Dershowitz: Mueller’s Trump Report Will Be ‘Devastating’ But Won’t Lead To Charges

A bit of overselling?

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday that he does not believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on President Donald Trump will show any criminality.

Dershowitz told George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s “This Week,” that he does think Mueller’s impending report about Trump and Russia will be politically “devastating.” However, he guessed that there will not be anything in the report that will lead to charges against the president.

“I think the report is going to be devastating to the president and we know the president’s team is already working on a response,” Dershowitz explained. “The critical questions are largely political — when I say devastating, I mean it’s going to paint a picture that’s going to be politically very devastating.”

“I still don’t think it’s going to make a criminal case because collusion is not criminal,” he asserted, adding that conspiracy is “too much of a stretch.”

First, Dershowitz really has no clue in the matter. He's lately made himself a regular on cable news as a reluctant defender of Trump in the Mueller farce, but he has no clue what the final report will be. In fact, no one will until the AG determines whether to release it.

Mueller is expected to wrap things up now that the midterms have concluded, and so far no proof of conclusion or interference in the 2016 election has occurred. Remember the primary reason this mess began is really just because people simply believed that something had to occur to allow Trump to beat Clinton in 2016. The decision to appoint a Special Council was based as we know now on false evidence and election meddling, most illegal activities of the FBI and IC (spying on Trump) during the campaign. Strong evidence that the Obama administration was behind most of it.

The "politically devastating" reference Dershowitz makes is likely to how the media and the newly minted Democrat congressional majority will attempt to use it to hound Donald Trump out of town(impeach?), or at least paralyze his remaining term and kill chances at a 2020 run.

While that may be true, I doubt it based on polls that the American public, except those with their minds made up (Democrats), will really buy it. Recent polls show Americans mostly believe the probe is politically motivated.

Dershowitz to Mueller: Stop, Just Stop

It's pretty clear by now that the supposed mandate that Robert Muller ran with to investigate whether there was collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has run it's course has ended. The House Senate Intelligence committee has concluded that while there were some knuckle-headed moves by the Trump campaign there was no collusion, and that ends the investigation and it's time to stop wasting money chasing dreams of such. It's the put up or shut up time for Mueller. Yet he goes on. Noted defense attorney and Democrat Allen Dershowitz wrote in the Hill:

"In this case, the appointment of a special counsel has done more harm than good. It has politicized our justice system beyond repair. The FBI deputy director has been fired for leaking and lying. His testimony appears to be in conflict with that of the former FBI director as to whether the leaks were authorized. Messages by high-ranking FBI agents suggest strong bias against Trump. A tweet by the former CIA director reveals equally strong negative views of the president. Perhaps these revelations prove nothing more than that law enforcement and national security officials are human and hold political views like everyone else.

But these views are not supposed to influence their decisions. In our age of hyperpartisanship, the public has understandably lost confidence in the ability and willingness of our leaders to separate their political views from their law enforcement decisions. This is not all attributable to the appointment of the special counsel, but the criminalization of political differences on both sides of the aisle has certainly contributed to the atmosphere of distrust in our justice system.

The public has lost faith in the leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI. They don’t trust congressional investigative committees. They don’t know whom to believe when they hear conflicting accounts. There are leaks galore followed by denials of leaks. It’s a total mess. And what do we have to show for it? Just a handful of low-level indictments based largely on alleged crimes that are either unrelated or only marginally related to Russia’s attempt to influence our presidential election in 2016."


Mueller appears to be only interested in nailing President Trump to the cross, a sort of vendetta for Trump firing his friend James Comey, even though there is hardly anyone except liberal maniacs who didn't think Comey should be fired. Prior to the election, just about all Democrats called for his head.

But at this point it should be wrapped up, even Vice President Pence called for it to end.

Mueller Threatening to Subpoena President Trump

Via FoxNews.

"Special counsel Robert Mueller told President Trump's legal team that he could subpoena the president to appear before a grand jury if Trump refuses an interview with Mueller's team, Trump's former lead attorney told The Associated Press Tuesday night.

John Dowd told the AP that Mueller raised the possibility of a subpoena during a meeting with Trump's legal team in March. According to accounts of the meeting first reported by The Washington Post and confirmed by Fox News, Dowd retorted: "This isn’t some game. You are screwing with the work of the president of the United States."

Dowd resigned as Trump's lead lawyer weeks later amid a dispute over how to answer Mueller's request for a presidential interview.

The meeting appears to have been the first time Mueller raised the possibility of compelling Trump to testify as part of his investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials ahead of the 2016 election."

