As everyone knows, Special Counsel Robert Mueller headed up the investigation on alleged Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election. The twenty-two-month long investigation resulted in the Mueller Report with the following conclusions:
- There was definite interference by Russia in our election.
- The was not enough evidence to bring charges of conspiracy between the Trump election campaign and Russian officials.
- There were ten episodes of alleged obstruction of justice. The Report laid out the evidence in favor and against obstruction, but did not state a conclusion. It suggested that the Congress has this responsibility.
- The Report did not exonerate the President.
Within 48 hours, Attorney General Barr wrote a four-page document that summarized the report. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein made a decision to affirm that President Trump was innocent of the allegations of obstruction of justice. Trump went even further and claimed that there was no obstruction and that he was fully exonerated.
Mueller disagreed with the Barr summary and wrote two letters to Barr to rectify that misleading conclusion. Not obtaining the rectification that he sought, Mueller broke his public silence on the investigation and gave a nine-minute public address (May 29, 2019) when he also announced his resignation from the Department of Justice. Regarding the investigation, he made the following affirmations:
- His Special Counsel investigation was not legally permitted to bring charges against Trump due to Department of Justice tradition and policy that would not allow a sitting president to be indicted.
- Since the Department of Justice cannot bring charges against a sitting president, the only other option is political. The Congress would need to bring charges of impeachment against the President.
- Regarding the claims of no obstruction and exoneration, Mueller spoke quite clearly, “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination, as to whether the President did commit a crime.”
A few days later, Barr stated his disagreement with Mueller’s comments. Meanwhile, various committees in the Democrat controlled House of Representatives have subpoenaed various documents (Trump’s tax returns) and witnesses (Don McGahn, Hope Hicks, etc.). The Trump administration has refused to turn over documents and has pressured the witnesses not to appear before the House committees.
We are at an impasse. Both sides have their partisan political reasons for their positions. Democrats claim that Trump has obstructed justice and he is doing everything he can to prevent the truth from coming out. Trump claims that the Democrats lost in the investigation and want a “re-do” in a type of witch hunt against the President.
More than partisanship, what we really need is to come to a conclusion regarding the truth on these issues. A full-blown impeachment process would probably not obtain the needed two/thirds majority in the Senate due to the Republican control there, and therefore could be a strategic mistake for the Democrats. Nevertheless, given the White House actions of stalling and stonewalling, I believe an “impeachment inquiry” is now the only way to obtain a clearer understanding of what happened. If Trump is truly innocent, he should turn over the documents and permit McGahn and Hicks to bear witness to the truth, whatever the consequences. Democrats should be courageous enough to begin the inquiry in order to fulfill their Constitutional oversight responsibilities. Let the truth win out!
Let me be as clear as possible. An impeachment inquiry is not the same as articles of impeachment. An inquiry is a first step to gather sufficient evidence to see whether impeachment proceedings should go forward or not. If the White House is not willing to relinquish key documents and allow witnesses to testify, an impeachment inquiry is the next step forward.
Lindy Scott 
I heard today that Hope Hicks will testify next week.
LikeLike
I just heard that also, but it will be behind closed doors. I hope the White House counsel doesn´t try to claim executive privilege. She needs to speak the truth as clearly as she sees it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two and a half years and over 25 million dollars spent not to mention all the convicted felons who testified and you still don’t have enough evidence on Pres.Trump to prove rain makes the grass grow.Think of all the good things we could have done for this country if these dip stick democrats would work with him. And now you want to elect a bunch of socialists to govern the country? Really? I’ve lived in countries who have been ruled under martial law and believe me you want no part of it.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
It has been 50 years since we have seen each other. I trust you are well. I can tell you are passionate about this topic, but I think you miss the main point of my article. Mueller himself laid out the charges for obstruction of justice against Trump, but said that the Department of Justice would not allow a sitting president to be indicted. Mueller indicated that the only group that could evaluate the guilt or innocence of the president would be an impeachment inquiry by the Congress. I believe they should fulfill their constitutional authority and begin that process.
You then changed topics and launched an ad hominem attack against democrats and their ¨socialism¨. I will address capitalism and socialism from a Biblical perspective in an upcoming blog, but I did not mention those issues in this blog article at all.
LikeLike