Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed reporters and the American people for the first time today. He declared that his investigation was over, that his office was closing and that he was resigning from the Justice Department.
Like the investigation and Mueller report itself, today's statement by the special counsel is unlikely to change any minds. Those who want to impeach the president still want to impeach him. Nancy Pelosi is still in a difficult position. Those who want to move on still want to move on.
As President Trump put it following Mueller's statement, "Nothing changes. . . The case is closed!"
One thing we can all agree on is that this is likely the last time we will hear from Robert Mueller. He made it clear that he does not want to testify before Congress. Mueller said:
"The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public. . . I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further. . ."
Mueller added that no one had pressured him not to testify, and he thanked Attorney General Barr for making his report "largely public."
Those comments blow up virtually everything the left and its media allies have been saying for the past 60 days since he turned in his report to Attorney General William Barr. Contrary to the left's charges, the attorney general is not engaged in a cover-up. That is another left-wing hoax, just like the collusion delusion.
Transparency vs. Secrecy
Here's a basic question that every liberal and every reporter (redundant, I know) should have to answer: When did they stop demanding complete transparency about the Trump/Russia hoax?
Before the election, leftists in the deep state were doing all kinds of things to get information on the Trump campaign. After the election, the Washington Post adopted the motto, "Democracy dies in darkness."
Democrats in Congress are demanding access to Trump's personal records from well before he entered the presidential contest. And they insist that everything related to the Mueller report be released immediately.
But now that the attorney general is demanding to find out how all of this started, suddenly all we are hearing from the left are lectures about the need to keep some things secret.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler dismissed the Barr/Durham investigation as a "plot to dirty-up the intelligence community." John Brennan denounced Trump's declassification order as a "reckless, reckless initiative."
Former British spy Christopher Steele, who was once so eager to get his dossier published, is now refusing to cooperate with government investigators. That tells you everything you need to know.
Fired FBI Director James Comey has a column in the Washington Post defending the deep state. He claims he was just following up on reports of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.
But not once does Comey say that he was wrong. And not once does Comey apologize for investigating a hoax that ultimately served Vladimir Putin's interests by dividing this country for the past two years.
Thomas vs. Ginsburg
Yesterday, the Supreme Court punted on a major abortion case challenging an Indiana law signed by then-Governor Mike Pence. The law required that fetal remains be disposed of in a respectful manner. It also banned abortions performed solely on the basis of the race, sex or disability of the unborn baby.
The court upheld the disposal requirements on a 7-to-2 vote. But it declined to rule on the second half of the law, allowing a lower court ruling against those provisions to stand. It was an odd dichotomy.
For now, Planned Parenthood can be barred from selling fetal tissue but it can also continue to discriminate on the basis of race, sex and disability as long as it does so inside the womb.
Justice Clarence Thomas, however, told his colleagues that they could not dodge such fundamental issues much longer. In a 20-page concurring opinion, Thomas warned that abortion on demand was fulfilling the dreams of the radical eugenics movement. Here are some excerpts of Thomas's powerful opinion:
"The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. . .
"And with today's prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics. . . moreover, abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics. . .
"Eight decades after Sanger's 'Negro Project,' abortion in the United States is also marked by a considerable racial disparity. . . there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area. . .
"Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement. . . Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever."
Justice Thomas's opinion is a stunning statement with historic implications. His analysis is spot on, and I believe one day a majority of the Supreme Court will agree with Thomas that nothing in the Constitution requires a state to tolerate eugenic abortions.
Not surprisingly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took issue with Thomas's reasoning. What was surprising was that she took issue with his definition of the word "mother." In her dissent, Ginsburg shockingly declared, ". . . a woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a 'mother.'"
Many progressives have been educated at our finest institutions. Yet they don't seem to know that "fetus" is Latin for "unborn baby" and that a pregnant woman is a "mother." And the left considers itself the "party of science."
The Hollywood Left
While we're on the subject, just how many abortions does Netflix want?
Many Hollywood elites have spoken out against Georgia's new heartbeat law, but Netflix became the first studio to declare that it will review its entire investment in Georgia if the law is enforced. Netflix also declared that it will work with the ACLU to overturn the law in the courts.
Once again, corporate America is choosing sides in the culture wars, dictating what we can and cannot believe when it comes to bathrooms, marriage, religious liberty and now abortion.
Apparently the voters of Georgia aren't allowed to disagree with the liberals in Hollywood without the left threatening to destroy their economy. Good thing the left is so tolerant. Just imagine what they might do if they weren't!