Please let's move on to the business of our country.
1
In answer to Ms Collin's question: Wimp!
10
The DoJ policy guideline should be rescinded. Think about it: the AG will always be someone appointed by the sitting president who would be the target of an indictment, and any subordinate prosecutors would report to that AG. Only under the most extraordinary circumstances would anyone other than a DoJ subordinate prosecutor be in a position to file charges without the AG's approval.
Extraordinary circumstances such as an entirely appropriate special counsel backed by a two-year, $35-million investigation.
The alternative is that this monstrous charlatan of a president could indeed shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, on live television, and be utterly unaccountable as long as his AG remains loyal and the Senate refused to convict for nothing nobler than partisan advantage.
Absurd.
9
I think that Mueller did his job. No one was going to happy with his conclusions. I'm sure he knew that ahead of time. There is no more thankless job than investigating a popular political figure, one who is backed to the limit by his party, and one who is a liar, a bully, and turns every disadvantage into a problem about the other person.
I think we should wait to see how much more comes out now that the report is done. I'm betting that there will be some interesting subpoenas, seizures of material, and a few more turncoats.
12
Sorry, Gail, this is hardly Mueller's fault. He has been the consummate professional. And it is really his problem that the president is so fast and loose with the facts? How much needs to be placed at the feet of this man? He could've stayed on the sideline -- he certainly earned it, with his distinguished career -- but he chose not to. He colored within the lines, and at the end of the day, expects enough people in critical positions to be able to read and think critically. If that can't happen, that ain't his problem.
10
It's amazing how many of the pundit class treated Mueller like the second coming of Moses, and still do.
1
Ms. Collins is in no position to correct Mr. Mueller's writing style. He was never going to be the savior many Democrats thought or hoped he would be.
I would ask Mueller what he thinks of “Attorney General” Barr withholding the information that he worked two years collecting from the House Judiciary Committee, if he understands that it is not Barr’s “baby” if the DOJ can’t prosecute due to an internal rule. If it’s anyone’s “baby”, it’s Congressman Nadler’s.
I would also ask, given it is up to the House to impeach, if he would have opened an inquiry obstruction when Trump said he would not honor any of their subpoenas (said after the report was delivered). If he truly believes in the rule of law, he should be horrified at the subject of an investigation using the power of his office to obstruct our only avenue of removing this clearly lawless President.
By delaying the report’s release and substituting Barr’s bogus letter, Trump and Barr were able to create a long lasting first impression.
Now, by delaying the House from having witnesses testify, and with very few bothering to read the lengthy tome of actual transgressions, he will create more dead air. This is aided and abetted by his “Roy Cohn” and Mitch McConnell. He understands the longer the nation is gaslighted, the less impact hearings will have.
Mueller needs to speak out about these items, since they are all directly related to his investigation, but are not included in his report.
9
I'm rather fond of choice "C". Sadly, that a very narrow and difficult path, cluttered with stone caricatures of GOP Senators. (The only exception would be McConnel, who's already a living caricature of himself...sort of like John Bolton.)
And to think I don’t know any school in the area that teaches Russian.
1
As Leonhart mentioned Mueller chose not to claim Trump broke the law just as he chose not to claim Trump did not break the law. This does make sense.
Mueller said it himself, that it would have been unfair to the president (as if he ever cared about fairness) to claim he committed a crime without providing him the opportunity of having a trial at which he might prove his innocence. Mueller said that such was unconstitutional, hence impossible.
From Mueller's point of view, such an indictment and subsequent trial would have to be carried out by Congress in the form of an impeachment, trial, and removal or not from office.
That wasn't his job, it's the job of our Congressmen and women - but they (the Senate) are in the cahoots with Trump. Hence, what's a never-Trumper to do?
5
Mueller warrior or wimp ? Incredible ! The behaviorist psychology at work in its worse visage.
"Anything special in the special counsel "...
It is no more the question of a nation under legal pressure because the president is abusive and has been elected through a process that bears some strong evidence of illegality.
It is whether a member of the judicial system is weak or strong as a person.
Absolutely no analysis of the crimes in question for the first problem in question: the president in the elections.
2
So Mueller departed saying: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so." I have to agree with Ms. Collins overall. But it's not wimpiness that's expressed. It's logical quicksand. Dispositions like confidence mean just about anybody's guess when denied. If I did not have confidence that tomorrow would come I wouldn't put out the trash. Huh? What does that mean? Some dispositions do not meaningfully have lackings and confidence is one of them. I don't doubt Mueller is a very bright man but in this case he was mouthing doublespeak.
4
Perhaps Mueller is one of those people who sees Trump for what he is, but is not prepared to accept that the Republican party has sold it's soul as well. Because that is the real issue here - Mueller is justifying his actions as though the Republicans are going to read this report and act on it in good faith, when it is perfectly clear that they are fully on board with Donald Trump's denials and cover-ups.
If Mueller wants to let the report speak for itself vis-a-vis Donald Trump, then perhaps he wouldn't mind giving his opinion on Mitch McConnell and his role in abetting Trump's victory by refusing to acknowledge Russian involvement that was known about prior to the election.
10
He said that it is unconstitutional to charge a sitting president. Show me in the constitution where it says that. It does not. This is merely an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel from 35 years ago. I say charge him with the crime. It is not unconstitutional.
13
Code of Federal Regulations regarding Special Counsel states
600.7 Conduct and accountability. (a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department,
including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
The last sentence is the clincher. AG Barr had written his 14 page screed defending the policy that won him the job.
Do you think Barr would have relented to Mueller? Absolutely not
The code of federal regulations is the law.
Here’s the infamous policy. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
Congress must impeach but wicked Mitch of the south won’t let that happen.
3
Do to support the right to abortion? The right to gay sex? Affirmative action? The Constitution is also silent on those.
1
Ms. Collins, your criticism of Mr. Mueller is off-base.
As special counsel, he did exactly what he was charged to do: investigated the issues of Russian election interference and potential obstruction of justice, and reported the results of his investigation, making referrals where necessary and indictments where appropriate. He and his team worked as consummate professionals, without leaks and without theatricality or overstepping. All of those have become commonplace, but an official who refrains from them should not be criticized for that reason. It is not Mr. Mueller's job to tell the House of Representatives or the American people what to think or what to do. He has raised an alarm and provided the information that supports that alarm. It is now up to the House and to the electorate.
6
Perhaps Mr. M wanted to fight the real ennemies of the USoA: Putin and the Russians. If so, he did his job: the Russians were proven to meddle in the elections.
Perhaps he did not want to divide the USoA any further than it already is. Then it'd be unfair to blame him to commit to either causes with regards to Trump.
Setting aside the question of whether Mrs. Clinton was more deserving of the presidency, the real thing to blame is the system: it fails to align the delegates' preference with that of the public (i.e. the popular vote).
1
If his report says it all, and he won't go any further than that, then they should get him to testify and in the process read all the redacted bits into the Congressional Record. Then we'd all know what he was talking about.
5
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/mueller-stirs-controversy-by-urging-americans-to-read
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The special counsel Robert Mueller ignited a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday by recommending that millions of Americans read.
Mueller, seemingly oblivious to the uproar he was about to create, repeatedly commented that there was valuable information available to the American people only by reading a long book.
At the White House, sources said that Donald J. Trump was furious about Mueller’s statement because he interpreted the special counsel’s pro-reading message as a thinly veiled attack on him.
Speaking to reporters later, on the White House lawn, Trump made it clear that Mueller’s exhortation to read had fallen on deaf ears.
“I’ve never read any of my books, and I certainly don’t intend to read his,” Trump said.
9
Unfortunately for all of us, Mueller is not a good communicator. He may be brilliant, but he does not know how, apparently, to deliver a simple declarative sentence on this issue. Instead of,"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so", he could have just said, "We believe the President committed a crime, but DOJ policy, determined through examination of the Constitution, demanded that we could not indict the President." See? Much clearer and more straightforward, while keeping the same meaning.
Instead of, "The DOJ is not the branch of government provided in the Constitution to accuse the President of wrongdoing", he could have said clearly, "Congress is the branch of government ordained in our Constitution to accuse the President of wrongdoing, and they can use this Report, in its public form, to do so." That doesn't exactly tell them to do so, but states the facts clearly.
He did say at one point that the public report is enough. That sort of showed his opinion that there is sufficient evidence in the Report itself for Congress to proceed.
Now, the Dems need to interpret his murky overly qualified statements, designed to confuse people, before they proceed. I am available to consult anytime, because I am really good at this. Find somebody!!
10
Re: Mueller. Nobody's going to save us. We have to save ourselves.
9
Gail, stick with the facts. Might be good journalism to do so.
What illegal coverup are you referring to? There isn't one.
Trump did not collude with Russia. Even Mueller, who clearly dislikes Trump and uses innuendo instead of facts to attack Trump, says clearly there is/was no evidence of Trump or his campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia. He may not be able to indict a sitting president -- but he certainly could say in his report that people in his campaign conspired with Russia -- and charge them. But he didn't. Or he could say, there was conspiracy. But he didn't.
And he could have said, this is obstruction. But he didn't.
There is also no evidence, despite all the MSM's huffing and puffing, that anything Russia might have done changed a single vote. Trump didn't win because of Russia. He won because HRC was a lousy candidate who insulted the electorate, lacked charisma, and campaigned on identity politics and open borders. Not a winning combination.
And I'm sorry, despite Mueller's double speak and innuendo, he did not find evidence that Trump committed any crime. In America, the bar is you must be found guilty or else you're off the hook. The state has to prove its case. Mueller didn't do that. So he wimped out and said it was possible Trump maybe committed a crime. That's not good enough. He had two years, vast resources to make a case and he couldn't. End of story. His behavior has been despicable.
Congress can change the "while in office" part through legislation. Of course, such a bill would neither pass the Senate nor be signed by this president.
Nevertheless, a bill passed by the House of Representatives clearly stating the no one, especially the president, is above the law would be a great step. It might even become law under a future Senate and president able to put country above party.
I usually don't admire tilting at windmills, but in this case the windmill is a worthy target.
5
While the President certainly committed crimes, it is by no means agreed that the crimes are egregious enough to overturn the voter interest. First, there's illegal campaign contribution to pay off Stormy Daniels. This "crime" has a lot in common with Bill Clinton's lie "depending what the meaning of 'is' is". Americans felt that throwing a guy out of office for lying to his wife (and submitting to blackmail) was beyond the pale.
Now another crime we know about is obstruction. Everyone who voted for Donald Trump wanted a "fighter". Everyone knew he was litigious. The American people voted for him, and no one should be surprised that he tried to thwart the inquiry. He did not fire Rosenstein, he did not fire Mueller, he released the report (or most of it). Much of his fight seems to be about preserving his public persona as a tough guy. He's willing to take the heat for dangling pardons (hey, wasn't that a joke?), making "suggestions" (shouldn't we limit the scope? what if we fire this guy?), mischaracterizing and lying - all in plain sight.
Now emoluments also raises its ugly head. The founding fathers said that the President cannot take money from foreign interests (for fear that it will bias his decisions - in other words, a bribe). However, they did not directly say that this was impeachable. It is not clear what is the remedy - give the money back, pay a fine?
No it's not at all clear that we have a "high crime", as much as we may dislike Trump.
Shouldn’t you blame Obama for the Russian attempts at election interference? It is clear at this point that President Trump and his campaign did not coordinate with Russia in any way. Obama, by contrast, did absolutely nothing even when he knew interference was occurring while he was president.
1
@Joe Absolutely spot on. I've read fact challenged dems assert Trump did nothing to prevent Russian interference in 2016. This lands squarely on Obama. He can use the weak excuse Mitch McConnell didn't want him to go public, but Obama was commander in chief. He did nothing until HRC lost and he feared his legacy was in danger.
The question is, why didn't he do anything. I have a scenario in mind where he is briefed in the spring of 2016 that the Russkies are hacking blah blah, and he says, well what can we do. And one of his aides says, nothing. We can use this against Trump you know. He's got ties to Russia through business, we just try to associate the two. If the unthinkable happens. Maybe we can even get some ammo produced that suggests Trump is a Russian lackey. That would seal the deal. We could bring it out before the election maybe, or hold onto it in case he wins. It's very unlikely he wins , so no need to use it unless we have to.
Obama nods and says to Comey. Look JIm, what do you think. Your guys might start looking into this now, maybe compromise a lower level staffer, get him to say Russia has dirt on HRC, something like that.
Comey replies, "Yes boss. If I get to let HRC off the hook publicly."
"No problem." He calls HRC. "Hill, we need some dirt on Trump. I know we've taken care of Bernie, I just want some insurance in case Trump wins."
HRC says. Right, I know a guy who'll say anything for a few mill. And he knows Russians.
1
So Mueller couldn’t indict the President because someone once wrote a memo forbidding it. Then, Mueller could not say what is clear to him, that the President broke serious obstruction of justice laws because that might have stigmatized the poor defenseless lamb. And then, Mueller could not denounce Trump’s collusion with Putin because the obstructed evidence didn’t reach the 90% mark needed to convince a jury of conspiracy charges - as if 80% collusion with our most dangerous foe was of no concern.
Prissy and ineffectual - dodging history’s challenge.
9
So Gail Collins fires the first - admittedly subdued - salvo against Mr. Mueller in the pages of the NYT. The comments section below, however, contains many howls against Mr. Mueller for not going beyond his exhaustive report. In the next few weeks, Mr. Mueller will likely be subjected to increasingly vicious attacks from rabid partisans on the left. Great repayment for his work on this report and his lifetime of service to the country.
4
I believe the democrats may be waiting for the other “shoes” to fall and come to light. Is there a reason to get that buffoon out quickly instead of waiting a bit and compiling more charges? Perhaps Black voters will outpace elected Democrats in leading the charge and get the job done. I hope so. And yes, Muller should be more active than just completing a report for two years that really does nothing for justice.
1
You're right Gail. Two simple declarative sentences,"The President obstructed justice but according to DoJ policy a sitting President can't be indicted so he wasn't charged. An impeachment hearing is an indictment hearing for a sitting President."
This would have cleared up a lot of confusion and made it much harder for the President and his toadies to obscure the truth. But I guess the Special Council's Office doesn't have editors.
5
"Donald Trump’s mind" Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this quote indicates an oxymoron.
8
Gail, I usually agree with your opinions, but not today. Respectfully, knock off the criticisms of what Mueller believes he should say, which is exactly, precisely, follow the letter of the law and the rules of the Justice Department. He and his colleagues spent months investigating and recording all the awful, stupid, and unlawful things that happened in the election and this administration. It's NOT HIS JOB to declare the President guilty, just as it's not a prosecutor's job to declare a defendant guilty in a trial, it is the jury's, which in this case is the House of Representatives. So far it looks like the jury just got up and went home. C'mon, Gail, most of us are not stupid, it's just that there are some who, for their own reasons, don't want to hear the truth.
73
@Barbara
Excellent summation and reminder-
Respectfully suggest that USHOR is the Grand Jury,
and USS is the Judge AND the Jury if, as, and when
the USHOR votes out one or more articles of impeachment.
4
@Barbara And the truth is ?
Americans are so childish. They speak like if it was a game or a fictitious trial.
3
Robert Mueller: Wimp!!!
3
Trump does not understand the difference between not having enough clear evidence to convict someone of a crime, and not having committed the crime.
Also Trump while in office as President cannot be indicted or convicted due to Justice Department policy and rules.
Trump and his campaign welcomed Russia efforts to help him win. That encouragement and acceptance of assistance is not a contractual conspiracy. Trump admires Putin and in the 50's he would be called a commie sympathizer or fellow traveller. If a semi-rich useful idiot can be a pinko, Trump has reached that dubious goal.
Trump could be impeached for being corrupt, dishonorable, lying over 10,000 times in office and for his current stone-walling Congress, and failing to see the laws are faithfully exercised to prevent Russian interference in our elections in 2018 and 2020. Perhaps when he ignores enough court orders public opinion will support impeachment.
8
Hey, Gail:
No one really believes that "A foreign power helped to throw the election to the candidate its leaders liked." Russia might have tried, but its efforts failed to persuade anybody in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin. The people in these states and others were fed up with the do-nothing eight years of weak-kneed Obama. They wanted a strong leader who wasn't afraid to mix it up with virtually anybody. Your columns are usually weak and whiny. This one is too.
1
Did anybody understand this?
1
Mueller said as much as he possibly could. Can't anyone read between the lines anymore? Since when do Americans need the Truth redacted for Idiots? This is not a nation of first graders. Why do you think Lincoln passed the Morrill Act?
2
You are mad because Mueller did not call for Trump’s impeachment. This is what is wrong with the left. Instead of accepting facts, you refuse to change your worldview
1
Everyone worships Mueller. I don't. He would watch his neighbor's house burn down while he held a hose, but fail to spray water on the fire because "that isn't my property." Gag me with a spoon.
2
Trump will not be removed from office by impeachment and if you believe otherwise,
you live in LaLa land.
2
Totally nailed it. Thanks, Gail. You’re our expert observer on Weenies, Weirdos and Wackos.
2
Reads like Trump derangement has taken over Gail's previously always-lucid writings.
2
We needed a warrior, but it seems we got a shy wimp that doesn't want to create waves when waves are exactly what his report should have created - tidal waves even. I was duped to believing Mueller was a quiet assassin, biding his time, replete with damning evidence that he was carefully collating and categorizing in his report that when finished, the response of the desk on which it was dropped would be tremors felt throughout the country, much less D.C. Mueller handing his document, 2 years in the making, to Trump's hand-picked and recently confirmed attorney general, was tantamount to burning it in the public square. It was a complete waste of effort that Mueller himself doesn't seem willing to expense much muscle in supporting before congress. Indeed, he should be the reports biggest and loudest advocate, not its smallest and quietest mouse.
3
When you old fools stop voting for feckless incumbents the republic will function again.
1
Clearly Trump could kill someone on Fifth Avenue.
2
Congress is full of cowards who have been waiting for Mueller to definitely say either:
To Democrats: "Impeach him, you idiots. I gave you the evidence."
To Republicans: "He's really innocent Evidence isn't strong enough."
Alas, he'll say neither. He wants them to read -- who has time for that between TV appearances? -- and take a political risk -- gasp! In a non-election year even? -- by deciding for themselves.
3
A nine minute speech with some awkward sentence constructions. Bob, I was hoping for more, um, clarity. Oh right, you’re a lawyer.
2
Who cares? Mueller is a Republican. You don't need to know anymore. Only the mindless think Republicans care or have nuance.
America deserves Trump to win in 2020. America is redneck and Trump is a redneck president, regardless of how rich he is. The man has the sophistication of a ball of lint.
1
Wimp. Germany, 1932, paraphrased, from many factions of the Reichstag:
"Herr Hitler makes some excellent points, and is a patriot. The Bishops and Cardinals are even behind him. Let's give him a chance, and see if he can show us how to love our country even more".
The Nazis didn't get a majority until later, and a big reason was people like Hindenberg and the Pope not standing up to them.
1
Simply deplorable wimp sir!!!
McConell needs a lesson sir!!!
You fall short of your charge.
You should have publicly resisted Barr and trumps demands .
Two years of silence allowed MSM and trumpians at Fox and the Magas to destroy the reports credibility.
Most Fox viewers are fed fake news and they believe it like I believe everything Rachel Maddow says about our politics.
I have read the report redacted. I want the blacked out sections Mueller. Now!!!
You are in Daniel Ellsberg chair now sir.
U are a regular citizen.
Help us remove the Russophile administration sir.
4
A straight shooter alright... What a joke! Your typical Deep State Republican in a disguise of an honorable man. Where's Ken Starr when you need him...?
1
this is probably the first column by the author that I did not find humorous.
2
It's really getting tiresome seeing in print that Russia's goal in tampering with our presidential election was to get Trump into the Whitehouse. Sure, they probably preferred Trump to Clinton, but that was not their main objective. Their main objective was to sow discord in the US to weaken us. In the end, whether Trump or Clinton won the election was of lower priority. Russia succeeded. And, the discord has taken root and is strangling our nation. There is nothing more talked about in this country that Hate Trump/Love Trump. And, of course, this just feeds his unquenchable ego. Russia won this battle, but they can only win this war if we continue to play into their hands. It's time to stop this nonsense and work at putting ourselves back together.
5
Mueller seemed nervous, preoccupied to me. Yes, the double-negative condemnation was wishy-washy almost to the point of being mealy-mouthed, a tactic that flat doesn't work when the subject is Trump.
3
Gail, tongue-in-cheek works on many days for you but today not so much. I think Mueller has handed his verdict to Congress in the best way anyone could. It may seem veiled but a read of the report would reveal it's not a neutral handoff. Of course, Trump would say he is exonerated...he doesn't read! Millions of others do and several of them are members of Congress.
1
Recently I read an article about how you must present your ideas in a corporate meeting for them to command attention. Mr. Mueller’s presentation failed in every respect. No clarity, no force, no urgency - no courage.
