Doubling Down on Mueller Kimberley A. Strassel November 15, 2018 With the midterms over, Washington returns to its regular programming: Russia. Trump critics should consider the risk of betting their political fortunes on special counsel Robert Mueller. The Mueller probe has lost its political potency, as Democrats acknowledged on the midterm trail. They didn’t win House seats by warning of Russian collusion. They didn’t even talk about it. Most voters don’t care, or don’t care to hear about it. A CNN exit poll found 54% of respondents think the Russia probe is “politically motivated”; a 46% plurality disapprove of Mr. Mueller’s handling of it. That hasn’t stopped Democrats from fixating on it since the election, in particular when President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and named Matthew Whitaker as a temporary replacement. The left now insists the appointment is unconstitutional or that because Mr. Whitaker once voiced skepticism on the Russia-collusion narrative, he is unfit to oversee the Mueller investigation and must recuse himself. The joke here is that neither Mr. Whitaker nor anybody else is likely to exercise any authority over Mr. Mueller—and more’s the pity. The probe has meandered along for 18 months, notching records for leaks and derivative prosecutions, though all indications are it has accomplished little by way of its initial mandate. As a practical matter, Mr. Mueller should have been brought to heel some time ago. As a political matter, that won’t happen. The administration has always understood that such a move would provoke bipartisan political blowback, ignite a new “coverup” scandal, and maybe trigger impeachment. It’s even more unlikely officials would risk those consequences now, as Mr. Mueller is said to be wrapping up. Democrats know this, as does the grandstanding Sen. Jeff Flake. Yet they demand a Whitaker recusal and are again pushing legislation to “protect” the special counsel’s probe. Senate Republicans rightly blocked that bill this week, partly on grounds that it is likely unconstitutional. They also made the obvious point that if Mr. Trump intended to fire Mr. Mueller, he’d have done so months ago and wouldn’t need to ax Mr. Sessions to do it. And while the president tweets ceaseless criticism of the probe, he has never threatened to end it. Democrats are nonetheless doubling down on the probe for political advantage. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared members of his caucus will demand that language making it more difficult to fire Mr. Mueller be included in a spending bill that needs to pass before the end of the current legislative session. Mr. Flake is offering an assist, saying that he will block any judicial nominees in committee until a Mueller protection bill gets a Senate floor vote. Over in the House, incoming Democratic committee chairmen, led by soon-to-be Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, are vowing an investigation blitz focused on collusion with Russia. Mr. Schumer’s last shutdown—a year ago—was a bust even though it was waged over the emotionally compelling issue of Dreamers, illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children. He now proposes shutting down the government over a probe few people outside of Washington care about. Mitch McConnell should be so lucky. Mr. Flake, should he run for president, will struggle to explain to conservative voters his obstruction of Trump judicial nominees, who’ll be confirmed in 2019 anyway when the Republicans expand their Senate majority. Democrats’ other problem is that this strategy hinges in large degree on an expectation that Mr. Mueller ultimately finds something. There’s no reason to believe he has turned up any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. Sure, he’s secured convictions against longtime Beltway bandits for long-ago lobbying. He’s squeezed the ole standby lying-to-investigators plea out of a few targets. He’s indicted a squad of Russian trolls, who will never be brought to trial and who even Mr. Mueller’s office admits had nothing to do with the Trump team. And while it seems likely his report to the Justice Department will criticize Mr. Trump, it’s improbable it will contain proof of collusion. And then? The president will have a field day. He will claim vindication and mercilessly drive home that the investigation was a waste and a witch hunt. And he will have a point. Two years of Democratic hyperbole will be undercut by the special counsel they’ve held out as the ultimate sleuth. They’ll have to decide whether to deride Mr. Mueller’s findings as insufficient to justify continuing their own probes. Maybe Mr. Mueller has something. We’ll see. But if the reporting is correct that he’s wound up high and dry, Democrats will end up there with him. https://outline.com/L7U6TA
Hmmmmmm I thought....THAT SOUNDED FAKE, so I did a quick check. WASHINGTON (CNN)Two-thirds of Americans, including majorities across party lines, would like to see special counsel Robert Mueller try to finish the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election before voters go to the polls to elect a new Congress this November..... https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/14/politics/cnn-poll-trump-russia-election/index.html I think Poindexter is another political troll posting crap and not the first time either.