The nature of the questions leaked this week, likely another leak from Mueller's office. This alone, repeated often from Mueller's office is but another example of prosecutorial misconduct, and in any other venue would be evidence enough of an out of control investigation. None of the leaked questions point to any specific misconduct, but look to be designed to trap Trump into lying under oath. More or less the "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no." Congressional investigations concluded showing absolutely no collusion took place, but Mueller apparently has gone past his mandate on that subject. I doubt that was the mandate at all at this point, this was simply an operation to get Trump at any cost.

Stacking the Deck: Mueller and Investigation Team Donate Primarily to Democrats

And CNN is reporting this, so you know it's bad.

"Washington (CNN)Three members of the legal team known to have been hired so far by special counsel Robert Mueller to handle the Russia investigation have given political donations almost exclusively to Democrats, according to a CNN analysis of Federal Election Commission records. 

More than half of the more than $56,000 came from just one lawyer and more than half of it was donated before the 2016 election, but two of the lawyers gave the maximum $2,700 donation to Hillary Clinton last year. 

Over the weekend, news outlets including CNN identified five attorneys that Mueller has already brought on board to help investigate potential collusion between associates of President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. 

The group includes seasoned attorneys who worked on cases ranging from Watergate to the Enron fraud scandal and have represented major American companies in court. While only five attorneys have been publicly identified as working on the Russia probe, there could be more on Mueller's team. 

Three of the five lawyers have donations in FEC records. They gave overwhelmingly to Democrats, totaling more than $53,000 since 1988. More than half of the donations came from just one of the lawyers, James Quarles, whom Mueller brought over from his old firm, WilmerHale. 

Quarles has given nearly $33,000 to political campaigns over the years. He gave money to Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In addition, Quarles gave more than $10,000 to help Democrats get elected to the House and another $10,000 on the Senate side, including money to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. 

But Quarles is also the only lawyer among Mueller's team for which records were available who ever donated to Republicans. He gave $2,500 to Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz in 2015 and gave $250 to then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia in 2005. 

Only about 30% of the donations were for elections in 2016. But Quarles and Jeannie Rhee, who also left WilmerHale to work on the Russia probe, gave the maximum contribution of $2,700 to Clinton's campaign last year."

So how exactly will Mueller and his investigator be impartial when their money goes where their heart is?

Together with Mueller's strong (joined at the hip) bro-mance with James Comey, you might say the fix may be in.

Appointment of a Special Counsel was a mistake in the first place.  A knee-jerk reaction to Republicans bowing to Democrat demands.  Had they waited until after Comey's perjury filled testimony there likely would have been no Special Counsel.

All the more reason for Trump to end it now, there is no good that can come out of this charade, none at all.

Does Robert Mueller's long friendship with Jim Comey Conflict with his Duties as Special Counsel and Should He Recuse Himself?

Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner that Special Counsel appointee Robert Mueller has a possible conflict of interest in investigating Russia/Trump/Election issues.

Fired FBI Director James Comey has emerged as the main figure in what some Democrats believe will be an obstruction of justice case against President Trump in the Trump-Russia matter. Comey's stories of conversations with the president, plus the fact that he was fired, ostensibly as a result of the Russia probe, make him potentially the star witness in the case. 

Which brings up an intriguing legal question. Comey is a good friend of special counsel Robert Mueller — such a good friend, for about 15 years now, that the two men have been described as "brothers in arms." Their work together during the controversies over Bush-era terrorist surveillance has been characterized as "deepening a friendship forged in the crucible of the highest levels of the national security apparatus after the 9/11 attacks," after which the men became "close partners and close allies throughout the years ahead." 

Now Mueller is investigating the Trump-Russia affair, in which, if the increasing buzz in the case is correct, allegations of obstruction against the president will be central. And central to those allegations — the key witness — will be the prosecutor's good friend, the now-aggrieved former FBI director 

Is that a conflict? Should a prosecutor pursue a case in which the star witness is a close friend? And when the friend is not only a witness but also arguably a victim — of firing — by the target of the investigation? And when the prosecutor might also be called on to investigate some of his friend's actions? The case would be difficult enough even without the complicating friendship.

York then asks several former DOJ attorney's for their take and gets mixed results.  Read them at the link for yourself.

However, for a fuller take that says definitively that Mueller should recuse himself check out this article at Lawnewz.

I am one who thinks he should resign, or recuse from the investigation of Comey,  because of the close relationship with him, and especially since Comey met with Mueller before his Senate Intel Committee testimony.  It's really a no-brainer.