After months of anticipation, Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, delivered nearly seven hours of dry, sometimes halting testimony before Congress on Wednesday (Thursday NZ time). Republicans and Democrats sparred over his conclusions, but in back-to-back hearings, Mueller mostly reiterated the findings of his two-year investigation into Russian interference in
What we learned from Robert Mueller's testimony
By Nicholas Fandos
New York Times·
9 mins to read
Former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference, on Capitol Hill. Photo / AP
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
The most helpful moment to Democrats may have come as Mueller faced his first questions, from Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is a sequence that will likely play out on television and in political ads for months to come.
"Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?" Nadler asked.
"Right, that is not what the report said," Mueller replied.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
The exchange went on in that fashion, with Mueller shooting down Trump's claims.
Time and again, Mueller defied Democrats looking for a flashy new moment.
It did not take long for the routine to become predictable: Democrats asked a leading or politically damaging question, and Mueller demurred.
"The most important question I have for you is why? Why did the president of the United States want you fired?" asked Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla.
"I can't answer that question," Mueller replied. It became a frequent refrain.
He repeatedly declined Democrats' invitations to read passages from his report, consciously depriving Democrats of potentially useful footage of the former special counsel speaking aloud some of the most damaging material he uncovered.
When Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., walked through an analysis suggesting that several episodes documented by Mueller met the criteria of obstruction of justice, the special counsel tossed cold water his way.
"I don't subscribe necessarily to the way you analyzed that," Mueller said.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
The Democrats' challenge was visible in miniature when Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., of the Intelligence Committee, offered Mueller an open platform to tell the American people why they ought to care about his work. He essentially refused to step onto it.
"We spent substantial time ensuring the integrity of the report," Mueller said.
"It is a signal, a flag to those of us who have responsibility to exercise that responsibility, not to let this kind of thing happen again."
Republicans tried to sow doubts, but Mueller frustrated them too.
Republicans' playbook with Mueller was clear: Highlight prosecutorial conclusions beneficial to Trump while trying to sow doubt about the basic fairness of Mueller, the FBI and his team. More often than not, they met a stiff-arm from Mueller, but succeeded in roughing him up around the edges.
There were questions — sometimes tangled and obscure — about shadowy figures in the investigation, about the supposed bias of Mueller's team of investigators, and about charging decisions. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Mueller that he had "inverted burden of proof" by detailing the president's conduct without charging him with a crime.
"Respectfully, respectfully, you managed to violate every principle in the tradition," Ratcliffe said. "I agree with the chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. He's not, but he damned sure shouldn't be below the law" either.
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, opened with, "Welcome everyone to the last gasp of the Russia collusion conspiracy."
But Republicans gained little ground in their effort to better understand why Mueller or the FBI made the choices they did. The former special counsel swatted away questions on a salacious dossier of information on Trump used by the FBI, on the former British spy who compiled it, and on other aspects of the origins of the Russia investigation.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio asked elaborately why Mueller chose not to charge Joseph Mifsud, the London-based professor who told a Trump campaign adviser that the Russian government had obtained "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Jordan's voice raised. His arms flailed.
Mueller answered: "I can't get into it."
Whither impeachment? Mueller did not help advocates much.
Liberals who support opening impeachment proceedings against Trump had hoped that testimony by the former special counsel would finally electrify their efforts. The early verdict suggests that did not happen.
Mueller himself clearly did not want to let the term escape his mouth, nor did he provide the kind of shocking new evidence or analysis that would have forced the issue. When Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., asserted that the special counsel's report did not recommend or even discuss impeachment, the witness would not even nod along.
"I am not going to talk about that issue," Mueller said.
The staunchest supporters of the impeachment effort pressed on anyway, and are likely to keep up pressure on party leaders.
"To not open an impeachment inquiry in the face of such obvious corruption is an abdication of the oath we took to defend our country, uphold the rule of law and hold the president accountable for his misconduct," said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., the head of his party's messaging arm.
One new Democrat, freshman Rep. Lori Trahan of Massachusetts, joined the 90-odd other House members calling for the opening of an impeachment inquiry.
I believe it is time to begin an impeachment inquiry against President @realDonaldTrump.
— Congresswoman Lori Trahan (@RepLoriTrahan) July 24, 2019
No President, including this one, is above the law.
Read my full statement: pic.twitter.com/cnGcVhPELm
Others could follow this week. But with a six-week August recess looming and the views of most Americans fixed on what is now a two-year-old story line, a lasting shift in public opinion appears unlikely.
Mueller appeared a little shaky at the witness table.
In his years as FBI director, Mueller was never known as a loquacious witness, but his performance Wednesday frequently turned heads and prompted cringes from lawmakers looking on.
He stumbled over his words, asked lawmakers again and again to repeat their questions after misunderstanding or seemingly not hearing them, and declined to engage in any extended discussions over the legal rationale of his work. On occasion, Mueller, 74, appeared to be unfamiliar with details of his own report and even in one instance his own resume. That may have robbed his testimony of some of the power that many had expected.
When Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., asked which president had first appointed him as a U.S. attorney, Mueller could not remember, guessing that it may have been President George Bush.
"According to my notes, it was President Ronald Reagan who had the honor to do so," Stanton said.
"My mistake," Mueller replied.
But other moments proved stronger, particularly during the afternoon hearing with the Intelligence Committee. Mueller appeared more at ease and more willingly strayed from his written report.
The Justice Department's opinion that bars charging a president brought confusion.
Democrats thought they had struck gold during the day's first hearing when Mueller seemingly told Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., that he would have indicted Trump if not for Justice Department policies prohibiting a federal indictment against a sitting president.
"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?" Lieu asked, referring to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
"That is correct," Mueller said.
Mueller's statement directly contradicted what he wrote in his report and could have been damaging to Trump, implying that he was a criminal in all but name.
But when Mueller delivered an opening statement before the Intelligence Committee a short while later, he backtracked. He did not agree with Lieu's statement, he said, repeating a version closer to what his team put in their report: that the policy prevented them from even considering whether to charge Trump.
"We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime," he said.
Mueller offered a defence of his investigation, belatedly.
Through months of withering attacks by Trump and his allies, Mueller's response was unchanged and often frustrating to his allies: total silence. On Wednesday, he finally pushed back, albeit late and with a light touch.
"It is not a witch hunt," Mueller declared flatly, when asked by Schiff about a term Trump has lobbed his way hundreds of times since the investigation began.
He betrayed stronger hints of emotion when Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said, "Having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead."
Mueller replied, "I don't think you have reviewed a report that is as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us."
He had just as starchy a retort ready for Republicans who accused him of filling his office with partisan Democrats who were out to take down Trump.
"We strove to hire those individuals that could do the job," Mueller, a Republican, said. "I've been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years, I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity."
Written by: Nicholas Fandos
© 2019 THE NEW YORK TIMES