4
I read you because you're funny. This is no longer funny, although you're giving it your best shot. I despair about the state of our country. I stopped laughing a long time ago.
133
"There’s nothing more exhausting than trying to analyze the inner workings of Donald Trump’s mind."
On the contrary, it's painfully simple: He does/says whatever will feed his minuscule self-esteem.
4
I missed the part in my high school civics class treating our presidential elections. Because, apparently, every 4 years we elect a monarch who is above the law. I don't remember hearing that, so I must have missed it.
2
Robert Mueller was chosen to be the special counsel because he is one of the few left in this country who has the capacity to be impartial. He followed the facts and refused to be pulled into a partisan interpretation of those facts, simply stating what he found and making clear that he respected the bounds of his appointment and the rules of the department that appointed him. We are now so unaccustomed to people respecting the rule of law that we no longer know how to respond to someone that does.
Congress now has no excuse. If they fail to curb the abuses of this executive they will have done as much as he has to doom our democracy. It is their duty to employ all their constitutional powers to see that justice is done. Political calculations have no place in the face of such an existential threat, and history will not spare those who refuse to stop it while it is still possible to do so.
It would also be helpful if Ms Collins and the rest of her esteemed colleagues in the press could keep their eye on the ball. Robert Mueller is not the problem here; let's not waste ink and pixels on him when only unrelenting pressure on the guy who actually IS the problem will serve.
7
At the beginning of Trump’s term I said in a NYT comment that Americans needed to watch the Caligula episodes of “I Claudius” to prepare themselves.
“I Claudius” has become even more relevant. One character is a Roman matron who possesses all the moral rectitude of pre-Imperial Rome. (It would confuse things to call it republican Rome.) The matron argues with her daughter, who had succumbed to the degradations that are rampant under one of the new emperors. The mother argues for a sort of “just say no” response to the corruption that infests the Imperial household. “What kind of world do you think we live in?!”, the daughter asks her mother incredulously.
The mother eventually starves her daughter to death, as punishment for her transgressions. To punish herself for her shortcomings, the mother stations herself outside the door to the room she’s locked her daughter in. The mother listens to her daughter’s screams until she finally dies, too filled with her moral rectitude to save her child.
And this is where we are today. Most of America calls out for clear, simplified language and guidance to see us through this crisis—most are incapable of reading a 450 page report and thinking through it on their own, alas. And Mueller, filled with rectitude and honor to a fault, stations himself outside the door, afraid put his fingers on the scale of justice, and save the Republic.
7
@RMF
Suggestion - Don't confuse unable with unwilling. Most of the unwilling on both sides aren't open to persuasion. So they likely won't be any further persuaded by the "save us the trouble of thinking, and tell us what we should believe, Mr. Mueller" approach.
2
Why does so much of the conversion around Russia's interference during the 2016 election center on protecting Americans from their own stupidity? I mean, really! What person with more than 2 IQ points to rub together pays any attention to what's on Facebook?
4
Cheap shots are a dime a dozen. Anyone who is not a cretin can understand Mueller's message. Anyone who cares should have read the Report. Everything important is there.
People who wish Mueller had reduced a complicated case to soundbites so they could spend more time at the golf course don't deserve a Republic. Unless they get off their butts and read the Riot Act to their elected representatives and Senators, they won't have one.
As Ben Franklin said " A Republic, madame, if you can keep it." Members of the press who are crying about Mueller's behaviour should turn in their credentials. Lament instead the cowarice of the Congress and the blissful ignorance of the electorate.
5
"If I close my eyes and wish really hard, maybe the school will burn down, and I won't have to take that test..."
Sorry, folks. If you really want him gone, there are two options. Well, three.
Vote him out in 2020.
Watch him win, and wait for 2024.
Impeach him - there is a clear roadmap of offenses. But you will have to persuade 20 Republican senators that the obstruction case is legally sufficient to take a real conscience stand, and take some heat from their core supporters.
If we really want him gone, all of us have to be willing to persuade Uncle Henry with his MAGA hat at Thanksgiving that yes, there is a real problem that he should care about too. Telling him he's nuts won't help, BTW.
Or work like heck to make sure that he's gone, and to bonus turn the Senate D while holding the House next year. Maybe a couple of gerrymandered States, while we are at it. It's a census year, and reapportionment is in the offing too.
But it's up to us, if we want a better outcome. Mueller did his job. Magical thinking won't help us do ours. We all have to stop carping and start actually working for what we want.
Or...wait for 2024. And the next Magic Bus.
6
not in the defense of Trump...but there is a flip to this argument..#Obama to this date..refuses to admit that the Russians played a big part in electing the #GrabbingOctopus
because if he did..that implies he was sleeping on the wheel which will tarnish his legacy
press gave obama a free pass
2
@Salah Mansour Consider for a moment what would have happened - and not just on Fox News - if in September or October, 2016 Obama had gone on national TV and stated that there was evidence that Russia was trying to swing the electiion to Trump. Consider. He would have been vilified by the right as a partisan, a liar and worse. The middle - or what's left of it - would have viewed his assertions with some skepticism. Isn't that what you would have done? He was in a no-win situation. The FBI was working behind the scenes and Obama knew it, but there was no effective way for him to state that to the voting public. Until the US electorate stops getting its news feed from twitter and facebook and instagram, I'm afraid we're in for more of the same electoral interference.
7
@Barbara
I agree Barbra... however... Mr. Obama was elected to be a President of the US.. so he can make the tough calls.. Obama played it safe and he thought that Hillary shall win
Of course the GOP and FOX will chew him.. I know... but what he missed... that that they will chew him (or chew us who didn't vote for Trump)... irrespective
Dear Barabra... this is a much bigger of mess.. our democracy has been compromised.. I am very angry... Obama reacted only after the fact.. meaning after the election of Mr. Trump
1
Sorry Gail, it's become nearly impossible to chuckle at the lawless inanities of the Trump presidency.
1
Yes, he wimped out.
House Dems are doing the same.
We need someone who will fight for the truth and impeach Trump as he deserves.
Nancy, I'm asking you to do what's best for the country.
2
I’m not sure what to think of the Fox “News” photo as the lead visual for this column except perhaps the DOW wasn’t pleased with the baton pass dropped by William Barr.
1
"Russia, if you're listening...good job!"
1
W-I-M-P. 'Nuff said. You Democrats will have to do what's right, if Mueller doesn't wish to get his germ-free hands dirty. Let's see if you do.
Mueller needs a Key & Peele translator.
"[S]elf-protective weenie" sounds about right.
Mueller is a 'weenie'. You are correct, ma'am!
People in America are innocent until proven guilty.
Prove it or go home.
By the way all the 41 members of Congress calling for impeachment are 'weenies' also. They want evidence Mueller can not provide after two years of investigation. Based on what they paid Mueller and expected, those 41 members should be asking for a refund from Mueller.
Prove it or go home.
Build the wall.
It's hard to say what's more disgusting about this: Mueller's equivocation, or Gail Collins' lightweight jokeypoo-chuckling post-mortem on a tragedy.
1
Mueller went into a knife fight with a squirt gun, a D.O.J. policy, not a constitutional law, but chose the policy, a good soldier.
Barr knew this, and did the dirty work for his president.
Mueller needs to come off his mountain top.
3
Robert Mueller did his job... Now it's time for the House and then Congress to do theirs... If they're too stupid to read the report and not understand what it says then they should not be in Congress... We need to vote all the politicians out of Congress and replace them with thinking, loyal and caring Americans...
1
People want some sort of closure, and were looking to Mueller for salvation. He, instead, went with the strictly "by the books" legal process and punted to Congress. I agree with Gail that he kind of wimped out in doing this. But honestly, look at the den of (cowardly) vipers that our politics has become. Can you blame him?
"Let the snakes in the pit bite each other; keep me out of it I've a life to live..." is my interpretation of his commentary.
So on and on and on it goes, so what now? Oh...yeah...the ball is now in Congresses court. That rabble can barely tie their shoes and now you want them to deal with this?
By the time they get even close to it Trump could be into his second term; though I say this with a laugh because I seriously doubt the majority of American voters are going to reinstate him for a second term. Unlike Congress they know what to do, they've had enough and will make it clear. Fire the guy. If Congress won't do it We will.
Regardless Trump and his family now have enough justifiable legal troubles to last them for a couple of generations at the least. If they were ever a force in their business, or personal, lives those days are over. They're pariah's.
Trump's name, ironically enough since it seems the only thing he truly cares about, is tarnished enough that it will take two lifetimes to burnish it again. And in the longer term scheme of things maybe that alone is justice enough.
Nahhh...fire the guy.
John~
American Net'Zen
4
Comey, redux. Another purveyor of Moral Vanity, that leaves us diminished. Enough. Who will step up, and slay this dragon ???
5
What boggles my mind is that for a gang that cannot shoot straight, a set of bumblers who cannot even get jobs in "Dumb and dumber go to Washington, who kept shooting themselves in the foot, they did not leave enough evidence for Mueller and his team to find evidence. I am referring to the American contingent, Putin and his goons left a slime trail. I am truly impressed by these "Amrican" bumbling jokers.
But "stuff" happened and the Democrats in Congress have to do the hard work and impeach the leader, one Trump, warming his behind in the Oval Office. They tried the old "the voters will decide gambit." Seriously? why do you think we elected and sent you to Congress?
Will they find the guts? will they have the nerve? the jury is out.
Let’s declare war on Russia. We don’t have to do anything in furtherance of that except charge any American who aids Russia in electoral interference with treason.
"The man may be a remorseless liar who has no interest whatsoever in any aspect of American democracy that doesn’t directly affect his own personal fortunes. But he’s from here"
Obama, on the other hand, was ready to sell us out to Kenya.
Dear Gail, now that you've put me on Bobby and Sylvia's trail, I find the trail leading all the way back to Aristotle and Plato. This is what they both said about Sophists: "one who makes money by sham wisdom."
In Mueller's case, I would emphasize 'sham wisdom'. However, in the case of the US Attorney General, whose worth is $22 million, I am inclined to opt for the entire quote.
I despair. Trump is subjecting America to endless paroxysms of gullibility, day in and day out. Zeus, where art thou?
1
Ms. Collins you might want to pick a fluffier subject because this one is not to your strength.
It is not this mans job to pick a winner his is to remain apolitical and he did that exceptionally well. He did call out Barr in a tasteful way which I thought was appropriate. He also made clear the essence of his job and the results they arrived at. Clearly, he confirmed his credentials, experience and ability. In a chaotic situation he remained above the fray.
1
We got shammed, people. The Great God Mueller turned out to be made of tin. Prognosticating Progressives - Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Hayes, among many others - assured us that Mueller would lay waste to our degenerate and utterly corrupt president, just you wait! What we got instead was a timid and supremely self-protective laundry list of could-be-might-have-been-it's-possible-that-oh-who-knows-I-don't-want-to-go-there! musings from a Tin Man. Hollow from top to bottom, the Great God Mueller turned out to be a graven image unworthy of our time or adulation. Genuflect no more, Progressives. You've been had. What looked like gold was tin.
4
Ms. Dowd,
You didn't read the report either, did you? New rule, no one can comment on this issue if they haven't read the report.
1
@Mags Except that Gail Collins wrote the article.
3
It sorta' seems like this Mueller thing was trying very hard to be a white wash for Trump but just couldn't quite get it done. So Mueller didn't really DO much of anything except punt to Congress--impeachment. And Speaker Nancy correctly says 'no' to that.
1
Enough evidence of Putin's successful interference is contained in Mueller's Report that Americans need no longer be duped about Russia.
Except, Donald J. Trump goes out of his way to contine to characterize the entire investigation as "Witch Hunt", "Russian Hoax", and some kind of "attack" conspiracy from Americans, American political organizations, and American institutions.
Days after firing Comey by letter, Donald J. Trump was yucking it up with the Russian Ambassador, Russian staff, and Russian press - IN THE OVAL OFFICE - “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
DONALD J. TRUMP IS RESPONSIBLE for that kind of stupidity as a minimum; and now for putting himself before the need to acknowledge Putin's involvement. You see, IT IS MORE IMPORTANT - to the Republican Party, to their media outlets, and to their members - to create and to pursue a narrative of illegally acting evil-doers.
Self preservation drives members to follow their leader, and to spread a despicable lie against the FBI, so to "prove" enemies. They'll do anything, even deny the Russian attack on our 2016 election.
3
This piece is deeply offensive. Mueller did superbly professional and superbly disciplined work. Not like to author of this piece who is running off at the mouth.
She owes Mueller and apology.
4
Not only is he a wimp, he was completely ineffective and wasted millions of dollars of our taxpayers money, and for what ? What?
If I had gone to my employer with the bill he handed Congress along with what I accomplished, I’d be fired on the spot
1
Mr Mueller's basically said: Even though Donald Trump and William Barr called me, and the team of civil servants that did their duty to protect our nation, a treasonous cabal seeking to over throw the government, and I don't want to get any dust on me.
Sophisticated, nuanced thinking from Gail Collins: if Mueller says what I want to hear, he’s a warrior, a hero; if I don’t have any use for what he says, he’s a wimp and should get lost. Interesting notions of truth and value.
It reminds me of Ms. Collins’ reaction when she was asked what would it take to make her believe that Judge Kavanaugh is innocent: if he can prove that somebody else did it, she replied. The accused has to prove his innocence, or else he’s guilty by default.
Mueller needs to testify whether he wants to or not. Our democracy is more important than Mueller's personal comfort. Surely a hard charging congresswoman will not cause Mr. Mueller a combat vet to collapse in tears. If it hurts the relationships between the Muellers and Barrs that is too bade but the toady AG did misrepresent his report claimed he was too cowardly to write his own letter that he found snippy . Dems show some spine as you are dealing with a crime boss and his lackey AG ready to use his power to crush his political opponents . Save our democracy please.
4
Teacher: “Bobby, did Sylvia pull the class bunny’s tail while I was out of the room?”
Bobby: “Teacher, if I had confidence that Sylvia clearly did not commit any infraction of the bunny rules, I would have said so.”
Perfect.
Mueller's double speak is an insult to the American people.
And that Mueller proclaimed "full faith" in Bill Barr, after Barr intentionally lied about Mueller's report, is just beyond belief.
1
The machinations over how Mueller has summed up his work are not rational. He's not a prosecutor but rather a gatherer of information, facts and testimony. He has taken the results and summed them up by noting that Trump is not exonerated and it's up to congress to decide if there are grounds for pursuing impeachment of the president. Some will say yes and some will not — with or without bias.
Much of this rests on the character of Trump, and he has a long and well-documented history of secrecy, dishonesty and self-interest at any cost or consequence. There is no reason to believe he didn't continue this in his seeking the nomination and in his running for president. Pretending otherwise is to deny the obvious, much like Trump does on a daily basis.
Executive privilege does -not- include the right to avoid the consequences of actions and activities contrary to our values, expectations and the rule of law. Voters have an alternative option to impeachment: voting this failed president out of office. It's that simple.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
1
That was the best we're going to get from Mueller, enlightening, but overall I say he's a wimp. No matter how straight laced and impartial you are the egregious behavior of 45, needed to be clearly explained. How many are actually reading the report? Very disappointing.
3
The real wimps are those in Congress not calling for impeachment. Character matters and the lying, defiance of the law, outright corruption, inability to defend foreign interference in future elections, all are impeachable offenses without delving in to probable financial malfeasance. We the People need to demand what is right and impeaching this vile cancer on our democracy is what is right.
1
Mueller is neither warrior nor wimp on this issue. He did his duty. If the Congress chooses to impeach, there is no doubt that he will be subpoenaed and he will show up.
Every person in this country has a part in the dismantlement of our government by an incompetent President: The House will not impeach because doing so serves no purpose except to give Trump another claim to victimhood. If impeached, the Senate will not convict because their loyalty is to their Party not to the nation. Whoever the candidate is for President in 2020 will be a better person in every way than the one presently in the office.
Will they win? If the voters register to vote, if they show up, if their vote is not gerrymandered or suppressed, if the “machines” don’t lose their votes because of their connection to a hackable Internet— well, then maybe we’ll dump this person in the WH. It would be excellent if the voters also dumped most of his kowtowing Senate Republicans too.
But don’t be surprised if it’s too late to save the nation’s functional governing. Remember: Trump had many bankruptcies and every else he touched turned to poo as well. (He couldn’t even pay off a paramour without violating the law and getting others to do his dirty work!). Why should our country be any different?
3
If you know anything of Trump's track record, you wouldn't let him take your mother to the grocery store. His base is completely inured to any facts about him - waved off with an "I don't listen to MSM". I want to ask do they go to real doctors or dance around a tree?
I think he's tapped into a thing his supporters might not even know they have. The comments about over-reliance on special prosecutors substituting for legislators just doing their jobs is spot on. We have a confluence of patient conspiring opportunists and lazy voters (and these are the people who even bother to vote!). I knew we were in trouble when we spent $7 million on Benghazi.
Given people in general won't admit they're wrong, I don't expect this attitude to change. Cynically, Mueller is right to not bother with a fight - all the facts are there, for all the good they do.
I wish him a happy and profitable next venture. We got sold that this would work out to be something else, and it wasn't by Mr. Mueller.
2
Mueller did what he needed to do. Write a report on what happened. It is not up to him to clean house. His report, documenting what happened in great detail. makes for a gripping read. All the skullduggery. Cloak and dagger. Tomfoolery. Essentially tragicomedy. No wonder costco stocks it. That said, he has left it to others to make of that what they will. It is clear on an ethical/moral/prudential plane what he thinks of what he has reported. Congress, the president, the people should take note; meanwhile, he says,his work is done: au revoir.
2
I know of no other way to interpret "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so" then to infer that he is as guilty as that netherworldly place without air conditioning in the very deep basement where the furnace runs full-tilt 24/7.
I would also say that Mueller nearly gave the president a get-out-of-jail-free card, but still the president is foaming at the mouth in renewed rage at the ever-cautious Robert Mueller for failing to state unequivocally but the president is as innocent as the virgin snow on a winter balsam bough.
4
What Mueller forgot was, trump's base was sitting in their double wide trailers watching on TV and they had no idea what he was saying. He should of had some Q cards made up with a very elementary explanations. Like, Trump is not innocent. He can't be charged while in office. Only the congress can try him for obstruction and collusion. The Russians did help Trump win the election and I can prove it.
6
Mueller is a lawyer. They all write like that unless they’re threatening somebody or clearly partisan like Ken Starr or Bill Barr for instance. It’s a device to provide maximum wiggle room. Obviously he could have been more direct but it’s clear to me he believes that Trump obstructed justice and if there are charges to be made then it’s up to Congress.
Regrettably, though impeachment would pass the House,Pelosi believes that it would be laughed out of the Republican controlled Senate, a split decision that would gain him a sympathy vote from enough dim witted independents to further tilt the already biased Electoral College.
2
Old Bobby boy wants to retire with his golden parachute and not be bothered by pesky questions after a total failure as an special council. Mueller simply does not want the mantle of someone who might have split the country in two. Little bobby boy can not handle the shame of failure.
Mueller has been anointed as our savior ever since he was named Special Counsel. Make some room on Mt. Rushmore! As Gail points out he will be an asterisk
In the history books.
Mueller has dodged any conclusive statement by referencing an internal DOJ memo. It’s like Paul Revere got on his horse to warn the people of Boston only to conclude that he can’t do it because he’d be out past curfew.
2
Trump is the personification of the Nixonian doctrine "When the President does it, it's legal." He doesn't get indicted for obstructing justice, he lies to the American people for personal gain every day with impunity, he and his merry band of crooks don't have to respond to Congressional subpoenas, and he and his corrupt family and friends violate the Emoluments clause of the constitution daily for money and sport. The President of the United States is clearly above the law.
2
Warrior or wimp?
Neither.
He's a professional who did his job as dispassionately as possible. His conclusions are clear. Trump was jammed into office by the Russians.
180
@KJ
Yes, but he could have made his conclusions more clear for a public that gets its information from screens rather than the printed word. Strunk & White would have been very disappointed in his phrasings.
12
@KJ
You forgot to add that he was, as you put it, jammed into office by the Russians under the watchful eye of the Obama administration.
Blame Obama for the tampering and blame the Dems for running Hillary. That combination put Trump in the Whitehouse.
2
@KJ
His conclusions are clear. Trump was jammed into office by the Russians. And Trump tried at least 10 different ways to obstruct Mueller from finding that out.
20
The vast American public is borderline illiterate and won't read a 448-page report, let alone try. Even many senators haven't read it. So there's little hope for this democracy and we should just except out fate. West Russia has a nice ring to it, yes?
3
I think Mueller is a wimp. However, he was very clear about one thing. We need to insure that Russia, and any other foreign country, stay out of our elections. Whether this means regulation of social media or going back to paper ballots I don't know, but let's stay focused people, or this will happen again.
