Archive for the ‘Special Counsel – Mueller’ Category

So, if Mueller didn’t run the investigation, who did?

July 26, 2019

… and, what are the implications?


I think that it was clear to any reasonably objective person that Mueller was testifying under what’s called “diminished capacity.”


For the record my mother fought a 20 year battle against dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, so I’m both sympathetic and — while I have no medical credentials whatsoever — I’m reasonably well-versed in the symptomology and terminology.

Said differently, I’m sympathetic to Mueller and not just trying to take a cheap shot.

In my opinion, his symptoms weren’t a spontaneous response to the stress of testifying, but more likely, reflected an accumulative progression over time. 

If I’m right, that conclusion raises major questions and implications…


“I’m not familiar with FusionGPS” … say, what?

July 25, 2019

Yep, being retired, I watched most of Mueller’s testimony live yesterday.

I agree with David Axlerod’s assessment: painful.

This morning, I flipped between CNN and MSNBC.

Their storyline: Great fodder for the impeachment cannon … poor optics … Republicans were disrespectful to Viet Nam war vet.

But, even they were admitting that Dems – who were reportedly aware of Mueller’s “challenges – share “some” blame for contriving yesterday’s sad spectacle.


Here are my morning after takeaways…


The legal gospels according to St. Robert and St. James … behavior or intent?

June 3, 2019

Mueller & Comey seem to have their own rules of jurisprudence.


A couple of decades ago, Pres. Jimmy Carter — a very religious guy — was interviewed by Playboy.

Say, what?

One of the questions was: “Have you ever been unfaithful to your wife?”

Paraphrasing, Carter answered: “No, but I have lusted in my heart (for other women), so I am a sinner.”

In other words, Carter believed that fantastical intent was the moral equivalent of behavior.



Apparently, Mueller & Comey were impressed by by Carter’s thinking.

Let me explain…


Which prevails legally: behavior or intent?

Let’s start with the Comey – Clinton case.

In his July 2016 public statement, Comey made clear that Clinton’s use of a personal server to store and transmit classified government information violated criminal statutes.

But, he said that there was no evidence that she intended to break the law, so no charges would be brought.

Ditto re: the destruction of 30,000 subpoenaed emails … and the Bleach-Bitting of her computer.

Yep, she did it … but there was no evidence that she intended to break the law.

Curious reasoning at best.


Now fast forward to Mueller – Trump.

Mueller reported 10 anecdotes about situations that “might” indicate obstruction of justice.

The headline story was telling the White House attorney to “get rid of” Mueller.

Note: Since Mueller was technically one of Trump’s employees, he (Trump) had the right to fire him (Mueller).

Bottom line: Mueller didn’t get fired.

After the WH attorney slow-rolled the execution, Trump let the idea go.

Since there was no action that obstructed justice, Mueller flipped the logic.

Applying Jimmy Carter’s logic, Mueller argues that presumed intent without action is sufficient cause to deem obstruction.



So, action without provable intent gets a pass.

But, presumed intent without consequential action is criminal.

Does that make any sense at all?


Follow on Twitter @KenHoma

>> Latest Posts


The legal gospels according to St. Robert and St. James … GUPI

May 31, 2019

Mueller & Comey seem to have their own rules of jurisprudence.


Here’s an example that should leave you scratching your head.


GUPI is an acronym that I coined and oft-used in my courses.



For example, I’d assert that – in business turnaround situations – all costs should be considered GUPI – Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

I thought GUPI was a cute(and potentially memorable) play on the legal principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

Never – not for a moment – did I think that GUPI would become foundation to American law as exercised by Special Counsel Mueller … who was explicitly granted prosecutorial; authority.

‘’Prosecution’ – not ‘exoneration’ -’is what prosecutors do.

Otherwise, they’d be called ‘exonerators’ … not prosecutors.

Apparently, Mueller missed that class in law school/

By stating that he didn’t have sufficient evidence to exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, tossed a critical legal principle.

Now, defendants must prove their innocence … otherwise, they should be presumed guilty … subject to public criminal branding … until they prove their innocence beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.


Come to think about it, GUPI is kinda how traffic court works.

Maybe Mueller was just elevating the principle to a higher level.

Think about the implications … some day, you may be on the hot seat.

How might you feel if the judge compels you to prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?

That might be a high bar that you wouldn’t want to face.


Follow on Twitter @KenHoma

>> Latest Posts


Re: Mueller Report … the Washington Post nailed it.

April 22, 2019

I rarely quote from the far left-leaning Washington Post – which has trumpeted the Russia Collusion narrative for about 2 years, day-in-day-out.

But, I think an article appearing on WaPo’s editorial page last week got it right:


Quoting from the opinion piece …


NYT: “A vindication of the rule of law.”

March 23, 2019

“It may be that Mr. Trump has kept repeating his mantra of ‘no collusion’ because it’s true.”

That’s a conclusion the the NYT editorial staff reached.


But that conclusion was apparently tough for the Times to swallow, so the editors pulled a Comey in their editorial.

Remember when Comey said: “Here’s a list of all the laws and policies that Secretary Clinton violated, but no reasonable prosecutor would indict her”?

Well, the Times – apparently still grateful for the memo that Comey leaked to them to get the special counsel rolling – styled their editorial after his Clinton ruling.

After the obligatory reaffirmation of Robert Mueller as “a man whose name is synonymous with integrity and fairness”, the Times reheated all of allegations about collusion and obstruction that Mueller decided didn’t merit indictment.

The Times conceded (I think) that the investigation was ‘by the book’ and fair.

But, unlike the Clinton-Comey affair,  when the glee-dancing Times said that was time to turn the page, this time – since Trump is center stage – they declare:

William Barr, the attorney general, needs to release as much of Mr. Mueller’s work as he possibly can, and soon.

All Americans deserve the chance to review those findings and reach their own conclusions.

Whatever happened to “turn the page”?


Follow on Twitter @KenHoma

>> Latest Posts


Two judges issue rulings against Team Mueller …

May 7, 2018

Here’s the ruling that might be the most problematic.

There was some hoopla last Friday when a Federal judge admonished Mueller’s prosecutors in one of the Manafort cases … and ordered the delivery of some here-to-fore withheld documents.


With regards to the admonition:  Judge T,S.Ellis opined the obvious: that  the case had nothing to do with Russian collusion … and that special counsel’s office wanted merely to pressure Mr. Manafort to provide information about Mr. Trump that might be the basis for prosecution or impeachment proceedings … and that the special counsel was acting in an “unfettered” way, far outside the boundaries of his charge. CNN

Judge Ellis then ordered the Mueller prosecutors to produce the original unredacted DOJ documents that established the special prosecutor’s scope of investigation.

The prosecutors said “no can do” because there’s sensitive (classified) information in the documents.

The judge’s reply:”C/mon guys, I decide that, not you” …  and he insinuated that he would dismiss the case if he didn’t get unredacted copies, pronto.

The implication: If the special counsel refuses to produce the documents … and if the judge follows through on his threat … then, there will be a precedent on the books of a court action based on the ruling that the special counsel is exceeding his legal scope of inquiry and failing to comply with court directives.

That could be a relief for Trump “satellites” who are charged with crimes that seem unrelated to Russian collusion,

But, in my opinion, the Manafort rulings are the least of Mueller’s potential worries …


%d bloggers like this: