for the blowback?

Sessions, the former Attorney General, had recused himself; a happy happenstance for the resistance because he was a non-effective asset for Trump.

He did nothing to blunt or question any aspect of the attacks against Trump, whereas Barr had not recused himself and was not going according to the plan the opposition had for Trump.

Trump had called the Mueller investigations a "witch-hunt."

Witch-hunts, by nature, never stop until the excuse is found or manufactured and the target is damaged by the false charge that started the hunt.

Mueller's team came to a legal dead-end with the first part, the Collusion charge.

But, they weren't satisfied with their own finding, presumably because of their initial bias.  So they had to come up with the second part, which hinted at a new charge of Obstruction. 

The obstruction hint was all Democrats in the House of Congress needed to continue the harrassment, even though Barr, the Attorney General, had read those particular points raised in the report as none consequential to the law, 

So, Democrats, who now controlled the House, seized the opportunity to push for a process, which they hoped would lead to Trump's impeachment.

No crime of Russia Collusion was what Mueller found.  Yet  there was Obstruction of a crime that did not exist.  But that was exactly the road map the Trump haters prayed for.  If ever there were a classic example of a circular argument, House Democrats found it!

And what did Trump do to deserve the obstruction charge? 

He had vigorously fought against the false charge of collusion; a baseless charge that sought to destroy him, his presidency, his business and his family.  Not to expect him to do so would be a violation of some law of human nature. 

But for Democrats, Trump's protests of innocence and frustration amounted to obstruction.

No obstruction, but Democrats have placed the US in a police state, just to find something against Trump.

So, the process for impeachment in the House of Congress, controlled by a Democrat majority, started.  And it began to show a side of politics that was mean and destructive to the body politics of America.

Trump did not obstruct, as Attorney General Barr found after reading the report.

Even in the face of Trump's accusations of witch-hunt, he still gave the Mueller team an unprecedented and unfettered access to millions of campaign, business and private documents, without once using the excuse of executive privilege.

With Michael Cohen, his personal lawyer who became Mueller's witness, Trump never raised the attorney-client privilege, which he was entitled to as citizen. 

He watched as the FBI raided Cohen's home and seized all kinds of documents -  all in the effort for Mueller to find something to nail him and found nothing.

The investigations went on, unimpeded by presidential actions, even though many of the principal investigators had personal issues that could be construed as having conflict of interest with the investigation.

There was the case of Mueller himself.  Having been turned down a few weeks earlier by Trump to succeed Comey as FBI Director, he ended up as the Special Counsel to investigate Trump, the man who had refused to hire him.

Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, who recommended that Comey be fired, had also been accused by ex-officials of the FBI for wanting to wear a wire on Trump to trigger the 25th Amendment; meaning cause Trump's removal from office by a coup.

And sadly with Jeff Sessions, he had already recused himself from anything associated with Russia.  Trump, therefore, had no Attorney General to assist him.

Some have opined that the basis for Session's recusal was weak and that ithe recusal could only mean that he was part of the plot against Trump.  Session never disclosed his intent to recuse himself to Trump, the president who had appointed him as his Attorney General.

But, Sessions stayed on for two years as Attorney General, giving the opposition ample opportunity to roll out the witch-hunt.

Sessions behavior, some concluded, should cause sane men to wonder about the depth of the conspiracy arrayed against Trump.  He was never like Eric Holder, the Attorney General under Obama, who boastfully described himself as Obama's “wings-man.”

In talking about loyalty to the presidents who appoited them, Obama was not the only example.  President Kennedy appointed his own brother Robert as the Attorney General.  Nobody cared then and nobody cared now.

But Trump had to be accused of a false charge, then stripped naked of any assistance from his own Attorney General, while the legal battle of collusion ragged around him.

Fortunately, it took Bill Barr to see through the sham.  He brought some clarity to what was going on.

For that legal duty, Attorney General Barr became instant public enemy number one for House Democrats and some major media figures.

Why?  Because Barr was not behaving like Sessions. 

The report said there was no "collusion," but that was not enough.  It couldn't get Trump removed from office as planned.  But it wasn't for lack of attempt on Mueller's part.

Trump had offered the Mueller investigators almost everything, except a face to face interview with the investigators. 

For that failure, House Democrats had based a possible charge of obstruction for a crime that was found to not have been committed; namely, collusion.  Mueller had remained on the job and not fired and the investigators completed successfully their assignment in spite of the obvious perception of bias they had displayed.

But the witch-hunt had to be continued.  And you has to wonder at this time who was seeking to destroy America, her institutions and presidency now; the Russians​?

Or is it time to wonder who had staged an attempted coup against a constitutionally elected president of the United States of America and failed?

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com , Washington, DC, April 19, 2019

Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.