Anti-Trumpers in Shock: Mueller Testimony Proves There Is No Case for Trump Impeachment

Anyone who watched the contorted and confused expressions on the face of former special counsel Robert Mueller during his testimony before two Congressional Committees on July 24, or heard his unsure, evasive, often-stumbling answers to questions, can now see why he had resisted making an appearance before Congress. Despite his resistance, Democratic Congressional leaders insisted he appear. Their purpose, in demanding that he testify, according to the anti-Trump Washington Post (WaPo), was to "give impeachment advocates fresh momentum."

The consensus, following the spectacle, of all but the most hard-core promoters of the coup against the President – such as Representatives Schiff and Nadler, the two Committee chairs who presided over the hearings – is that his appearance, instead of invigorating the opposition to Trump, had been a catastrophe. This sentiment was summarized by WaPo reporter Dan Balz, who wrote that before the hearings, many Democrats considered Mueller a "potential savior," who would serve as an agent of "Trump's eventual undoing." But the hearings, he concludes, "probably shattered those illusions once and for all," making the prospects for impeachment "appear more remote."

The image created by establishment media of Mueller as a tough, honest prosecutor, a straight shooter who would spare no expense to get to the truth, while paying attention to the smallest details, was blown away by his performance. For example, when asked about Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm retained by the Clinton campaign, which hired former British spy Christopher Steele to fabricate a "dodgy dossier" against Trump – which was fraudulently used by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign – Mueller could only whisper, "I'm not familiar with that"! Famed civil liberties attorney Alan Dershowitz was one of several who, in commenting on that exchange, stated that it appears that Mueller not only did not write the report but did not even know what was in it!

The entire fraud of the anti-Trump forces was never supposed to come to light, as they believed that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election, and their activities on her behalf, and in defense of the geopolitical paradigm in strategic affairs, would remain buried in classified archives, or destroyed, as many pieces of evidence – such as a large volume of Hillary's emails, or the text messages of anti-Trump FBI operatives Strzok and Page –

Anyone who watched the contorted and confused expressions on the face of former special counsel Robert Mueller during his testimony before two Congressional Committees on July 24, or heard his unsure, evasive, often-stumbling answers to questions, can now see why he had resisted making an appearance before Congress. Despite his resistance, Democratic Congressional leaders insisted he appear. Their purpose, in demanding that he testify, according to the anti-Trump Washington Post (WaPo), was to "give impeachment advocates fresh momentum."

Andrey Kortunov:
Mueller Report: A Reason for Optimism

The consensus, following the spectacle, of all but the most hard-core promoters of the coup against the President – such as Representatives Schiff and Nadler, the two Committee chairs who presided over the hearings – is that his appearance, instead of invigorating the opposition to Trump, had been a catastrophe. This sentiment was summarized by WaPo reporter Dan Balz, who wrote that before the hearings, many Democrats considered Mueller a "potential savior," who would serve as an agent of "Trump's eventual undoing." But the hearings, he concludes, "probably shattered those illusions once and for all," making the prospects for impeachment "appear more remote."

This view was shared by Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, a supporter of impeachment, who said the hearing "was a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it." Another anti-Trumper, filmmaker Michael Moore, described Mueller as a "frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions." Barack Obama's former chief strategist, David Axelrod, said watching the hearings was "very, very painful."

The image created by establishment media of Mueller as a tough, honest prosecutor, a straight shooter who would spare no expense to get to the truth, while paying attention to the smallest details, was blown away by his performance. For example, when asked about Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm retained by the Clinton campaign, which hired former British spy Christopher Steele to fabricate a "dodgy dossier" against Trump – which was fraudulently used by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign – Mueller could only whisper, "I'm not familiar with that"! Famed civil liberties attorney Alan Dershowitz was one of several who, in commenting on that exchange, stated that it appears that Mueller not only did not write the report but did not even know what was in it!

The one partial Democratic victory seemingly came when Mueller, in the morning session before the Judiciary Committee, implied that had it not been for an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of General Counsel that a sitting President cannot be indicted, Trump would have been indicted for obstruction. The victory celebration was short-lived when he retracted that statement in the opening of the afternoon session. Despite the overall weakness of Mueller's testimony, Politico reported that during a caucus meeting following the hearings, Rep. Nadler said that committee chairs could begin drafting articles of impeachment. He was rebuffed by House Speaker Pelosi, who dismissed his proposal as "premature."

For his part, President Trump said the hearing proved he is right to characterize the investigation into phony charges that he colluded with Russia to win the election and then obstructed justice to cover up his alleged crime, as a "witch hunt," but an expensive one. This has caused "three years of embarrassment and a waste of time for our country", he told reporters. After watching Mueller come unglued, he tweeted, "I would like to thank the Democrats for holding this morning's hearing," following this with a more philosophical tweet: "the truth is a force of nature!"

Why Mueller Failed

Ivan Timofeev:
Firewood and Coal: U.S.–Russia Relations without Mueller

Mueller's failed effort to provide a "smoking gun" proving Trump's "collusion" or "obstruction" in his 448-page report, and then again in his testimony, was summed up in a simple, unambiguous statement during the nearly-seven hour hearing, when he said that his prosecutorial team "did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime." However, this will not stop fanatics such as Schiff and Nadler from continuing to beat the drums for impeachment, as Russiagate has never really been about Trump or his campaign committing impeachable acts. The underlying issue, which was not addressed by those Republicans at the hearings who were defending Trump [1] is his commitment to break from the post-Cold War unilateralist paradigm, which under his predecessors G.W. Bush and B. Obama, escalated a geopolitical divide between the U.S., and Russia and China. Trump repeatedly stated, during the campaign and as President, that he wished to develop mutually beneficial, cooperative relations with Russia and China, as part of his effort to pull the U.S. back from its role as being the policeman of the world. We must end American involvement in endless wars, he said, wars which have been costly in both monetary terms and loss of life, and which have been pursued without serving any underlying national security interest.

