Anti-climactic
If you watched any of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before two House committees yesterday, you would be right to view his appearances as something of a non-event.
The point of all of this is that Mueller had said as much when he made a very brief public statement when he officially closed the Office of the Special Counsel, saying that he did not wish to testify, and that the report he and his team compiled IS his testimony.
Nevertheless, House Democrats pushed ahead in order to get Mueller in front of cameras and on the record, postponing his appearance in response to a subpoena by a week. The best way to get a feel for his testimony is to watch one of the supercuts that's available online, showing highlights. In many cases, extensive, detailed questions were met with brief, sometimes even single word, responses from Mueller.
But the primary takeaways, for me, at least, were confirmation of some of what's in the actual report.
No, the counsel and his team could not prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the many Russian contacts who offered assistance to them.
Yes, the Russian government and others acting on their behalf interfered in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump.
Yes, similar meddling is taking place right now, and there is no reason to believe that this interference will not continue through the 2020 election.
Yes, the President was found to have engaged in actions that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
No, the President cannot be indicted while he is in office, according to Department of Justice regulations.
Yes, he can be indicted once he leaves office if there is sufficient evidence to charge him with a crime or crimes.
The questioning and reactions to much of what Mueller said during the hearings were predictably along party lines. The Democratic members were trying to get as much of the report's negative findings into the record as possible. The Republican members didn't dispute the content of the report or the accuracy of it, but rather introduced alternate talking points about where and why and how the inquiry first came into being, and demanded answers of Mueller that he either was unwilling or not permitted to provide.
Our country will go on but it will be interesting, at least, to see whether any of this makes any difference in the court of public opinion.
The point of all of this is that Mueller had said as much when he made a very brief public statement when he officially closed the Office of the Special Counsel, saying that he did not wish to testify, and that the report he and his team compiled IS his testimony.
Nevertheless, House Democrats pushed ahead in order to get Mueller in front of cameras and on the record, postponing his appearance in response to a subpoena by a week. The best way to get a feel for his testimony is to watch one of the supercuts that's available online, showing highlights. In many cases, extensive, detailed questions were met with brief, sometimes even single word, responses from Mueller.
But the primary takeaways, for me, at least, were confirmation of some of what's in the actual report.
No, the counsel and his team could not prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the many Russian contacts who offered assistance to them.
Yes, the Russian government and others acting on their behalf interfered in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump.
Yes, similar meddling is taking place right now, and there is no reason to believe that this interference will not continue through the 2020 election.
Yes, the President was found to have engaged in actions that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
No, the President cannot be indicted while he is in office, according to Department of Justice regulations.
Yes, he can be indicted once he leaves office if there is sufficient evidence to charge him with a crime or crimes.
The questioning and reactions to much of what Mueller said during the hearings were predictably along party lines. The Democratic members were trying to get as much of the report's negative findings into the record as possible. The Republican members didn't dispute the content of the report or the accuracy of it, but rather introduced alternate talking points about where and why and how the inquiry first came into being, and demanded answers of Mueller that he either was unwilling or not permitted to provide.
Our country will go on but it will be interesting, at least, to see whether any of this makes any difference in the court of public opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment