The Day the Muelling Died?

In November 2016 the US held a Presidential Election as it does every four years.

This saw Hillary Clinton representing the Democrat Party face off against Donald Trump representing the Republican Party.

As with other members of his Democrat Party the then incumbent President Barack Obama was desperate for Hillary Clinton to replace him. This would allow his policies including the US support for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to be continued.

At the time ISIL were being cruelly oppressed by Russia - something that continues to this day. Therefore the Democrats thought all they needed to do was link Trump to Russia and Americans shared support for ISIL would propel Hillary Clinton to victory.

To this end the Democrats paid some US$9million to a British company called Fusion GPS. Their task was to invent stories linking Trump to Russia.

Obviously this strategy failed, Hillary Clinton was defeated and Donald Trump became President of the US.

Displaying an alarming attitude towards the democratic process the Democrats simply refused to accept the will of the people. Instead they set about trying to disrupt and ultimately overthrow the US government. This included endlessly repeating their invented stories linking Trump to Russia.

In May 2017 a Special Counsel investigation was opened into the Democrats claims. It is headed by Robert Mueller who given the Democrats mewling seems an appropriate choice.

A Special Counsel investigation is really the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the US legal system.

It gets to act almost as Judge, Jury and Executioner without the levels of oversight that restrict more normal criminal investigations. For example unlike the police a Special Counsel investigation can issue subpoenas compelling witness testimony and access to private documents without the permission of a Judge.

In late June/early July 2017 Mueller's Special Counsel investigation secret impanelled a Grand Jury. This was only made public in early August 2017.

A Grand Jury is really only one of few checks on the vast powers of a Special Counsel investigation. Before a Special Counsel like Mueller can move from investigation to prosecution they must first convince a Jury made up of the general public that there is sufficient evidence to warrant an accusation being made.

For four months Mueller has been trying to convince this particular Grand Jury that there is evidence to warrant the Democrats accusations of links between President Trump and Russia. On Friday (27/10/17) Mueller won his first argument and accusations were formally levelled against two individuals.

Today (30/10/17) the identity of the two indicted individuals and the accusations levelled against them have been made public. They are Paul Manafort who served as President Trump's campaign manager and his business partner Richard Gates.

The accusation against the pair is that they attempted to evade paying US taxes on money they earned doing work for the Ukrainian government back in 2012.

This accusation actually encompasses 12 separate charges including tax evasion, money laundering and conspiracy to commit those offences. It also includes a charge of failing to register as a foreign agent of Ukraine - something that would have informed the US government the pair were being paid by Ukraine and therefore eligible to be taxed.

In short the accusations have absolutely nothing to do with either President Trump or Russia. They actually date back to a period when Mitt Romney representing the Republican Party was challenging Barack Obama for the Presidency.

The Special Counsel investigation's apparent failure to find anything to warrant the Democrat's accusations linking President Trump to Russia does raise serious questions over whether it can continue.

Obviously what Manafort and Gates have been accused of are crimes. Therefore if they have committed them they should expect to be prosecuted.

However the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. This has its ideological roots in the British Magna Carta or 1215. It's purpose is to prevent corrupt politicians persecuting opponents on the off chance they may have committed some crime in the past or may commit some crime in the future.

The search and seizure that Manafort and Gates have been subjected to has been deemed reasonable by the Office of the Special Prosecutor. That office takes its authority for the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act.

As the name suggests the Office of the Special Prosecutor is concerned with enforcing standards within the US civil service. Particularly concerning the 1939 Hatch Act which prevents public employees playing a political role, the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act and the 1994 Uniformed Services Employment Act which cover protections for employees.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor only really covers public officials rather than private citizens such as Manafort and Gates.

The searches and seizures that Manafort and Gates have been subjected have been authorised with the purpose of investigating the Democrats accusations linking President Trump with Russia are valid.

The accusations levelled against Manafort and Gates relate to their 2012 working relationship with Ukraine. Something which has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of Mueller's Special Counsel investigation.

Therefore constitutionally it is quite hard to argue that this very heavy weapon can continue to be used to harass private citizens simply because their political affiliations differ from the Democrat Party.

15:55 on 30/10/17 (UK date).

Edited at around 16:30 on 30/10/17 (UK date) to add;

While I was writing the above its emerged that separately from the Manafort and Gates indictments Trump campaign worker George Papadopoulous has plead guilty to a charge of lying to investigation. This really highlights how without proper oversight these investigations can become self-sustaining and therefore never ending.

It seems that Mueller has tried to convince the Grand Jury that Papadoupoulous had colluded with Russia. However the Grand Jury has found that there is nothing to warrant that accusation.

So to save face Mueller has instead accused Papadopoulous of lying to the investigation. An offence that only exists because Mueller is conducting an investigation that a Grand Jury has found to be unwarranted.