It was this commitment, to end these regime change wars, combined with his opposition to such "globalist" policies as neoliberal free trade agreements and the Paris Climate Accord, which paved the way for his election victory over Hillary Clinton, who adamantly favored a continuation of the Bush-Obama strategic direction. Unable to combat Trump on these matters, the British intervened as the actual "meddlers" in the U.S. campaign, inventing the story of Russian intervention on behalf of Trump. The British role in initiating the fraudulent narrative of Russian intervention, and the collaboration between British intelligence – including a direct role played by GCHQ, the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency, and MI6 – with top officials of the Obama administration intelligence team, led to the convening of a "Get Trump" task force during the campaign, with former CIA Director Brennan and National Security Adviser Clapper playing leading roles.

After his election, as Trump initiated steps to break with the unilateralist military/strategic geopolitical doctrine, in his early, successful meetings with Russian President Putin and China's President Xi, the coup plotters went into overdrive. Shortly after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, on May 9, 2017, Mueller was appointed a special counsel to investigate the fake story, on May 17, 2017. From that point, until the release of Mueller's report on March 22, 2019, every effort made by Trump to proceed with improving relations with Putin and Xi was characterized as evidence that he was acting under a blackmail threat from Putin, a charge stemming from the faked and now-discredited dossier compiled by "ex"-MI6 spy Christopher Steele.

As was made clear by Mueller's statement that he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS, which paid Steele with funds from Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign, it is this connection, between Hillary's campaign, Obama's intelligence team, and the highest levels of British intelligence, that those behind Mueller wish to keep out of public view. In saying this, Mueller was either lying, in which case he could be charged with lying to Congress – a tactic he used in targeting Trump friend Roger Stone – or he exposed the fact that he was a mere front man for those who ran the investigation, and wrote the report. In either case, it is further evidence of the fraud employed by the Get Trump team.

Investigating the investigators

Ivan Timofeev, Samuel Charap:
Can Washington and Moscow Agree to Limit Political Interference?

It is precisely the nexus behind this fraud which is now under investigation. Attorney General Barr's appointment of respected U.S. Attorney from Connecticut, John Durham, and the expected imminent release of an investigation conducted by Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz, into the use of the Steele dossier in the filing for a warrant before the FISA court to "spy on" the Trump campaign, has truly spooked the coup plotters. What Trump has called the "greatest political scandal in U.S. history" will be exposed, and many of the key players are fearful that they now face prison for their crimes.

This was not supposed to happen! The entire fraud of the anti-Trump forces was never supposed to come to light, as they believed that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election, and their activities on her behalf, and in defense of the geopolitical paradigm in strategic affairs, would remain buried in classified archives, or destroyed, as many pieces of evidence – such as a large volume of Hillary's emails, or the text messages of anti-Trump FBI operatives Strzok and Page – still remain hidden from public view.

Most important is that this investigation opens the possibility that the British role in deploying the U.S. as the "dumb giant on a British leash", as Lyndon LaRouche famously described it, employing the concept of the "special relationship" to direct U.S. policy to do so, may finally be coming to an end. A key element in this is debunking the final, major lie still standing in the Mueller report, that Russia did intervene in the 2016 election. In his one, unfumbled (but lying) statement in the hearings this week, Mueller asserted that Russia is continuing to interfere: "They're doing it as we sit here," he said, and this became a major theme for those clinging to the hope of impeachment. Typical is the editorial of the "Never Trump" New York Times on July 25, which wrote that Mueller was "trying, in his halting words, to sound the alarm...about Russian subversion of American democracy." Describing the "evidence" of Russian hacking as proof of the malign intent of Putin, the Times called this the report's "most unequivocal finding", in exposing the "sweeping and systemic nature" of Russian interference. In asserting this, the editors characterized the questions of some Republican committee members about Fusion GPS, the Steele dossier, and the texts of Strzok and Page, as "bluster and misdirection."

Such an obvious cover-up merely highlights the hysteria of those behind Russiagate. By sticking to the narrative, they are giving more rope to the hangman. The challenge to the "Russian hacking" narrative was laid out by former NSA technical adviser and whistleblower Bill Binney, who conducted the only serious forensic investigation of this charge. He and his colleagues found that it is impossible that a hack took place. He will soon present the evidence for this in a courtroom, as he has been called as a defense witness in the last pending Russiagate trial, that of Roger Stone.

Putting this lie to rest will finally free President Trump to move ahead with the policy shift which the forces of the British Empire and their neocon/neo-liberal flunkeys are most desperate to prevent, as they cling to their hopes that they can continue to milk some benefits from their failed and collapsing system. Robert Mueller, who was first fully exposed by LaRouchePAC researcher Barbara Boyd as an "amoral legal assassin," proved to be an ineffective flunkey. Despite the millions of dollars spent on his investigation, the nonstop lies coming from his supporters such as Schiff and Nadler, and the daily dose of Fake News produced by the mainstream media, the whole process was aptly summed up by the President in his tweet, when he wrote, "the truth is a force of nature!"

1. Several Republican Representatives, notably Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes, did demand an answer from Mueller about the role of the British, in instigating the original investigation, citing the case of Christopher Steele. Mueller gave several evasive answers, acknowledging that his team did not investigate this, and said he would not discuss it.