2
Well, this is some nonsense. Ms. Collins here is disappointed that Mueller didn't satisfy her cartoon super-hero fantasies, so dumps on the work he did. Focus on this: his job was to walk through the evidence from top to bottom, document what he found, and recommend what he was allowed to recommend under the DOJ guidelines. He did his job. He was not there to give you the thrilling spectacle of a political "warrior" laying waste to the Forces of Evil through histrionics. In fact, were he to attempt that, it would undercut the considerable credibility that brought him to the job in the first place.
5
Collins is funny, and she's smart, but we are in serious danger here and she seems to make light of everything, no matter how serious or life threatening. I miss Molly Ivans.
2
Was there ever a more timid Marine than Mueller? One imagines how he would issue a command in Vietnam: "attack, or retreat, whatever."
2
Trump accepted, encouraged, coordinated with and attempted to conceal the help he received from Russia in securing the presidency. Under these circumstances it is absurd to afford Trump the benefit of the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president. This is like a allowing a bank robber to use the stolen money to pay for his defense attorney. It’s a flagrant case of bootstrapping.
2
Mr. Mueller explained why he could not opine on whether the President obstructed justice. The problem he faced has much in common with the problem James Comey faced when he wanted to criticize Hillary Clinton but not charge her regarding her use of private email. So, if it is clear to you why Mr. Comey's remarks about Hillary Clinton were out-of-line, then it should also be clear to you why Mr. Mueller could not comment on the likely culpability of Mr. Trump. He did what he could legitimately do. Congress understands what he said, even if many voters do not. Now the members of Congress will either do their jobs or be consigned to the history books as hopelessly compromised failures. And if the latter, we must consider these events to have revealed a flaw in the Constitution and begin work on how to fix it.
2
I wish Mueller would have reiterated what he stated clearly in the report - "collusion" was never investigated or evaluated. The report makes clear that the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term.
No one can say the report found or cleared "collusion" because it was never assessed.
Reference to "collusion" is a distraction from the many critical findings of the report and Democrats only confuse the issue by acknowledging the term in reference to Mueller in any way, except to forcefully remind that it wasn't part of the investigation.
It's a very different discussion from an evaluation of whether - if even though it explicitly wasn't what they were looking for - did the Mueller team found "collusion", a nuanced conversation unsuited to the common discussion of current events.
Please people, read the actual report.
3
Constitutionally, Mueller could not charge Trump and so he rightly declined to label as "crimes" what he found Trump had done. He did, however, report what Trump had done, and whether as a result of political pressure or not, AG Barr released enough of that information to Congress for Congress to determine whether to go further.
A few years ago, in another context, Ben Bernanke told a Senate committee about the limits on what he could do and urged Congress to act to stimulate the economy. Mueller has done exactly the same thing. He has done all he can. He has led the horse to the water. Unfortunately, perhaps not the part of the horse that drinks.
4
I am afraid I agree with Gail Collins. Mueller has a responsibility to be sure the US public understands the truth. The GOP with the help of Fox and Friends and Barr have mislead the public perceptions of Trump. Trump's presidency is a serious treat to our democracy.
8
Why did Mueller and his Hillary-supporting team of prosecutors not go further. Barr spelled it out in his testimony. There is a significant challenge to conclude there is probable cause for an indictment:
1. Mueller and Team found insufficient evidence of a broader conspiracy to interfere in the election, i.e. after all the witnesses, docs, time, money and holding both Manafort and Flynn in jail for months and months trying to force them to assist, there is no substantial, or more likely, no evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia or Russians.
2. The President, as an innocent man, and understandably upset that he was being falsely accused and that his Presidency was being hijacked or impeded by the investigation, railed against it and its leader time and time again, and from time to time, suggested, asked and ordered a subordinate to try to obtain the dismissal of Mueller the person as leader of the investigation. As Barr astutely pointed out, these actions do not establish a corrupt intent.
3. But what about the fact that Mueller indicated the President's actions increased in intensity or otherwise as it became clear the President himself was a subject? Well..., duh...as time passed and the investigation lingered and continued to interfere with his Presidency, he was entitled to get madder and madder.
Conclusion: not even close; no obstruction and impeachment will fail.
Evidently the evidence proving conspiracy with the Russians by the Trump team lacked enough evidence for the grand jury to indict. that does not mean there was not enough evidence to take it to the Grand Jury. That does not mean that there was not evidence of a conspiracy. nor does it suggest that there was lack of support from Rosenstein and or barr because for anything to go to through the grand jury or any subpoenas issued it had to be approved by the AG. The special counsel is not completely independent of any oversight from the doj of which the special counsel is but a part
1
No matter what Robert Mueller did or didn't say yesterday or in his report -- nothing changes the fact that Trump just openly admitted Russia helped to get him elected.
So let's start there.
8
Since when does a Justice Department memo that a sitting president cannot be indicted become a law? I understand that the Justice Department is not the branch of government that makes law.
10
@Paulie
Code of Federal Regulations regarding Special Counsel states
600.7 Conduct and accountability. (a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
The last sentence is the clincher. AG Barr had written his 14 page screed defending the policy that won him the job. Do you think Barr would have relented to Mueller? Absolutely not
The code of federal regulations is the law.
Here’s the infamous policy.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
Congress must impeach but wicked Mitch of the south won’t let that happen.
3
Stop! Stop focusing on Mueller. Focus on his report. That's what he said - it's all there. There's one person who very much needs to testify and one way to make it happen. That person is Trump and the only way it happens is through Impeachment.
I think that's what Mueller was staying loud and clear. Otherwise, he might have just said: "I can't remember."
4
While I share your frustration with Mueller's lawyer-speak, Ms. Collins, he was quite clear in his assessments. Sadly, too many Americans have been dumbed-down so that now they can't or won't understand English more complex than the simplistic spew of Fox State TV. Quick junior high English review: a double negative is a positive. Yes, Trump likely committed one or more crimes, QED. But Mueller claims he couldn't act on them due to precedent, although "others" could. The only "other" is Congress, and the only method is impeachment. I think the Democrats will soon move to do that, but are any Republicans aside from Rep. Amash patriotic enough to follow suit? If not, they must be removed as well by any and every legal means available. The validity of our constitution and its form of government depend on it.
Democracy works only when all who live under it agree to abide by its rules, and sometimes those rules require complex and precise words. But we have endured enough talk. It is time for America to (re-)learn those words, take action and preserve democracy. Mr. Mueller has clearly charted the route. Let's go!
9
If the Democrats want to know whether they should file Articles of Impeachment, they should first hold a few high profile hearings. Call Mueller, McGahn, Comey, James Baker (the DOJ lawyer), and a few of Mueller's team. If the American public is not sufficiently enraged by what they hear - and it doesn't even have to go outside the "four corners" of the Mueller Report, although it probably will - then there is not point in filing the Articles.
However, I predict that the testimony produced at such hearings will be the first time 90% of the public have actually heard the details. I am certain that an almost vanishingly small percentage of people have waded through even part of the Mueller Report. For them -and even for those who have read it - a live witness sworn to tell the truth on national television will be transformative.
If not, then so be it. And god save the Republic, nobody else apparently can.
6
What we need is more democracy, not less.
If NY state opens up Trump's tax filings, then everyone's tax filings should be opened. To be used by everyone against everyone else, both at work and at home.
Salacious Russian dossiers, at $6 million each, can now be afforded only by those who have received $150 million from Putin's friends, and who are willing to give some of that money back to Putin's friends to concoct dossiers. That is not what democracy is about.
Everyone should have access to an affordable salacious Russian dossier, maybe in kit form with the perp name left blank. So that every honest American can start a Mueller like investigation into everyone whom they don't like. And so that everyone can have everyone else bugged based on it.
Years later, in the unlikely case in which the mic'd targets are found not guilty of the original crime, we could nail them down for attempts at obstruction, even when the actual investigation was not obstructed.
That is what democracy is all about. We owe it to the founding fathers.
2
I don't see anything particularly wrong with Mr. Mueller and his team conducting their investigation with integrity, publishing a report of the results with equal integrity, and then saying, in effect, "We did our duty as the Office of Special Counsel. Our form of constitutional government now requires the Legislative branch to do its duty."
I can read. I read the entire report; I in turn concluded that the Russians interfered in our election and Donald Trump tried to obstruct the investigation.
Over to you, Congress.
8
My distress with Robert Mueller's statements yesterday concerns his not wanting to testify to Congress, even in closed door hearings. I think he will show up if called to testify at an impeachment hearing, but some word from him for US would help show the voters why an impeachment is necessary.
It is really something that the only accomplishment of this so called president is that a special prosecutor could not find any proof that he was innocent of crimes like collusion? Obstruction? Treason?
As dangerous as it might be to slow walk impeachment on the part of Speaker Pelosi (because of the damage the can do to the Nation) the impeachment trial in the Senate should elbow its way into the election season.
The crimes of t rump are already on full display but if the Senate refuses to convict, and they will, too soon the testimonies heard in the House will have time to be forgotten while the so called man in the White House will take his megaphone to 5th Ave to proclaim his vindication. Vindication that does NOT exist.
2
The base will never turn away from Trump. But, look at Armash ‘s town hall! There is a large number of voters that need to be convinced of the evidence that could come out publicly in impeachment proceedings. And perhaps, like Nixon, the Republicans could convince Trump to resign. At the same time, the Dems need to retake the Senate. It will do no good to gain the WH if McConnell still controls the Senate. And God forbid, Trump is re-elected! I am very frightened that even if he loses, Trump will not leave the WH. We’ve seen his behavior.
3
Even though both Mueller and Rosenstein are conservative Republicans,they could have done worse.Just look at Barr.I have read the report with the help of Lawfare.com and it is actually devastating for Trump.Just having Mueller testify before a congressional committee and read portions of his report out loud would be very effective.Questions could be asked which he'd refuse to answer(speculate on) and this would be enough.I'm not sure why the congress seems afraid to impeach Trump.It might be because he would use his acquittal in the Senate to his electoral advantage.So what! What Trump and his cronies did in the last election and beyond is simply unacceptable if we are to continue to have a constitutionally based democracy."It's all in the report".Go for it!
5
Yes, Mueller is deeply disappointing. But more than either warrior or wimp, I see a human being who, logically, is deeply afraid of what could happen to him and his loved ones if he confronted DT more clearly. I’m amazed people don’t get that. Yes, he’s likely scared of Trump, who, if my memory serves me correctly, sent Michael Cohen to intimidate and/or threaten around 500 people in 10 years. And of his extremist fans, a few of whom who have already showed they don’t shy away from assassination. I’m sure he’s received numerous death threats. Don Lemon has and who’s more high profile? Mueller knows that 45 doesn’t do nuance or subtlety and so he’d soon stop listening and simply believe what he wanted. But Mueller was was hoping that much of the US public might be more capable of picking up on nuance. He just doesn’t want anyone in his family to end up like Gabby Giffords or worse. He’s undoubtably not into fruitless martyrdom. Is that so hard to understand?
6
Mueller was a cop who was hired to conduct an investigation. He did so. Stop trying to make him the Democratic party's savior. He will continue to disappoint you, because he does not wish to have a political role. If you try to force him to take that role against his will, he will exact his revenge by making Democrats look like fools. His message is quite clear: this is all that you will get from me.
4
No profiles in courage to be seen
1
Your new Democrat party better stop looking behind to Old White Men as saviors. It's time. Either the new voters will step up and correct what the Russians wrought, or the rest of the country will confirm indeed: we don't like the new Democrat party policies, and we don't have a single candidate that we can trust to represent our scattered and competing interests.
Blacks vs. women.
Gays vs conservatives.
Special identity groups vs. majority economic concerns...
No wonder you want impeachment. If the president is elected again, Mueller does not want to be the man single handedly overturning the will of the American people. He's not in the bag for the Hillary camp and owes the Dems nothing. Run on reparations, womens rights and hate crimes already. Either those issues are winners, or they are not. Best to learn from the voters, not the Washington power players who are not going to go quietly from their privilege perches...
1
@Midway I notice you haven't mentioned Universal Healthcare,Climate Change policy, reducing income inequality or stopping election interference by the Russians as major Democratic party policies.If you want to focus on "gays vs. conservatives" that is your right but I'd be interested in your take on the major policies listed above which the Democrats are proposing.Do you think those issues might be "winners"?And maybe Trump's 40% approval rating is more indicative of the "will of the American people."Do you think?
5
Mueller serviced up a brew of 'weak tea'. He spends two years investigating a president all the while knowing that he will not indict him regardless of the crime. Nothing in the Constitution but rather some email ruling within the Justice Dept. Thanks alot.
The door is wide open for Trump and the Republicans to continue working with their Russian thug friends to now influence and hack the 2020 elections. Say goodbye to America.
1
Everything Barr said was a lie. Now confirmed.
7
He failed by not standing up for truth and justice. Many people believe so whole heartedly in an 'office', or institution, that they trick themselves into thinking that the 'office' is inherently fool proof. The legitimacy of any office is governed by the person holding the position and not the position itself. Trump's a fool, if not a compromised puppet for Putin.
No wonder Chaplin escaped to France!
1
Keep repeating- The Republican held senate will not vote to impeach Trump even though he is clearly guilty of impeachable crimes. We must vote out McConnell and his craven toadies to have any chance of impeachment. The Russians will help Trump win again in 2020 but a Democratic congress will be able to stop him, finally.
3
Warrior or wimp? Warrior, who knew what he was doing and who still knows what he is doing. Too nuanced and smart for those looking for a blatantly partisan approach that would have immediately resulted in a total denial of the legitimacy of the report's findings. If Gail Collins is looking for wimps, she should look to the Republicans in the Senate.
5
He has let the world down. He has let down democracy. Donald Trump is a full blown crisis, a destructive liar at the head of a traitorous GOP selling America to the Russians and Mueller just ritually washed his hands of the whole thing, hiding behind some DoJ norms that neither Trump nor the GOP respect. Definitely a wimp who thinks of himself and his "reputation" when the country is being brought to its knees.
2
“President” Trump is a bonafide Sociopathic Personality Disorder.
We, the People, are in dire need of Treatment.
2
Like most people who pay attention to politics, at least some of the time, I was curious to see, first, what the Mueller Report was going to reveal. And second, what direction it would push our representatives in Congress, to act on those revelations. Sadly, the only image that comes to mind, as the hoopla goes on, is that we are doomed to an endless dance "round the prickly pear" which will end "not with a bang but a whimper"-T.S. Eliot
3
"Warrior or Wimp"? Really? Yes, Ms. Collins, Robert Mueller is in fact a warrior. The man who volunteered to put a promising post-Ivy League career on hold to serve in Vietnam is a warrior. The former Marine captain who was awarded not only a Bronze Star for the valor he displayed, but a Purple Heart for wounds he received while fighting in that conflict, is a warrior. The man who has devoted decades of his life to civil service in the Department of Justice and the FBI is a warrior and a man of character.
I'm sorry you're upset, Ms. Collins. I'm truly sorry that Robert Mueller turned out to be an apolitical professional who diligently and methodically carried out his duties as Special Counsel. I'm sorry he did not turn out to be a partisan bomb-thrower and hack, twisting and contorting facts to appropriately suit a certain narrative.
Your petulant and petty attempt to assault Mueller's character and courage (nitpicking his grammar!?!) reflects poorly on you, and puts you a lot closer in demeanor to that occupant in the White House whom you claim to despise. Sad.
1
I really don't understand Robert Mueller. He is a seasoned lawyer, known to have integrity. Gail is right: why the double-negative explanations?
The time for clarity is now. Lord knows the citizenry is easily confused and bamboozled by advertisers, charlatans, politicians, and entertainers. And then Mueller gives his inscrutable inkblot-test explanations, which leaves lots of room for Trump and his personal town criers to clarify. Hey folks, you didn't see what you saw or hear what you heard, Trust us!
Also, if you and your esteemed team wrote a factual report that had serious implications for an entire nation, but then some lackey said he would 'splain the report to the citizenry, and he obfuscated and twisted what your report said and thereby gave a false/fake impression of the report's findings, wouldn't you be furious and demand to testify to restore the credibility of you and your team's work so that bewildered and confused citizens could hear it straight from the horses mouth?
Esteemed lawyer Mueller knows better than to obfuscate to an easily confused jury. So why did he?
3
Maybe he's trying to say--Look, I'm the smart, decent guy pointing you in the right direction but you're gonna have to find your own GPS device---you know what you have to do
3
Twitter is the medium that fuels Trump - no Twitter - no Trump! How easy - who needs the Mueller report!! Block Trump’s account!!
Mueller is not missing the mark or avoiding anything..he follows the law precisely..he did his job as Special Counsel conducting an investigation and now Congress needs to step in and do their job..begin Impeachment of this illegitimate , corrupt President..
No matter what we do, or how we say it, Trump, the GOP and Fox always have a comeback. This morning Trump said that Mueller had always been "never Trump!" and that Mueller had a grudge against him because of Mueller's request for partial refund of dues at a Trump-owned golf club (because his family was moving). Trump starts with a quick one-two punch and then he grabs on to phony details and lies and smears with impunity. I have been waffling back and forth on the Impeachment issue and whether that process will best serve the country at this time. But now I know, after reading Charles Blow's op-ed op-ed and talking to many friends and family, it has become clear we must begin Impeachment. We must get Trump out of the office any way we can by finding facts on how he has been an obstructionist for years. He is a terrible president and a terrible human being. Mr. Trump, "ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." Bring back optimism and hope to fellow Americans. Impeach this president.
5
I prefer Robert De Niro’s SNL version of Robert Mueller. The real one is just a sniveling coward. Maybe Kate McKinnon should play Mueller on SNL going forward. She’d only have to resurrect Jeff Sessions, minus the southern accent and replace the opossum tail with something more weaselly.
1
C. Resoundingly C.
Who would WANT a criminal for a president? Why would any US citizen celebrate the fact that s/he can't be charged while in office? That's pure lunacy.
1
Mueller is just another wimp! Seems to be afraid of Trump and Barr. And who is he to say he doesn’t want to testify. Just another Republican hack. What a waste of money. So much for non-partisan. Does Mueller really know anything about how Washington works. Does he still believe it’s the 1970’s when Republicans would have put Country over Party. The man needs to grow up. What a disappointment.
Wimp. He's as afraid of trump as any democrat in the chicken coop of representatives.
"a very loud howl about Russia’s attempts to undermine the American democratic system by hacking into the Clinton campaign computers and releasing private information that it stole there."
Russia also meddled with social media to encourage democrats NOT to vote and to push Republicans to go out and vote for Trump.
for a clear explanation how to do this, listen to How to Meddle in an Election, an excellent interview:
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/24/726536757/episode-915-how-to-meddle-in-an-election
Mr. Mueller turned out not to be the man for the job, though our institutions have also proven insufficient in the face of Trump.
I say impeach him.
The downside of a failed impeachment seems pretty nebulous to me. It didn't really hurt the GOP in 2000. Sure Newt lost his Speakership, but they held cong. and we got Hastert.
And if they don't impeach rest assured Trump will be crowing to the skies how 'Even Nancy knows I'm completely innocent. Afraid to impeach!!'
Nancy and the Dems may as well go down swinging.
A coward always goes down in ignominy.
Let's not hope she goes there!
1
1) Most Americans can't/don't read.
2) If they did and would/could read the report, they would agree that the House should begin the impeachment process.
3) Democrats are too scared of a repeat of the Clinton impeachment but they forget that there's a big difference between Republican ire over a blow job and a complete wrecking of the rule of law and the Constitution
4) impeachment hearings would keep bringing out all the evil that Trump does, in public. The public needs to know, not in whack-a-mole-fashion, about the deep criminality of Trump and his cronies.
5) If Congress doesn't do anything he will feel increasingly empowered to take all power. As he's already proving. Fascism is on the march on a daily basis.
6) We've lost our friends and allies while Trump snuggles up to dictators.
5) Hopefully all the information about Trump's financial shenanigans will come out and make more of a dent, but we can't count on that because
6) his adoring cult prays for the End of Times because, well, they are a cult.
7) Rational people should do everything they can to end this regime.
9
Mueller is inviting Congress to impeach. Stop the word minestrone. That's all we get these days. Do your job. Impeach.
4
You are so 'Right On!'
Gail....My brain is beginning to hurt...until something 'new' actually happens here...can we turn our attention to the plethora of other inane things the current Administration is up to ?
Remember Mueller is a republican.
3
Mueller's "statement" was nothing more than an ingenuous exercise in rhetorical obfuscation designed to give everyone a little of what they want and no one all they want. Congress, do yourselves a favor and subpoena, then grill him. I don't care what kind of hero you've convinced yourselves he is.
2
Mueller comes off as quaint, naive, and ineffectual.
2
Bob Mueller - what a standup guy.
Thanks a big fat lot (once again) for nothing.
"It's a show about nothing"...
What did this guy make for this "report"? If it's more than minimum wage - we've been grifted once again.
1
Alien and Sedition Acts, and they were so repulsive that Pres. Adams lost the next election. Those were the days, my friend!
1
Integrity has become an alien virtue.
1
Let's not add anymore confusion to our insane reality, but this is a Pontious Pilate moment which ends in a reelection not in a crucifixion.
Pence is binging!
1
Gail, I like you. I really do. But don't badmouth Mueller. Te man is one of the most respected law enforcement officials in the country. Deriding him does nothing but make you look petulant.
@Adams7, he may once have been one of the most respected law enforcement officials in the country. i'm not sure that's still true.
1
@Adams7
He's put the country into another tailspin. The American people needed clarity. He could have given that to them. Instead, he's hiding behind waffle words.
Wimp.
1
The way he did it: warrior
The conclusions: wimp
4
"Warrior or Wimp"? Really? Yes, Ms. Collins, Robert Mueller is in fact a warrior. The man who volunteered to put a promising post-Ivy League career on hold to serve in Vietnam is a warrior. The former Marine captain who was awarded not only a Bronze Star for the valor he displayed, but a Purple Heart for wounds he received while fighting in that conflict, is a warrior. The man who has devoted decades of his life to civil service in the Department of Justice and the FBI is a warrior and a man of character.
I'm sorry you're upset, Ms. Collins. I'm truly sorry that Robert Mueller turned out to be an apolitical professional who diligently and methodically carried out his duties as Special Counsel. I'm sorry he did not turn out to be a partisan bomb-thrower and hack, twisting and contorting facts to appropriately suit a certain narrative.
Your petulant and petty attempt to assault Mueller's character and courage (nitpicking his grammar!?!) reflects poorly on you, and puts you a lot closer in demeanor to that occupant in the White House whom you claim to despise. Sad.
81
@L23 No she's right to many legal dodges. Yes we have over 200 pages of witnesses description That trump did indeed obstruct. We have laid this out carefully and with names. We have not found him to be innocent of these charges. We are unable to actually charge him since we work for the justice department (Justice? Ha Ha) and they say No. However, we do suggest that the other means to charge the President be done.
This is very clear regardless of the language. He has shown Trump obstructed, he claims he cannot be proven innocent and asks the congress to step in. I say thats doing his job.
35
@L23
So, Mueller was employed as a soldier in Vietnam and distinguished himself enough to be awarded some medals.
How does his performance in Vietnam in any way relevant to the work he did as special prosecutor?
Somehow in America we've made a habit of taking a person's DOD employment as a soldier and elevated it to a lifelong indicator or moral character and even patriotism.
Collins is correct in asserting that Mueller could have shown real courage and character by offering a clear and firm conclusion, while adding that he was not in a position to prosecute.
51
@L23
Why is it that no one else in the Justice Department, including his boss the Attorney General, and no previous Special Counsel seem to be bound by that Justice Department opinion about not indicting a sitting president? To which Mr. Mueller has added a mile of self entangling legalisms. If he were looking for a legal way to ignore that ruling (as everyone else has done) he need only cite the precedent that the head of the Justice Department, his boss, does not recognize it.
9
Actually a good part of the confusion over how to handle the Mueller Report was based on media expectations drawn from the history of the Clinton investigation and impeachment.
The problem is all the expectations were wrong not only about the people involved, but the law (Independent vs. Special prosecutor) and the amount of partisan political influence involved (Whitewater investigation was long and convoluted in search for a pretext for impeachment vs. big time cover-up of foreign influence).
But the thing that drew me to this opinion was Ms. Collins' suggestion that Mueller was wimpy.
The thing I noticed in Mr. Mueller's presentation was his voice - he actually sounded 'scared' with a timidity in his diction I didn't expect.
Possibly what I was hearing was the stress of this being his day of retirement from the job he's held for the past two years. But in these days of Russian intrigue, one can't help but wonder if Mueller was actually trying to exit his post as a quietly as possible as a matter of personal survival.
After all, he has been the main public foe of a most vindictive man who is daily seeking to elevate himself so far above the law as to be untouchable.
1
I have a question: if the House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate, will Mitch McConnell ignore his duty again?
Why would he put his caucus on the spot to actually vote for or against the conviction of Donald Trump?
If they never convene, they never commit. That's representation.
Pelosi has always read votes and the body politic better than anyone living. She understands the following:
-that the Mueller report lays out the evidence of Trump's crime.
-that the votes are there for impeachment by the House
-that McConnell cannot be trusted to walk it through to conviction by the Senate unless his caucus demands it, and even then he is suspect.
So her only route forward is to put the case before the public through hearings to stir the Republican base to put pressure on their Senators and/or inspire voters to do their job for them :) next fall.
I stand with my representative in her leadership.
5
This time I don't agree with your basic premise that Mueller didn't do his job. It is the responsibility of the House and Senate to rid us of this sorry excuse for a leader. Bob Mueller did his job, he gathered the evidence and presented it. DOJ policy wouldn't allow him to charge a sitting President. You can agree or disagree with that policy but it is there and Mueller respected it. Once again the Congress is letting us down. So what else is new? We get the government we deserve.
3
I vote wimp
3
“Teacher, if I had confidence that Sylvia clearly did not commit any infraction of the bunny rules, I would have said so.”
At that point, one would hope said teacher would write a letter to Bobby’s mom, expressing concern that the kid might grow up to be a self-protective weenie."
Are you saying that his should have gone to Mueller's mother? Like Mueller, you implied as such but did not so state. Why not say it? Mueller was a disappointment. What happened to that Patriotic Titanium Spine? You said what you hoped he would say, and we all have to wonder, why would a guy like Bob Mueller NOT say that? Maybe he is protesting too much. Maybe he is saying: "Make me appear." Don't we wish.
But still, it is clear when you finally get it: "We could not find Trump NOT guilty. We tried, believe me. But nope, could not do it. You figure it out. We are done." Clear finally, but still kind of a "wienie" response for a marine.
He’s a warrior right now but could turn out to be a wimp later if he doesn’t testify publicly and disclose to the House all the evidence he’s legally allowed to.
After all, it would eventually be up to the public to decide whether or not Trump is impeached.
He couldn't indict a sitting President, but the details on the 10 instances of possible obstruction laid out in Part II of the report are pretty damning. Look not just at Mueller's careful statement that "he's not innocent" but at the facts Mueller laid out.
3
You can impeach the guy all day long but you can forget about removing him from office. As long as there's a judgeship out there somewhere to be filled by another retrograde creature from the 19th century, Mitch McConnell won't let it happen.
So, we'll all just have to work harder to defeat Trump in 2020. Suck it up, folks, and get to work. Trump is just running out the clock, playing four corners, and treading water. Let's make the next 17 months count. Let's show the world what our country is made of.
3
Gail,
Why are you so sure that Donald Trump was born in the United States? How do you know he wasn't actually born in a foreign country like Kenya or something (maybe even Hawaii?)
Have you actually seen Trump's birth certificate yet? Was it the "long form" birth certificate? And are you really sure that it wasn't forged?
Don't get me wrong! Personally, I believe that President Trump was born in the U.S. But a lot of people are asking questions, and I think they have a right to have them answered. People are saying . . .
2
Donald has been covering his tracks for years. It appears he has done it again.
1
His 11AM speech was a total waste of time. Mueller's inability to simply call a spade a spade shows that he is still wed to the democratic system of checks and balances which is so clearly broken and no longer has value.
Wake up Robert! McConnell/Trump et al. have the whole system captive and you just blew your chance to clean up the mess!
The “real outcome” is in the report, but everyone would need to read it- including the redacted bits-with the eyes and ears of a Harvard lawyer. Since that’s not going to happen, the message Mueller just sent was heard by the public as, “The President is good to go.” Democrats and the left need to skip NPR and start watching Fox News now, to find out why Trump is going to win the next election.
1
There's the report and then there's common sense. The GOP trashes Obama and then celebrates their "big win". Only they didn't really win- they cheated. And so it goes- widespread corruption and the DOJ is implicit in the crime against the people it's sworn to protect. It's all fine though. I'm not worried...!
1
There are 523 days until election day November 3, 2020. Democrats should not squander them on lengthy and tedious impeachment proceedings. They should vociferously continue to publicly expose every wrongdoing and lie of this president, block his every piece of legislation whenever possible and get on with a rigorous agenda which will most impact the majority of the American people. This will insure a solid platform for a win in 2020. Their sometimes uncohesive messages are often lost in the background of the non-stop Trumpian drama.
We've endured this national nightmare so far and we can endure it fo another year or so with holidays excluded. In the meantime, there might even be the chance that Trump sinks his own ship by his erratic governance or unforeseen national or international occurrences. Anything is possible but impeachment is not one of them. Note to Democrats: Move on and make it fast!
2
What Bobby meant was his so called best friend Barr let him down big time but Mueller decided not to fight back even for the sake of saving the Country from bully trump.
But Bobby also proves to be a nonpartisan trooper did not allow any leaks during his two years of investigation .
So a wimpy honest man ?
3
Considering the fact that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, why is this even in the Mueller report?
“... if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
Ms. Collins misquoted this, the capital "I" in her quote makes it seem like the beginning of a sentence, but it was not. Quotes are supposed to be accurate and verbatim.
It seems unprofessional. People are not required to prove that they didn't do something. In this case, it would be IMPOSSIBLE. The president has absolutely no need to be "exonerated". Are the Times required to prove that they have never been biased in their reporting and opinion pieces?
1
"...why is this even in the Mueller report? “ Pay attention! Mueller explained it in his report. Not enough evidence to prove obstruction of the investigation.
It's not within Mueller's purview. Time for Democrats to grow up and show some hair! Impeach!
Loved his Freudian slip in one of his many tweets this morning. He finally admitted Putin helped him win the election.
If it wasn't so sad and scary to have an unfit man holding the nuclear codes, that would have been funny.
4
The Mueller Final Analysis was a disappointment; Mueller's oral presentation was a disappointment; and it all fits brilliantly with the most disappointing presidency in American history. There were vague conclusions spun in 45's favor an reaching no solutions that are palatable.
A sham. And a shame. And you know what else? Disgraceful.
Somehow,Mueller was clear as a bell to me. He couldn’t accuse a sitting president of a crime because that president wouldn’t be able to defend himself in court. But there is an alternative, impeachment. Starting in the house with “Articles of Impeachment “, and that leads to an actual trial in the senate, (where I know the judge and jury have been bought off already). But House Democrats, Mueller wrote the articles of impeachment for you, throw in a couple more for lying and it’s all done. Make the sycophantic senators explain their votes and have the courage (HAHAHA), to stand up for America.
But my guess is once the articles are prepared it’ll be time fo Pastor Pence to warm up the Pardon Pen and end this sorry mess with a whimper.
Legalise aside, Mueller did a great disservice to the country by waiting so long to speak up. The day that bully Barr, the Trump apologist, obstructionist, and toady claimed that his public menace president was completely exonerated should have been enough to get him disbarred. then, Mueller, in not speaking up, waited to weeks to dispute Barr and followed through by refusing to testify to Congress. This is why there is no justice for all, why the Supreme court is held in so little regard, and why we have a Republican party of spineless 'party before country' dotards.
Like children arguing over who's going to tell the truth to their parents about a broken window - Child #1: "you better tell mom and dad!"; Child #2: I''m not gonna tell them, YOU tell them!; Child #1: "I'm not gonna tell them, YOU tell them!"
Repeat ad infinitum....
Viewed from overseas it is interesting, if depressing, to see how easily Donald Trump is able to bring men to heel, or to whip them into muted subjection.
For example: all those military types he appointed, derided, humiliated, and then discarded? Not a peep. Even James ("if you * with me, I'll kill you all") Mattis - the 'Warrior Monk', Mad Dog himself - slunk off into obscurity and utter silence with barely a whimper. And now Mueller.
One is left wondering whether the problem with the 'men' in the American political construct is an over-developed sense of deference, or it could be that they enjoy being demeaned, or merely that they are abject cravens. Or, perhaps, all three.
Fortunately, however, Trump is being effectively opposed by Speaker Pelosi. Leave it to a strong, intelligent, principled woman to do what is necessary. Clearly, the 'men' aren't up to the job.
4
A shockingly disgusting person was elected president. There’s nothing new to know about him; he was out in the public eye for decades before 2016. Quit blaming Robert Mueller, Nancy Pelosi, et.al., for not rescuing us from ourselves. Just focus on how this happened in the first place and how we can keep it from happening again.
3
I am sorry for Robert Mueller. We are about the same age, grew up in about the same world—he wealthier than I, but at least we shared many of the same post-WWII goals, values. Now he finds that the world he operated in all of his life is gone, vanished, destroyed by a wrecking crew of crooks and liars enabled and indeed praised and worshipped by the very people Mueller and I were raised to trust. Quite a nasty blow for a good man. Now he has or will resign from his career. He will not retire to parties, gold watches, balloons. There will be, amazingly, some element of shame in his going. He leaves behind Barr and Trump. Yes, he did his best according to the laws and rules he knew and respected. Sadly for all of us, he lost.
1
“ Waiting for Mueller “. Similar to winning the lottery, as your retirement plan.
Sad.
4
I’d like some clarity on why Mr. Mueller saw the need to add the phrase “That is unconstitutional” after referring to the “long-standing department policy [that] a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.” This policy is does not reflect anything in Article II, Section 4 that deals with removing a sitting president. So what’s he talking about?
In response to Gail’s question I’d say Mueller wimped out. If he clearly saw obstruction of justice, well, unlike the Constitution a departmental policy can be abrogated.
Think of Mueller like a special prosecutor, or the head of a grand jury. In the end, there was not enough there. Mueller has no power to bring charges against a sitting president. No charges, no convinction.
In two sentences, okay, five: Tell the American people what the underlying crimes are that Mueller hints at (?) that would make the Trump election results be null and void. He didn't collude with Russia. They submitted some false Facebook ads posing as political groups they weren't (?) and Mike Flynn contacted Russians directly in December, after the win but before the inauguration. (?) So Flynn jumped the gun by a month or so, and the Russians played people on Facebooks. No hookers, no peeing on the bed, like originally cooked up?
I don't think there's anything there to even justify the cost of Mueller's investigation, much less an impeachment entertainment circus. Trump as ringmaster now, with the 2020 Dem identity candidates jumping through the hoops and trotting out their steps.
You need opinionators who can look ahead and generate copy, not just those looking always to the past, trying to justify actions and examine old actions always. The current crew appears clueless to realities on the ground. Hire some thinking writers who can work on their feet? The stories are here, and they're not about... technology abolishment, or impeachment. Politics is people. You have to understand the American people -- it's hard to do that if you haven't lived it.
Barr is the problem, not Mueller. That said, both of them are overly officious cogs, not the pillars of justice the american people thought they would be. The message many Americans heard from Mueller is that if you are too stupid or lazy to read and understand the report, I, the person most familiar with the report and the underlying evidence, am not going to summarize it for you. And any consequences flowing form the report will be overseen by a do-nothing, politicized congress and a toady AG.
I choose (C). So does Robert Mueller.
I see Robert Mueller’s presser, in part, as a cry from any author who has labored mightily and watched his magnum opus misunderstood.
I imagine Herman Melville doing a press conference and saying “It’s about Ahab, his mad obsession with a whale, and his stupid crew. Read the book, again.”.
Robert Mueller knew that there would be people who didn’t understand the gist or that would look for the “Dummies Guide to the Muller Report.” He just didn’t that Bill Barr, the entire Republican Party, save one and a half (Romney is the half), most of the news media would be among the clueless.
He knew that Trump and Sarah Sanders would look at his Report and continue insanely railing against the White Whale.
But Mueller’s explanation yesterday finally hit the mark. Today Trump tweeted: “And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me get elected.”
The only question now should be: “Impeachment or the 25th Amendment?
2
I wish people would stop referring to Rashomon when struggling to understand why 40+% of the population cannot see what is in front of their noses.
Rashoman was a profound movie saying that it is worthwhile to examine the possibility that there are valid yet startling different perceptions of many events.
When the special counsel essentially says, as Gail notes, "He committed crimes. It's time for Congress to step up and start impeachment hearings" -
and one side says, "He committed crimes. It's time for Congress to step up and start impeachment hearings"
and the other side says, "no collusion [sic], no conspiracy, total exoneration" it's really an insult to the movie to make the comparison.
The appropriate comparison would be to Lisa (first response) and Homer (second response) Simpson.
In case that's not clear:
"It's as if one side is saying: He committed crimes. It's time for Congress to step up and start impeachment hearings"
and the other side is saying:
"D'oh!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JamMWk9D68
1
When malign foreign influence operates to subvert the democratic process, when the president fails to recognize and act to rectify the harm done, and Congress fails to correct the president, the weight of corruption and injustice falls on we the people. Every day that this cooperative subversion is allowed to continue is a separate crime against the people, and every official neglect of the duty to prevent subversion is an obstruction of justice.
Mr. Mueller was right to identify Russian interference as the most critical issue, and avoid conclusions about crimes that the Special Counsel had no power to indict.
1
Not one person I know can explain how the Russians supposedly affected the elections in 2016; and I can't do it either.
Did they buy a couple of face book accounts and try to "interfere" and "cause confusion and descent" as one often hears? Did they steal some Democratic Party emails that made Hillary look bad? Some technical experts present evidence against that being done by Russians.
Its all very unclear. Read the Mueller statements on Russia and see if you understand exactly what they did other than try to cause some "descent" and confusion. There is always plenty of that on the internet and people have multitudes of opinion and see multitudes of ideas on the internet. How could the Russians have possibly affected the election with some Facebook accounts? Very improbable. Very doubtful. Mueller by the way, once promoted the idea that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, an idea that was propaganda and lies put out by the Bush Administration to get us into Iraq. I'm not sure about any of this. How can you be?
WIMP all the way!
1
The DOJ rule that presidents can’t be charged with a felony while in office has proven to be an open invitation to criminality — if a president is so inclined, and his/her party chooses enabling over accountability.
That’s where we are, and it’s horrifying.
Now... are the members of Congress who won’t do their constitutional duty in the face of Mueller’s impeachment referral guilty of aiding and abetting obstruction of justice?
I’m starting to think so....
5
Mueller is a wimp.
1
I guess it stinks when election interference affects us. Just ask all the citizens of the countries we election meddled over the last 70 years.
3
OK, here's my translation --
Will you all quit saying that taking into account the unfairness of accusing a sitting president of a crime while not being able to indict him had nothing to do with my decision to write the report in the way I did? It had everything to do with that. Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice in the investigation of a serious threat to our democracy. Somebody has to hold him accountable. Are you listening, Congress?
5
Wimp.
1
Wimp.
1
Wimp.
1
Wimp.
1
Wimp!
1
After reading and listening to media I normally have a lot of respect for, I’m finding myself losing hope.
Russian interference in the elections, past and future, is the real problem. Mueller’s report clearly states that. Can we know if their interference actually made the difference and got Trump elected? Apparently, the skills of our very best, brightest and most dedicated can’t tell. In other words, Trump may be our president because of Russian interference.
Trump’s biggest (apparent) crime, in my opinion, is that he has done nothing to address this problem which could bring down our whole democracy.
YET! Even my favorite op-Ed writer, Gail Collins, spends most of her article on the drama! “Mueller said such and such, but needed to do this-and-that”, “Trump resounded by doing whatever.” Only at the end, Ms Collins, do you start talking about the real problem!
It may be that we are on our way to becoming a Russian colony! Trump is an infuriating drama to distract us!
I really don’t understand why everyone, including Republicans, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney etc. aren’t totally focused on that. If Russians have attacked the Democrats, they can do it to Republicans too!
7
@Slow Took A Russian colony? Really?
Mueller might as well have had someone write impeach on his fore head in magic marker before he came out to expose Barr for the fraud he is. Mueller is a good soldier and a Patriot, for him to throw Barr under the truth bus like he did was very telling. Congress just can’t continue to play dead, they need to wake up and force the Republicans out into the open. The Republican Party is involved in Trump’s coverup and if the Democrats don’t expose them by forcing them to publicly protect Trump from accountability, they are part of the coverup too.
5
@Bruce Pippin Maybe they should be the Opossum party but seriously they are up to something that is a long game starting with the t party takeover. Now they have a puppet who will do what is asked if they give him loads of money and keep his mouth shut. He has one subject - trade - and that's all. Otherwise he doesn't make any kind of sense at all. He is the Pied Piper leading the children to doom.
1
I have no doubt Mr. Mueller's conscience is clear, as he performed his task dutifully and with his best interpretation of the law.
But sometimes, that's not enough, and this was one of those times. Deep down he knows he could have done more, but his deep, unshakeable faith in our system allowed him to matter of factly hand this off to congress, who in his mind will undoubtedly will do the proper thing with it.
He's not a warrior or a wimp, he's just another Washington insider lawyer, an impossibly hyped up cipher, playing a part he was born and bred to play.
3
Muller seems to protect Trump by pushing Congress to impeach him, knowing that the procedure would coincide with election time.
