Robert Mueller, Total Disgrace by Larry C Johnson

Larry Johnson-5x7

Robert Mueller is a fool and a liar. He is not worthy of being described as honorable. He is a disgrace to the Marine Corps.

The justice system in the United States is based on the principle that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The government and its prosecutors do not have the right to accuse someone of a crime or criminal behavior without providing proof and presenting that evidence in a public trial.

Remember the justifiable outrage that in the aftermath of Jim Comey’s boneheaded press conference in July 2016, when he implied Hillary Clinton was guilty and then said there was no case to be brought. That was wrong. Today, Robert Mueller did the same damn thing. He had one job–gather evidence and indict or say nothing.

I have written extensively on the failings of the Mueller report. Hell, not just failings, complete dishonesty (see Glaring Omissions and Misrepresentations in Mueller’s Report and The Malevolent Farce that is Mueller and the Russia Hoax). This is the behavior of a prosecutor from a third-world shithole. Certainly appears that the United States is headed in that direction.

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson, Russiagate. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Robert Mueller, Total Disgrace by Larry C Johnson

  1. MP98 says:

    Mueller LOOKS the part – the serious unsmiling official above reproach.
    Actually, he’s just another swamp creature.
    The report (by his staff of Clintonistas) was no surprise and this last ditch attempt to jumpstart impeachment is no surprise.
    The swamp rats are not going to go easily – if they go.

  2. All,
    In April 2017, a piece by Anatol Lieven appeared in the ‘National Interest’, under the title ‘Is America Becoming a Third World Country?’ The subheading read: ‘Conspiracy theories about Russia suggest that the awful prospect for the USA is of a global superpower with the domestic politics of the Philippines or Argentina.’
    (See .)
    I would strongly recommend the piece to members of this ‘Committee of Correspondence.’
    Do not, incidentally, make the mistake of thinking that because its author is born and bred in Britain this is a case of ‘Brit’ arrogance.
    There seems to me little reason to believe that Lieven thought his native country was in a less parlous state than he suggesed you were. (I certainly don’t!)
    Part of this is to do with what I am tempted to call a ‘Cassandra complex.’
    The Lieven brothers – Anatol and his elder brother Dominic – are among the very best British commentators on international affairs.
    This may be partly because their origins are not actually British. On the father’s side, they were Baltic German servants of the Tsars, on the mother’s, Catholic Irish servants of the British Raj (hence the balance of names – Dominic for the first son, Anatol for the second.)
    The background provides a useful introduction to some of the complexities of modern history – and also, ironically perhaps, may have helped both brothers absorb some of the better elements of British culture (unlike most American ‘Rhodes Scholars’, who seem often to absorb the worst.)
    But the result appears to be that, as with Cassandra, people do not listen to them. So, Anatol teaches in Qatar.
    His brother, after spending many years in the thankless task of trying to educate ‘political scientists’ at the London School of Economics, is now back in Cambridge.
    However, Dominic’s – brilliant – summation of large elements of his life’s work on the centenary of the October Revolution was not delivered, as in a rational world it might have been, at Chatham House, or Brookings – but at that year’s Valdai Group meeting.
    (See .)

  3. Eric Newhill says:

    Mueller is a weasel. However, by pouring some gas on the impeachment fire, he’s only going to help Trump in the long run. The Senate has made it clear that they will not back impeachment. Also, Trump will just go after Mueller’s pals in the IC, FBI and DOJ that much harder. Obstruction of justice allegations will be moot in the light of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the swamp denizens. In fact, obstructing such people will end up looking totally justified and correct.

  4. Peter VE says:

    I was SO hoping he was going to announce that he had come to an agreement with the US attorney for DC, and will plead Guilty to lying to Congress in the Iraq run up, and will have a sentence similar to Michael Cohen’s.
    Rats. Foiled again.

  5. The Mueller Report was the biggest joke of a letdown, obvious political document since the Steele Dossier itself. It seemed designed to justify and give cover to intelligence community wrongdoing, to pretend that there were legitimate issues that demanded investigation early in the 2016 campaign. On numerous topics it used weasel words to create clouds of smoke, or obscure simple answers to their conspiracy theories.
    I had expected more of Mueller, based on just some vague notions of who he was, but I should have realized from the very weak earlier indictments about Russian hacking and meddling that his team was no better than the rest of Trump’s enemies.

