The purpose of this hearing, called by the Democrats, as I understand it, was to highlight key findings from the Mueller report since so few people have read it (including both of my US Senators). They simply wanted the chance to be able to read key parts and findings.
They were able to do that with Mueller generally affirming their statements with "if it's in the report, I stand by it" and even at times "yes."
Some key points that were reiterated by the Democrats:
1. No one is above the law, including the president
2. The Mueller Report did NOT exonerate the president on obstruction of justice
3. Sitting president can't be indicted, but an ex-president can
Mueller's rules - Mueller set one basic ground rule - he would not comment on anything that was not already stated in the report. I'm not completely sure why. Attorney General Barr had said that Mueller couldn't talk about other things because that would violate Executive Privilege, but that seems like a pretty broad characterization and Mueller, no longer a government employee, has more freedom to answer Congress' questions.
Nevertheless, he decided to stick to just the report and I suspect the Democratic leadership of the committee agreed because that was consistent with their intent to get key points from the report out to the public.
However, the rules at times made him look evasive - "I'm not going to answer that" - and Republican committee members emphasized that he was avoiding answering their questions. Though he also didn't answer Democrats' questions that went beyond the text of the report. With very few exceptions.
At one point, near the end, answering the questions of a Democratic Member of Congress, it seemed a little silly. She was trying to get the point across that while the investigation did not indict the president because it had been determined that a sitting president could not be indicted, that the report said there were other constitutional means to address this.
Q: What are those other processes?
A: Not going to say.
Then she mentions impeachment as one and asks again.
A: I think you mentioned one.
Q: Is that impeachment?
A: I'm not going to comment.
Was Mueller a good witness?
In terms of style, no. He looked very tired. He frequently asked that questions be repeated. He spoke hesitantly, with pauses, in a less than firm voice. A couple of tweets on that:
I think its safe to say at this point the #MuellerHearings are not living up to all the hype. As much respect as I have had over many years for Mueller, after watching him today he should not play himself in the "TV movie."
— Mountain Poet (@mtnpoet) July 24, 2019I'm just going to say it. Thank Mueller for his past service. But geez, he looks like he's 90 years old. Was there no younger prosecutor available? And why won't he say the word "impeachment"? He is doing the country a disservice. #MuellerHearings— #PresidentBernieSanders🔥LMo (@Mouz2009) July 24, 2019
Mueller's 75th birthday is coming up in two weeks. I don't think that a 75 year old can't be a good witness, but I'm guessing he didn't get a lot of sleep last night. Or maybe all week. And if he has hearing aids, he wasn't wearing them. And being careful not to stray from his own rules kept him very cautious which appeared to make him look unsure at times.
But I'd also say that I'm a better writer than a speaker. I too would have paused a lot and sounded hesitant in his situation as I would have tried to come up with the most accurate answer I could. It didn't sound like he had practiced sound bytes so he could offer quick, authoritative answers. He wasn't even that good at saying "if it's in the report, I stand by it." I'm guessing though that had he spoken much more strongly, Republicans would have accused him of being prepped for the hearing. (Which everyone should do anyway.)
In terms of content, depends on who was listening. There was no new content for anyone who has read the report, or even rigorously read news coverage of the report. But it is clear from what I saw on Twitter that Democrats heard what they wanted to hear and Republicans heard what they wanted to hear.
Did President Trump Obstruct your investigation in any way? NO HE DID NOT..that should end of the hearing,the rest is a democrat political show..anyone who still calls themselves a democrat should be embarrassed of whats going on now #MuellerHearings #cnn #msnbc #foxnews— Christopher🍺 (@callmesober) July 24, 2019
Now Republicans are directly supporting the Russians. WOW. Again I ask...how many Republicans are being paid by the Russians right now? Scary! #MuellerHearings— Kirk Harrington (@billthekirk) July 24, 2019
Republicans key points? (Well here are a couple I remember, I know there were others.)
- Investigation members biased against Trump
- There was no finding of collusion
- If there was obstruction of justice, how come you weren't fired?
- The person who originated all this - Misfud who told Papadopoulus about Steele dossier was not prosecuted for lying, so this is all based on nothing
- Over broad interpretation of obstruction of justice
Rep. Louie Gohmert asked about why the members of the investigation were all Democrats who hated Trump. Mueller responded in a rare comment beyond the report, that he never asks employees their political affiliation because they are all professionals and put their political feelings aside when working on cases. I would point out that if no Republicans or Democrats could serve on such an investigation then we would have no investigations at all. One tweeter said:
Mueller is a Republican! This is mind blowing! The GOP, again going after one who is a defender of the nation. Again, I have to ask where do I live? #MuellerHearings #MuellerReport #MuellerTestifies— Antiochus (@rev_ta_anderson) July 24, 2019
I'd also point out that it was a Republican Congress in 1993 that relaxed the Hatch Act which prohibited federal employees from participation in partisan politics:
In 1993, a Republican Congress substantially relaxed the Hatch Act to permit most federal employees to take an active part in partisan management and partisan political campaigns in their own free time.Republicans will characterize this as 'blowing up in the Democrats' face' and Democrats will say it highlighted the findings that most people haven't read.
Will it change anyone's minds? Only those who haven't been paying attention and haven't already taken a stand. And most of them probably weren't watching.
I seem to remember a little investigation of one William Jefferson Clinton where the independent counsel was not right wing partisan enough for Rethuglicans who replaced him with staunch, far right, conservative Ken Starr.
ReplyDelete