Both of these men are prosecutors and they have some striking similarity in their approach. First, they both bring charges against a well liked successful leader who championed truth and interests of the common man. Secondly, charges were brought to these prosecutors, not supported by fact, but from a deep-seated hatred of those who opposed these respective leaders of the common man. We see this in the biblical account, “Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ ‘Is that your own idea,’ Jesus asked, ‘or did others talk to you about me?’ Whether a prosecutor holds an established bias or is working on the behalf of others is a relevant and important question, which Jesus asked Pilate.
Mueller, was given a charge from the Democrat/media and its Deep-State representatives that he should seek to prove that President Trump colluded with the Russians. Trump refused a direct interview and obvious perjury trap, but could reasonably ask Mueller, “Do you have evidence or did someone else talk to you so as to encourage your bias.” Pilate had no personal bias against Jesus, although he had shown contempt for the Jewish people as a whole. He said, “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?” Since the time of Christ till today it has been true that one is not subjected to a prosecutor unless there is substantial evidence of a crime. For both Mueller and Pilate this was irrelevant.
Here is another similarity, both Jesus and Trump are innocent of the charges. Jesus answered Pilate’s inquiry, ” ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.’ ‘You are a king, then!’ said Pilate. Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.’ ‘What is truth?’ retorted Pilate.” Jesus was not opposed to Roman rule and had replied when asked whether Jews should pay taxes, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Luke 20: 22-25). Jesus had committed no crime. President Trump has stated publicly that there was no collusion with Russia and that he has committed no crime. No evidence has been found otherwise. Like Pilate, Mueller seems unconcerned with truth, but rather satisfying those who brought the charges. The Mueller investigation long ago abandoned any hope of Russian collusion and has been attempting to find anything that might bring disrepute upon Trump and allow the Democrats to impeach, irrespective of the reason.
A slight but significant dissimilarity then appears where Pilate, regarding Jesus, actually admitted, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” Furthermore, Pilate offered to allow Jesus to go free via an annual customary reprieve. (John 18: 33-40). Mueller must have seen loads of public evidence that Russian election meddling was perpetrated by Hillary Clinton and her surrogates in the Democrat party, FBI and DOJ hierarchy, of which he must have promptly ignored. (see,“The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump,” Jarrett.). So, we see that Pontius Pilate may have been more independent and less biased than is Robert Mueller. However, In the end, Pilate had no respect for law, justice or truth and handed an admittedly innocent man, Jesus of Nazareth, over to a wicked mob calling for, and granting his crucifixion. With respect to Mueller, he has not issued his final report, but continues to lay perjury traps, leak ridiculous non-criminal suggestions to the Media, and carry out an obvious witch hunt. I wouldn’t presume to judge Mr. Mueller’s heart, but his actions reveal a troubling scenario, unless you are one of the mob calling out regarding President Trump, “Impeach him, impeach him.”
2 thoughts on “Pontius Pilate and Robert Mueller”
Pontius Pilate had more integrity, honor and moral courage than Robert Mueller ever will.
After his report I thought I may have been a little harsh, but with his statement asserting that he thought the President committed a crime, contrary to his own investigation that found no evidence. Mueller has a bias, which is OK personally, but when it is implemented in his work product, he has been a least unethical. If he discovered any esculpatory evidence and failed to report it, he committed a crime. For example, if he discovered that the dossier against Trump was false, paid for by Clinton and used inappropriately, he had a duty to report it as evidence pointing to Trump’s innocence. Mueller’s behavior convicts him, if we use his standard he must now prove his innocence or he is guilty.