  6. Flavius says:

    He couldn’t go without picking at the scab he and his handpicked crew of political partisans spent 2 years in forming. Once he realized that his ‘friend’, Bill Barr, intended to plumb the trap to determine the legal and prudential sufficiencies behind what is coming into focus as a mix of witting and unwitting political jihad, to include the Bob Mueller act itself, he couldn’t leave without pissing into his ‘friend’s’ well by inflaming the Congressional Democratic moronocracy and siccing it on him. His scab-picking will have no other practical effect than to obstruct Barr, and Mueller knows it.
    Like his pal Comey’s, the man’s behavior is disgraceful. Had this claque of smug bureacrats merely said that they welcome Barr’s investigation, the reputations of their Agencies might have started on their way to recovery. It looks like for Barr’s investigation, it will have to be slash and burn for it to get anywhere. The Bureau and the Agency will be looking way worse before they look better, if they ever do.

  7. Bill H says:

    I like that, “Congressional Democratic moronocracy.”

  8. catherine says:

    ”Today, Robert Mueller did the same damn thing. He had one job–gather evidence and indict or say nothing.”
    I think Mueller did his job well. He gathered evidence, indicted the wrong doers on who he did have enough evidence. As he said, the Justice Department policy does not allow the indictment of a sitting President even if the evidence warranted it. I think he made clear he didn’t find definitive evidence of Trump collusion with Russia but did find ‘signs’ of possible obstruction.
    Bottom line he did his job, turned his report over to the AG and only spoke today to correct Barr’s ‘incomplete’ representation of his conclusions…that’s it.
    Whatever congress does with Muller’s findings is up to congress.

  9. edding says:

    If Barr really wishes to pursue his investigation he does have the resources of the NSA, which, presumably, has archived literally every communication sent over the airwaves, and he could invoke the procedure promulgated under Obama, allowing the NSA to share its information with other agencies investigating criminal activity.
    Mueller had the same opportunity, but instead cherry picked the NSA’s resources, and ignored the rest, when it came to the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC. Had he followed through in conjunction with the Binney/VIPS forensics, he could have put an early nail in the coffin of the imaginary Guccifer 2.0 and the Russian interference canard.
    It was a crappy politicized investigation that, unfortunately, will only further damage the credibility of our justice system.

  10. Watched the Mueller statement. Looked decidedly nervy at the start as if he knew he was going to set the cat among the pigeons. And he did. So Trump will have to go after the originators of it all, as you say, “that much harder”.
    When rogues fall out, honest men come by their own. I hope in this case some dishonest ones do as well.

  11. walrus says:

    Mueller allegedly said: ““If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”.
    If this is true, and I’m not misunderstanding the context, then Mueller is either an idiot or a rat. By definition, the above statement is a meaningless truism. NO ONE can say “with confidence” that a crime has not been committed because negative evidence cannot be turned into positive evidence. To translate Mueller: “we couldn’t find any evidence he did it, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t!” – the presumption of innocence was developed to protect suspects from exactly this sort of biased speculation.
    Mueller has fed Congress exactly what the Democrats wanted; meaningless speculation and innuendo with no apparent basis in fact. To put that another way, Democrats can now say:”this report raises more questions than it answers”. Thanks for nothing Mueller.

  12. Fred says:

    Since the Senate is the body responsible for any trial that would result from impeachment Senator Graham can cut to the chase and subpoena Mueller and all the members of his team and start asking questions. I suggest they involve things like just what is spelled out in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments and how did each lawyer there comply with those constitutional requirements. Oh, and who was is they talked/emailed/tweeted/etc. to at the NYT/WAPO etc. Under oath and in public, since we would hate to have a ‘constitutional crisis’ that would requiring denying the right to public trials! But of course we now live in an America transformed by Barack Obama and the new legal term everyone is looking for is “Presumption of Guilt”.
    BTW I can’t wait for the Senate impeachment committee to subpoena Barack to ask him just what he told his people to do and when he told them to do so.

  13. Rich S. says:

    “This is the behavior of a prosecutor from a third-world shithole. Certainly appears that the United States is headed in that direction.”
    Sure looks that way. Deep State totalitarianism. We have FBI SWAT teams kicking in doors in the middle of the night and dragging out senior citizens for process crimes in a phony criminal investigation. You have high-profile Trump supporters being set up and secretly videotaped at massage parlors. You have Chinese business people and Trump donors being investigated and subpoenaed by federal prosecutors in The Swamp (
    According to Prof. Luke Johnson, America became an empire around the time of Teddy Roosevelt (putting global concerns above nation). IMHO, the empire will end shortly after Trump leaves office. Whether it ends with a whimper or bang is the question. And our vassal states in Europe (most have been hollowed out because of globalism) will fall faster and harder.
    Katy bar the door.

