The Kangaroo Has Left The Building

Mueller testified before Congress this week. I don’t know if he lied. I do know that he made statements that defy common sense and go against everything I know about criminal investigations. Here is an excerpt as reported in Power Line Blog.

Mr. Mueller’s testimony this week put to rest any doubt that this sheltering was deliberate. In his opening statement he declared that he would not “address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called Steele Dossier.” The purpose of those omissions was obvious, as those two areas go to the heart of why the nation has been forced to endure years of collusion fantasy.

Mr. Mueller claimed he couldn’t answer questions about the dossier because it “predated” his tenure and is the subject of a Justice Department investigation. These excuses are disingenuous. Nearly everything Mr. Mueller investigated predated his tenure, and there’s no reason the Justice Department probe bars Mr. Mueller from providing a straightforward, factual account of his team’s handling of the dossier.

They Say One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Here goes:

I’m not done, you get the words also. Unlike Robert Mueller, I am not a retired U.S. Attorney. I never directed the FBI, (had too much pride). I never suppressed evidence to cover up government misconduct, so four men could languish in prison. I never promoted and protected FBI cronies so that they could attempt a government coup.

I did, in a previous life, conduct criminal investigations. A lot of crooks went to jail because of my efforts. I interviewed countless liars during the course of my carrier. Not all of them were police chiefs, district attorneys or respected citizens.

How to explain the beginnings of an investigation? It is like walking into a movie that has already begun. You don’t know what transpired before and you have no idea how things are going to end up. What you do know is what you can see, at that moment.

I have always described an investigation as the process of opening some doors and locking others. The idea of locking doors isn’t to avoid inconvenient truths. One locks the door for two reasons. One is so that the investigation is kept on track. The second reason is to eliminate that door as an escape path for the guilty.

At the same time, the investigator opens doors as they become available. Some will lead to dead ends, some will advance the investigation and some can reveal avenues unconsidered, yet require exploration. The correct path isn’t always readily apparent.

To hear Mueller tell it, his investigation was on rails that only allowed for one way travel. There is an old lawyer adage regarding cross examination. It says, “never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer.” That may work in court, but it doesn’t hold during an investigation.

Anybody can make an allegation that on its face appears credible. When an investigator looks at the truthfulness of the allegation, a number of factors come into play. What is the reputation of the witness? Is the person worthy of belief? Are there factors that would effect the credibility of the person? Was the witness in a position to observe or participate, in order to witness the event. Does the witness have anything to gain or lose by making the allegation?

I used to deal with informants all the time. None of them were salt of the earth, heart of gold, snitches like “Huggy Bear” on Starsky & Hutch. Some were mercenaries, building confidences, and subsequently betraying them for cash. Some were vindictive. Many informants were trying to mitigate their own criminal charges. I used them all, but not always and not without verifying what they told me, as far as I could. The reality in the dope world is: “Mother Theresa can’t buy dope!” There are no saints and plenty of sinners.

Read the Title III affidavits presented to the FISA court. Look for the boilerplate phrase: “Your affiant is fully versed in the investigation and has verified all of the information herein.” Now listen to Mueller: “he didn’t investigate the Steele dossier because it was “not in my purview.”

In my experience, most search warrants are unchallenged when it comes time for court. But any prosecutor has to anticipate a challenge. The publicity surrounding the FISA warrants and the flimsy premise upon which they were based would cause any prosecutor to review it. To have the search warrant suppressed is to lose not only the evidence gained by the warrant but evidence subsequently uncovered.

To Mueller’s defenders, if he was old and tired when he testified, then he probably wasn’t at the top of his game during the investigation. Prior service is all well and good. Mueller may have been hot shit in another age.

I am not comparing them. However, I would make the observation that Adolph Hitler was awarded two Iron Crosses during WWI. As a young man he was brave and resourceful. We all know how that turned out.