The Mueller Hearings and The Stench in Washington
Post# of 123755
(Total Views: 152)
Posted On: 07/25/2019 9:31:46 AM
The Mueller Hearings and The Stench in Washington
Some House members seemed more loyal to party than to country.
By Nicholas Kristof
Opinion Columnist
July 24, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/opinion/mu...2124460725
Robert Mueller speaking Wednesday on Capitol Hill.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Robert Mueller seemed to be hoping during congressional hearings on Wednesday that SEAL Team 6 would rush in and rescue him from his interrogators.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans got the sound bites they were looking for. Mueller declined even to read from his own report, apparently to avoid providing made-for-television clips, and he sometimes came across as muddled.
Yet the hearings still offered a window into the state of our presidency at a time when our political system is being grievously tested. I was transported back to my days as a teenager on an Oregon farm in the early 1970s, watching hearings about Watergate and President Richard Nixon.
We had just bought our first television — black-and-white — so that we could follow the national crisis. While there were many facts and laws in dispute, the backdrop seemed indisputable: Our president was dishonest and had egregiously abused his powers.
There were no huge revelations on Wednesday, but there was a similar sense of a stench in Washington that might have far-reaching consequences. Here was one exchange that might offer a glimpse of the future:
Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
Buck (sounding startled): “You believe you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
I wonder how that went over in the Trump family. This shouldn’t have been a surprise, but it creates one more reason Trump will be desperate to win re-election: Winning might keep him out of prison.
Somewhat reluctantly, Mueller seemed to acknowledge that Trump acted in ways that sound like obstruction of justice. In an exchange with Representative Cedric Richmond, Democrat of Louisiana, Mueller amplified this:
Richmond: “So it’s fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?”
Mueller: “I would say that’s generally a summary.”
None of this should seem surprising to anyone who read the Mueller report. After all, more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors, serving under Democrats and Republicans alike, signed a letter stating that if it weren’t for a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion, Trump would face “multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”
The letter outlines the evidence for those charges, including “witness-tampering” and creation of “false evidence.”
We should all be wary of our own selection bias and tendency to cherry-pick, and just because a president can be indicted after leaving office doesn’t mean that Trump will be in jeopardy. But at the broadest level, the hearings underscored the stink captured in the Mueller report.
Attorney General Bill Barr initially fumigated the report, claiming that the evidence it presented effectively exonerated Trump; that was inaccurate but was seized upon by Trump himself. The president repeatedly claimed that the Mueller investigation (“the greatest witch hunt in U.S. history”) found “no collusion, no obstruction.”
In the hearings, Mueller directly contradicted that line of defense, stating bluntly: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
In his opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, Mueller also flatly challenged Trump’s repeated efforts to downplay Russia’s interference in the election. Mueller noted that the Russians had interfered in an attempt to help Trump win, and he declared: “Our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. … Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”
Likewise, Mueller directly denied that he had been interviewed for the job of F.B.I. director and that he had been turned down, as Trump claimed. “I was not applying for that job,” Mueller said. Not surprisingly, he also denied that the investigation had been a “witch hunt” and he sharply criticized Trump’s praise for WikiLeaks’s release of emails hacked by Russia.
There was partisanship on both sides, of course, but I was struck and saddened by the way some Republicans lashed out at Mueller and tried to discredit him. After all, Mueller is a lifelong Republican, a decorated veteran and a longtime law enforcement leader — precisely the kind of person one might expect Republicans to show respect for.
It seemed that once Republicans had gauged Mueller’s refusal to push back hard, they chose to toss out conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation. They didn’t contest the specific points made about Trump trying to foil the justice system, but they did try to distract from them.
When I was a teenager watching hearings about Nixon’s abuses, I was struck by the willingness of some Republicans to defend Nixon and argue that Watergate was vastly overblown.
Soon enough, this was shown to be a triumph of loyalty to party over loyalty to country. History won’t reward obfuscation or blind party loyalty this time, either.
Some House members seemed more loyal to party than to country.
By Nicholas Kristof
Opinion Columnist
July 24, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/opinion/mu...2124460725
Robert Mueller speaking Wednesday on Capitol Hill.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Robert Mueller seemed to be hoping during congressional hearings on Wednesday that SEAL Team 6 would rush in and rescue him from his interrogators.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans got the sound bites they were looking for. Mueller declined even to read from his own report, apparently to avoid providing made-for-television clips, and he sometimes came across as muddled.
Yet the hearings still offered a window into the state of our presidency at a time when our political system is being grievously tested. I was transported back to my days as a teenager on an Oregon farm in the early 1970s, watching hearings about Watergate and President Richard Nixon.
We had just bought our first television — black-and-white — so that we could follow the national crisis. While there were many facts and laws in dispute, the backdrop seemed indisputable: Our president was dishonest and had egregiously abused his powers.
There were no huge revelations on Wednesday, but there was a similar sense of a stench in Washington that might have far-reaching consequences. Here was one exchange that might offer a glimpse of the future:
Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
Buck (sounding startled): “You believe you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
I wonder how that went over in the Trump family. This shouldn’t have been a surprise, but it creates one more reason Trump will be desperate to win re-election: Winning might keep him out of prison.
Somewhat reluctantly, Mueller seemed to acknowledge that Trump acted in ways that sound like obstruction of justice. In an exchange with Representative Cedric Richmond, Democrat of Louisiana, Mueller amplified this:
Richmond: “So it’s fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?”
Mueller: “I would say that’s generally a summary.”
None of this should seem surprising to anyone who read the Mueller report. After all, more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors, serving under Democrats and Republicans alike, signed a letter stating that if it weren’t for a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion, Trump would face “multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”
The letter outlines the evidence for those charges, including “witness-tampering” and creation of “false evidence.”
We should all be wary of our own selection bias and tendency to cherry-pick, and just because a president can be indicted after leaving office doesn’t mean that Trump will be in jeopardy. But at the broadest level, the hearings underscored the stink captured in the Mueller report.
Attorney General Bill Barr initially fumigated the report, claiming that the evidence it presented effectively exonerated Trump; that was inaccurate but was seized upon by Trump himself. The president repeatedly claimed that the Mueller investigation (“the greatest witch hunt in U.S. history”) found “no collusion, no obstruction.”
In the hearings, Mueller directly contradicted that line of defense, stating bluntly: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
In his opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, Mueller also flatly challenged Trump’s repeated efforts to downplay Russia’s interference in the election. Mueller noted that the Russians had interfered in an attempt to help Trump win, and he declared: “Our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. … Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”
Likewise, Mueller directly denied that he had been interviewed for the job of F.B.I. director and that he had been turned down, as Trump claimed. “I was not applying for that job,” Mueller said. Not surprisingly, he also denied that the investigation had been a “witch hunt” and he sharply criticized Trump’s praise for WikiLeaks’s release of emails hacked by Russia.
There was partisanship on both sides, of course, but I was struck and saddened by the way some Republicans lashed out at Mueller and tried to discredit him. After all, Mueller is a lifelong Republican, a decorated veteran and a longtime law enforcement leader — precisely the kind of person one might expect Republicans to show respect for.
It seemed that once Republicans had gauged Mueller’s refusal to push back hard, they chose to toss out conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation. They didn’t contest the specific points made about Trump trying to foil the justice system, but they did try to distract from them.
When I was a teenager watching hearings about Nixon’s abuses, I was struck by the willingness of some Republicans to defend Nixon and argue that Watergate was vastly overblown.
Soon enough, this was shown to be a triumph of loyalty to party over loyalty to country. History won’t reward obfuscation or blind party loyalty this time, either.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