Predication Is For Losers

At approximately 8 PM on Sunday, February 18, 2001, there was a knock on my front door.

At the time I was a Special Agent (SA) with the FBI, so imagine my shock when I opened the door and found the two top officials in the Division on my doorstep. I knew this couldn't possibly be good news, but they quickly sought to reassure me.

"Everything is alright, but Bob Hanssen has been arrested."

Alright? Bob Hanssen was my brother in law, and a longtime counterintelligence (CI) official at FBIHQ, privy to a vast range of sensitive intelligence information. A "high Bureau official," as field agents jokingly referred to anyone at HQ.

"Arrested? For what?"

"Espionage," they said.

I searched for something to say: "For the Russians?"

"Yes."

"I think you'd better come in," I said.

There was a small room right just off my front door that I used as a library. I led them in, got them seated, and then said, a bit shakily:

"I suppose this goes back to what I related all those years ago," I ventured, referring to events that occurred in 1990.

That statement was met with blank stares. And so I found myself backtracking to 1990. I explained that at that time I had approached the supervisor of the Russian CI squad to explain why I thought the Bureau should open an espionage investigation on Bob Hanssen. I had discussed it all with my wife the night before and had organized my thoughts around three salient points--I wanted to be sure to present a coherent and strictly legally oriented case. Those three points were as follows:

UPDATED: Has The Left Thought This Impeachment Thing Through?

Robert Mueller and John Brennan are nothing if not card carrying members of the Deep State. Thus, Mueller's parting shot at President Trump--with his less than subtle observation that "the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," which was quickly followed up by Brennan's full throated call for Congress to act on Mueller's prodding--is surely a measure of the desperation that the Deep State is feeling. Trump has come through the Russia Hoax inquisition in better shape than ever, with a Department of Justice primed under AG Bill Barr to get to the bottom of Deep State plotting against our electoral processes. The Deep State took its best shot at the king and failed with its Russia Hoax, but now the king is about to take his best shot at them.

That much I get. But I wonder whether the Left, which appears delighted with Mueller's irresponsible performance and is in full cry for impeachment, has taken stock of what impeachment would inevitably lead to. Have they weighed the speculation that Trump may actually want to be impeached, and what might be behind that? They might want to stop and think before taking the impeachment plunge, but then that might not be their style.

Those making the case that Trump wants to be impeached are, in fact, savvy observers of the political scene and they include a broad spectrum of pundits and politicians. Typically the argument runs that the American people don't want impeachment, especially with the economy booming, and will penalize the Dems for their madness in 2020. For example:

Don Surber:

President Donald John Trump wants them to impeach him because this is the best way to penalize Democrats for trying to frame him and remove him from office in a Deep State coup.

Conrad Black:

The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. They must put up or shut up, impeach or back down. The president has called their bluff and the game is about to end, either an embarrassing defeat for the Democrats or political annihilation.

And, yes, Nancy Pelosi:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told her Democratic colleagues Thursday that President Donald Trump “wants to be impeached” so that he can be vindicated by the Senate.

In fact, the implications of impeachment go far beyond these political considerations and get to the heart of the almost palpable fear now gripping the Deep State. Let's first review the approach Mueller took, because that will have a direct bearing on how impeachment would work in the case of President Trump.

Robert Mueller Is A Villain

No, I didn't make that up, although I wish I had. That's a line from Will Chamberlain: HIT JOB: How Robert Mueller continues to smear President Trump with baseless obstruction of justice claims. And it's true. He's a villain and an arrogant one to boot.

So, let's walk through Mueller's statement--at least in pertinent part.

For starters, Sean Davis (whom I'll quote again later: Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law) makes the perfect observation:

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement which repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement. 

“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released. 

If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.

Bingo! However, we should also keep clearly in mind that Mueller's "political intentions"--the removal of President Trump from office--are in the service of the Deep State, which sees Trump as an existential threat to their rule of the United States. Mueller is first and foremost a servant of the Deep State and that is what's behind this (surprisingly inept) statement.

As far as substance goes, Mueller begins by attempting to throw dust in our eyes, offering his version of the Russia Hoax grand conspiracy theory: that Russia launched what he calls a "concerted attack on our political system" by hacking the Clinton campaign and releasing information through Wikileaks:

UPDATED: Goldsmith On Barr

I've cited the views of Jack Goldsmith several times in the past--the most extensive discussion of his views can be found in the first three listed posts here. Somewhat belatedly, Goldsmith has weighed in on the discussion of AG Barr's handling of the Mueller Dossier, in a lengthy article at Lawfare: Thoughts on Barr and the Mueller Report.

Goldsmith is widely respected as a legal scholar, served in the Bush Justice Department, and has had wide experience in national security law--including FISA. You can read his Wikipedia biography here. I think its fair to place Goldsmith in the NeverTrump camp, and that's part of what makes his "thoughts on Barr and the Mueller report" interesting. For those interested in the legal discussion surrounding the whole issue of what Special Counsels are supposed to do or not do, I highly recommend his article.

A few comments, however.

