In case it wasn’t enough that Independent Counsel Robert Mueller, the guy who’s original charge was to investigate an obstruction of justice we now know President Trump was assured, three times, he was not being investigated for….
and in case it wasn’t enough that Mueller has stacked the deck with staff members who contribute to the Democrat Party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular…
…we now have this, as excerpted from Betsy Woodruff’s article for the Daily Beast. Please pay special attention to the part I’ve put in bold print:
Robert Mueller may be the face of the independent investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. election, but a cybersecurity wonk on the federal bench may help decide Trump & Co.’s fate.
Behind the scenes, Beryl Howell is in a position to make pivotal decisions. And her importance could only grow. Federal court rules indicate that she signed off on Mueller’s request to assemble a grand jury, a highly secretive gathering of about two dozen people in Washington’s E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse that will grill witnesses and demand Trump associates’
And if (well, when) Team Trump’s lawyers hit back, Howell will be the umpire-in-chief: deciding whether or not Trump allies’ lawyers can quash subpoenas, and whether or not people like Jared Kushner can invoke what’s known as executive privilege to get out of testifying under oath before Mueller’s grand jury.
These decisions could be immensely consequential.
“Even though she worked for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she’s been very straight-arrow as a judge and she wouldn’t be impaneling a jury for the heck of it, or anything less than there being ample justification for it,” said a former federal lobbyist, referring to Howell’s previous work for Sen. Patrick Leahy. “She’s like Mueller: He wouldn’t ask for it unless he had more than enough evidence to justify it, and she wouldn’t have granted it unless he did.”
Beryl Howell is a Democrat who worked on the staff of Patrick Leahy (D-VT), one of the most doctrinaire leftist, Trump-hating members of the US senate, for 10 years.
But we’re supposed to believe she is entirely neutral. Why? Because “a former federal lobbyist” – unnamed, of course – says so.
Does that resolve the issue to you? Or do you join me in seeing this as another overt, in-your-face, stacking of the deck against President Trump?
One other question: would this farce ever in a million years have been acceptable to our mainstream media if it were an IC investigating Barack Obama, and the deck-stacking was from Republican campaign contributors to Mitt Romney?
If you’re waiting for howls of outrage from these same media over the exact same situation against Donald Trump, you have a vivid imagination.
