zn wrote:

Actually, Robert Mueller Was Awesome
History will show that he had one big goal, and nailed it.

RENATO MARIOTTI

Renato Mariotti is the Legal Affairs Columnist for POLITICO Magazine. He is a former federal prosecutor and host of the “On Topic” podcast.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/25/robert-mueller-hearing-was-awesome-227478?fbclid=IwAR0m0FnWpRh-OKI3uTETf9oalO9FSuieGGBU6vtDH0pmEKzevdFoG_8VAf0

Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony Wednesday has been described as “excruciatingly awkward,” “confused,” “struggling” and “a stammering, stuttering mess.”

I saw something completely different. From my perspective, after six hours of testimony, it was the 74-year-old career prosecutor and law enforcement officer who won the day. It wasn’t that close.

Tasked with overseeing the most high-profile investigation of our time, Mueller managed to complete the investigation without appearing to have a partisan agenda, with both sides embracing him at times. Even Trump said he acted “honorably”—before he turned on Mueller as “conflicted” and partisan—and touted “total exoneration” soon after Mueller concluded his work. Mueller’s down-the-middle, leak-free handling of the high-stakes investigation was an object lesson in professionalism.

And Wednesday’s performance was no different.

Mueller didn’t want to testify, for good reason. He had done his work already. As a prosecutor, he had to ensure he stayed detached from the political process, presenting his findings in a manner that did not make it appear he was choosing a side or advancing an agenda. One slip of the tongue could be used to undermine his team’s work.

In the long view, the verdict of history depends most of all on Mueller being seen as nonpartisan, measured and above the fray—an operator whose work is unimpeachable and can be relied on (now, or after Trump’s term, or years from now) as a bulletproof statement of fact. So all the little details of the case that members were trying to ferret out pale in comparison to his ability to maintain that status and be seen as a reliable agent of impartiality. During the hearing, that was clearly his goal. In doing that, he succeeded, and history can thank him for it.

It was clear from the start he knew Democrats wanted to use him as a prop to bring the findings of his report to life as part of a push for an impeachment inquiry. Mueller went out of his way to avoid regurgitating the contents of the report, wary of creating sound bites that could be used to suggest he supported impeachment. For instance, when Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) asked him whether his language referring to a constitutional process to “formally accuse a president of wrongdoing” was a reference to impeachment, he refused to admit the obvious.

Mueller did that all day long. He refused to answer leading questions whenever answering the question might draw him too close to the political fight, force him to say things that could spur controversy, or cause him to veer outside the four corners of the report. Mueller wanted to go no further than his report and he rarely did so, despite both sides egging him on. He swatted away Republican attempts to elicit answers about the origins of his probe as readily as he ignored Democratic attempts to get him to make their case against Trump.

His monotonal yes and no answers might not have made for the most dramatic viewing, but they weren’t without effect. In five minutes, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff walked Mueller through the most damning details of Volume 1 of his report. Mueller’s answers were short—“that did occur,” “accurate,” “that is correct”—but what he affirmed was that Russia engaged in a systematic effort to help Trump win in 2016, that Trump and his campaign welcomed Russian aid, and that Trump lied to the American people about his business dealings in Russia.

When Mueller wanted to say more, he did. He described in detail the threat posed by the Russian attack on our electoral process, testifying that “they’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.” He warned that “many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians had done.” When Mueller had the rare opportunity to testify about matters that were not partisan—matters that should concern all Americans—he testified freely and strongly.

At times, Mueller faced harsh questioning from Republicans who lashed him and his team as biased or worse. His calm demeanor was another sign of his professionalism. It would have been easy for Mueller to fight back—he has in previous appearances, after all—but that would have pulled him into the fray. It was not weakness but rather quiet strength that caused Mueller to do nothing more than calmly reply, “I take your question,” in response to GOP Congressman Louie Gohmert’s hyperbolic charge that he “perpetuated injustice.”

The hesitation you saw in Mueller before he answered questions was the face of a man who was choosing his words carefully. He played it safe, like a football team running out the clock. His constant desire to double-check his report and to refer members of Congress to the report itself was motivated by a desire to ensure that each word of his testimony was accurate. He had no incentive to hurry, knowing it would be hard for members to challenge him in a five-minute time span if he took his time.

Mueller had to be careful and precise because every word he said would be dissected. When he agreed with Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) that the reason he did not “indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president,” many took that to mean that Mueller had affirmatively concluded that he would have indicted Trump if he could do so. Mueller clarified that point in the afternoon session. It was a rare misstep and he knew he had to fix it without regard to how it might be perceived by either side.

Even Mueller’s nonanswers were carefully considered. Mueller refused to answer whether he believes Attorney General William Barr’s letter purporting to summarize his report is accurate. The letter was technically accurate but highly misleading, and an answer from Mueller that the letter was accurate would have left the false impression that the thrust of the letter were true. Mueller also refused to answer whether Trump or his son took the Fifth, presumably because commenting on a defendant’s silence can be legally problematic.

Through his careful answers, Mueller was able to thread a needle, staking out very nuanced and careful legal positions without seriously being tested by the members who questioned him. For example, Mueller refused to make any decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstructing justice.

Mueller’s decision not to reach a prosecutorial judgment as to obstruction flowed from the DOJ’s policy against indicting a sitting president. Because Mueller couldn’t indict Trump, he felt it would be unfair to Trump if he reached a conclusion that Trump would be unable to challenge in court. But if Mueller merely reached no conclusion, that could leave the false impression that he found no evidence that Trump committed a crime. So Mueller famously said that he was “unable” to state that Trump “clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,” and thus his report “does not exonerate” Trump. This may sound confusing to a layperson, but it is a very careful approach that permitted Mueller to be as fair as possible to Trump under the circumstances.

No one had ever publicly asked Mueller about this very nuanced but unprecedented approach. Many argue that Mueller should have stated his conclusion, and in any event, it’s unclear why he chose the “does not exonerate” language instead of merely making clear that his nondecision does not mean there is not enough evidence to charge Trump.

But both sides failed to meaningfully probe Mueller’s reasoning on this key issue. Republicans criticized and grilled him as to “exoneration,” but they had to be careful not to give Mueller an opportunity to refer to the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president. Lurking in the background was the reality that Mueller found “substantial” evidence to prove each of the elements of obstruction of justice. Pushing him to explain himself would be bad for Trump. Yet Democrats could not get him to do so either because they were in no position to push him to do something he was unwilling to do.

So Mueller got to say what he wanted to say, which is that there is “substantial” evidence to support counts of obstruction, without being forced to say that he concluded Trump obstructed justice. Despite hours of questioning by dozens of members of Congress, Mueller was never backed into a corner or forced to explain the most important legal decision he made.

Even if some think Mueller has lost a step since he last appeared before Congress six years ago, he still looked a step or two ahead of most of his questioners on Wednesday. Most importantly, he appeared above the fray, cautious, and fair in the face of bitter partisan rancor. That is what we should expect from prosecutors, and it is the legacy that Mueller leaves behind.

Those who think Mueller’s performance was “awesome” are people who can analyze critically without emotion and pay attention to the responses. Unfortunately 99.5 of the American voters lack those qualities and will see this as some sort of Trump validation. They might not vote for the guy but they won’t be persuaded by Mueller’s performance to not do so.

I remember when America was “great again” growing up I used to have dinner at neighbors homes sine my mom worked and I did not have a father. These were middle to lower class working families. I recall serious discussion between the parents on all sorts of issues-that seemed at the time to me to be about the government, earnings, and other not tv related stuff. I wonder how much of that goes on today. I suspect tv and sports in particular have replaced civil curiosity.

PA Ram wrote:

The reason this was not a disaster is that most people simply do not care. The Dems could have started an impeachment inquiry long ago but because Pelosi is putting politics first, it will not happen unless there is a sudden groundswell of support from the public. That just doesn’t seem likely. She is worried about those “purple” states that they always worry about. They could care less about their base. They take them for granted. They care about the “independent” or so-called “lost Obama voter” who went to Trump. They chase a narrow strip to victory instead of putting any effort into expanding their base.

In short–they suck as a political party.

And often, they have the same agenda as the other team anyway.

It was always a waste of time and money to hold the hearings. There was no chance it would change anything–even if Mueller had appeared coherent.

As for Mueller…it seems obvious that he was less involved in the investigation than previously thought. He oversaw things but his involvement seems more distant. He also certainly appears to have some aging issues. He does not present at all as the image we were sold. I suspect this is why he did not want to testify and simply insisted on relying on the report. He isn’t that clear on the details himself.

But again–Pelosi didn’t need this to impeach. She had what she needed.

This may work out well for her though. If anything this will probably slow the impeachment train.

And the statute of limitations means Trump will probably never be indicted on anything.

This will make him even more bold. That is scary.

The Dems failed the country in a huge way.

And Trump may even win reelection.

This country needs an actual opposition party. Right now–we do not have one.