2
Speaker Pelosi is right; the only way to get this guy to shut up is to destroy him in 2020. Women will, without a doubt. The gender gap was the highest ever -- 20 percentage points -- when Obama ran against Romney, who was a pretty smart, decent guy (other than putting Seamus on the roof of the car). The gender gap against Trump? It will be eye-popping.
Mueller was one of the primary salespeople for the Iraq - WMD phase of the march to the endless and highly lucrative (for a few) Global War on Terror. Either his careerism or his judgement is highly suspect.
2
Yes, Mueller did his job. However, he should have ended his speech with two emphatic statements:
--The President committed numerous acts of criminal obstruction for which he deserves to be criminally indicted and prosecuted, but my office cannot pursue these actions per DOJ rules.
--I am here today to tell the American people that this president has committed crimes.
7
The public needs to know more about the limits that the DOJ imposed on the Special Counsel (despite the fact that the Special Counsel was created specifically because the DOJ was compromised by its partisan commitments). Congressional questions to Mr. Mueller would be the best way to get that information out in detail.
Mr. Mueller's surprising and (so far as I have heard) completely unnecessary public statement included some falsehoods (for example, about AG Barr's role), and Congress needs to explore these.
But Mr. Mueller also made the important point that the Special Counsel needed truthful cooperation from people involved with Russia's political crimes. The public needs to know if the Special Counsel got that cooperation, especially since information available to the public so far makes it appear obvious that some individuals who have not so far been indicted having been lying and refusing to speak. Congressional questions to Mr. Mueller, inquiring specifically about one person after another, would be the best way to find the contours of the information that was denied to the Special Counsel.
2
Mueller did what he was appointed to do. The Democrats (and even some Republicans) must find the metaphorical 'security camera footage' that seals the case of egregious wrong-doing against this president. Absent that, the "he said - she said" game will continue, only to be covered by the president marching around the Country blowing his own horn ("No collusion, no obstruction") at re-election campaign rallies.
1
If Trump & Co. continue to stonewall and ignore subpoenas, an impeachment inquiry should be opened to acquire the powers necessary to get information and testimonies needed. Don't even send it to the Senate.
4
Mueller will be in the history books as a man who performed his job with competence and integrity. Should he really join the partisan fray? That would simply support Trump's claim to be a victim of a witch hunt.
As Mueller says, the next step is up to Congress. I don't really expect them to suddenly start doing their job, but that's how the system is supposed to work.
2
"There’s nothing more exhausting than trying to analyze the inner workings of Donald Trump’s mind."
Analyzing Trump's mind is a bit like the old story of the three men trying to describe an unknown thing (an elephant) in a box. One man feels the trunk and describes the elephant as a trunk, and so on. Not one of the men gets the whole description right.
In Trump's case innumerable people have spent extensive time attempting to do that analysis.
If we really got in there, what we would find would be several monkeys having a food fight with burgers and fried chicken and that would be all.
4
Mueller's demeanor in his mini-speech yesterday morning spoke volumes. Like Trump in one respect -- though his polar opposite in all others -- he defies interference from those around him. Trump denies 'push back' on policy by threat and habitual meanness. I suspect Mueller so awes his legal team by his goodness that no one dares offer advice ("show a bit of heart, Bob" might have been useful). Heroic stature tends to isolate. His presentation was letter perfect if he had been vying for Most Honorable Prosecutor. But even Honest Abe, who Mueller emulates with his moral fiber and lanky awkwardness, had a sense of humor. What was missing in this 'swan song' was some evidence of feeling. Do not these circumstances require at least a modicum of righteous indignation? or, failing that, some awareness, however muted, for the ordeal the actions of our current President have imposed upon so many?? Mr. Mueller's tone, careful, precise and restrained, lacked color. We hoped -- and deserved -- a bit of light, a bit of hope. But the cloud cover over Washington did not lift.
3
If Mueller and his team had nothing more than gather and preserve evidence while memories were still fresh and before documents and other records were destroyed, it would have been a tremendous service to the nation. The fact is, they did much more than that. And Trump won't have the protection of his office forever.
1
I believe that anyone who has not served in combat has the moral authority to question the bravery or patriotism of someone who has. I believe Mueller chose the path he did because he felt it was the best and most honorable way forward. Mueller's charge was to gather the facts and this he did. It's now up to Congress to pursue the matter, Mueller has carried out his responsibilities.
1
Overlooked in the debate over the Mueller report's "message" is the validity of Department of Justice's Legal Counsel opinion that a president can not be indicted while in office. It would be useful to have a nonpartisan review of its conclusion.
1
No one except Barr has seen the unredacted report, so it doesn't help that Mueller's testimony is in it.
Trump supporters are happy for no one, including Congress to see the hidden parts.
Even liberals, strangely, act as if we have read the entire report, or that its been released to Congress.
4
The real question is whether the Democrats are warriors or wimps. Nancy and Chuck have already given us the answer -- they won't impeach.
But their decision is purely a political calculation. It has nothing to do with the rule of law or with fulfilling their Constitutional duties.
Ironically, their dilly-dallying with unnecessary/unproductive subpoenas before they finally fail to pull the trigger will hurt them more at the polls in 2020 than if they simply voted for impeachment and be done with it.
2
@UyssesThe question is whether to impeach now, and if so, what is the next step. While I remember watching the House hearings in the summer 1974 [I was out of the country for the Senate hearings in 1973], I do not remember how they began. Does the chair of the House Judiciary Committee convene an impeachment inquiry? Is this with the guidance of the Speaker?
What has become clear to me in the past few days is that the longer President Trump has to get out his message, the harder it becomes for the Democrats. I would like to hear some senior Democratic politician lay out the steps for the next several months to a year. The evidence seems to be overwhelming that President Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should, at the bare minimum, be impeached. The Democratic leadership should level with the American people and let us know how they see the next few months unfolding. The Senate will do what it will, but I no longer think that the likely [right now] acquittal in the Senate should preclude the House from doing what it needs to do for the good of the country. Democrats, as well as Republicans, must put country before party, and be judged for how well they do it.
2
Now Tom Steyer of needtoimpeach fame should produce a commercial aimed directly at Congress. The commercial should have pictures of congress in session, and it should narrate the oath of office. With emphasis on protecting the CONSTITUTION, and the law. Not their careers.
8
My worry is that if the House does an impeachment inquiry and votes yes on impeachment, we'll then go to the Senate, and the Republicans will find him not guilty. Then what? Trump will have an even better chance of getting re-elected. The best approach now is for the Democrats to continue with the impeachment inquiry, gather as much evidence as possible, but then put off the vote in the House until after the 2020 election. If the Democrats win the presidency, Trump can be prosecuted after he is out of office. If Trump wins re-election, the Democrats can impeach him then.
8
Jeff, they can also vote and pass several articles of impeachment in the House and pause for the election.
Or, they can go to the Senate, where Chief Justice Roberts will preside and there will be House managers doing the prosecution while the Senators sit there as a jury.
If the evidence is compelling, and Republican Senators vote to acquit Trump, it could help the Democrats take back the Senate!
Plus, it's not clear that if Trump runs on having been acquitted by the Senate on a party line vote that will help him. It might show how bad he is and irrelevant when the Democratic candidate is running on real reforms!
1
You’re ignoring the direct harm he does as long as he’s in office.
You’re ignoring the obvious possibility he’ll rely on — and perhaps abet — still more Russian shenanigans to be re-elected, and the possibility the house would revert to Republican control, especially if the Russians were more effective.
If the president won’t defend the integrity of the election, it’s folly to depend on the election to remove him. He must be impeached while democratic control still exists.
2
The entire special counsel process has become a crutch for a political system, and in particular a Congress, that no longer has the moral and ethical character to do its job. It is fixated only on power and money. We wouldn’t need the role if the Congress wasn’t utterly feckless and ineffective.
So I must disagree with Gail when she derides Mueller. He did his job and gathered the facts, but has no prosecutorial ability to charge the president with anything. The leaders we elect have to do their jobs and impeach him if the facts determine it is warranted. Unfortunately, the Democrats can’t agree on much of anything and the Republicans are nothing but submissives for Trump, the NRA and the wealthy contributors who keep them in office.
294
@Jack Sonville
But Gail is right about the 'vague double negative.' Mueller is afraid of the impact of his own words. So he resorts to being obtuse rather than clear.
29
Jack, he could have should have transcended what are flawed DOJ guidelines. Mueller was categorically wrong in arguing that indicting a sitting president is “unconstitutional”. No federal court has ever ruled on their constitutionality,
Clinton was indicted. It could have been done to Trump, too. Plus, the main rationale is to not interfere with presidential duties — Trump does so little work, indicting him would have interfered only with his golf game and tweeting,a
Mueller chickened out and didn't rise to the occasion. His play-it-by-the-book approach only encouraged Trump. Mueller was naive not to understand that Barr and Trump would completely spin his report.
At a minimum, he should have, in much clearer, and unequivocal language, stated that Trump obstructed justice in at least four major instances, and possibly in eight others, but that he could not be charged until after he left office. Mueller also should have said that, given the situation, the recourse was impeachment. Instead, he used double negatives, hedge phrases, and waffle words that enabled Barr and Trump to weasel out of it all — so far!
Time to start impeachment.
40
@Jack Sonville
It seems to be..... Ummm......rather convenient that a sitting president cannot be indicted prosecuted while in office. It places the POTUS above the law contradictory to what I learned in school.
If that's true then perhaps any alleged criminal charges should not have a statue of limitations for the period the person is POTUS. We don't have Kings Queens (I mean the traditional royalty) or any one who rules by the grace of G-d, we elect our leaders. To exempt them from legal actions when they are in office seems, to me, to be stupid.
18
the government has spent so much of our money on this investigation and yet we do not know what the outcome really is, I kept watching the news for a real report but they are playing with our heads.
We need real answers, why take two years for an investigation to end and never know the outcome. Why have the investigation? Mueller is a wimp!
@Mandy The government spent as much money, I think, on the multiple Benghazi and Whitewater reports as on the Mueller report, and what came of those investigations? Not to mention the Hillary e-mails investigation. In contrast the Mueller report shows clear and convincing--to anyone except a Republican--that our President obstructed justice repeatedly and with malice aforethought. Odd, how forgetful Republicans can be.
2
Have you read the entire report?
It’s interesting the curiousity regarding Mueller, what he should say that he says he already said - and about Russian interference in general.
Who allowed Donald Trump to speak to Vladimir Putin in secret behind closed doors months after the investigation was underway?
Americans, you’ve been duped. Blaming Robert Mueller, for testifying or not? Let’s start by blaming lily livered Americans who did not even stop Trump from his private meeting with Putin? That never should have taken place. And now back track?
Somebody had better get some courage around this country! Arlington Cemetery goes on because of bravery for this country, not a bunch of sissies we look at walking around DC getting paid with our hard earned tax money - at least taxes that most of us are forced to pay!
6
Thanks once again, Gail, for helping us breathe.
2
Mueller's speech did the right thing for the American People without opening himself up to allegations by Trump/GOP/Fox that he is a partisan enemy of Red State America. On camera, he made clear that what AG Barr and Trump on camera have tried to do -- exonerate Trump -- is not supported by his report. He also made clear that his understanding of the law precluded him from indicting Trump as a sitting president. "Unindictable for Crimes Committed While in Office" does not make a good campaign slogan.
168
Asterisk indeed. One would have thought that Mueller's renown rectitude would have been deeply offended by whom and what he investigated, enough so as to point a level finger.
3
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is an honorable American citizen patriot. He has made great personal sacrifices throughout his life, putting country first. So why, oh why Mr. Mueller do you choose now, when our nation has been attacked by Russia and a derelict and dangerous Donald Trump, to put your life ahead of country?
The American people need you Mr. Mueller to speak in common English, to tell them the truth of your report's findings. Enough of the legalese! Enough of speaking in veiled, convoluted phrases. Put your 'Henry James' persona aside and tell the Congress - but more importantly Joe America - what Donald Trump's role was in your investigation.
More than at anytime in your life Mr. Mueller, America needs you.
7
"C"!!!! I have been saying this for quite a while. As it now stands, a president could shoot someone in the Oval Office with a roomful of wittnesses and could be impeached but not tried for murder, especially since he could apparently pardon himself before leaving office. It was an oversight on the founders part that they did not anticipate Benedict Arnold being elected. Nor did they think that a majority of his co-conspirators would be serving in the Senate.
4
What is it about Americans that makes us so willing to pin our hopes — and place our civic responsibilities — on external saviours?
Other, even “less developed”, countries are able to fill their capitals’ streets with millions protesting a corrupt regime. Seoul, Manila, Kiev, Cairo. Why not Washington?
Robert Mueller — ever the patriotic Marine officer and by-the-book lawman — did his job, in his own meticulous way, as it was narrowly defined and strictly constrained.
Now it’s our turn, and that of our elected Congress.
Do we care enough about our democracy to put down the iPhone and get off the couch? Do we deserve to someday again have a sane, grownup non-criminal President?
4
Mueller has no conception of the subtleties of salesmanship. He has no conception of the literacy level of the American public. If you hired him to referee a Jr. High Basketball game every call would be a jump ball.
1
Mueller acted like a true Republican. The entire endavor was muddy, unclear, and left room for Trump to escape unscathed and perhaps be re-elected. Where is his common sense? Sometimes “going by the book” is cowardly.
2
There is no such thing as the Special Counsel in any Article of the American Constitution. Thus Robert Mueller is neither ' warrior' nor ' wimp'.
Every person in any branch of the divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states is the elected and selected hired help of the American people.
Neither Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton nor Mr. Melania Knavs Trump ran covert stealth subtle campaigns for President of the United States in 2016. Every American knew exactly who both were and were not and voted accordingly. Trump can't be blamed on divine royal sanction selection nor an armed uniformed military coup.
Robert S. Mueller, III is not the Second Coming of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Our salvation and savior can be seen in the reflection in the nearest mirror or window.
2
Ever play tee ball? It seems easy, the ball is not moving; it is sitting there for you to hit it out of the park.
The Mueller report:
1. The Russians interfered in the election.
2. The president and his acolytes were too ignorant of election laws to charge with them with conspiracy.
3. The president obstructed the Mueller investigation.
The Mueller report lays this out in admirable and impeccable detail. Robert Mueller teed it up so well, even a tee-baller ought to look like a major leaguer. We up to it?
301
@John McMahon Good synopsis. Thank you. A thought that arises is that, er, uh, while the Mueller report may seem to imply that the president and his acolytes were too ignorant of election laws to charge the Russians with conspiracy, in reality the president and his acolytes seem quite happy for the Russians to have interfered in the election. This is a rather large problem that hasn't been addressed by anyone. Shouldn't the president be saying "hey I didn't want help from these people to win the election and am incensed that they interfered?" Not doing so constitutes accepting something of value to one's campaign from a foreign nation. We haven't heard a whisper about that.
27
@John McMahon
Spot on!
As one softball coach told his team of timid 9 year old girls,
"if you never swing, you will never hit the ball".
So if you don't swing at the ball when you are at home plate, I'll just send you there without a bat."
Pelosi, Start Swinging!
11
@John McMahon
Bravo! Well said!
2
"(Mueller) made it pretty clear that if he’s forced to testify before a congressional committee, he’ll just point to his mammoth report."
And that's all he should have to do, but people are simply too lazy to read the darned thing.
Anyone who has read it is either in favor of removing Trump from office or is being willfully obtuse.
3
what if Paul Revere had just rolled over and gone back to sleep?What if the Middlesex farmers had heard the call to arms and snoozed on. I have cows to milk at dawn, maybe somebody else will wade through the report and sound the alarm. And anyway, I am going to vote in 2020 so I am doing my part. I tried to read it but there were so many redactions, like cow pies in a crowded barnyard.
If only Mueller would saddle up and ride for the salvation of the Republic. Now is the time for action before it is too late.
130
@sharon ehrhardt Maybe voters have to do that?
4
@Wanda Amen. We keep wanting someone else to do our jobs. About time WE got in the saddle so to speak.
3
Thank you thank you Gail! I feel partially exonerated after getting so much flak yesterday by other commenters when I stated that Mueller's speech was muted to the extent that it seemed like a nothing burger. Americans are not into subtle messages these days. And reading a 448-page report? Not happening. Guess we'll just have to rely on our useless Congress to move the needle a micron toward any kind of justice.
3
"Because then he can portray himself as the innocent victim of a witch-hunt, and his base will lap it up like cream in a dish."
It exactly this kind of fear that prevents dealing directly with the existential threat that is Trump and his Cult. Democrats are notorious for dithering and fretting about how Trump and Republicans will "portray" them and -- horrors! -- call them names.
And that is why Democrats will lose this fight AND why they will dither while the country loses democracy. They are afraid. It's their defining trait.
1
My comments don't seem to get into NYT anymore. Don't know why about 3 weeks ago I seem to have been cut off.
I only speak what I honestly objectively believe - don't make it individually personal save for comments about public characters involved and even there only to state the obvious.
Oh well maybe some robot is at work against anything that states the truth about the destructive forces at work epitomized by Trump and GOP.
Probably will not have place herein but I'll try to add my voice to the warning sirens that should be in America's head.
The Mueller report by no means in any common sense way exonerates "Trump and Co." from acting to TRY to benefit from activities that were and are illegal during the campaign.
They were played by the Russians and were saved by their own incompetence really. The FACT that Trump himself publicly invited a hostile foreign power (Russian) to help says it all.
The report really says they tried to use Russian assistance but just failed. They did not "coordinate" with the Russians in a specific illegal way but they were happy to receive fruits from nefarious actions.
The report clearly shows this sentiment "if you do rob that bank and you want to help with some money for my mortgage sure I'll take it". This high level of passive partnership is NOT something any American should accept as right from a person seeking public office - period.
As to "obstruction" well you or I'd be in jail by now!
GOP or D should be appalled!
3
trump complains that the rules are "unfair" and ignores them. If that is the standard, then we are all in trouble.
Mueller is following the rules.
If the rules say that you are permitted to commit suicide then you have no reason to complain if that is the result. If you don't like the rules, then change them.
Read the rules. Read the report. Mueller followed the rules.
1
@Allen82
When persons of dubious character complain that the consequences of their misdeeds are unfair, what they are really saying is, I deserve to be treated favorably. Because I'm me.
2
"There’s nothing more exhausting than trying to analyze the inner workings of Donald Trump’s mind." Really?! I should think it's the easiest thing in the world: assume a child - a selfish, spoiled, impulsive child, a bully. We all knew one when we were 10. There's really nothing more to Trump's so-called mind than that.
5
When discussing Russian interference, Mueller said that they had intervened in the election "to damage a presidential candidate." He could not even use Hillary's name! Let's face it: history will not treat Robert Mueller kindly. At the least, he should be sent back to English I.
"Later, when 13 Russian nationals were indicted for interfering in the election"
Indictments are not convictions; why do so many NYT columnists not understand that a person is only 'Guilty as charged' AFTER a trial and NOT before?.
That group of Russians seem to have been looking for attention i.e 'likes', online.
2
Mueller failed in his main job - to provide a satisfying account of what happened that could be accepted by the public at large. Part of that failure is his negligent failure to obtain the direct testimony of Trump. Taking a bunch of "I don't recall" interrogatories from the key perpetrator is something only a rookie litigator would do.
Mueller had an opportunity to stand up and be a profile of courage at a time when America's institutions were coming under fire from the radical right. Instead, he will be seen as an incompetent and a coward.
It appears that Mueller harbors a deep resistance to having his name associated in the history books with Donald Trump. DT is everything Mueller despises: manipulative, uneducated, deceitful, self-serving and politically chaotic. I fully support Mueller in his refusal to associate himself in any lasting way with our clearly-floundering "leader".
If I had not thought that Mr. Mueller’s explanation not clear or that his implied recommendations were not not correct or that his clever use of the English language to allow for any interpretation (except the correct one) ......... I would have said so.
3
This morning president Trump tweeted acquisition when he meant inquisition in yet another whiny rant about the investigation. Perhaps America needs a constitutional amendment adding "really not smart" to high crimes and misdemeanors as grounds for impeachment.
4
Mueller failed to serve the people. The president he investigated breaks all norms and is like no other. This president sides with dictators and has no conscious. He has asserted himself as an emperor, not a president. He recasts truths as lies and uses them against innocent people. He entrances audiences with his self aggrandizement. AND he has done nothing about Russian interference which looks to me like he is inviting more.
Mueller seems to be one of the entranced who is fearful of crossing this antiChrist. Mueller should have known how his written words would be obstructed and manipulated. Why is mueller so weak? What is he afraid of?
2
Mueller has no more courage than, and is just as much of a lackey as is Mitch McConnell.
Had he the least of spine, he would simply call the crimes as they are and the criminal as he is, instead of dancing around and laying on Congress.
1
Robert Mueller has defined courage his entire life - he is not a wimp. George HW Bush was “tagged” as a wimp, though he was a war hero at 19 years old. Please don’t throw around these epithets if you don’t know the context of their actions. Who knows what any of us would do in similar circumstances.
For the last couple of days everyone atg the Times, The Editorial Board, Gail Collins, David Leonhardt, Charles Blow, Michael Thomasky, have been telling us that Robert Mueller has acted "honorably" but that isn't enough. If I didn't know better, I would think that they are all bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The problem is manifold, but we can chalk it up to substituting short-term politics for long term principal.
When is "honorable" not enough? When you think you have the upper hand, an advantage, an opportunity to turn the knife blade one more time, make the other guy bleed. So, let's forget that the other guy is going to do the same thing when he, inevitably, is in the same position. And his justification will be: "Well they did it first." It doesn't matter if we did it first. It's that we did it at all.
In this lawyer's opinion, Mueller acted honorably. He did his job and did it brilliantly. Now you want him to do someone else's job and thereby exceed his delegated powers. We saw Comey make a similar mistake. He spoke when he should have kept quiet. We all know in our hearts and, when we use them, our minds that Michelle Obama was right: when they go low, we go high. Principals matter.
5
The Russians were certainly a nuisance, but most people voted for Hilary. Why are we not having a special council investigating our outdated Constitution (hint: the part that describes the Electoral College)? That’s what really gave the lying Don for president!!!
2
Leon Jarowski on Nixon’s resignation speech and a useful primer on Trump. The idea of Trump obstructing justice, perjury and ham fisted scheming seems about right. A mean den where a narcissist run the roost. Spot on.
“....It was not the speech of a president who had violated his constitutional oath and duty by obstructing justice, by abusing the power of his office, by transforming the Oval Office into a mean den where perjury and low scheming became a way of life.” - Leon Jarwoski
4
What a conundrum. Could it be possible that Mueller, knowing full well Trump could not be indicted (if true!?) while in office, chose to show the clear facts about Russia's interference (and giving Trump the advantage), and let Congress be the arbiter? If Congress were to do nothing, dereliction of duty to uphold the Constitution may be a grave accusation indeed, and giving an awful bully and liar immunity from persecution...and to restore this democracy to it's dignified place...and avoid a repeat assault of the presidency next year.
1
Here's what I would do if I headed one of the committees currently investigating 45. Have Mueller appear before the Committee. It would be decided beforehand that no one would ask any questions except for "Would you please read [insert page #, paragraph #) from your report?" Everyone on the committee gives him 5 minutes to read a specific part of his report. Since the American public seems to lack either the capacity or the initiative to actually read the report themselves, this would give those who like those 30-second sound bites, an opportunity to hear the report right from the horse's mouth. Much more effective those words coming right from Mueller than from anyone else.
1
Muellers 10 minutes statement did more to focus and explain to the Americans Trump's criminal act than the 448 pages of his report, read by few. It is time for the Democrats to realize that impeachment proceedings, with the crimes explained live on cable television, are the only way for the majority of voters to understand the full extent of the moral and political corruption and destructiveness of this president. Pelosi says that she will not be taunted and provoked by Trump and co. to impeach. This is a brilliant spin by the White House: in reality, I think Trump is scared to death of being impeached.
1
Mueller’s coolness regarding his findings is a good thing. It helps refute the claim of Trump supporters like Victor Davis Hanson that all who accuse Trump of lawlessness are motivated by “hysterical” resentment at his success.
110
Success? integrity should be the basis of our understanding of life long success. Trump is a loser for many reasons. I would never hold him up as someone my children should look to as a role model of sucess.
4
Gail: I think you're being a bit harsh. Mueller has been anything but a wimp. When charges were warranted, he brought them and his conviction rate in this case is admirable. He investigated and presented exhaustive findings from that investigation. He has been very clear that he cannot clear Trump from wrongdoing (that pesky obstruction thing). However, it is not his job to do Congress's job for us. It is also not his job to raise cain with Congress, that would be up to the people. Now will we do ours?
4
I think it will increasingly become clear that Mueller choked. What we still do not understand is what happened to "follow the money". Where was that????
And no, Mueller does not get a pass on that. He knows all about the significance of "following the money". So who got to him? And was he so scared of getting run off that he caved to Trump, despite all of the evidence of fraud, money laundering, bribes and extortion.
He does not want a political spectacle. Sorry, that train has left the station. He may not be interested in the politics, but the politics are interested in him, and so he will testify. He needs to fill in the blanks with Trump; not just scream about the Russians. We get that.
1
Hooray for Real English subtitles! We need more of those.
The Department of Justice policy it just that, a policy, not a law. It makes any president above the law while in office. I doubt seriously that the founding fathers had that intention. It is contrary to their whole revolution. Time to retire the policy.
Besides, a criminal investigation would hardly make an difference here. Trump is only an "acting" president. He doesn't really do any of the work. He just does the rallies.
2
What is so difficult to understand is how, after two years of the Special Counsel’s investigation, there is no agreement on what the Special Counsel was charged to do. I would say that even Trump’s inner circle believed the Special Counsel’s report would come to a conclusion about whether Trump committed illegal acts. Mueller’s decision to avoid stating a conclusion is exactly the kind of gift that Trump can use, and has used, to maximum advantage.
Is there anyone who understood the Special Counsel’s charge to be as restrictive as Mueller saw it? I don’t think so, because Congress, Trump, and several hundred Americans are still unsure what direction to take from the report. Was the charge to Mueller so ambiguous? How can the world’s greatest democracy be this inept?
2
Gail, the opposite of "innocent" is "guilty". Trump isn't "innocent". We all have to put that fact in our pipes and smoke it, no matter what Special Counsel Robert Mueller claimed during his 9 minute Ave et Atque words yesterday.
The Congressional Democrats are facing a conundrum -- whether to impeach Trump and lose 2020 to him, or not to impeach him and lose again in 2020? Ghastly dilemma which time passing will render its supreme opinion on.
Meanwhile no one is allowed to whisper about Russian interference in Election 2016 or 2020 around our Hair Furor. Especially since Mueller pulled a wimp and didn't say "take it from me, Trump is a crook".
1
Once you begin peeling the layers of corruption in Trump, it never stops giving results, which is why his propagandists are shrieking. Mueller's refusal to consider a sealed indictment is an indictment of the 'regime rules', which he would have to defy, thereby giving fuel to the propaganda silo that call him an Angry Democrat. Last night on CNN, a Trump propagandist hinted that the war against Mueller is beginning again. So he says "I do not wish to testify." This absolves him of having any personal or political wishes. Nevertheless, he never said he'd defy Congress-- on the contrary, he gave it full powers. He will agree to a subpoena. He won't have signed onto any whitewash for the crook in the White House, something Comey came close to doing. Mission accomplished, even if I'd have wished for more candor.
1
mueller makes two basic errors in the presentation of his report. 1--he assumes that people are smart enough to extract his actual meaning from his ultra-careful, non-inflammatory writing style; 2--he assumes that lawmakers will do the right thing for the right reasons, as he has done (he thinks) for his entire life. he is a fine man, and a brilliant lawyer, and totally ethical. but this a street fight.
IMPEACHMENT NOW!
1
You, and the Times Editorial Board, usually do not revert to grade-school level quarterbacking on issues of national political and Constitutional clarity. Robert Mueller is not Congress. What is astounding is that he has to remind the House and Senate members (and the voting public) to read the Report and act on their Constitutional responsibility. So far, House leaders are trying and Trump and his acolytes have swung no more votes to their continually shrinking base. I realize Trump, with his chaff spewing wildly as he pilots his MiG into the ground, is hard to ignore (will he swerve and smash me with him into smithereens), but let’s be real. He is incompetent and serves only to enact the desires of Putin, McConnell, the apocalyptic right, etc.
Hindsight being, ironically, 20/20, isn’t it altogether possible that the cautious, careful, methodical and thorough Mr. Mueller missed the potential significance of his Justice Department-issued authorization?
Perhaps he really didn’t have any preconceived notion about Trump’s innocence or guilt, and overlooked the possibility that he’d be hamstrung by his own limiting instructions. Perhaps he failed to consider the very real possibility that two years later, Senate Republicans would show themselves to be the irresponsible, politically-motivated, un-American snakes that they have thus far proven themselves to be.
But the issue, ultimately, is not Mueller, and we should resist the temptation, however compelling at this moment, to demonize him for living within the lines that were drawn for him, something that the President of the United States doesn’t do, ever.
Bob Mueller did everything he was empowered to do, and yesterday painted a vivid picture, albeit with measured delivery and in carefully chosen words, of his belief that the evidence clearly shows that both the Russians and Donald Trump engaged in nefarious activity during the 2016 presidential campaign.
It is not Robert Mueller who is the wimp. It is every Republican in the U. S. Senate, and most in the House of Representatives, who are wimps. And if the American voters don’t do something about it in 2020, then we might as well put up a huge sign saying “Wimps R Us.”
2
For this wimpy effort and report we waited more than 2 years and spent more than 20 million dollars? It would be interesting to find out how Trump manages to get so many so-called "reputable" people to compromise on their ethics, integrity and presumed fearlessness, and get them to say what he wants. We did'nt expect this of Mueller for sure: helping a crook to a hide-behind-semantics cover-up
Bottom line, Trump is better at cover ups than at governing.
1
Mueller couldn't say "Look, the guy obstructed justice..." because that would be accusing the President of a crime. Instead, he used a double negative. "Look, the guy didn't not obstruct justice..." The only people who don't understand what he meant are the ones who don't like what he has to say. Namely, all Republicans save one and Democrats skittish of impeachment. The House Speaker first and foremost.
I'm surprised Jerry Nadler's response didn't catch more attention though. I didn't know you could call Trump a liar so many times in such a short speech. We should check with the Guinness book of world records. I think Nadler qualifies. Of course, he blew it a few seconds later when asked about impeachment and subpoenas. Lesson: Don't take questions when you clearly aren't prepared to answer questions.
That sentiment pretty well describes Sarah Huckabee Sanders' entire performance yesterday too. I've never seen someone look so punch drunk and confused. It was like watching a Warner Bros. cartoon. Needless to say, her responses were just as caged and guilt-ridden as Trump's.
Anyway, we don't need to do anything about the "while in office" part. We need to assign special counsels who are independent of the DOJ. The regulation wouldn't matter if Mueller had been reporting to Congress rather than the AG. That's the whole point behind a "special" counsel. They don't answer to the President. Congress completely missed that distinction this time around.
1
Read the report. It's hard, a little boring, since a lot has already been leaked even before the report. But if you read it you will conclude, Trump colluded but that's not a crime, I couldn't get proof beyond reasonable doubt of criminal conspiracy because people lied, took the fifth, destroyed evidence or witnesses were overseas and witnesses were intimidated. Oh, by the way Trump is guilty of of obstruction. Oh,by the way I can't indict a president.
1
Knowing that the con man in Trump would no doubt exploit any opening provided by vague lawyer speak, I have no idea why a smart man like Mueller didn't speak in plain English. Maybe when the sham trials of Comey and McCabe begin in September of 2020, Mueller will decide to man up. By then, it will be too late.
Watching the government handle this situation is like watching a dog chase its own tail.
The wealthy ruling class is just trying to make us feel there’s a appearance of justice. There isn’t.
1
Right, Gail, on the other hand, Mueller was responsible for the indictments of a number of people around Trump, some of them are in jail.
1
I'm usually a big fan, GaiI. But I find not a microgram of levity in this.
1
Warrior or Wimp, Ms. Collins? I'd still have to go with warrior. However, Mr. Mueller's notion of war is an old-fashioned one -- that of some knight of the 13th century, where the rules of courtesy and chivalry prevail. He's up against an individual -- Donald Trump -- whose notion of war falls more into the Mad Max school of conflict: scream loudly; throw everything and anything immediately against the opposition; then run over them -- several times -- with your heaviest tank. Then run over them again and make fun of what remains.
It should be clear, by now, that no Republican other than Justin Amash has any interest in holding Donald Trump to account for his actions. Nor is there going to be anything more to extract from the courteous (but too reticent) Sir Mueller. It's time for General Pelosi to take the field, assisted by her able and intelligent aides-de-camp. Articles of impeachment need to be marshalled against Mr. Trump.
His mockery of the Constitution and his lies must be brought to account. The battle to save the nation must be joined.
1
Another beautifully written and cogently presented piece. It's a good question but clearly there is no evidence from this episode to conclude that he's a warrior. And I'll go a step farther because I'm brave; he's a wimp.
The OCL memo was just that, a memo, not an amendment to the constitution. As for Mueller, hopefully he will be a warrior and do his duty. And, hopefully, congressional Democrats will do theirs and begin impeachment hearings.
2
There was a time when Republicans, presented with half as much evidence of association between an American politician and Russians, would have hauled the guy into the Senate chambers and accused him of treason. Makes you wonder if maybe they aren't all on the take.
By the way, how do we know Trump was born here? Has anyone seen his birth certificate (never mind his tax returns)?
2
We love you, Gail. But I am disappointed to see that you are solidly with the Establishment and its media lap dogs in constantly denouncing Russian hackers but NEVER a whisper about the content of the hacked DNC emails and WHY they were damaging. They were damaging because they exposed a corrupt rigged system hellbent on coronating Hilary Clinton, even to laundering contributions to the DNC and rerouting the cash to her campaign. The spirit and letter of our process for primary contests was undermined in a sleazy way. Many voters were disgusted by that.
1
I'm concerned because there are so many wannabees in that pack of Democrats running for the presidential nomination. The news media portray this as a horse race to exploit every bit of entertaining drama. This does not bode well for the election or for the future that follows the election.
Right now, the news media, or at least the "responsible" news media, ought to take stock of their role in this fiasco. No, they shouldn't give a pass to anyone, but they could try to sift through the word salads and weed out the fake news.
Trump wasn't "exonerated" by anyone. The Russians, and others, meddled in the election and there are clear signs they will continue to meddle. Social media is fixed on making a profit and will not take responsibility for the damage they are doing to the spread of misinformation. Fool me once...
We see that appeals to hate and fear are effective political weapons. The only way to counter hate and fear would be to identify them and do some deep reporting to put the forces that make people hateful and afraid in perspective.
Can we imagine Fox News doing that? How about Rush Limbaugh? Or the even more deplorable alt right news outlets?
This guy was the former head of the FBI? And re-applied for the job after Comey was fired? And right after being passed over accepted appointment as special counsel from Rod Rosenstein, who had co-authored and fronted a report that Comey was fired because of his handling of Clinton's e-mail?
And so with his crew of 12 angry bureaucrats the former-Director ignored the catcalls of former fellow Republicans. Then under better than military-grade secrecy the Mueller team produced a two-volume law-school thesis on an assigned topic, with a level of gravitas appropriate to an investigation of Cuba's interference in the election of a freshman Senator from New Mexico. As we now know after his nine minute monologue, his verdict was a split-decision majority... draw. No to Collusion despite Putin's low blows and "It's on the tip of my tongue"on Obstruction. Decline to testify further but no one else is showing up and I'm in a deep state.
1
What is it with Democrats always looking for a hero figure?
First they loved Comey, now they hate him. First they loved Barr calling him an institutionalist and a prosecutor's prosecutor, and now they hate him. First they loved Mueller, building him up to be some mythical figure that would save the republic and now they're crying tears of disappointment.
Focusing on winning elections and not acting like wimps when you get the reigns of power. Amazing to me that Obama got punked by McConnell and couldn't even get Garland on the Supreme Court with a whole year left on his term and now McConnell says he'd put a nominee in during an election year. You gotta give it to the Repubs for their sheer chutzpah. And kudos to Harry Reid for allowing the Republicans to transform the federal judiciary forever!
Dems are like Charlie Brown. Always running to kick the football only to have it yanked away.
I do not agree that it is difficult to "analyze the inner workings of Donald Trump's mind." Once you realize that Trump has narcissistic personality disorder everything else falls into place.
I do not understand why Mueller will not come out and say just what he means. If Trump shot a man in a room with Mueller the only one present, would Mueller just say that the facts do not support Trump's innocence?
1
The GOP - all - from the top with McConnell making shady deals with Putin frontman, Derispaka, for an aluminum factory in Kentucky. All he had to do was lift sanctions everyone else thought were warranted considering he is thought to have aided in the Russian attack of our elections. And it trickles through the middle with the NRA and right down to the MGA crowds saying they’d rather a Russian over a Democrat. That they’d actually side with a foreign government over its own borothers and sisters who serve as their kids teachers, doctors and service members. Let that settle in. We are so far away from the America that came together after 9-11. In just 2decades the GOP has become the party of corruption.
Agreed! Mueller should drop the “doublespeak” and plainly state whether anyone other than a sitting president would have likely faced indictment based on the evidence collected during the investigation. The answer is almost surely YES, but no more double negatives like “we didn’t conclude that no crime took place” to “yes, if not a sitting president then yes, we had sufficient evidence to indict.”
1
Heroes don't ride off in the sunset with the bad guys still in charge of the town.
It is obvious that Trump colluded with the Russians and has repeatedly obstructed justice. At this point, Mr. Mueller is simply demonstrating of how corrupt and impotent our legal system has become.
Frankly I think Mueller just teed up the ball: "I couldn't indict him under my jurisdiction. You can. Go ahead, if that is your druthers. You might not want to, because you'll never get a conviction in the Senate. And I won't be used as television fodder in one of your Congressional reality shows which you all use to campaign and make it look like you are doing something while actually doing nothing at all except using up oxygen."
And then, exit, stage right, and curtain, please. No encores.
We have a crook in the White House, using the WH as both a defense from prosecution and a place for everyone in his admin to work to shore up their own bank accounts before the house of cards collapses. No one in the GOP cares - possibly because they are too busy raking in money before the house of cards collapses. Mueller cannot fix deep and abiding corruption that is making us look like a banana republic sans the white linen suits and faux military uniforms.
Perhaps the most important message from Robert Mueller is that Congress and every American should actually READ the REPORT!
2
It's a bit of a stretch, but remember when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty and some observed that the prosecution had given his character a pass - treading carefully with his fame and not calling him a killer. The Democratic leadership in the House is at risk of achieving a similar failure galvanize public understanding by its timid refusal to call the President out for his evil, criminal behavior. Waiting for Mr. Mueller has been a flop. Parsing his tortured efforts to say nothing while implying everything is not going to bring people around to understanding the magnitude of the harm Mr. Trump has done to our democracy. Summer is upon us. People will be thinking of lawns and beaches and barbecues. Of child care while the adults must still work. Of anything but politics. Amp up the attack, Dems! Call Trump out for what he is. Mueller has proven to be too cute to carry his own message.
97
@Nancy Brockway Actually, I don't think your metaphor is a stretch, but you should consider drawing it out a little further. Yes, the prosecution failed to get a conviction on OJ, but last time I checked he lives in an impoverished disgrace. A failure to prosecute Trump may very well result in the same outcome. There is no guarantee that a prosecution of Trump will be anything more than virtue signaling, and may in fact help him avoid the state that OJ lives in today.
5
@Nancy Brockway
Dems are wimps.
Nancy Pelosi misrepresented herself as the only House Rep who could stand up the Trump.
Geesch. What a laugh.
Powder Puff Pelosi wimps out day after day as Trump constantly sucker punches her with defying Congressional subpoenas and she does NOTHING .
1
Mueller pretends to be apolitical.
Mueller was a Republican, Mueller now is a modern Republican, enabling useful Trump while pretending otherwise. Mueller will always be a Republican.
Mueller disgracefully put law and country before party (now typical of Republicans). To believe otherwise is to ignore the obvious.
We have an unelected President who came to power with an assist from a former director of the FBI Comey and the Russians, and remains in office with an assist from former FBI director Mueller. Mueller is thankful to his personal longtime friend and now Trump's lackey (to call Barr anything else is disingenuous) that he revealed as much as Barr did in his report. This means Mueller is OK with how much Barr redacted that is a clear and flagrant act of obstruction of justice. Now Mueller has become part of the Republican cabal.
The only hope is that the world economy is fast eliminating dirty fossil fuels that by necessity concentrate wealth and therefore power in the hands of the Russians, the Saudis, and the US Republicans. The hope is that the destruction of the dirty fossil fuel economy will loosen the lethal grip of power that dirty fossil fuels exert over planet earth. No Mr Trump and the rest of the Republicans, coal burning does not emit only carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Toxic chemicals from neurotoxin mercury, to brain and nervous system destroyer lead, to cancer causing cadmium and arsenic are all emitted from Trump's beloved coal.
4
The problem with Mueller saying "my report is my testimony" is that nobody except Barr has actually seen the full report, and that's exactly why the House wants him to testify. They want to hear what they weren't allowed to read, and for which there seems to be no other remedy than calling him to testify to fill in the blanks.
What's Mueller afraid of? That Barr is going to sit in front of him and redact the words as they come out of his mouth? That Congress doesn't have a right to the unredacted report? This is the first time Mueller has truly failed the American people.
