"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
If Special Counsel Robert Mueller
believed he had actionable grounds to suspect Pres. Trump of some crime that
Mueller was authorized to investigate, he should have raided Trump's home and
the offices of Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen. When Mueller
seized Cohen's records, he was seizing privileged information between a lawyer
and not only his one client, Donald Trump, but also such privileged information
from Cohen and all his clients. Mueller was not only doing
potentially serious damage to Cohen's profession, but also violating a bedrock
principle – client-attorney confidentiality – on which our legal system
stands. When Pres. Trump said that this is an attack on everything
we stand for, he was not kidding.
have argued that Robert Mueller should be fired for this. It's
possible, however, if not likely, that such a dismissal is exactly what Mueller
is seeking, for it would eliminate the need to produce any incriminating
evidence against Trump. It would instead – to a ready, eager and
potentially violent audience – lend itself to the perception that there
actually was such evidence, and that the supposed evidence, and not the
raids against Trump's associates, was the real reason for this
dismissal. Indeed, if Mueller actually has no such evidence, then –
if he is unprincipled – it is a likely course of action to take.
If that is not the reason, then why
was Cohen, who was cooperating
with Mueller's investigation, raided? Former Trump campaign
manager Paul Manafort was
also cooperating and was also raided. Mueller's investigators
say it was because they had "high
confidence" that neither man could be trusted not to move evidence
outside their jurisdiction. But isn't that true for any guilty party
under investigation? (And isn't a belief in the party's guilt the
reason for an investigation to begin with?) The only distinguishing
feature here is that the investigators weren't sure exactly what they thought
Cohen was guilty of. Hush money to Stormy
Daniels – which is legal? This justifies an FBI
raid? Are you kidding?
Alan Dershowitz suggests that, seeing
no benefit from cooperation, others under investigation will stop
cooperating. But that would be a deterrent to Mueller only if he
thought there was some evidence to be gained from it. If not, if his
real purpose was simply to punish association with Trump and so force his own
firing, then Mueller will welcome any resistance, as it will make his punitive
measures easier to (falsely) justify.
In such a case, what choice does
Trump have? How many professional interests of close associates to
him is he willing to sacrifice? And how many will be willing to
associate with him? At some point, it seems entirely within
Mueller's power to force Trump to fire him.
Mueller is indeed a Crooked Cop
To guard against this possibility, a
bipartisan group of four U.S. senators are currently advocating that any firing
put under judicial review. This would be potentially advantageous
to Democrats, as it might prevent such a firing. On the other hand,
if Trump did fire Mueller, it would, in theory, be advantageous to Republicans
in that it would prevent charges that Trump himself was trying to suppress
evidence. In theory. In reality, Democrats and media
allies would charge the judge(s) with being partisan. Beyond that,
it would – as if firing or not firing Mueller were simply a legal issue – take
authority away from a duly elected president and hand it to the
judiciary. Fortunately, it reportedly appears unlikely to be
There is nothing to stop Pres. Trump
from taking the initiative to place himself under a similar kind of process,
except that he, and not a judge, would ultimately retain the authority to
dismiss Mueller or not. Prior to any such decision, he could prepare
a public document giving the reasons for such a dismissal and present it to
Mueller for public comment or rebuttal.
In particular (and with regard to an
issue that probably could not be legitimately raised under a strictly judicial
review), Trump might allege that, based on the (allegedly) unjustified raids
conducted against Trump associates, Mueller appears to be attempting to provoke
a dismissal. And Trump could support that allegation with the
argument that, absent any evidence produced by the "investigation,"
Mueller's dismissal would, for Trump's enemies, be the most desirable way to
end the "investigation" into the possible "collusion"
between Trump and the Russians. On that basis, Trump may order
Mueller, if he has any significant evidence against Trump that would justify
his retention, to produce it at that time or be dismissed.
Mueller is in over his head against Trump...and he KNOWS it.
Such an ultimatum as that would
presume that the raids had no legitimate justification. Mueller
could argue that they did; if so, Trump could rebut, always giving Mueller the
opportunity to respond.
Following this public, documented
process, then Pres. Trump can make his decision. Whatever it
may be, he will have a public, documented basis for it. If he fires
Mueller, then Americans will be able to view the best arguments Mueller could
make against such firing. With such a document, it would be more
difficult for anyone to unfairly characterize the decision, one way or the
other. And it's the kind of disciplined decision-making process that
should be undergone in any case.