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