 |
| Robert Mueller nbcnews.com |
It is a very toasty and muggy Wednesday, which means time for Blogger Candidate Forum. A while back, Yours Truly teased about a post on Democrats' efforts to flip five Republican held Senate seats, but current events dictate something else. In this case, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence. Based on the build up to Mr. Mueller's appearance, you would think he was getting ready to affirm "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Total Exoneration" or "Impeach the MF." Blogger found all of the build up to Mr. Mueller's appearance, like the SCO's report, pretty ridiculous. Sky high expectations followed by cold hard reality splash. After today, what do we know and what comes next?
 |
| House Judiciary Committee nytimes.com |
First, Robert Mueller is human after all. For the past 2-1/2-years, Mr. Mueller has become this mythologized figure. Depending on who you talked to, Mr. Mueller was either real patriot or the leader of however many "Angry Democrats" (Ibid/@realDonaldTrump; date July 24, 2019) determined to undermine a duly elected president. He mumbled and fumbled his answers, especially when he discussed the obstruction part of his 448-page report. Here is an example from an exchange with Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA; Blogger's representative), Rep. Lieu asked if,
the reason [he] did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct? Mr. Mueller replied, That is correct. (vox.com; date accessed July 24, 2019)
While some observers (Ibid) interpreted this answer as evidence that Mr. Mueller believed that the president committed obstruction but declined to recommend prosecution because of OLC guidance. Ordinarily this would a bombshell, contradicting Mr. Mueller's previous statements and the report, would have sent the Democratic-leaning social media (Ibid) into a frenzy. However, that is not what he meant. He later had to clarify why he declined to firmly say whether the president committed obstruction. Obviously all the confusion could have been avoided had Robert Mueller given a more specific answer. That was not the case.
| Logo for the House of Representatives en.wikipedia.org |
The House Judiciary committee embarrassed themselves. Both Republican and Democrat members sat there, under prepared for the human that sat in front of them. Let us break it down. Straight away, the Republicans spent their allotted time shouting conspiracy theories at Mr. Mueller, in hopes of getting "yes or no" answers. This ended up making Mustn't see T.V. One example,
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FLA) posited that the infamous Steele dossier was a second-tier false flag. California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes focused on the theory that Russian professor Joseph Mifsud approached Trump adviser George Papadopoulos with Russian help, was a Western intelligence operative (vox.com; date accessed July 24, 2019).
Wild-eyed conspiracy theories did not really undermine the substance of the SCO's report but, Mr. Mueller did not confront the Republican rants. While the Committee Democrats were prepared for the monosyllabic answers, they were not ready for Mr. Mueller's hesitancy would play against for their Republican colleagues' insistence that Mr. Trump did no wrong. A Democratic staffer told Vox,
The decision was made to ignore the Republicans' conspiracy theory-driven sideshow,.... We didn't anticipate that Mueller would allow the mischaracterizations to go unanswered, I don't think that will impact the major takeaways from the hearing." (Ibid)
What were the major takeaways from the hearing? Robert Mueller's effective responses combined with Republican hysterics made it unclear.
 |
| Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) en.wikipedia.org |
If anyone was looking for Robert Mueller's testimonies to make the case for impeachment and removal from office, they should look elsewhere. In the run up to today, much was said about the 10 examples of the president attempting to impede with the Russia investigation--was grounds for impeachment. Blogger concurs with this thread but if the "Impeach the MF" crowd was hoping that Mr. Mueller would make a convincing case for them, were disappointed, it was a weak case.
Allow Blogger to reiterate, the Senate math is not in favor of the Democrats. Therefore, if the gung-ho impeachment crowd still insists on pursuing this avenue, their hopes rest on the question of whether it increases Democratic turnout next year (fivethirtyeight.com; July 23, 2019; date accessed July 24, 2019) or strengthen the rule of law by telegraphing the fact that the president's action were unacceptable. For impeachment hearings to accomplish this, they need to be effective.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who repeatedly refused to open hearings, must feeling little vindicated today. Robert Mueller's testimony today was a preview of coming attractions: confusing testimony from the participants, lame Democratic questions, and Republicans commandeering attention with conspiracy theories. Essentially, the impeachment skeptics were not convinced to change their opinions and the "Impeach the MF" crowd had to admit Mr. Mueller did not help their cause at all.
 |
| Mr. Donald Trump nbcnews.com |
If the hearing accomplished anything, it is they brought even more attention to his dubious behavior during the course of the Russia investigation. Case in point,
In one of the few breakout moments of today, Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asked Mr. Mueller if the president could still be indicted after he leaves office. Mr. Mueller's answer was a simple "yes" because the Office of Legal Counsel's ruling on indicting a sitting president no longer protected him. Not exactly the answer the committee Republicans were looking for because it contradicted one of their key arguments that since the SCO did not indict the president, he is exonerated, presumed innocent until otherwise proven. Allow Blogger to explain the difference between exoneration and the presumption of innocence: Exoneration means that you are proven not guilty of what you are accused of. The presumption of innocence means that until the prosecution proves that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you are innocent.
Not understanding difference between the two really damaged the immediate Republican hearing strategy and is bad news for the president personally because it establishes that if he loses the 2020 election, he could be formally charged by the Department of Justice, should the next president decide to pursue it. It also undermines the confidence of the president and his allies, knowing that they will not be immune from justice forever. Blogger has a feeling that everyone is on the phone with their lawyers.
Finally, the Special Counsel's final report into Russian interference in the 2016 did not fare too well. We learned that campaign manager Paul Manafort's deputy Rick Gates was regularly supplying polling information to a Russian, national whom Mr. Gates considered a "spy." We learned that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopolus attempted to facilitate meetings between Mr. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and Mr. Trump approved Mr. Papadopolous' work. Coupled with what we know about that infamous Trump Tower meeting and Donald Trump Jr.'s if it's what you say, I love it comment, it paints a very damaging portrait of a campaign willing so desperate to win, that it would break the the law. (vox,com; July 24, 2019). Even it you are collusion skeptical, it all adds up to unpatriotic and just plain wrong.
The obstruction volume is even worse that the Russia volume because it lays out 10 specific examples of the president's actions that could be construed as obstruction including the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, repeated effort to fire Mr. Mueller, admitting on national television that he fired Mr. Comey because he was angry about the investigation, and ordering his subordinates to lie on his behalf (Ibid). How damaging was this volume of the report? It was so damning that many observers considered it an impeachment referral. Although Mr. Mueller admitted that he could not prosecute the president as long as the OLC guidelines remained in effect, but it sounds like he would do if given the opportunity and was telling Congress to do its job (Ibid). Instead, Mr. Mueller repeatedly told House Judiciary committee members to read the report.
What comes next? For the Democrats, the pro-impeachment camp has to ask itself, given what we know today, should we continue to press of official inquiries or hold fire? Impeachment proceedings would be realistic after the 2020 elections if the Democrats hold the House of Representatives and flip the Senate. The Republicans are thinking we have to flip the House, hold the Senate and White House to prevent impeachment and removal from office. Either situation is plausible. If the Democrats hold the House, flip the Senate and the White House--another possibility--Mr. Donald Trump would face prosecution in federal and state court because the OLC guidelines would no longer protect him, depending on what the next president decides to do. This is hardly over and Yours Truly will be there for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment