There’s an old saying that states, “Be careful what you wish for.” Meaning, unless you’re extremely savvy and wise, what you’re hoping for might have unforeseen and unintended consequences.
According to experts, this might be the case for Democrats who are taking a risk by forcing former special counsel Robert Mueller to testify under oath before them.
In fact, the testimony may actually backfire in favor of House Republicans who are anxious to grill the former FBI Director on a number of issues.
Several legal and political experts have told Fox News that Mueller cannot veer from his original conclusions (without perjuring himself), that he ultimately found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and his pledge to not deviate from the 448-page report made public in April. Thus there is no legal justification for Mueller to testify, only to throw more political discourse into the proceedings with innuendo and suppositions.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham appearing Monday night on Fox’s “Hannity” said, “The bottom line is, after all of your looking and all the time you had and all the money you spent, did Trump collude with the Russians? No – Do you stand by your report? – Yes,”
Adding, “It is ‘case-closed’ for me. They can do anything they want to in the House, and I think it will blow up in their face.”
Moreover, the danger for frenzied House Democrats isn’t what is known, but rather what has yet to be revealed by Mueller, in that House Republicans have a lengthy list of questions that have yet to be asked of Mueller.
Perhaps the most significant is Mueller’s obvious conflict-of-interest, in that Mueller’s lifelong friend James Comey is one of the central figures regarding the Russian collusion hoax, why he didn’t recuse himself from accepting the role as special counsel will no doubt be a question Republican lawmakers are eager to know.
Moreover, the fact that Mueller spent neatly 2-years investigating the Trump campaign, costing taxpayers around $35-40 million dollars, with over 2,000 subpoenas issued, nearly 500 search warrants and more than 500 witnesses, Mueller “astoundingly” declined to conclude as to whether Trump obstructed justice or not. Leaving that decision to Attorney General William Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who both concluded that the President did not obstruct justice.
The political downside for Democrats is attempting to convince the public that there’s still something nefarious hidden within the report, while Republicans will be questioning Mueller on as yet unanswered questions that may, in fact, reveal new information, such as what was the basis for federal surveillance warrants used to spy on Trump associates, what initially prompted the FBI probe that preceded Mueller’s investigation and, perhaps the biggest question of all: At what point during his nearly-two year probe did Mueller determine Trump did not collude with the Russians?
Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz appearing Tuesday night on Fox’s Laura Ingraham show explained that the FBI’s request to spy on members of the Trump campaign under a FISA warrant would most likely be addressed by Mueller
“He (Mueller) can’t refuse to answer questions about the FISA application. Those are the kind of questions that I think Republicans will be very well prepared to ask,” Dershowitz added. “Those are the kind of questions which are currently under investigation by the inspector general whose report we are waiting for. But those are not in any way precluded. So I think that they will regret having called him.”
While Democrats continue the “witch-hunt” and “show-trials,” the entire matter of the Russian Collusion hoax is quietly being investigated on two fronts, the first by the Inspector General Michael Horowitz tasked with finding out “how” and “why” the FISA warrants were obtained, and by whom, and secondly by special federal prosecutor John Durham, appointed by the Attorney General and tasked with how this attempt to overthrow a duly elected President, got started in the first place.
Do you think Mueller has incriminating evidence on Democrats he has yet to share, and more importantly will he?