240
@MikeG
Mueller didn't fail anyone. 30 years ago his title would've been "Independent Counsel." As Special Counsel, he understands the need to be 'independent.' Rather than fail, I find his remarks to be refreshingly non-political in one of the most vicious political places on the Globe. You say he failed - I say he's the visage of an American patriot. He gave anyone who wants it, an opening wide enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through.
29
@MikeG - I'm not convinced Barr actually has seen the full report. He skimmed and then jumped to conclusions. This is a caliber of Trump appointees, they can't or won't read anything either.
19
@Kiwi Kid
He failed by not honoring Congress's request for the missing information. We've paid for something of huge importance and we haven't gotten it.
9
For me, the part of Mueller's statement that stuck out most was when he declared that Presidents cannot be charged with crimes. It was almost literally, "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal."
4
The biggest problem with the Mueller report is that very few have read it, including a majority of Congress. The evidence of obstruction is there and obvious to the reader, just not enough readers.
Congress, meaning Pelosi, has a decision to make. Either start the impeachment hearings now or wait and remove Trump by election. Both options present different problems for he Speaker. The base of the party want impeachment even while knowing it won't likely end with removal of the President. More rational members of Congress want to let the investigations play out. It will all come down to the courts and the expediency of their decisions.
A serious concern is Russian meddling in our election process. It worked once for Trump and it is highly likely he would welcome their assistance in 2020.
7
Mueller wants us to understand that he thinks there is compelling evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice and should be impeached (or charged after he leaves office), but he doesn't want to say so. It's frustrating for him that we're so slow on the uptake and that the Republicans seem determined not to understand what he's telling them, hence his press conference.
He appears to be motivated by what is either (charitably) a very strong wish to remain above the political fray and avoid criticism, or else (less charitably) a very strong wish not to criticize a fellow Republican. Neither of these is an acceptable motivation for his obfuscation of his own findings, or his attempt to preempt a Congressional subpoena.
Grow up, Mueller. Sometimes in this life we all have to take a stand for what we believe, even when speaking out is unpleasant. I'm not sure why you think you should enjoy an exception to this I think very obvious principle.
6
My interpretation of the Mueller report is that he ha given an explicit road map for Impeachment to be started immediately.
Pelosi and the House just need to follow it. They will get the information they need and get to throw a few people in jail while they are at it. They can force those who refused to show up to testify or be held in contempt and thrown in jail.
They do have one Republican in Congress who believes that Trump did commit crimes of Obstruction of Justice and did collude. All you need is Amash to start with. Who knows he may convince a few, like Rand a fellow Libertarian in the Senate, to climb on board the Impeachment train that is about to leave the station.
At least one Republican is willing to act on behalf of the Country and not the GOP. One Patriot in the Republican Party. It puts the rest of them to shame.
For the first time, Gail did not make me laugh, as she always has. She made me sad and scared for our Democracy and the voters of the United States.
7
Robert Mueller looked tired after this long an investigation which was reduced to an exoneration by the attorney general whom is in the accused pocket. So after indictments and prosecutions he reached the top of the food chain and spoke a piece of his mind. Who can blame him.
The issue is understanding your audience.
Shortly after finishing graduate school, I began teaching an introductory Sociology class to college freshman. Some of them complained that they couldn't understand what I was talking about so my department chair came and observed one of my classes.
She pointed to my definition of the Sociological Imagination as "The idea that the individual and society are inextricably intertwined" as problematic since I was not talking to other Sociologists; I was talking to people who didn't even know what Sociology is! I learned that I needed to say something like "The idea is that individuals shape society and society also shapes individuals, so studying them separately makes it difficult to completely understand either one".
Mr. Mueller's dependence on nuance seems to indicate didn't understand who his audience - the American viewing public - is.
10
Clarity would have been achieved if the Special Counsel's report contained this sentence:
"Had Donald J. Trump occupied any office other than President, the Office of the Special Counsel would recommend his indictment for obstruction of justice."
Unfortunately, I think Mueller was also operating under the principle that if you are not going to indict, then it is unfair to impugn the person who was investigated. That was the criticism that Comey received when he simultaneously exonerated Hillary Clinton of any crime, but calleld her "extremely careless".
While I can understand Mueller not wanting to do what Comey did, I think he should have used the clarifying sentence. Trump's only reason for not being indicted was office; only the Presidency presents this issue. I think an investigation of the President should therefore allow that sort of statement.
25
How many times do we want Mueller to say what he has said. He said it in the report, and he said it again yesterday.
We just don't like it that he hasn't said that he himself thinks the president is guilty. The evidence has not shown that Trump is not guilty, and that evidence (not Mueller's personal hunch) should be pursued.
That's what impeachment PROCEEDINGS are for. Proceedings are not impeachment per se. They lead toward a vote for or against impeachment -- that's where the powers of the Senate take responsibility for the final decision, impeachment or no impeachment.
Whatever is revealed in the proceedings should help the voters form their own opinions and vote accordingly in 2020.
21
@geeb Couldn't say it better. Impeachment proceedings should commence now. And there are plenty of potential Articles of Impeachment. No need to wait for more testimony from Mueller, who has done his job admirably and with total integrity. And not fallen for the personal attacks on him by Trump (e.g., that he is "highly conflicted," part of a hoax, a closet Democrat, that his investigation was "ridiculous," etc.).
Clearly, Robert Mueller either should not have accepted appointment as special counsel or should have told us up front that even if he found Donald Trump committed a crime, doing any justice would be strictly up to Congress.
It would be very weird now if the person who committed the many crimes listed by Robert Mueller got congratulated for getting away with those crimes, and Mueller apologized for misleading us into thinking that his investigation actually mattered when it came to Trump.
11
As anyone with morals, commitment to and respect for the law, and a solid sense of civic responsibility such as Mueller comes up against someone like Trump who is totally lacking in all of these qualities (and who commands the largest microphone in the world), he will always be at a disadvantage. Mueller was as clear as he could be, while speaking in bureaucratic legalese, that he fulfilled his mission within the constraints of DOJ policy and the laws as they now stand. It was also clear that he was 1) warning the American people about Russia; 2) rebuking his boss Bob Barr; 3) trying to extricate himself from further entanglement in a protracted and contentious political situation. His testimony, which as Collins says, will likely be reading from the report, will probably not add much but is also probably inevitable. It’s time for the Dems to stop with hand wringing and assuming that Americans are incapable of understanding an argument based on principle. Members of the Trump cult of course will never accept such argument but Dems need to do it anyway- there is so much more at stake than the next election. It will be hard, hard work for the Dems but all the more reason they need to take action against this abomination of a President and start immediately. Does any serious-minded person really believe for a minute that Repubs would not? It’s time for Dems to stop acting like the beaten down partner locked in an abusive marriage and grab the microphone.
30
@Jo Ann Circosta
And while the Congress is at it they should do away with that ill conceived Regulation that permits a President to remain in office and not prosecuted for crimes against the Nation until he leaves office.
I mean, Trump went to Helsinki and told the world that Putin denied any involvement and Trump believed him. Isn't it Treason to condone Putin, believe him above our own Intelligence Agencies and continue to befriend an obvious Enemy of the United States Election process and Trump does nothing about it to protect our Election process for 2020 and does nothing to protect our sacred right to have a fair election process.
Certainly he wants to be an illegal President again and the Republicans in Congress are going along with it. Wouldn't this be Treason for the Republicans to not protect our Country against enemy invasions of our Electoral system?
The Democrats must start the Impeachment process immediately. And if the Republican Senate does not vote for Trump's Impeachment then they are in direct violation of the Constitution which the are, by oath of office, supposed to defend. Think the Alien Sedition Act.
They will be Obstructing Justice by not protecting rights to a fair and clean election. I think this is reason enough to impeach every member of Congress who does not agree to Impeach the President and furthermore to not put in place a new and secure Election process in every State in the Union and the Island of Puerto Rico and Washington d.C.
1
While the JD guidelines say that a sitting president can't be indicted in a criminal court, it seems to me that it's a misreading of those guidelines to say that he can't be found guilty of obstruction and Mueller's tracking of Trump's actions does exactly that. What is to prevent him to say 'By his actionsi it is clear that the president made numerous attempts to obstruct justice and the matter should be resolved by Congressional action and the American people.'
That solves the problem of what to do does it not?
15
Could you imagine, being given a detailed report from your physicians; lab results, CAT scans, MRI's... to diagnosis a serious helath issue? You then ask the physicians what course of action and treatment they recommend and they look at you blankly and offer no advice. If they said, "If I could tell you it wasn't cancer, I would, but I can't?" Well, here we are folks.
22
"A foreign power helped to throw the election to the candidate its leaders liked..." No. A foreign power worked to shore up support for its lousy system of government by weakening support for democracy. Getting this or that candidate elected was not a goal, just a head fake that journalists and progressives (AKA, the losing side) have bought hook, line and sinker.
Not sure how Putin measures success for this initiative of his, but he's definitely succeeding in setting the American political class on fire, dividing the citizenry and in general, distracting us from the many, more important issues that should be be receiving our collective attention.
6
@Judy Harmon Smith
Read Mueller's statement again. He clearly states that the Russians were working to discredit Hillary Clinton.
"As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cybertechniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks."
Now chaos may have been their ultimate objective, and Putin's dislike of Clinton could have been personal, not political, but to argue that they did not choose one side over another does not line up with the facts.
9
Actually, if you read the introduction to the Mueller report, it states “the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome”...
2
@Judy Harmon Smith
What is more important than to have a secure and fair election process?
1
Asha Rangapa (former FBI, current CNN contributor) tweeted she thought Mueller would testify before Congress in an impeachment investigation hearing because he knows he is the most knowledgeable witness to the crimes. If it were an impeachment hearing he’d remain apolitical because he was a witness, instead of as a toothless prosecutor.
3
Mueller is a thoughtful, contemplative person from a bygone era when people read and pondered meaning. Now, people like the Trump base want information fed to them and it was: “No Collusion. No Obstruction.” Trump even appeared with printed lectern props in the Rose Garden... Whatever one feels about Trump, one has to have a begrudging respect for his finesse. Nice guys like Mueller are going home.
7
Trump and finesse? Two words i would never use in a sentence.
I think the word we are looking for here is “coy”. Mr. Muller is being coy.
The subtext to the house Democrats is “Play the impeachment card but note, the compelling evidence isn’t there. Take the chance.”
That’s why the House wants the redacted materials—they need to see another card before they place their bets .
4
Given his way with mincing words, it's surprising to know that Mueller's a registered Republican. It's a very Democratic-politician way to state a fact by using several hundred words when ten would suffice.
2
My conclusion: WIMP, although I could not say that legally he is a Wimp and could not say legally he is not a Wimp. As he spoke yesterday I had images of POW's in Vietnam and other wars reading anti-American forced statements. They all included a "I am not being told what to say. I am saying this by my own free will" clause in some form. The fact that he included that statement makes his whole message-for me- fail the smell test. So on and on we go. One assault on freedom and justice after another. I am exhausted. My dog is exhausted as she follows me around in the middle of my sleepless nights while I pace, anguishing over the state of our democracy. When will we ever be able to get a decent night's sleep? Fight on Gail. Thanks for your articles.
17
@ex-everything - I feel like I am in the audience of a horror movie yelling "Get out! The monster is in your house" and no one is listening. I was texting my son during the 9 Mueller minutes -1st text: We need a hero here but I fear he won't step up. 2nd text: He looks nervous 3rd text: He's talking to Congress 4th text: Very disappointed, Not what I hoped it would be.
Of note - we do have a monster in our house. Our White House.
Mr. Mueller tried so hard to be honorable that he’s been utterly played by those who are not.
16
@Henry sometimes you have to go just a little further. One or two more sentences to clarify the obstruction points. I read the report - there is plenty there he could have said. He is a very honorable man and, by all counts, a man of valor. We could have used just a little more daring courage.
1
Is Trump guilty of Obstruction of Justice? Mueller refused to clear Trump of the charge; however, by now about 1000 former federal prosecutors have signed a letter saying that President Trump committed Obstruction of Justice and would have been charged with that crime if he was not a sitting President.
13
I have come to believe in the opposite of everything Donald Trump utters. "No collusion, No obstruction" means collusion and obstruction.
10
Mueller did not do his job properly, particularly not by his own apparent, self imposed standard. He treated the two issues, collusion (conspiracy to commit treason) and obstruction of justice, completely differently. Having investigated extensively, but without evening interviewing the suspect, he concluded, and I repeat for emphasis, concluded, that there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge of conspiracy to commit treason. On the issue of obstruction he laid out all the evidence, which is overwhelming, and said, in effect, “I conclude nothing, other than that it does not clearly absolve the suspect.” Mueller, and many others, cannot rationally maintain that his failure to come to a conclusion on obstruction was informed by the DOJ policy on not indicting sitting presidents. You simply cannot say, “Well, I clear the suspect on one issue, although it really doesn’t matter because we couldn’t indict him at present anyway, but on the second issue I won’t make a decision because at present we couldn’t indict him anyway.” What sense does it make to provide a definitive judgement on one and not the other? None whatsoever.
6
Mr. Mueller told us that he was prohibited from indicting a sitting president, but his report is an indictment in all but name.
Contrary to the spin by Trump, Barr and their assorted mouthpieces, the case is not closed. An indictment is the start of a process not the end.
Mr. Mueller's report shows that Russia attacked our country and the Trump campaign interacted with Russians. However, in his opinion, the evidence was insufficient to convict anyone of a criminal conspiracy. [Take note Mr. Barr: this is a prosecutorial opinion].
His report detailed obstruction of justice, which probably explains why evidence of a criminal conspiracy was lacking.
All the evidence needed to impeach while in office or convict once out of office is in the report.
It is time to act. We are under attack by a hostile foreign power and the Trump administration is unwilling to admit it, no less to act to defend us. Let's make sure that first and foremost, we focus on our national security.
If Congress takes this matter seriously, they will not leave our defense from cyber-attacks in the hands of a few technology executives, but will provide our national security with resources to defend our sovereignty. And Congress must use their oversight powers to ensure the administration protects our democracy.
Failure by Trump to defend our sovereignty is the ultimate high crime.
7
Mueller is pointing to the rhetorical difference between the written presentation of conclusions supported by evidence and reasoning and spoken responses to questions framed by others.
Mueller, a Republican, spoke to us like a lawyer. Like a Republican. As though it is against "His" constitution to get further involved.
Mueller is making "Our Constitution" look like it can be argued from different points of view, Republican or Democrat.
We are loosing our Democracy. The vote is the first to go, the vote is already on foreign ground.
32
If we were confidant that Trump was legitimately elected, we would've said so. Otherwise saying nothing is NOT all we have to say on this.
Moreover, if Mueller was confidant that by not politicizing anything he's somehow patriotic, why did it take so long to continue not saying anything about it?
There will be NO questions. Any questions?
12
@Chris Morris meant CONFIDENT not "confidant." Sorry.
The Office of the Special Counsel has completed its work; it's up to Congress or the 2020 election to provide an appropriate remedy. Speaker Pelosi is focused on results; Senator Warren on principle in accordance with their separate agendas. The Speaker has outwitted the POTUS so far...
7
Mueller did what he had to do within the confines of both his appointment and the law. He equivocated about criminal behavior by the president and threw it to the justice department and Barr made an almost unilateral decision not to bring charges. Trump and his supporters crowed no collusion AND no obstruction which is false. There was no clear collusion but there was clearly obstruction. Furthermore, Trump and his supporters are almost completely silent on interference and disinformation, probably because the disinformation was and is so widely shared among conservatives and they are ashamed to admit they were fooled. Any impeachment would have the same problem as any local prosecutor or district attorney has in any case to decide whether there is enough evidence to convict. There is evidence to prove obstruction (that is very clear from the report) but enough to convict? Not so much.
3
@tom There was no clear CONSPIRACY, which is what Mueller was investigating in Volume 1. There was PLENTY of COLLUSION: 251 contacts between Trump campaign and administration officials and Russian officials (it's all there in Volume 1 of Mueller's Report).
The ONLY reason "there isn't enough evidence" to convict on the TEN counts of obstruction laid out in Volume 2 of the report is that the Republicans in the Senate lack the moral and ethical backbone to do so, something that's been demonstrable so many times during this corrupt administration.
When have lawyers spoken English? They speak legalese. It is subject to interpretation, although they would argue (another form of legalese) that their banter is objective.
Mueller, when he proof-read his remarks, must have thought that this is as succinct as I can get.
There is no other course the Constitution mentions for ousting a president, so we can’t just make one up on the fly. I think that’s what he is saying. But of course, it wasn’t said in English.
7
Mueller should be called before both whichever House and Senate committees are appropriate and testify in person on television. Call it impeachment inquiry or trial or fact-finding or whatever. I would love to see Kamala Harris and/or AOC ask him pointed questions that can't be answered with double negatives. I don't care how straight, uber-law-abiding this man is, he is a key element in the legislative branch of government performing their constitutional duties.
39
@Karen K
If the constitution tells us that no individual is above the law except for the president and the president is an
individual does it not follow that the president should be indictable.
Gail, as much as I admire your writing, you have also fallen for the canard that a sitting president cannot be indicted. No judicial decision supports this old DOJ policy. Nothing in the Constitution supports it.
43
Pardon me, I thought Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that includes Donald Trump. Why is it necessary that the President obtain the exoneration blessing of Robert Mueller who’s job was to prove Trump guilty not to prove his innocence? Has our system changed just in the case of President Trump? Or is this just the case of a very confused and confusing Special Counsel?
5
@Ross Stuart I think you are confused. Innocent until proven guilty is only applicable to a court trial, which requires formal charges. So yes, Trump would be innocent in the eyes of the law if he were charged, until a guilty verdict had been reached.
So it was never Mueller's job to prove Trump was guilty. His job was to investigate. And generally in a federal investigation there would be charges if warranted, or a recommendation of charges. That's where Mueller did not do either, since by department rules he said he could neither bring nor recommend charges.
So that's where it's important that he made that remark, that remarkable remark, that if after his team had finished the investigation they were confident there had been no crime they would have said so.
In other words, rather than just finishing by saying "We found insufficient evidence of a crime" they finished by saying the now famous sentence “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so”.
Those two seemingly slightly different sentences carry a world of difference in their meaning.
18
@Ross Stuart Although I believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, I’m not sure it is written law. It is nowhere to be found in the constitution and don’t know if it appears in any federal, state or local statutes. It may only be a tradition—albeit a good one—dreamed up in the resistance to king George III. If this is a bona fide law somewhere in our country I would like to know where it does appear. Thanks for looking in to this.
@Ross Stuart Although I believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, I’m not sure it is written law. It is nowhere to be found in the constitution and don’t know if it appears in any federal, state or local statutes. It may only be a tradition—albeit a good one—dreamed up in the resistance to king George III. If this is a bona fide law somewhere in our country I would like to know where it does appear. Thanks for looking in to this.
Mr. Mueller is a throwback to a time when members of both parties had morals, ethics, and at least occasionally did the right thing. In such a time, 24 hours after Mueller made his statement, reasonable people of good will in both parties would have immediately started impeachment proceedings with the expectation that the trial would be honest and the verdict fair.
Unfortunately, in the words of Steely Dan, "Those days are gone forever, over a long time ago." Today's Senate Republicans have already announced that they'll find Trump not guilty, and today's House Democrats are frantically trying to locate a spine, any spine.
Today's times demanded a different Mueller. He needs to be compelled to testify and he needs to actually spell out what needs to be done to our terrified House Democrats. Nothing less will do.
32
Warrior or wimp? I don't see either. I see Mueller as a practical person who when all is said and done reaches a very high standard. He laid out the facts then handed them off to an AG who decided that he is the only portion of the justice department allowed to draw a conclusion. He decided that he is above the norm above the rules. Of course it is quite clear that Mueller intended the results of his investigation to to be taken up by congress whose responsibility and duty it is to take it from there. Mueller is nothing more than a man who did his job, did it well, and is not interested in the politics. He wants recognition for nothing more than an impartial job well done.
17
@Rick Beck Mueller insists only Congress can try Trump. Okay. But then the Justice Dept. denies Congress the full results of Mueller's investigation: the evidence Congress needs to make a case. Mueller's response to that: too bad, nothing I can do about it. This country is in trouble.
5
@Donna
The fact that there is nothing Mueller can do about the AG obstructing justice is exactly why it was so important for him to appear in public. His word on the matter exemplifies to the public the need for congress to pursue their investigative duties. The only entities in the wrong here are the AG and our republican representatives. That will be on them, no one else.
“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."
One can interpret this statement using a little logic: Since we did *not* say the president did not commit a crime, then, by modus tollens, we did *not* have confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime. So finally then, by the theorem of double negation, we *did* have confidence that the president clearly *did* commit a crime.
20
Thank you Gail. Chutzpah in defense of gravitas is not quite what I expected from a decorated war hero with a terrific law enforcement resume. Especially where the target's chutzpah is focused on self-serving mendacity.
5
Well, if we had an Attorney General willing to follow the law, Trump would be in trouble based on the Mueller Report.
