Robert Mueller’s televised statement was something of an anti-climax. It added nothing of substance to Mueller’s written report, a point that he took some pains to emphasize. Yet his clear and concise oral statement did contribute to the understanding of the report among those—a vast majority of the public–who had not read the lengthy report itself. Indeed, it is unfortunate that Mueller apparently did not feel free to make such a statement at the time the report was released. Had he done so, it would have dispelled some of the confusion generated by misleading statements from the Attorney General and the President then and in the following days.
The media, Trump’s supporters and his critics, and at least a segment of the public, listened to Mueller’s statement, but not everyone heard the same thing. The media have provided commentary with varying degrees of precision and differing points of emphasis. Trump’s supporters and critics will have heard, or purported to hear, what they wanted to hear and will have heard nothing to change their previously expressed opinions. Polls will no doubt tell us in a day or two what the public made of it, but it is doubtful the statement will have moved the needle much on the public’s unenthusiastic view of impeachment.
Nothing in Mueller’s statement will wean Trump from his mantra of “No collusion, no obstruction.” At the same time, nothing will discourage Democrats in the House from their pursuit of the president. They will point out that Mueller did not say there was no collusion (or use the term at all). Rather, he merely said, much as the report had:
This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to [Russian interference], as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
House Democrats will also stress that Mueller again expressly declined to exonerate the president from the charge of obstruction, and made clear the extent to which he was constrained by the Justice Department’s established policy against indicting a sitting president. More, they will emphasize Mueller’s pointed reference to the need for “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” Some will take that reference to be a thinly-veiled invitation for Congress to proceed with impeachment. It may or may not be such, but if it is, it may not be wise for the House Democrats to accept the invitation, at least at this point.
Whether Mueller will have more to say is uncertain. He made it clear that he does not wish to testify before Congress, but it remains to be seen whether the Democrats will defer to his wishes. If they force the issue, even to the point of issuing a subpoena, they might not be happy with the results. They should not underestimate Mueller’s determination to remain within the four corners of his report, with the possible result that the Democrats end up looking desperate and foolish.
Mueller’s statement has generated some increased pressure from some Democrats to proceed with impeachment, or at least an impeachment inquiry. Speaker Pelosi has continued to resist this pressure and, I believe, wisely so. While it is possible to make an argument for impeachment that is compelling to many, there was nothing in Mueller’s statement, or anything foreseeably on the horizon, that is likely to persuade a significant number of Republicans in the Senate. One may fault those Republicans as a herd of sheep, erecting a curtain of wool around the president, but they are what they are, and they are unlikely to be swayed by anything grounded in alleged collusion or obstruction. Impeachment followed by an acquittal in the Senate (or a refusal even to conduct a trial) would have the potential of not only producing an adverse political reaction but, in a sense, validating Trump’s conduct for himself and for his successors.
As I have previously suggested, one area of possible promise was not covered by the Mueller investigation: Trump’s financial dealings with Russia and Russians and the impact of those dealings on his conduct of the presidency. Investigations of those dealings are presently underway, and while it is no doubt a long shot, there is a least the possibility of their turning up evidence so dramatic that it could not be ignored even by Senate Republicans.
Finally, the most significant portion of Mueller’s statement, and one that seemed to go beyond his written statement, was in his last paragraph:
I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.
Indeed, every American, and that should obviously include—but stunningly and tragically does not—the President of the United States. As documented in Blog No. 217, “After Mueller, What Now?” Trump has not only continued to ignore or downplay Russian interference in 2016, but has refused to discuss with his aides what needs to be done to prevent such interference in 2020. And that refusal, I suggest, should be the focus of Democratic candidates for 2020, even more than collusion or obstruction.
There may be other reasons Trump will not acknowledge Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, but the main reason he cannot countenance it or do something about it is that it would amount to an admission that he needed Russia’s help to win. His incredibly fragile ego will not allow that. Once again it comes back to his malignant narcissism.
His responses to the Mueller presser and the question of “hiding” the USS Destroyer McCain were especially alarming. I think he is becoming increasingly unraveled. Even feckless Republicans spoke out against his responses. Are they finally beginning to find their spines? One can only hope.
We’re bogged down because we don’t know what we want, much less how to get there. So we cling to stereotypes and labels, missing the chance to prepare for future-shock, if not avoid it completely. Why are we so confused? Such vain and helpless creatures?
Only in a muddied present could a person with the looks and qualities of Donald Trump become our top leader. Only because we let him out of his cage.,
A man like Trump would not exist in a moral universe. He could only appear in the crazed imagination of a madman.
We like to think we are kings, omnipotent in our domains. Whereas, it seems we are like insects underfoot of an uncaring God.
I wish I shared your optimism regarding our era. But I don’t. As time goes on, I better understand youth who take no interest in politics and do not belong to any party. They just get what pleasure they can, while they can.
They may be right. Our civilization, not just the “United” States, appears to be in free fall, an out-of-control train on a collision course with disaster. Like 1931 Berlin as depicted in the film “Cabaret,” starring Lizá Minelli.
Hi Doug,
I thought Mueller’s “farewell speech” was too little, too late. I shared your Blog No, 221 with a friend who replied with this comment: “I heard a woman at a town hall, a nice older sensible looking woman, say she had NO idea until last night that the Mueller report even mentioned Pres Trump. She had never heard that. She knew from AG Barr that there had been no finding of obstruction and that finished it in her mind. Obviously that is the Fox version. No wonder they can’t find many people who favor impeachment!
My husband Andy commented as follows:”I think Doug Parker is spot on. The key to dump trump is his financial dealings with the Russians as well as his other shady deals most likely money laundering, through the Deutsche Bank.”
Many thanks for your insights on the important events that concern so many Americans.
Keep ’em coming.
Nancy
I agree with you (as always). The issue we shd ALL be most concerned about is the irrefutable evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and has demonstrated every intention of doing so again. Trump’s public refusal to acknowledge that reality, and his aides’ reported reluctance even to raise the issue with him in private, speaks volumes.
But while Trump’s conduct strongly suggests ulterior motives on his part (if not “conspiracy”), we need not agree about that, absent additional evidence…but we shd all agree that a President (any President) is obliged to take aggressive action to defend America’s election process from foreign malefactors.
I go back-and-forth about impeachment like a ping-pong-ball…the only thing that’s clear to me is that we must get rid of this guy, because we need a President (Democrat or Republican, progressive, moderate or conservative) who is committed to defending our democracy from enemy invasion. They don’t attack in bombers over our naval installations anymore…they come right into our homes via our beloved screens.
It appears your views may be even more dystopian than mine. Is our “Democracy” in danger of enemy invasion? I think that may be Putin’s agenda and we must of course re-think our porous electoral systems. But the danger facing democracy may not be so much from outsiders as insiders. Political hacks who have created monstrously shaped election districts that make a mockery of the principle of one man, one vote.
Comments are closed.