Why would the Russian Hack Factory, which has taken under its wing the Murdoch media interests, be other than alive and well? It wouldn't! The proof of its effectiveness and recent activity is our own dear Poindexter who is doing her darndest to become Boingdexter. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boing
http://fortune.com/2018/08/23/approval-ratings-mueller-investigation/ More Than Half of Voters Approve of Mueller Investigation, Poll Says A new poll of registered voters published by Fox News shows approval of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian intervention in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is at 59%, up 11 points from July https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/11/politics/cnn-poll-public-supports-russia-investigation-robert-mueller-rod-rosenstein/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/ CNN poll: Public supports Russia investigation, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director Updated at 1:03 PM ET, Thu October 11, 2018 (CNN) — Robert Mueller continues to merit more positive than negative reviews for his handling of the Russia investigation, while President Donald Trump's marks on handling it remain majority negative, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.[/QUOTE]
What part of "exit poll" didn't you understand? I think themickey is another political troll posting crap and not the first time either. https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls
Sure piezoe... you, Tony Stark and themickey who all got this wrong might try leaving your leftist echo chamber once in a while.
[/QUOTE] Interesting. 59% approve of the mueller investigation. I wonder if you know that 58% of people disapproved of the Starr investigation right before Clinton was impeached? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/01/clinton.poll/ Funny how most people believed Clinton had affairs and lied about it, but about the same amount didn't want the investigation to continue. It's almost like democrats are all corrupt and don't really care about justice. They just care about power.
Have you considered that the Clinton impeachment, that grew out of an investigation into Whitewater but ended as a perjury charge for lying about a not illegal affair between two consenting adults, is perhaps not comparable to the Mueller investigation into foreign interference in a recent U.S. election? Whereas the the Starr Investigation into the Whitewater real estate deal produced not a single indictment related to Whitewater, the Mueller investigation has, so far, produced 30 some indictments directly related to Russian interference, and numerous guilty pleas to felonies. In addition, in the course of its investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election, the Mueller investigation has discovered evidence of felony law violations not related to the Russian efforts to interfere with the election. This evidence has been turned over to U.S. Attorneys in other jurisdictions and has resulted in numerous additional indictments, and several ongoing court cases. You may want to re-think your attempt to relate public attitudes about the Starr investigation to those about the Mueller investigation. The reason people eventually formed a negative view of the Starr investigation is that it did not produce any evidence of law breaking related to Whitewater that could result in an indictment, and instead veered off course in the direction of investigating highly personal matters not related to law breaking. When Starr charged Clinton with Perjury the American public took the attitude that although Clinton had lied, he lied about a personal matter he never should have been asked about in the first place. The failure of the American public, on both sides of the political spectrum, to approve of Ken Starr's attempt to nab Clinton for perjury, was a form of public jury nullification.* The Republicans who insisted of impeaching Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, the latter charge on exceedingly weak grounds, were led by Henry Hyde in the House. The ill advised impeachment resulted in an ignominious defeat in the Senate and raised the ire of the American Public. Ironically, Supreme Court Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, who was recently accused of being a serial drunkard and sexual assaulter as a young man, worked for Ken Starr during the Clinton era. While working for Starr, Kavanaugh was reportedly an enthusiastic advocate of going after Clinton for sexual improprieties in an attempt to trap Clinton into perjuring himself. I suppose the recent testimony of the beleaguered Kavanaugh before the Senate judiciary Committee, a testimony in which Kavanaugh perjured himself not once, but numerous times, in response to questions related to his alleged sexual assaults on young women, is an almost too perfect example of 'what goes around, comes around' -- only this time around the questions asked were legitimate. ____________________ * Hydes remarks while exhorting his house colleagues to vote for impeaching Bill Clinton included the following: "What we are telling you today are not the ravings of some vast right-wing conspiracy, but a reaffirmation of a set of values that are tarnished and dim these days, but it is given to us to restore them so our Founding Fathers would be proud. It's your country—the President is our flag bearer, out in front of our people. The flag is falling, my friends—I ask you to catch the falling flag as we keep our appointment with history."It was soon after revealed that Hyde himself had had an extramarital affair. He attributed it to "youthful indiscretion." He was forty-two at the time of the affair.
Why do people say there were no indictments related to Whitewater when there were so many convictions? Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, resigned (fraud, 3 counts) John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion) William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy) Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned. Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud) Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied) Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned. David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud) Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign) Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned. Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud) Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned. John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud) Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery) Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)