Goldsmith has made it absolutely clear in the past that, despite his own NeverTrump views, he considers Bill Barr to be eminently qualified to serve as Attorney General. He also attempts to give Mueller every benefit of the doubt and strongly disapproves of Trump's behavior toward Mueller--the tweets and criticisms. He offers criticisms of both Barr and Mueller, but makes it clear that he agrees with Barr's views on what the nature of the Special Counsel office is really about as well as Barr's criticism of Mueller for failing to make a call on obstruction. He also agrees with Barr's interpretation of what constitutes obstruction:

First, Barr believes that the Justice Department’s job in this context is to decide (as he told Sen. Richard Blumenthal) “whether or not there is a crime” and nothing more. That is what the special counsel regulations and Justice Department traditions counsel as well. This is why Barr objected to Mueller’s strange in-between decision “not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.” No U.S. attorney would ever do that, and Barr clearly thinks it odd, and probably wrong, that Mueller did that. Whether one thinks Barr is right or wrong (I think he’s right), this is a perfectly respectable judgment for an attorney general to make.

Significantly, Goldsmith is also of the view that there is support for the view that Mueller did engage in politics, especially with regard to obstruction, and he specifically refers to Emmet Flood's "powerful rebuttal" of Mueller's conduct. In fact, he refers to Flood's letter twice, so he was clearly impressed by Flood's reasoning. Thus it comes as no surprise that Goldsmith also strongly deprecates the "overheated" and "over the top" criticisms of Barr.

I have two major--and related--disagreements with Goldsmith in all this.

Jack Goldsmith On "Barr’s Remarkable Non-Commitments About the Mueller Report"

Jack Goldsmith--

Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, co-founder of Lawfare, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Before coming to Harvard, Professor Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003-2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002-2003

is on record that he expects Bill Barr to be a "great" Attorney General. For that reason his comments from Wednesday, 2/13/19, on Barr's confirmation hearing remarks as they relate to the release of all or part of the forthcoming Mueller report are well worth reading. Among other things you'll learn lots about what the special counsel regulations require in terms of a final report. But of most interest are his remarks that take off from John Dowd's stated expectation that there may well not be any report--or not one that is released to Congress or the public. And Dowd specifically noted that any Mueller report would have to go through an AG Barr.

Briefly, Goldsmith states:

“I don’t think there’ll be a report,” President Trump’s former attorney, John Dowd, recently told ABC News. “I will be shocked if anything regarding the president is made public, other than ‘We’re done.’” Referring to a possible report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Dowd suggested Mueller won’t release a detailed public accounting of the results of the investigation because he has nothing on Trump. 

Another reason there might not be a public report—or, at least, not much of one—is because William Barr, who will likely be attorney general by the end of the week, might not release one. It is Attorney General Barr’s decision, not Mueller’s, whether to give any information in Mueller’s report to Congress and the public. As we show in this post, Barr in his confirmation hearings committed himself to being transparent, consistent with a strict adherence to applicable laws and regulations. And the applicable laws and regulations require Barr to report very little to Congress or the public.  

...

UPDATED: If Confirmed, Barr Will Be The Attorney General In Full

That, in effect, is what Bill Barr told Chuck Schumer today in a private meeting. Schumer asked Barr three questions and got straightforward answers. This is by Schumer's own account.

There's been a fair amount of disinformation put out about Barr, claims that he has made commitments with regard to the Mueller witchhunt, etc. The fact is that Barr has clearly stated that, if confirmed, he would exercise the full powers of the office of Attorney General with no prior restraints imposed upon himself. He said he would not fire Mueller "without cause," which is to say, he reserved the power to fire Mueller for cause. He said he wants the Mueller witchhunt to run its course, because he thinks that will be best for President Trump and the American people--and that he favors transparency for the same reason. No one who has been following this tawdry attempt to hamstring an elected president or even to run him out of office for purely political reasons can possibly suppose that the Deep State desires transparency.

So, on to Schumer's three questions.

First, Schumer asked Barr whether Barr would recuse himself if the Ethics Officer at DoJ said he should. Barr said he'd make his own decision. Barr will not be another Jeff Sessions.

REUPDATED: Mueller's Emerging Strategy?

​It appears we're starting to see a pattern emerging from recent reports of Mueller's activity--a pattern that may amount to a strategy. Recall that on February 16, 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russians for attempting to create confusion during the 2016 Presidential election. Of course, there are other credible theories, such as that the laughable activities of these Russians amounted to no more than attempts to make a bit of money off gullible intenet users. Certainly, as Andy McCarthy pointed out,

"Mueller’s team made it clear that the Russians neither colluded with any U.S. citizens nor had any material effect on the election’s outcome." 

Further, the 13 Russians are all in in Russia​ and will therefore never stand trial--which means Mueller will never have to prove the dodgy charges in the indictment.

Now, according to NBC News via Gateway Pundit, Mueller is said to be preparing indictments against more absentee Russians--more risk free indictments that he'll never be called upon to back up. This time the claim will be that these Russians were responsible for the famous DNC hack. That would be the famous DNC hack in which the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine their server: DNC Refused FBI Access to Its Servers … Instead Gave Access to a DNC Consultant Tied to Organization Promoting Russia Conflict. Once again there are alternative explanations, such as that the "hack" was done by an insider--perhaps a Sanders sympathizer--simply by downloading the data onto a thumb drive.

Of course none of that has been proven, tantalizing as some theories may be. But has Mueller and his Gang had access to the DNC server, the better to bolster their indictment and rebut alternative explanations? As of December 17, 2017, Andy McCarthy believes the answer to that is: No. And as McCarthy asks: "... if not, what’s the point of his investigation?" Good question. Maybe the point is more political than anything else.