Remembering Robert Mueller: A Complex Legacy

Robert Mueller, who recently stepped down as the special counsel for the Russiagate investigation, navigated his career with a sense of integrity, facing challenges much tougher than courtroom battles. That’s something I think many people can agree on.

For the New York Times, he represented a rare breed—a liberal Republican who resisted the dubious politics of Donald Trump while steering clear of the notorious legacy of J. Edgar Hoover. However, this portrait can misrepresent both figures and overlooks a significant truth: Mueller’s decisions during the Russiagate saga, despite potential flaws, contrast sharply with the corruption prevalent in the political landscape around him.

Mueller maintained his composure amidst widespread corruption, although one could sense the toll that age took on him.

The Times’ critique of Hoover seems both misinformed and unfair. While Hoover’s prime had long passed by the 1970s, he had, as early as 1924, transformed a Bureau plagued by corruption into a credible law enforcement agency with global standards. Of his successors, only Mueller truly mirrored that capability without succumbing to Hoover’s later faults.

What the Times didn’t give Mueller enough credit for was his firm commitment to justice, especially in concluding the Russiagate investigation without yielding to partisan demands for prosecution.

In his usual straightforward manner, Trump reacted to Mueller’s death with a certain indifference, failing to recognize him as an honest prosecutor who resisted a politically charged indictment.

This indifference is telling. The more significant narrative surrounding Russiagate is not that Mueller pursued Trump too aggressively. It’s that, in an era of political deceit, Russiagate stands out as one of the ugliest tricks ever played in American politics.

Understanding Russiagate: What It Was and Wasn’t

Ultimately, it was Mueller’s refusal to pursue prosecution that spared the country from the embarrassment of indicting a president based on the misleading narratives pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and certain corrupt figures within the FBI and CIA, like James Comey and John Brennan.

Viewing this through the right lens, the special counsel’s investigation reflects a culmination of a prolonged period of corruption. Had Mueller’s team collaborated with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to indict Trump—an outcome many on his team appeared to desire—the consequences could have been irreversible.

Therefore, Mueller’s resistance to his own partisan associates deserves acknowledgment, not disdain. As we reflect on his legacy, it’s crucial to understand what the Russiagate investigation entailed and what it didn’t.

Mueller was appointed special counsel shortly after Trump dismissed FBI Director Comey in May 2017. Initially, Comey’s Russiagate inquiry was a counterintelligence operation and did not necessitate identifying a crime. Privately, Comey assured Trump he wasn’t the target of the investigation regarding foreign agents. Yet, Comey’s public statements fueled suspicion without clarification. Trump’s interactions with Russia were also influenced by Comey’s and Obama’s positions.

Things took a turn with Rosenstein, who, at Comey’s urging, breached regulations by appointing Mueller without establishing a foundational crime. It wasn’t until later that both Rosenstein and Mueller’s team recognized the need for such a foundation. They eventually focused on the theory that Trump had obstructed justice by firing Comey.

However, this theory fell apart. Comey could be dismissed at the president’s discretion. In essence, even the alleged crimes that justified a special prosecutor’s existence were inadequate legally.

This means Mueller’s investigation stemmed from a flawed premise right from the start, echoing earlier political manipulations against Trump.

Media Responsibility

Did the New York Times or the Washington Post illuminate these facts? It’s doubtful. These publications often touted their integrity while glossing over their own questionable actions.

Looking back, there’s a resurgence of anger. The FISA surveillance of the Trump campaign began in October 2016, driven by misleading assertions stemming from the infamous Steele documents. Andrew McCabe admitted in sworn testimony that this document was central to the FISA request—despite being based on dubious claims, including a fictional offer involving Trump’s associate, Carter Page.

The surveillance wasn’t merely an error in judgment but a calculated political maneuver by McCabe and Comey, who had no justifiable basis for believing Page’s story held water.

Previously, the investigation termed Crossfire Hurricane had also been initiated on dubious premises, relying on a mysterious professor who misled Trump’s aide with fabrications tied to Russia. Yet, this individual had links to the Western intelligence community, indicating that the operation wasn’t genuinely fueled by Russian infiltration but rather by the questionable actions of those aligned with Comey and Brennan.

And at the core of it all lay a significant political deceit: Clinton’s attempt to deflect blame toward Russia to mitigate the fallout from the release of damaging Democratic emails. This essential motive drove the whole absurdity, allowed to persist due to the entangled relationships within the FBI and CIA.

Unmasking the Real Scandal

When viewing the facts in this light, the genuine scandal becomes more apparent. The Steele documents instigated Crossfire Hurricane, leading to misleading FISA surveillance. An honest investigation would have started by scrutinizing the document that led to Mueller’s appointment, exploring whether Clinton, Steele, and others colluded to create this baseless conspiracy that became Russiagate.

Instead, Mueller’s team overlooked this document, offering flimsy justifications. They contended that the falsehoods were too unreliable for scrutiny. How ironic, given that those very fabrications were the centerpiece of the scandal. Investigations into such misconduct should’ve been a priority rather than an afterthought.

Moreover, they masked other significant truths. While they indicated connections between Mifsud and Russia, they failed to reveal his more troubling associations with Western intelligence. The initial basis for the entire investigation was one fraudulent narrative that went largely unexplored.

Finally, there was a gross violation of ethical standards. Prosecutors are typically required to maintain silence about targets unless a case is proven. Mueller’s team ignored this principle, outlining in his report and subsequent publications what Trump potentially might have done without adequately addressing him or the truth.

In summary, Mueller’s team obscured the fraudulent foundations of the investigation, compounding the injustice with their misleading explanations.

Despite the swirling corruption around him, Mueller held firm, albeit clearly affected by age. He didn’t halt the legislative smear campaign against Trump. Rather, he stood as a bulwark against the most egregious misuse of prosecutorial power in recent American history.

In remembering Robert Mueller, it’s essential to view him not as merely an anti-Trump figure or an anti-conservative villain as characterized by some. Instead, he should be acknowledged as a principled individual who maintained his integrity amidst a sea of corruption.