Analysis
Democrats now have one option to end Trump’s presidency: The 2020 election
Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s congressional testimony on the Russia probe didn’t deliver the spark the Democrats wanted. That puts the onus on House leaders and heightens the stakes for next year’s presidential election.
A performance full of stumbles shakes a sterling Washington image
In what was likely to have been his final act on the national stage, Mueller’s halting testimony was at times painful to watch.
Democrats were disappointed the Sphinx didn’t speak boldly; Republicans were delighted. But for this honorable public servant, it was, above all, a sad coda to a grand career — sad for Mueller because he did not come off as commanding or authoritative, but more sad for the country because, once again, he failed to train the spotlight on ongoing foreign interference in our elections.
Just as when he issued his report in the spring, Mueller seemed to be operating under the assumption that everything was on the level — that people would digest and analyze his findings honestly. In this sense, he is an anachronism, a man from a time when people behaved as honorably as he does. This was naive. In trying to remain above the fray, he seemed unable to mount the forceful defense needed of his work, his staff and the FBI. While he was cautious and lawyerly, Republicans demolished him: Mueller was “fundamentally unfair” and “threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick” (Rep. Ken Buck, Colo.) ; “managed to violate every principle” (Rep. John Ratcliffe,Tex.) ; wrote a “one-sided attack on the president” (Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio) ; had an “amazing” double standard (Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio) ; was on a quest “ to stop Trump” (Rep. Matt Gaetz, Fla.) ; “left out significant exculpatory evidence” (Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, Pa.) ; “mostly regurgitated press stories” (Rep. Debbie Lesko, Ariz.) ; was “disruptive to the American people” (Rep. Chris Stewart, Utah) ; and perpetuated the “Russia hoax” (Rep. Devin Nunes, Calif.).
Inevitably, Trump joined in the attack on this decent man. Quoting Fox News’s Chris Wallace, the president tweeted that “this has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller.”
Sadly, the part about Mueller was true.
Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Mueller pushes back in a testimony unlikely to change political dynamic
The former special counsel spent more than two years ignoring taunts — tweeted and barked — from President Trump. At two House hearings, he finally responded to the president.
The Republicans were hostile. The Democrats were friendly. Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III gave them the same response on obstruction. (Joshua Carroll/The Washington Post)
Democrats had hoped that with the long-awaited testimony of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, they would finally have a clarifying, cinematic moment, perhaps one that would persuade a reluctant public to rally behind impeaching President Trump.
The idea was that if people could only hear the conclusions of his 22-month investigation from the lips of one of the nation’s most distinguished public servants, it would come to life.
As countless pundits put it in recent weeks, Americans needed to “see the movie.” Hours of back-and-forth across a witness table could produce clips that would play in a loop on cable news and over social media, penetrating the public consciousness in a way that a 400-plus-page report could not.
It did not happen.
Instead of the “Saturday Night Live” Robert De Niro version of Mueller, with a little bit of Atticus Finch thrown in, the real-life prosecutor was not a made-for-television witness. He did what he said he would, which was stay within the redacted confines of what his team had written.
At many points during the day of testimony, Mueller, 74, struggled to do even that. He often seemed to lack a grasp of the massive amount of material in the report — perhaps evidence of how uncomfortable the former FBI director was in that hyperpartisan environment.
Democrats on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, by and large, did a credible job of keeping their questions focused. They had some good moments, many of which came as Mueller set the record straight on the many lies that Trump has told about the conclusions of the report.
No, he said, it did not “exonerate” the president of the crime of obstruction, for which Trump could still be prosecuted after he is out of office.
And former White House counsel Donald McGahn, whose FBI interviews provided some of the report’s most damning evidence, is not the fabulist that Trump has portrayed him to be but a credible witness, Mueller said — which no doubt will increase pressure on McGahn to also take a turn before the House Judiciary Committee.
Mueller also batted down the president’s claims that he has been the victim of “a hoax” that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf, and that the special counsel’s investigation was nothing more than “a witch hunt.” He furthermore described Trump as having been “generally” untruthful in sworn answers to written questions put to him during the special counsel’s investigation.
But the fact that the president dissembles without shame is hardly news to the American public. And at times, Mueller’s terse responses to lawmakers’ queries created confusion.
In one exchange that created a brief buzz, Mueller responded in the affirmative when Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) asked whether the reason he “did not indict Donald Trump is because of [Justice Department guidance] stating that you cannot indict a sitting president.” Mueller subsequently corrected the impression that he might otherwise have done so, and clarified, as his report did: “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said many times — wisely, in my view — that the House should not move forward on impeachment without significant bipartisan support and evidence of presidential transgressions so overwhelming that they would win wide acceptance as constituting “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Absent those, impeachment would surely end with Trump’s acquittal in the Senate and potentially help him win a second term.
Public opinion supports Pelosi on that. In Post-ABC News polling this month, 59 percent said the House should not begin impeachment proceedings, which was actually slightly higher than opposition in Post polling throughout the year.
But to focus on Trump, and whether his actions constitute impeachable offenses, is to miss the real bombshell in Mueller’s testimony — the scandal that could be unfolding right there in front of us.
That was Mueller’s warning that what happened in 2016 could happen again. Asked by Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.) whether Russia might be planning another attack on the integrity of U.S. elections, Mueller replied: “They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign.” He said “many more countries” are developing the capability to do so as well.
“I hope this is not the new normal,” Mueller added, “but I fear it is.”
There is a good chance that Wednesday’s testimony marked the last time we will ever hear the former special counsel say anything on the subject in public. The message he wanted to deliver was that, in wrestling with the problematic past, we should not take our sights off a treacherous future. While that may not have made for electrifying television, Mueller delivered the goods.
Democrats were disappointed the Sphinx didn’t speak boldly; Republicans were delighted. But for this honorable public servant, it was, above all, a sad coda to a grand career — sad for Mueller because he did not come off as commanding or authoritative, but more sad for the country because, once again, he failed to train the spotlight on ongoing foreign interference in our elections.
Just as when he issued his report in the spring, Mueller seemed to be operating under the assumption that everything was on the level — that people would digest and analyze his findings honestly. In this sense, he is an anachronism, a man from a time when people behaved as honorably as he does. This was naive. In trying to remain above the fray, he seemed unable to mount the forceful defense needed of his work, his staff and the FBI. While he was cautious and lawyerly, Republicans demolished him: Mueller was “fundamentally unfair” and “threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick” (Rep. Ken Buck, Colo.) ; “managed to violate every principle” (Rep. John Ratcliffe,Tex.) ; wrote a “one-sided attack on the president” (Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio) ; had an “amazing” double standard (Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio) ; was on a quest “ to stop Trump” (Rep. Matt Gaetz, Fla.) ; “left out significant exculpatory evidence” (Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, Pa.) ; “mostly regurgitated press stories” (Rep. Debbie Lesko, Ariz.) ; was “disruptive to the American people” (Rep. Chris Stewart, Utah) ; and perpetuated the “Russia hoax” (Rep. Devin Nunes, Calif.).
Inevitably, Trump joined in the attack on this decent man. Quoting Fox News’s Chris Wallace, the president tweeted that “this has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller.”
Sadly, the part about Mueller was true.
Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment