It doesn't matter whether you believe President Trump is a lying obstructionist. Or a victim of a politically charged prosecution. The two questions were about fundamental due process standards for all American citizens. Which includes Presidents we like. And don't like.
The law, and the standards by which prosecutors work, should apply to all Americans equally. Whether that person is a politician or a poet. A CEO or a janitor. Principles should matter more than partisanship when it comes to how prosecutors do their business.
The two moments — two exchanges, actually — no major media outlet bothered to replay all day Thursday or Friday in the Mueller endless partisan postmortems were not the type that would light up Twitter. Or work their way through the hyper-partisan silos of social media. But they had everything to do with law and order. And due process.
The first exchange occurred in the House Judiciary Committee hearing. Representative Guy Reshenthaler (R – PA) is no stranger to the law: he served in the US Navy Judge Advocate General's Corp during the Iraq War, and as a district court judge stateside.
He began his questioning by going back in time to Independent Counsel Ken Starr's tenure, and a statement from former Attorney General Janet Reno.
Reschenthaler: Mr. Mueller, are you familiar with the now expired Independent Counsel Statute? It's a statute under which Ken Starr was appointed.
Mueller: I am not that familiar with that, but I'd be happy to take your question.
Reschenthaler: Well, the Clinton administration allowed the Independent Counsel Statute to expire after Ken Starr's investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. Even President Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, expressed concerns about the final report requirement, and I'll quote AG Reno. She said, "On one hand, the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. On the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law enforcement. Under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases, he made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in a lengthy and detailed report filed after decision has been made not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target's dirty laundry, and it also creates yet another incentive for an independent counsel to over investigate in order to justify his or her tenure and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned."
There was a pause. It was clear where Reschenthaler was heading.
Reschenthaler: Mr Muller, those are AG Reno's words. Didn't you do exactly what AG Reno feared? Didn't you publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the targets dirty laundry without recommending charges?
Mueller: I disagree with that.
Reschenthaler wasn't finished.
Reschenthaler: Okay. Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined?
Mueller: I'm not gonna answer that.
Reschenthaler: Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized?
Mueller: I'm not going to get into that.
We all know the answer was no, and wondered why Mueller couldn't just admit to what we all knew. The exchange continued.
Reschenthaler: Okay. Given that AG Barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of your report public as possible, did you write your report knowing that it would likely be shared with the public?
Mueller: No.
Reschenthaler: Did knowing that the report could, and likely would be made public, did that alter the contents that you included?
Mueller: I can't speak to that.
No one listening thought those answers were credible. Reschenthaler continued.
Reschenthaler: Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. In other words, evidence favorable to the president, correct?
Mueller: I actually would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report exculpatory evidence, as well.
Reschenthaler was making a point that few media analyst made during the length post-hearing analyses: that Mueller's report was unchallenged by any legal defense team, and untested by cross-examination.
But the former JAG lawyer wasn't finished.
Reschenthaler: Isn't it true that on page one of volume two, you state, when you're quoting the statute, you had an obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute.
Mueller: Well, generally that is the case.
Reschenthaler: Right.
Mueller: Although most cases are not done in the context of the president.
Reschenthaler: And in this case, you made a decision not to prosecute, correct?
Mueller: We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.
That use of double speak – we made a decision not to decide - made Mueller look not merely evasive, but downright duplicitous.
The cross-examination of Mueller continued.
Reschenthaler: So essentially what your report did was everything that AG Reno warned against.
Mueller: I can't agree with that characterization.
Reschenthaler: What you did is you compiled nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation, who happens to be the President of the United States. And you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges, and then the report would be made public.
Mueller:
Read More HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment