I’ll summarize the Mueller Report here: no collusion, and nothing with the obstruction charge (exoneration is what you do if someone has been accused of a crime; by default Trump can’t be exonerated if he’s never accused of a crime to begin with. That’s like if I said you were exonerated from raping someone- you’ve never been charged, how can you be exonerated? And the AP article above explains it as there not being sufficient evidence to prosecute with, which could mean there was nothing at all to use or just barely something to use).
They said a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Granted, I think Trump is quite hammy, but certainly no sandwich! And so we learn through the Attorney General that the Mueller Probe has no indictments of Trump or his family, and no indictments for collusion or obstruction of justice.
That’s not the story anyone on the Left was expecting, as you know by now (I love Chris Matthews’ reaction, he basically angrily shouted “how can the narrative we’ve been pushing be true if no one was indicted?”). Washington Post said Mueller should indict Trump if for any other reason than to make his report go public. Media outlets have been divining clues in earlier Mueller indictments that there is collusion afoot. Insiders on Mueller’s team even said there would be indictments against Trump. New York Magazine even says outright that Mueller found collusion, citing indictments that in fact had nothing to do with collusion, which I can say without debunking each claim individually since Mueller’s probe determined outright there was no collusion. Unless New York Magazine plans to argue that the very body indicting these people didn’t know what it indicted them for.
Of course, it was a miracle that the investigation even concluded. Trump must have fired Mueller a million times according to frantic news reports. Trump was dead-set on stopping Mueller from investigating anything and obstructing all the way!
Then we have Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) saying Trump will be indicted, if not for collusion then for many unspecified crimes and the one solid one of “obstruction of justice”.
Let me break that down for you- Democrats define Trump’s verbal/written opposition to the Mueller Probe and firing of FBI Director James Comey as obstruction of justice. Now, if we aren’t allowed to oppose with our words or tweets an active investigation (while not actually blocking it), then someone explain why Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D-VA) is still in office? Or how about Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (Democrat, now isn’t that scary- according to the Left’s standard he’s guilty of both domestic violence and obstruction of justice and he’s an attorney general!)? And Obama most assuredly interfered in an active investigation when he said Hillary Clinton was not guilty of anything months before the investigation concluded. Well… all of these points would hold true if Democrats didn’t have two definitions of “obstruction of justice”. Their first definition is the legal one, which they apply to themselves. Their second definition is “you beat Hillary Clinton”, which they applied to President Trump.
And as for firing Comey? Rod Rosenstein, the guy who ordered Mueller to investigate if Trump firing Comey was obstruction of justice, that same Rosenstein TOLD Trump that he should fire Comey. So… it’s obstruction of justice to do what the DOJ recommends? I learn something new every day, thank you Senator Blumenthal.
Adding to obstruction, there was a brief spat over something in Michael Cohen’s testimony, where Democrats said it would absolutely be obstruction if it were true. Mueller’s team said at the time it wasn’t, and based on a lack of indictments still believe that to be the case. It wouldn’t fall into the “maybe” category that Mueller allegedly left open; the way Democrats phrased it there was no question that it was obstruction of justice. Also, they claim that Trump lying to the American people is obstruction of justice… and Democrats believe saying “I did not collude with Russia” counts as a lie, even after the Mueller Report as we’ll discuss below.
As an aside, let me quote part of Rosenstein’s letter. “As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.” Doesn’t that sound like he wants someone to leave? If my boss told me that about an intern, I’d let the intern go because that’s what I’m being told to do! But here’s the thing- liberals immediately jumped on how Rosenstein was “shaken” and “felt used” because these words were used by Trump to justify firing Comey. “I want you to fire this guy. Oh you fired him? Now I’m mad that you did and I feel used because you did what I told you!”
It’s Like We Never Ate
As you probably expected, Democrats aren’t too happy with Mueller. Anger and denial (lots and lots and lots of denial) are generally what we see now. One plucky ABC pundit noted that Trump hasn’t been subject to ANY investigations in the past two years. Mueller whisked away to oblivion! In fact, Democrats are so mixed that they deny they even played up the idea of collusion.
An Interesting Take On Who Mueller Has Indicted
If Democrats parsed the previous indictments as carefully as they’ve been parsing the Mueller information to keep their narrative alive, they might’ve noticed something awry. Basically, the Mueller Probe declared of the alleged Russian interference (legally we’ll always have to say alleged, since Putin isn’t going to be sending anyone over for trial anytime soon). The most that can be said of them is that if what Russia did constituted collusion, then Hillary Clinton is just as guilty as Trump because Russia allegedly was playing both sides of the field. But, as I’ve mentioned before, Democrats like colluding with Russia so maybe all their anger is like that of someone coming home to find their wife in bed with their rival?