Sunday, July 07, 2019
"Special Counsel Robert Mueller documented efforts by the Trump campaign to impede his investigation into Russia's attack on our election. He decided that because he was unable to charge a sitting president with a crime, he would not conclude whether any of these efforts amounted to the crime of obstruction of justice."
When Robert Mueller delivered his 9-minute, post-report address, he spoke as if he had absolutely nothing more to say about it -- to Congress or anybody. It was all already perfectly stated in his report: A 400-page report that was so perfectly written by himself and other writers that nobody could possibly have a legitimate question about any statement in it. House committee members can ask me a question, any question, and all I need do is point to a line in my report, perhaps even the very line they're asking about. Just read it again. It's perfectly written, every word, just as it is -- we're such great writers.
I doubt he realized that's how he came across to some people. Perhaps, when he comes before Congress he'll reconsider and help us all understand the subtleties of what he wrote and didn't write. OK, we get that by laying out an invincible case supporting the President's obstruction of justice, he was inviting Congress to impeach on the ammunition he provided. But why the subtlety? Could he not have said outright: "On this evidence, I would recommend prosecution of an obstruction of justice case against the president, were I not constrained by the views of the Justice Department's OLC."
Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.