"Cover-up General" Up To Old Tricks

Deja Vu all over again.

In 1992, New York Times writer William Safire didn't refer to then Attorney General Bill Barr as "Cover-up General" for nothing.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/10/opinion/essay-iraqgate-whitewash.html https://t.co/r3Rvd6vaqN

Despite Attorney General Barr's rosy, pro-Donald Trump spin on Mueller's findings this morning, the redacted Mueller report released today makes it clear:

The President isn't off the hook. Not by a long shot.

And no amount of predictable disingenuous declarations from any of Trump's loyalists -- whether it's from the coverup AG Barr, Fox News' syphocant Sean Hannity, President's counsel Kellyanne Conway or Trump's studious lawyer Jay Sekulow -- can change that.

President Trump hasn't been cleared of anything other than being honorable.

And as rare as it is these days, amidst a mounting Republican Party black-ops attempt to muzzle it, that's the God's honest truth.

As we already knew, Mueller reports, in part: "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."  
  
But now we know why, after laying out a slew of instances where Trump attempted to obstruct justice or collude, Mueller stopped short of indicting the President.

By his own admission, as stated in the report, Mueller felt constrained by the rule protecting a "sitting president" from indictment.

It's all surreal. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have been scratching eachother's back right before our eyes for years.

Remember the Helsinki love fest last summer?

The President took Putin at his word, over U.S. intelligence, that Russia didn't interfere with our 2016 presidential elections.

And what does Trump have to say now that Mueller has unequivocally confirmed Russia's full court press to swing the election for the President?

Nothing, of course. Nothing outside of childishly disparaging the Mueller probe as a political attack "hoax" while claiming vindication. 

So, after Trump gains the presidency by suspicious means, he then tries to obscure the underlying particulars of his Russia connections.

And due to this suspect justice department rule, advocated by Barr, that protects a sitting president, it appears at first glance that Trump gets away with it.

Where's the logic? Where's the justice?  

But we've only glossed through the first chapter of this tale of White House deception and corruption.

It seems Mueller couldn't have played his hand any other way. The bar was high. He knew that Barr was on the record as opposing the indictment of sitting presidents.

And, as Mueller outlined in his report, he couldn't ethically accuse the President when it was clear he wouldn't get his day in court.

If Mueller had recommended charges, it would have kicked off a firestorm of protest from the attorney general, the President and accomplice Conservatives crying foul -- resurrecting claims of "witch hunt."

The fight to bring Trump to justice, perhaps, would have been stopped dead in its tracks. 

So, instead, Mueller punted to Congress. He submitted a thorough, but inconclusive report on Trump's shady behavior as President, knowing Congress will rightfully dig into it and find fodder for impeachment.

"We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a president’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” wrote Mueller in his 448-page report released by the Justice Department Thursday.  

Bob Mueller knows what he's doing.