In Defense of Mueller

The “Conservative” media persists in its attacks on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, implying he’s unethical, and calling him a liar.

Last year Libertarian lawyer Alan Derschowitz went on Fox News to complain a special counsel never should have been appointed because “There was no probable cause.”

This talking point sticks with some of President Trump’s supporters.

Among them, Libertarian vlogger Jan Helfeld.

YouTube Vlogger Jan Helffeld employs ad hominem attacks on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III. Screenshot taken by Sean O’Connor

But talking points like that clearly aren’t working– you won’t find much now when you google “there was no probable cause” on conservative sites.

And on legal sites you’ll find clarifications that indeed there is no legal standard of probable cause for appointing a Special Council. The Congressional Research Service, the Lawfare blog, and Code of Federal Regulations will all confirm as much.  


So now they’re trying different avenues of harassing Mueller.

For example, Fox News pundit Steve Hilton of the Next Revolution who bemoans Mueller as the symbol of the Washington “establishment” in opposition to Trump’s “peasant” revolt– Hilton’s words” says:

What Mueller did at that Press conference wasn’t justice.  It wasn’t the rule of law. It was a smear. A false statement. Designed to cause material harm to President Trump delivered with malice. You know what that is? The legal standard for defamation. President trump should Robert Mueller for libel.

What was the “false statement designed to cause material harm to preisdnet Trump delivered with malice”—?

Mueller’s claim that it was the regulation about not indicting a sitting president that stopped him recommending charges”

What is false exactly about this?

First of all, as was clarified in a comment I made yesterday, referencing a helpful NBC article [see 2:01 to 2:28 of video for further discussion]

the OLC opinion prevented the team from even considering whether the president obstructed justice.

To break this down more simply, it’s not that Mueller decided Trump was guilty of a crime but merely chose not to indict because the OLC said he couldn’t. Instead, Mueller didn’t determine one way or the other whether the president may have committed a crime. On this, he wanted to defer to congress.

As to the complaint that by refusing to exonerate Trump that he is essentially slandering the president — what would we have the special counsel do, if he found evidence of a crime, believed he was barred from calling it a crime, and wanted to have that thing we like to call a conscience, or wanted to see the rule of law upheld, and report illegal activity however he could.

By the way, Hilton never explains or proves his allegation that Mueller lied.

Because there is no proof.

So instead of substantiating his claim he just says that the president should sue Mueller and that Mueller should be investigated for corrupt business dealings with Former FBI Director James Comey. I hope his viewers don’t take him, or those who share his lack of objectivity seriously.

Author: Sean O'Connor

Hey! I'm Sean O'Connor a political activist, philosopher, and vlogger from central New Jersey. I'm 33 and recently graduated from William Paterson University with a BA in Liberal Studies. Currently I work as a writing tutor at Mercer County Community College though I working towards a transition that will allow me split my time between work on my blog and political activism/non-profit organization activities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s