Rebuttal to 8/12/18 Post: Mark Levin Swings And Misses With His Diatribe Against Robert Mueller

With respect, I disagree so strongly with the ideas expressed in this post that I would like to present a rebuttal.

1.  Ruth: The first thing Levin says after his absurd comparison to Putin is Mueller is “threatening to take down a president of the United States.” When did Robert Mueller make such a threat? I cannot recall Mueller saying anything publicly. The accusation he’s threatening to take down Trump has zero evidence to support it.

Ms. Ruth cannot recall Robert Mueller ever publicly threatening to take President Trump down? How many people who try to take down a President announce it publicly?

Trump has been under investigation for over two years now, first as the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation, and now as a subject of interest in Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation. It has cast a shadow over his presidency, and it shows no signs of ending anytime soon. And there is one man who has the power to end it – Robert Mueller.

After all this time, Mueller has found no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. Why then won’t he exonerate Trump?

And what about the most fundamental principle of our system of justice, that a citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I wrote a recent post about the burden of proof here.

Furthermore, one’s guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. “If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.” For most Americans, this right cannot be violated. However, if you happen to be Donald Trump, or anyone associated with him, this right was stolen a long time ago.

Trump does not have to prove his innocence. Rather, the prosecutors, Robert Mueller and his team of highly partisan Democrats, must prove Trump’s guilt.


2.  Ruth: He (Levin) then says Trump doesn’t need to get questioned because he’s not a witness to any crime because we “don’t know what crime they’re talking about.” Has Levin occupied another planet for the last several years? Of course, Trump is a witness. Mueller and his team have obtained indictments directly related to Russian interference in the 2016 election, and we know that Trump and Trump Jr. lied about the background of the infamous Trump Tower meeting which it turns out, had nothing to do with adoption.

First, why does Ms. Ruth say that “of course he’s a witness?” A witness to what? Paul Manafort’s indictment has nothing to do with Trump whatsoever. He is being tried for crimes that occurred over a decade ago, long before his association with Trump.

Nor does Mueller have any evidence tying Trump to the DOJ’s February indictment of the Russians or the last month’s indictment of the Russian intelligence agents. Nobody is denying that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election. Mueller has evidence to support those charges. However, Mueller has not found any evidence of Trump’s involvement.

Regarding the meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016, what candidate could resist hearing some “dirt” about their opponent?

Once Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner met with the Russians, however, that was the end of it. There is no evidence of follow-up meetings or communications.

The important point is that they did not seek out this meeting.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and the DNC (which Hillary essentially controlled after bailing them out financially) paid $12 million for uncorroborated research to a foreigner who allegedly received his information from additional foreigners.

In order to hide their (Hillary’s and the DNC’s) involvement with the dossier, the law firm of Perkins, Coie hired op-research firm Fusion GPS who took care of the details.

A woman named Nellie Ohr was hired by Fusion GPS specifically to work on this deal. She just happened to be the wife of Bruce Ohr, who was then-Associate Deputy Attorney General of the DOJ, the organization’s 4th highest position. Ohr was the director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, which had nothing to do with Steele or his phony dossier. But, through his wife, Ohr met with Steele on several occasions and remained in touch with him even after the FBI had ended their relationship with [Steele].

When Ohr’s involvement with Steele was discovered by DOJ officials, he was demoted.

It is believed that Ohr “laundered” Steele’s information and passed it on to the appropriate FBI officials. Because partial communications between Ohr and Steele have recently come to light that suggest collusion between the two, Judicial Watch last week filed a FOIA request to view the complete records.


3.  Ruth: Trump’s lawyers continue to reject any interview with Mueller on the basis the prosecutors will set a “perjury trap.” Granted, the term didn’t originate out of thin air, and many cases have been brought against people for lying to investigators about unrelated matters while not getting prosecuted for the actual crime under investigation.

Any lawyer worth his salt would advise Trump not to meet with Mueller or any of his investigators. If you take a look at his track record, Mueller does have a knack for finding an “alternate” crime when he is unable to prove a “primary” crime.


4.  Ruth: Trump’s lawyers are not concerned about the trap. They’re worried about their client’s ability to lie at the drop of a hat. They know he will not get through that interview without telling some falsehood.

Even Hannity gets bored and cuts Levin off. Levin is very intelligent person with a deep knowledge of the nation’s history and constitutional foundations. One would expect Sean Hannity to talk like that because he’s a hack, nothing more. Levin should better than behave like a hack.

You can’t “know” what Trump’s lawyers are thinking anymore than you could “know” that Hannity was getting “bored” by Mark Levin and cut him off or that Trump “of course” was a witness to a crime. That is pure speculation on your part.

I don’t ask you to support Trump, or to even like him. I do ask for you to respect his position as the President of our country and to stop leaping to conclusions for which you have no proof.


5.  Ruth: He then goes on to accuse Mueller of wanting to “turn the country upside down” and “disenfranchise the over 60 million people who voted for this president of the United States.” It didn’t take too long for Levin to go all in on the hyperbole. It’s amusing Levin accuses Mueller of turning the country upside down — particularly in light of Trump’s near-daily attacks on Mueller, his team, Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein, the Department of Justice, the CIA and the FBI. As for the disenfranchisement accusation, Levin should take a chill pill and fast.

First of all, Mueller doesn’t have the power to get Trump removed from office. Second, if for whatever reason, Trump gets impeached and convicted, his removal from office would take place under the constitution, at which point Mike Pence would take over as president. To disenfranchise voters is to deny them a right to vote. People do not have a right to their chosen candidate remaining in office his entire term. Levin should know better. The rest of the video is talk-show ranting, partisan ranting.

I would argue that, until recently, Mueller was one of the most powerful people in the country. His star has been falling for at least six months as people lose interest in his probe.

Certainly nobody sees him as a hero for indicting Manafort for tax evasion in 2006 or his indictments of Russians who will never see the inside of a US courtroom. He is being seen more and more as an angry old man, determined to find something, anything to pin on Trump. He is far more concerned with interfering with Trump’s agenda than in seeking justice.

Although Mueller doesn’t have the power to remove Trump from office, he does have the power to continue drawing this investigation out. Robert Mueller’s role as special counsel places him in a unique position to hold Trump’s legal status hostage and he plans to keep it that way until after the midterm elections. Although Trump has accomplished a great deal so far, until this investigation is over, it is keeping an artificial restraint on his presidency.

The FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation began over politics, then morphed into a special counsel investigation over politics and it continues over politics.

Here is what we know so far about this case:

  1. We know that the FBI unjustly exonerated Hillary Clinton following a sham investigation into her use of a private server while serving as Secretary of State.
  2. We know that the “insurance policy” FBI official Peter Strzok referred to involved an attempt to delegitimize Trump’s candidacy, and then his presidency, by framing him for Russian collusion.
  3. We know that the FBI applied for surveillance warrants on Carter Page in order to spy on the Trump campaign and hopefully, find something damaging to use against him.
  4. The recently released FISA applications, although heavily redacted, showed how completely the FBI relied on the dossier. The FBI did not reveal the source of the document. And they used Michael Isikoff’s article to corroborate Steele’s dossier knowing that Steele was Isikoff’s source.
  5. Although it has not been confirmed, eyewitnesses reported that during her closed-door testimony last week, Lisa Page said there was no criminal reason for opening a counterintelligence investigation in the summer of 2016. The motive was political.