  14. I would also highly recommend Dominic’s book
    A real eye-opener for those who think that it was only General Winter that defeated Bonaparte.

  15. joanna says:

    catherine, I understand he simply wanted to tell, I did my best for two years but other then finding people don’t always follow the rules, I have nothing more to say.
    In other words, is maybe our collected wisdom not solidly usable enough? Which one way or another influences how we read and interpret it?
    9/11 triggered a lot of activities expanding the duties of the US services into the cyberwar-cyberprotection space.
    Now , what again was it, about the needle and haystack?
    Today close to 20 years later we come back and choose to decide maybe its better to decide based on our basic instincts? Our political alignment?

  16. Christian J Chuba says:

    Karma. The chickens are coming home to roost. Our lawless behavior in casually undermining and overthrowing govts in other countries while braying that we are upholding international norms makes it acceptable to do the same here.
    There is an irony that the deep state (permanent neocon bureaucracy) is blaming the Russians while they are the ones doing it here. As much as I hate the Mueller’s, I hate their minions in the MSM even more. Shouldn’t THEY understand that people do not have to be exonerated by Prosecutors? Our MSM echoes whatever their handlers tell them to say whether it’s about Venezuela or about elected officials.

  17. AnthonyHBA says:

    Agree, fascinating material from Dominic L at Valdai site.
    I had seen Anatol articles at commencement Ukraine coup but was ignorant of Dominic.
    Thanks for the post

  18. Diana C says:

    I just never expected anything else coming out of a swamp rat.
    It’s sad for me, a person who grew up so very proud of our country. I know now, after growing more wise, that there has always been a rat presence in our government, but it seems to have really gotten out of control lately.
    I can still hope that out here in fly over country there are enough people to make the D C swamp creatures irrelevant in every national election cycle until the swamp is drained at bit and fumigated.
    But, unfortunately we’ll have to first eliminate the rats that have gained some control of our state offices.

  19. Tidewater says:

    You’re not paying attention.

  20. Agree, Anatol is one of those people who does produce sober accounts. I remember his superb piece in Foreign Affairs some years ago about non-linearity of history. It was a revelation in the midst of still raging “The End of History” euphoria, or, rather, pseudo-scientific delusion.

  21. Factotum says:

    JFK unionized government workers. Big government employee unions have amassed huge political war chests and disciplined rank and file GOTV ground troops on election days. DNC is nothing but a front for the big government unions.
    You can measure the decline of America political discourse from that point forward. When SEIU spends nearly one billion dollars to get Obama elected in 2008, everyone needs to follow the money and understand how the power of big government union member dues plays such a deciding role in our rapidly devolving political climate.
    Who even suspects the teachers unions are the primary beneficiaries of open borders, filling their classrooms with endless supplies of new students and preserving their own jobs perks and benefits. Such is the incestuous web we have now woven in our oountry and its highly polarized political debate.
    Follow the money – much of it leads right back to the expanding self-interests of the big government employee unions.

  22. Mark Logan says:

    That comment of Mueller’s has been yanked out of context.
    Mueller believes he was and is not at liberty to either indict or accuse a sitting POTUS. This is the established policy of the DOJ (his employer).
    In that view the only branch of government that has the power to enforce the law against a sitting POTUS is Congress, through their Constitutional power of impeachment.

  23. Alves says:

    Mueller`s latest statements were pretty weird. A press conference where he does not actually take questions and blow the impeachment flames using contradictory legal reasoning (why investigate in the first place if he can not indict?).
    I would say one of the objectives is to mud the watters on the investigation that Barr is pushing on the start of the Russia conspiracy probe.

  24. Fred says:

    “…or accuse a sitting POTUS.”
    That is just what he did at this press conference. Nothing prevented him from reccomending a Trump be indicted except the lack of evidence of a crime. “In that view….” we wasted two years because Mueller really couldn’t do anything, oh, wait, the Republicans held the House two years ago and they were not about to have an impeachment hearing even with all the never Trumpers in office at the time.

  25. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have no qualifications to comment on this. Listen to the Attorney General’s comments on CBS.

  26. Mark Logan says:

    I did not comment on what the AG said, I commented on what Mueller clearly stated he believes. What qualifications are required?