I’m with Pelosi on this one. Yes to impeach is a moral decision whereas not to impeach is a political one. And that is fine with me when I consider this is the single most incompetent and dangerous President this country has seen-IMO. The last polls I saw disclosed that a majority of voters don’t support impeachment even when they acknowledge how bad Trump is as a person. More important is that a majority of the pickups in the House in this last election came from moderate districts which showed a concern over the lost of health care and jobs not on whether Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Indeed for most voters that voted for democrats he was not a factor. Simply put it was about their anxieties over important issues to them and not how horrific
Trump is. And of course impeachment proceedings will activate the Trump and Republican base and his acquittal in the Senate will fit in with their position which all along has been the Democrats are guilty of overreaching and can’t be trusted. That could translate into “they are all bad so why should I even vote”. Of course that would just what the democrats don’t want which is to get out the same number of minorities that came out for Obama. Then the only “concerned” voters would be those who think Trump will make America Great Again.

IMO should they try and impeach they will not have learned any lessons at all from their victories in the 2018 midterms.

zn wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: red”>Kate Mitchell</span> from Facebook

From today:

“[Rep.] Lieu asked Mueller point-blank: ‘The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?’

This phrasing directly entails that, were it not for the OLC opinion, Mueller would have indicted Trump — something he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge.

And yet Mueller answered without hesitation: ‘That is correct.’”

Well-not exactly, unfortunately. If you noticed after answering Lieu’s question in the affirmative he started to raise his hand but time was out so he let it go. After the lunch break he stated before any questioning that he wanted to clarify that answer. He said that the OLC opinion was NOT the only reason he declined to file charges on obstruction. And unfortunately it was left at that. The best that can be said for Mueller was that he is likely the truest patriot at that hearing and its more important to him to not do anything that will breach this country any more than what has been done. I think he honestly believes that this country is in deep peril and doesn’t want to cause it any further damage. He is also a technocrat and like several great lawyers very care to parcel his words with caution. In that light he could be thinking that since the OLC opinion prevented an indictment of the sitting President he could not gather sufficient evident to actually file an indictment. So-unfortunately-the main issue was left up in the air. I’m positive Lieu was not happy with the amended answer. Nevertheless, Mueller said from the beginning if was force to testify via subpoena he would not go beyond his written report. And he didn’t-again unfortunately. I think it was a disaster for the Democrats.

wv wrote:

waterfield wrote:

Here’s another article -this one by a conservative columnist-on how the Dems can and likely will hand the election to Trump by “openly praising socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes”, and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-hillary-clinton-democrats-left-20190702-story.html

James Carville would be the first to call it the real “political suicide”. The party needs to open their eyes and realize there are so many republican voters (not those in Congress) who want to dump Trump and would vote for a Dem nominee-but advocating for the above won’t do it for them. Moreover that segment of voters that stayed home in 2016-namely the African American voter-won’t accept those policies either. And we do need those voters to counter the “deplorables” that Trump will be driving to the poles especially if the Dems are advancing the above policies. Talk about “political suicide”. We just don’t get it !

==============

Well basically what i hear you saying is, “the Dems can only win if they put up a ‘centrist’ against Trump.”

You may be right. Or, you just may be selectively seeing things that way because ‘you’ want a centrist President/candidate.

I dunno.

This country may very well be so far in the toilet that an FDR-type Dem cant win. Could be that only more Clinton-Corporatists are on the way.

My own view is too dark for long posts anymore

I was visiting Cape May in New Jersey a few weeks ago. And i walked along a boardwalk and chatted with a lot of young folks working at all the little touristy-shops. Lots of foreign kids were spending their summers in America, working at the beach. Girls from Croatia, boys from Sweden, etc. Everyone I talked to had an accent. So anyway, I asked them about Americans. There was a consensus among the foreign kidz — Americans are very stupid, and they ‘dont care.’

Stupid, and, they dont care. (about the environment, etc)

I agreed with them. Cept, I understand ‘why’ American are ‘stupid’ and ‘dont care’.

Corporate-Capitalism made them stupid and selfish.

At any rate, you may very well be right. Stupid, Selfish, Propagandized Americans may very well only vote for a Trump or a Centrist.

Btw, its good to see you and Mack on the lil Board. We’re all gettin Old.
Did you ever get a new Dog?

w
v

I’ve had the same Springer Spaniel for 8 yrs. Her b/d is the same as mine. Yes I do want a centrist to run but the reason is because I believe that is the only chance Trump can be beaten. I also believe that kids these days have lost or never had a real sense of values. But I don’t think that’s the fault of corporations. I’ve said this often: the adults that should be having children are not and those who shouldn’t are. To me that explains more than Corporacracy.