Robert Mueller’s Team Is Redefining “Intent” to Take Down Trump


If you will recall, Jim Comey, then-FBI Director, outlined all the reasons Hillary Clinton was guilty of violating Section 18 USC and then found her innocent because she didn’t have intent. He had no business exonerating her, that was the job of the Attorney General. That was the reason he was fired.

Mueller is not buying it. He just hired an attorney who is trying to water down the meaning of intent, but not for Hillary, for Trump.

Mueller has employed a team of lawyers that the left says is out to take Trump down – just look at the Vox article on that issue, Meet the all-star legal team who may take down Trump.

They’re going after Trump for intent, the very thing that exonerated Hillary

One of the team members, Michael Dreeban, has already argued for a ridiculously broad interpretation of obstruction of justice. Esteemed liberal Professor of law Jonathan Turley writes:

Dreeben’s background also contains an interesting item that bears directly on the potential case against President Donald Trump.  Dreeben argued in an unsuccessful appeal of the prosecution of Arthur Anderson where the Justice Department advanced a sweeping interpretation of obstruction of justice — an interpretation that I criticized as wildly overbroad.

The interpretation resulted in a unanimous rejection of the Supreme Court.  Given the call for a charge of obstruction against Trump (and the view of some of us that there remains considerable statutory barriers to such a charge), Dreeben’s addition should be a concern to the Trump defense team.

After Dreeben and his team relentlessly and unconstitutionally pursued Arthur Anderson, one of the biggest accounting firms in the nation at the time, his case was overturned by the Supreme Court, but by then the company was ruined.

The firm was falsely convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B) for the crime of “knowingly … corruptly persuad[e] another person … with intent to … cause” that person to “withhold” documents from, or “alter” documents for use in, an “official proceeding.”

The court erroneously instructed the jury that they could convict  “even if petitioner honestly and sincerely believed its conduct was lawful.”  The unanimous court, in a decision by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, disagreed and reversed the conviction.

This is typical of leftist justice. They don’t go by the rule of law, they go by how they feel. That is the case for obstruction of justice that Jim Comey presented during his tainted testimony – Trump had intent. The man who could find no wrong in Hillary or Lynch, wants to make a case against Trump out of whole cloth.

Robert Mueller is Comey’s close friend of fifteen years. Comey refers to as his “brother in arms”. Robert Mueller allowed him Comey to present this case for intent in obstruction of justice. Was it part of a set up?

What the left won’t do to Hillary, who is blatantly guilty but who allegedly lacked intent, they will do to Trump by watering down the meaning of intent. Turley writes:

Given the current weak foundation for an actual charge of obstruction, the addition of Dreeben is all the more notable as someone who argued for a broader application of the crime — particularly in the reduction of intent standard.  Dreeben’s selection is a lot like seeing an opposing kingdom hiring designers of seige or breaching towers in the Middle Ages. It is hard not to assume that they are meant to overcome your walls of defense.  Indeed, from the perspective of defense counsel, bringing in Dreeben at this point is like sitting outside of the Trump castle building a breaching tower and insisting that there is nothing to see here . . . it is just for the view.

This is an endless and illegal fishing expedition.

An MSNBC analyst is actually saying tweeting could be obstruction. The rules for justice are one way for the left and another for the right.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob Berrett
Rob Berrett
6 years ago

It is apparent that Robert Mueller is not the “Deacon of Justice” that he has been made out to be.
The adoring way that Mueller looks at Comey in and of itself says it all, it is preposterous and laughable
IF Rod Rosenstein is in fact as pure and objective as we are led to believe then whatever Mueller comes up with its scurrilous charges will not go forward as a prosecution of the President or be used for political purposes as “impeachment”.
James Comey committed two separate crimes of Felony Perjury while testifying under oath.
James Comey’s future testimony will be discredited and his testimony will be impeached because someone will convene a Grand Jury to indict him for Felony Perjury prior to his testimony against
President Trump.
As well, his testimony will be judged as compromised by any fact finder due to BIAS.
Despite the great urgency to bring down President Trump by ANY MEANS ILLEGITIMATE or otherwise, this WITCHHUNT by Comey and Friends will not succeed.
The mere fact that Mueller has surrounded himself with lawyers of only one point of view, lawyers who are straining at the leash to get Pres. Trump says it all.
Neither the FACTS nor the LAW support this WITCHHUNT and I and thousands of other lawyers see it, know it, and I hope that the parties who are leading this hunt will be themselves held culpable for their criminal acts.

6 years ago
Reply to  Rob Berrett

Recall a year ago we kept hearing about what a straight shooter Comey was, that he had an exemplary record. The Judge was big on that. He was totally wrong. He was lying. He knew Comey’s history. So of course we hear of Mueller’s & Rosenstein’s purity also. It is all part of the setup, to keep public reaction minimized until it is too late and the deep state ensures the coup. .

6 years ago

Here’s another one of my cynical observations.

Granted SCOTUS may have ruled on intent but That concerns matters that are incomparable to This situation. This is Not civil Or criminal in its nature but rather political in nature.

As a result the inevitable purpose would be to “Convince” the politicians in Congress, Democrats AND Republicans, to “consider” the possibility of bringing to conclusion the Articles of Impeachment.

Do Not be so naive as to assume Trump would have cover among Republicans. Far from it. Consider Sen Grassley who fervently stated Comey should reveal there was no investigation into Trump. Grassley has shown his Real intentions by creating a NEW investigation into Trump HIMSELF for the firing of Comey. Do we not See the duplicitous nature of Grassley.

I will venture to postulate that the Republicans will, in mass, actually support this proposition. It has been evident over the years their desire to garner favorable press. By taking this step I suspect they would consider this action would endear themselves To the press.

What is overlooked By them is the unintended consequences of such an action. The primary consequence could Very well be to embolden the most violent of the opposition to become even more violent. If they can be spurred on by merely Trump winning an election how much more so when their tactics succeed.

On the other side, the supporters of Trump could very well be so incensed by the action they would withdraw any support for future Republican campaigns. But is this really a concern for those Republicans. As the last campaign revealed there seems to be little concern for the voice of the public.

So long as all this continues with investigation after investigation the chances of an all out civil war is becoming more and more certain, especially since the impetus that started it all, is Russia. That has been relegated to the dust bin. Now hearing after hearing has departed from that stated purpose.

What is overlooked by many is the resulting opinion of Government in all its forms and agencies. The public will conclude the Justice Department and its FBI will be viewed as just another “political entity”. When public faith is lost on Public Institutions it will be the beginning of a country’s demise. What is lost in the uproar is the stated concerns that Russia would surreptitiously disrupt the American system. We now KNOW for certain it is our OWN Government who has taken the place of Russia in that goal and purpose.

6 years ago
Reply to  Greg

It is or would be traitorous. Ryan would be willing to introduce articles of impeachment. Republican statements, hearings, …. and most importantly what they do not say indicates a willingness to topple Trump. Of course many of us would abandon the party. I already have, I vote for no one that does not explicitly endorse Trump’s major policies. It’s a coup attempt.