  27. catherine says:

    To what ? Have I missed something?
    I have followed this Russia Trump hunt from the beginning with my Sherlock Holmes rules. Some dogs barked, some dogs didn’t bark and probably wont bark. So..we will know something, but not everything, which leaves everyone free to proclaim whatever it is they want to believe as the truth of the matter.
    As for Trump’s ‘enemies’ or Hillary’s….you get the enemies you deserve.
    It’s all as usual in the land ‘of, by and for the parties’.

  28. I know what you wrote. You clearly paid no attention to the DOJ release that forced Mueller back on to the reservation. You obviously don’t even understand the basic tenet of our system of justice–INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

  29. catherine says:

    Mark is right.
    Have you read the entire report? If you did you would have seen what “standards” were applied to define and assess crimes and why the Report said…”Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
    It was more complicated than you seem to understand.
    Barr shot himself in the foot and riled up congress by spinning Mueller’s summary—-which made it necessary for Mueller to speak up and correct the record.
    Mueller and his team were very meticulous and fair….very.
    ”Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5
    The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”6 Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
    Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
    * * *

  30. Yes, I have read the entire report. You obviously have not. Furthermore, neither you nor Mark grasp the fundamental point of our Justice system. YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. PERIOD. You don’t understand a damn thing about how prosecutors are supposed to work. Mueller was not precluded nor prohibited from stating that, “Donald Trump broke the law and should be prosecuted.” While DOJ guidelines preclude prosecuting a President while in office there is no such prohibition once he leaves office. Stop taking your legal advice from ignorant assholes on MSNBC.

  31. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Some very worthy analysis of what Mueller said:
    ” ‘Not Exonerated’ Is Not a Standard Any Free Country Should Accept”, By Charles C. W. Cooke, NR, 2019-05029
    “What a Hash Mueller Made of It”, by Patrick J. Buchanan, 2019-05-30
    “The Mueller Investigation Was Always an Impeachment Probe”, By Andrew C. McCarthy, NR, 2019-05-31

  32. Fred says:

    That must have hated Hilary or math is real hard for you as they only pledged $70 million on her campaign in 2016.
    Where did you get the Billion figure from?

  33. One dog that didn’t bark was over in the UK. As far as I know there was no official reference from HMG to the Steele affair, let alone a disclaimer of or apology for an ex-UK Intelligence operative cutting a swathe through an American Presidential election.
    The dog’s growling a little now. I read the following as an attempt to claim that the Steele affair was bona fide and handled correctly.
    “Andrew Parker, the MI5 director general, and Alex Younger, the MI6 chief, are both understood to have been briefed, according to the source.
    The material was “marked up to the top”, according to sources. But Number 10 figures said categorically that Mrs May was never briefed on the dossier.”

    No mention of whether Mr Cameron, Mrs May’s predecessor as PM, had been briefed earlier.
    This obviously inspired Telegraph account may be filed away as an attempt by HMG to “get ahead of the story.” If it is, it doesn’t look to me as if it’s got ahead anything like far enough. If more documents do get released at the American end there will have to be a better explanation than this for what happened at the UK end of the Steele affair.

  34. “This is the behavior of a prosecutor from a third-world shithole. Certainly appears that the United States is headed in that direction.”
    With respect, I don’t think it shows that at all. It shows that there are some very dubious characters knocking around but one thing that has astonished me throughout is that when documents are produced all accept that they are the original documents and have not been tampered with. And when official computer evidence is produced the same proviso seems to apply. Lots of redactions, many different interpretations of what is produced, but even the most sceptical observers seem to take it for granted that there’s been no forgery, shredding, or after the fact adjustment.
    Such evidence would I think never see the light of day in most other countries, let alone untampered with.
    So my view, naive though it may be, is that this shows some quite scandalous behaviour by very many people, but operating within a system that is still sound.
    After all, if the American administrative system were as debased as the sentence I have quoted above claims, why would they need to outsource the really scrubby stuff to foreign countries?

  35. johnf says:

    The nub of this story seems to be that the British are now desperately trying to cover their arses on the Steele Dossier. They claim that they warned Flynn during the Obama/Trump transition. But evidence of this warning message now seems to be difficult to locate.
    Trump’s meeting with Dead May Walking could be interesting.
    “Did Brits warn about Steele’s credibility, before Mueller’s probe? Congress has evidence
    By John Solomon”

  36. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Real Clear Politics has a really excellent analysis of the successes and failures of the Mueller investigation:
    “Mueller’s Sinking Reputation”, by Charles Lipson, RCP, 2019-06-05
    Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security.
    I highly recommend his analysis to anyone who wants to to see an erudite analysis of the problematic nature of Mueller’s investigation.

Comments are closed.