Congress should replay Georgia’s old sweet song before questioning Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s credentials instead of his politics at his upcoming hearing. Down many roads these hearings will lead, yet they all lead back to whether Mueller was even qualified to lead the investigation in the first place. Luckily, my fellow Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School alumnus and U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga.– uniquely positioned to question Mueller– may well see the moonlight through the pines.
Collins takes a prominent role in the national dialogue concerning Mueller’s investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. Conservative pundits have failed to attack or acknowledge one of many weaknesses in Mueller’s investigation: his credentials. When an authority figure appears before a congressional panel their credibility is critical, which makes testing and sometimes challenging their past record as a regular part of the American adversarial process.
Collins has a tremendous opportunity to drive a national conversation about America’s Gang Crisis while spotlighting his legal acumen in examining one of Mueller’s significant disqualifying features: Mueller’s failure to adequately prosecute gang crime while FBI director.
While most, if not all, would certainly agree Mueller’s FBI (and military) service was honorable, no one seems to have demarcated whether Mueller’s leadership at FBI was effective in the areas of gang crime, among others.
Furthermore, Collins should be well acquainted with challenging qualifications of an expert. It is, in essence, a feature of any trial from a death penalty to slip-and-fall: “Trial Lawyer 101.” Fortunately, Collins need go no further than his home state for the sources necessary to draw down on this most pertinent concern.
Questioning Leadership Qualifications
According to University of Georgia Law Professor Emeritus Ronald L. Carlson — a nationally-celebrated legal expert on evidence law and trial practice– the credibility factor is critical. Carlson explains someone is “qualified if because of … skill, training, and experience,” they are better than the average person at forming an opinion about any technical matter under consideration. See Trial Handbook for Ga. Lawyers § 24:18.
Thus, a diligent cross examiner would then inquire into Mueller’s record related to success rates at investigating and prosecuting various crimes of national concern. Mueller’s law enforcement bona fides towards leading gang investigations are almost non-existent to a point where the FBI halted reporting on it despite increasing statistics of gang crime. No big deal?
Collins should also utilize Georgia sources to demonstrate it. In fact, a host of prominent Georgia-based figures have pinpointed the scale of American gang violence. This includes but is not limited to Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Vic Reynolds, his Chief of Staff John Melvin, Georgia Gang Investigators Association President Jimmy Callaway and conservative opinion-maker Phil Kent. Another is professor Carlson’s son, Mike Carlson, current GBI chief legal counsel. The younger Carlson has, for years, utilized compelling source material to prove that gang crime is at crisis levels and that America needs a federal anti-gang prosecution law.
The Moonlight through the Pines
Reviewing Calloways’s recent column discussing gang statistics and their extrapolations from the data demonstrate that during Mueller’s tenure as FBI director:
- 1.4 million criminally active gang members in the U.S.;
- More than 33,000 gangs operating in the United States;
- In 2 years, gang membership increased 40%, from 1,000,000 to 1,400,000;
- Gangs are responsible for a national average of 48% of violent crime, and up to 90% in some jurisdictions; and
- Federal anti-gang initiatives had a lower than 1% gang member arrest rate.
- Significantly, after 2011, the Department of Justice and Mueller’s FBI stopped creating its comprehensive gang statistics. Did the truth hurt?
Questions to Ask
Questioning whether Mueller’s anti-gang record justifies his spearheading an investigation of President Trump’s election would generate a host of important inquiries of Mueller himself. Congressman Collins, here is a head start:
- What is Mueller’s response to those numbers?
- If your leadership was so ineffectual when it came to the over one million gang members victimizing this country, what, exactly, qualified you to investigate a presidential election– much less one of international intrigue?
Roads to Explore
On the subject of his staff, Mueller’s suspected failure to vet or police against bias further undermines an argument that he was qualified to head the Russia probe. It serves as a basis to claim political bias, a rapidly emerging defense to prosecution by defendants. Once more, Georgia sources are widely available on this issue. In their evidence treatise Carlson on Evidence, the Carlsons’ explain that bias is one of the few areas of witness impeachment that is constitutionally guaranteed. In fact, a Merion West interview with Professor Carlson points out that prosecutorial bias can in some cases lead to criminal charges being dismissed.
With Mueller’s appearance, perhaps Collins will dig into the material generated by his fellow Georgians to confront Mueller in ways for which he is not prepared. Indeed, the country would benefit from Republicans keeping Georgia, or at least that old sweet song of legal prowess, on its mind.
Bill Black is a Georgia attorney who graduated with honors from Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School where he was Editor-in-Chief of the John Marshall Law Journal. He is concluding his LL.M. degree at Georgetown University Law Center and is an Air Force veteran.