27
@Anthony Not only has the AG followed the law, he has gone above and beyond what he is legally required to do. He could have buried the Mueller report, instead he made just about everything available that he was legally allowed to. Stop being so partisan.
1
@Joe That's absurd. Barr went far beyond what's legally required when he redacted the report and he declined to pursue the legal path that would have allowed him to provide the entire report to Congress, the elected representatives of the people who paid for the investigation and the only authority that can call the president to account. That was deeply partisan.
Very unfair commentary. Let Congress have he courage to do its constitutional job.
4
Why is this obscure DOJ policy allowed to stand without a public debate about its origin. Some Nixon hack in a back office of the DOJ in the 70s decided to write a policy - and suddenly it’s become like an Amendment to the Constitution? I think it needs to be thoroughly vetted by a bipartisan commission and either dumped or go through the Amendment process.
81
It is pretty apparent Mueller believes that there was both an attempt to benefit from the acts of a foreign power and obstruction of justice. But you'll be waiting a long time to hear him come out and say it that plainly. As a lawyer and former FBI Director and he knows the government can't accuse someone who cannot be indicted and have the 'benefit' of a criminal trial to contest the allegations. Period. The President is not above the law, but he is not immune from its protections. One can dispute the DOJ policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted, but the statute under which Mueller was appointed and operates does not permit him to simply ignore it or reinterpret it. And you cannot cite the reports of Leon Jaworski or Ken Starr. The special counsel statute is far more limited than the laws under with they operated. There may be no United States v. Donald John Trump by virtue of a federal grand jury, but it now falls to the people's House of Representatives to open an impeachment hearing and indict him for what high crimes and misdemeanors it finds.
15
I have read the report, and clearly, Mueller lays out the case for high crimes and misdemeanors---but, he also clearly laid out the case that under DOJ guidelines that is far as he could go--and removing a sitting President is pretty far. There is logic in the DOJ guidelines--going through months, maybe years of a federal trial and then what--Trump is convicted--does he conduct the Presidency from a federal prison? I understand, presently, Trump is not running the country--but, still, dragging a President through a federal trial, would under normal circumstances put our country on hold--which the DOJ memo recognizes.
1
@Amanda Jones You miss the Constitutional mandate: impeachment is spelled out as the remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors, whether or not it is a burden on the president. Clinton and Nixon still managed to run the country. Our very stable genius cannot even run the country when there is no impeachment trial going on. Think about that.
3
@Amanda Jones
The memo may have some "logic" but it also has an unintended (?) consequence of constraining action in the face of clear evidence.
Sure, it's important that impeachment not be casually used as a weapon just because one may disagree with a president's policies. But policies can be tempered by Congress, should they do decide.
But Trump has gone well beyond wrongheaded or intolerant policy. He's mocked our entire system of government, implemented or rolled back policies harmful to the greater good, and failed in every way as a uniting figure or influence by using the personal attack as his primary form of communication. And those are the highlights!
He's lied, he's illegally profited from his position, he's enabled or encouraged the same from his Cabinet members, AND he's actively and transparently sought to obstruct any efforts to hold him accountable.
So, despite whatever logic the memo may hold, its effect had been to allow this particular clown show to go on well beyond its expiration date.
The House needs to subpoena Mueller and have him answer questions under oath. He's a private citizen now.
29
It appears that many readers are disappointed that Mr. Mueller's briefing did not resemble an episode of "Perry Mason" or "LA Law". Instead they got a lesson in civics. For those who missed the lesson here are the points he made:
1. Federal employees and elected officials take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This means they also obey the Constitution and do not commit acts that are unconstitutional.
2. Federal employees cannot perform actions unless they are authorized to do so, and those actions must be both legal and constitutional. Mr. Mueller performed what he was authorized to do under the Constitution and DoJ guidelines.
3. DoJ cannot indict a sitting President. First the House must impeach him and the Senate must remove him. At this point the former President can bi indicted. As Federalist Paper 69 states: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. "
4. The next step is for the House to decide whether or not they will initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump.
16
Mueller needs to say whether he would prosecute if the DOJ policy didn’t exist.
If that policy were in effect, Barr should never have summarized the report and made a prosecutorial decision either way. Since he did - we need to hear one from Mueller.
13
Robert Mueller was quite clear that the Russians interfered with our elections in 2016 and that this was an ongoing threat to our democracy in the upcoming elections. Trump has refused to do anything about this, saying that he asked Putin about Russian interference and Putin denied it. That Trump refuses to take steps to safeguard our democracy meets the standard of a High Crime and Misdemeanor and should alone be sufficient reason for Impeachment.
63
@Grandpa Bob. So you must have been unhappy that Obama wasn't impeached for his HC & M of doing nothing about Russian interference in our elections, of which he clearly was aware.
Much as I respect Mueller, I am angry that he made so little of the Trump campaign's dealings with the Russians. It actually made me wish for someone more like Ken Starr -- someone who with a little more anger inside him. If the legal definition of conspiracy meant that the Trump campaign had to have HELPED the Russians meddle in the election, there would never have been grounds for conspiracy -- because the Russians didn't need any help. What should have made Mueller angry was the certainty that Trump was involved to the fullest extent that he COULD be involved: he knew about the Russian meddling, he encouraged it, he expected to benefit from it, and was set to reward it. To my way of thinking, that makes Trump culpable in a crime: the theft of an American election. We should all be incensed; we should NOT be saying Trump was cleared of collusion.
77
@Edward Rosser..
perhaps someone with a more transparent political agenda
I think wsj got mueller right a while ago: he seems primarily interested in protecting the fbi and maintaining his own self image as Cato the censor. To which I’d add The damage done to the republic by trump appears to be secondary to him.
29
Thank you, Gail Collins, for knocking Mueller from his pedestal. His incomplete work and his first-grade-level communication leaves us flat at a time when most of us have witnessed examples of collusion with Russia and Trump’s obstruction of justice almost daily, just by following the news.
Perhaps he has been compromised, a la Lindsey Graham, or he is simply less competent than he would have us believe. His desire to not testify before Congress is a selfish act designed to preserve a reputation that may not be all that it appears.
A truly courageous American would have spoken up loudly and clearly about the current destruction of our democracy from within and would have been eager to testify to help save the republic. Just imagine if Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or FDR had acted this way. Where would we be today?
49
@LIChef Excellent analysis of RM. I too fear we have no heros left. Our hero may unfortunately have to come from the GOP in the form of ppl like Justin Amash. Unless and until the GOP's support starts to erode for this pResident, I'm afraid we are in very deep trouble as a functioning democracy.
8
I'll take a crack at defending Mueller. He is standing by his report as written, and is urging Members of Congress and the general public to actually read it because, he believes, it speaks for itself: Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Once they do read it, Mueller is saying, Congress will have no choice but to pursue impeachment.
As to not wanting to appear before any Congressional committees, Mueller does not want to be involved in a media circus. Think about it: yesterday was the first time he appeared publicly in two years!
He's like a character from the days before moving pictures and sound, suddenly thrust into the fluid dynamics of a modern-day feeding frenzy. We are criticizing him because we have no earthly idea why anyone wouldn't want those fleeting moments in the spotlight.
I don't agree with his hesitation to testify. But he knows, as we know, that the first question he would face is: in your opinion, did the President obstruct justice? His only true answer is the one he's already given -- it's in the report.
9
@PaulB67
His reply of "it's in the report" would be fine if voting Americans would read the report. The reality is they won't and most of the GOP hasn't either. They wouldn't want any kind of internal conflict to interfere with being a sycophant. Mueller has to testify, even if only to read his report aloud so that the voting populace hears what's in the report. His inadequate statement yesterday did a lot to further the truth and he needs to do more.
9
@PaulB67
People don't read reports, especially long ones and ones written by lawyers. Just knowing it is over 400 pages is a complete turn off. That's why there were summaries written, which were not made public, probably because they might actually be read.
If what is in the report is important it should be put in front of "the media circus". People go to the circus to land they come away knowing about clowns and lion tamers.
It seems to me that Mr. Mueller's investigation produced the legal equivalent of a variation of the Rohrschach ink blot test: People look at it and see what they are predisposed to see, or what they wish to see.
Also, Mr. Mueller doesn't seem interested in furnishing his interpretation of the results.
13
The Mueller Report is very clear that Trump crossed the line, but any consequences lie with Congress. Mueller knows public testimony is important to Dems to put the Report on TV to get through to the public that only understands TV. Why Mueller is opposed to publicizing his conclusions is anybody’s guess. It would be repetitive of his results, but getting 400-odd pages across to voters is an important added step in conveying his work to the masses who have to decide in 2020 that this charade is over.
33
What continues to confuse me about the DoJ's "memos" of 1973 and 2000 are that the DoJ is interpreting the Constitution.
The 2000 memo references the 1973 memo as if it were chiseled in stone. The 1973 memo was written by the Republican DoJ long before Nixon resigned. You don't suppose they had a reason for writing it? Frankly, who cares what the DoJ thinks -- their "thoughts" change with every administration.
Finally, I thought we had a Supreme Court to do the interpreting.
16
@Fred
The Republicans have recently made several recent appointments that tilted control of Supreme court to Conservatives. No help will be coming from them any time soon.
12
"And Mueller, for all his warning bells about a president who you can’t say didn’t commit a crime, isn’t planning to be any further help."
Gail you produced a triple negative! Kudos!
I wasn't happy Mueller wouldn't be more specific; and I certainly wasn't overjoyed he couldn't say much except he couldn't clear the president on much of anything.
We can't do much with our multiple-negative president and his hyper administration because our timid Congressional Democratic majority can't decide which they fear more--not impeaching and losing their base or not convicting and losing an election.
Or both.
37
@ChristineMcMI can’t say how much I enjoyed your comments.
I think what Democrats hoped Mueller would say was something simple like: "Allow me to clear up some some confusion about the conclusions of our report regarding the culpability of Trump, Trump is as guilty as sin. I hope that helps. I'm retiring now. Thank you."
But he didn't, he just pointed out that it would be unconstitutional for the Justice Dept to refer a recommendation to indict Trump. The Constitution says that only the House can indict a president. And to help the House he provided a report with a million footnotes laying out the evidence for obstruction.
If this report by Mueller doesn't steel Pelosi's spine, what will?
29
In aiming for apolitical Mueller is doing the opposite; he is aiding and abetting this regime, allowing them to frame the narrative, to fill in where the heavily redacted report leaves off, and in effect to gaslight us when we saw in broad day light the collusion, financial irregularities, arrests of close aides, on and on... But I think it's time to move on from Mueller -- ain't no cavalry coming to save us there -- and frame the narrative from the evidence we have.
41
It is very clear Congress needs the entire unredacted Mueller report.
Barr refuses to provide it.
Mueller states that if he were to testify before Congress, his testimony would only be what is contained in his report.
As such, Congress should subpoena Mueller to testify, and allow him to either appear in person or provide them with the entire unredacted report. Any portions that concern national security need not be made public, but must be made available to the House and Senate.
Follow the Constitution.
Follow the law.
Do it now.
113
Dear Gail,
I completely agree. I have been criticized for questioning Mueller’s language as being obfuscating. He simply could have said we found 11 instances of possible obstruction of justice and I am not allowed to indict the President that is up to congress. Instead he talked about absence of evidence to prove innocence. Investigations are not about about proving innocence under US law. That is a presumption and essentially unprovable. Courts render verdicts as Guilty or Not Guilty. Never to they declare innocence. He is too smart not to know what he has done. That is to obstruct the findings of his own report.
64
Mueller is nuanced. I'm going out on a limb and suggesting trump supporters are not very good at nuance.
52
What gives you the sense that America is a nuanced culture? It’s not just Trump supporters who aren’t getting the message—MANY people are concluding that nothing really happened and that this is all something to be shrugged off. Love him or hate him, Trump is extremely effective at grabbing the microphone and getting his message across. He’s shouting Mueller down - repeating over and over that he’s been EXONERATED, that the class is closed, etc. etc. Until someone from Mueller’s team stands up and says - clearly and simply - that this is not so and that the president and AG have *misrepresented* the report’s findings, the president’s narrative will win. Mueller is so focused on being honorable that he is being utterly played by those who are not.
46
@Henry
There is also the possibility that Mueller is not, in this instance, honorable. He comes across as a weasel, not a wimp.
It is easy to place blame for our current nightmare, but beware the shallow explanations. Mueller is being the Mueller one of your colleagues described: impeccably professional, honest, and removed from the popular exercise of political name calling and general nastiness. It is telling that a human with ethical and professional sensibilities is so remarkable and taking a lot of flack for being so.
The 2016 election disaster happened not only because Putin of the KGB culture and his minions interfered, which was bad enough and may or may not have been instrumental in losing the few thousands of votes in a handful of states that lost the antiquated and arcane electoral college vote. But there was also the pretentious posture of the meritocratic Democratic nominee and the activity of the oligarchy behind the curtain.
On the whole I think it is not fair to blame Mueller for being impeccable with his word. There now seems no ethical way forward but for the House to do its job and investigate, probably impeach, and watch the Senate majority wiggle its way out of its obvious responsibility to follow the evidence we have all read about in the media as well as in the Mueller report. This, all the while passing legislation--some good, some bad--that addresses the problems of those living quite outside the Capital Beltway while Mitch the obstructionist once again refuses to do his job for the American people.
31
@FactionOfOne
Mueller did not throw a lightning bolt from the heavens to end this mess. We stumble on towards Election Day.
What this country needs, and urgently, is a return to our great tradition of the Salem witchcraft trials. Those trials achieved remarkable conviction rates under very difficult circumstances.
Under our current law, a lot of innocent people escape punishment. Look no further than our president. Democrats were elected on the promise of punishing him, removing him from office and putting him in jail, for collusion with Russia.
He was found innocent of collusion with Russia. Even his bathroom was bugged, and still nothing. This is extremely annoying for everyone who had declared him guilty from the start.
If we criminalize defense, especially the defense of the innocent, then the President can be the first one to be found guilty under the new law. He has called the Mueller investigation a witchhunt, thus insulting the greatest tradition of American law at its most successful.
And he has directed his lawyer to have Mueller replaced. That replacement would have been legal, but the fact that he talked to his lawyer is clearly a crime, since it shows that Trump was attempting to engage in defending himself. Which, under the new law, would be a heinous crime.
If we criminalize defense, we can raise the conviction rate to 100%. Such a great result was achieved only by states who criminalized defense, such as Soviet Russia under Stalin, Cultural Revolution China under Mao and North Korea.
Soon, the Unites States could join them. One step at a time, starting with our President.
4
@otroad If our president has his way, that's exactly the direction we're headed in, but he won't be one of the ones to suffer from it.
3
@otroad
It’s all in the premise, isn’t it? If you take for granted that the person you support or like or both is innocent, any investigation becomes a witch hunt.
1
@Sarah D. I do not like Trump either, but the accusation that Trump is following a path similar to Stalin and Mao is beyond offensive - not to Trump, but to those millions who suffered under those regimes.
For all of his faults, we have no Siberia, no re-education camps, no secret police, no shuttering of news organizations, no MILLIONS of dead... Shall I go on?
When the courts decided that his travel ban was not constitutional, did he shoot the judge? No. The Trump administration respected the courts decision. Sure they complained, but that is their right. This is not how a Stalin, or a Mao, or an Idi Amin behave.
I am always mystified when liberals accuse small gov't conservatives as being fascist or totalitarian. Trump has done little but impoverish the effectiveness of the state, which makes him the opposite of a Stalin or a Mao.
I agree. Certainly a lot (of hope) was projected upon Mueller that he didn't ask for or want.
But at the very least, in the end when his work was thoroughly betrayed by Barr's 'summary' of it (which became trump and Fox's battle cry), one expects that he would stand up for it. The bare minimum would be to repeat the relevant findings (word for word) that directly contradict Barr's sycophancy.
But the courage and forthrightness we attribute to him, based upon his reputation (vouched for by his colleagues) would demand more than the bare minimum. Not even Barr read the report or examined its evidence before reaching his predetermined conclusion. It is NOT enough to say 'Read the report.'
A double negative and refusal to make an affirmative statement is a squishy dodge when Barr had no problem with proclaiming trump's innocence without examining the evidence.
My estimation of Mueller has shifted, after defending him for two years. If he wanted to preserve his reputation, he has achieved the opposite.
Stand for your work and speak in your own words for the country to hear, beyond the bare minimum.
In the absence of that spark of courage, I'm tending toward 'Weanie.'
58
@Doug Keller
Sadly, I agree.
Mueller may regard this all as a circus.
trump, McConnell and Barr are treating this as a war.
Of all people on the planet, you would expect Mueller to understand that, and rise to the occasion instead of trying to fade back into the curtains.
trump, McConnell and Barr have the courage of the shameless. Comey has the courage to defend institutions maligned by lies.
Do you have the courage to care even that much, Mr. Mueller? You didn't leave it to others to do it for you in the last war in which you distinguished yourself.
Such a refreshing 'the emperor has no clothes' description of Mueller's performance. Academia is full of these debate clubbers whose utterances are carefully crafted to obscure the simplest sentence. The selfsame individuals who swathe themselves in a cloak of objectivity, allegiance to the scientific method, dutifully adhering only to the 'facts'. They're often the same people who conclude that animals cannot remember anything beyond 10 seconds because they've read the literature on Pavlov's conditioning experiments but ignored the behavior of their household pet.
17
I think the whole special counsel process was implemented to distract us with the goal of being opaque. The entire republican administration is a crime as it dismantles agencies, eliminates regulations, and neglects its responsibilities to protect our elections.
41
@Deirdre
Your response should be front and center. You have perfectly, in a few simple sentences, cut to the core of the issue. Thank you. The New York Times should take your analysis to heart.
1
Gail Collins makes this exasperating restraint by Mueller a bit humorous while also pointing out how frustrating it is listening to Mueller tiptoe around the legal and moral wrongdoing of our grotesquely lawless reality TV president. In trying not to overstep the constraints of DOJ policy and the precision of law, Mueller seems to be sharpening a pencil to a point that is unattainable. He's so painfully careful that he can't get a word out without wincing with anxiety.
He even made a remark about how AG Barr showed "good faith" in releasing a sort of complete but still seriously redacted report, when there's nothing the least bit commendable about how Barr has handled this affair while serving as Trump's personal protector. In his excruciating roundabout locution, Mueller made clear that virtually everything Barr had previously stated about the report was either a lie or a serious distortion. But that's if you were listening very carefully and possess the comprehension skills that would impress Aristotle.
I wish he could just speak in plain English without endlessly qualifying and say what we know is the case: Trump committed numerous offenses, but it's up to Congress to bring the wrongdoer to justice by starting impeachment. And by the way, the issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted is a mere legal opinion in the DOJ, not a law unto itself. Others disagree with it, and it's time to put that rule to a test in the courts.
81
Right on, Gail. Thank you! How courageous is it to hide behind a department opinion established in a different time under somewhat different circumstances when present circumstances are so dire and clearly require a revised policy? To question the DOJ policy of presidential immunity in a way that initiated a case for eventual adjudication by the supreme court would have been a better compromise intervention, but still not as brave as a bold, honest declaration that our president is a crook who should be tried for his crimes against the country before he does even more damage than he has. Your column, in contrast, takes on a journalistic sycophancy with regard to Mueller as extreme as that of Republican senators with regard to Trump. That is courageous. It would be wonderful if it inspired the spineless senators, or Mueller himself, to do what is right.
29
I think you and others, Gail,have given Mr.Mueller too little credit.He worked for over two years with a talented team and got seven people convicted of criminal charges,several have served time and others sit in jail.He said he could not prosecute Trump legally but said he could not clear him of wrong doing.He wrote a 400 page report to use as a road map and for good measure detailed ten instances of Obstruction of Justice.What more could he do short of saying, Trump cooperated with the Russians-he could not prove that! Congress needs to run with the report-I am betting the Courts will expedite the subpoenas since Mueller made it clear that he wanted Congress to have his information.Too many people were persuaded that Mueller would deliver a “Perry Mason” moment.
16
@JANET MICHAEL
Mueller was not the savior of the Democratic Party as some had hoped. The dream of installing Hillary Clinton in office dies slow and hard in to many of these backwards looking Democrats who do not understand how the demographics and attitudes of the country are changing. We're not radicalizing more either. And the young people, and the special interest groups including women, do not really represent those wome they purport. This isn't politics. It is performance art.
It’s easy to lay this all on Mueller. But we’re just avoiding the real problem. Mueller submitted a 448 page report and says it’s all in there. AG Barr blocked release of the ENTIRE report and there’s the real culprit.
We need a Pentagon Papers/Daniel Ellsberg moment to see what’s in that report. For all we know Mueller did do his job and it is the Trump Justice department (an oxymoron if there ever was one) that is now to blame by obstructing justice.
Get that unedited report out to Congress AND out to the public. Let the chips fall where they may. Mueller should not be on the hot seat. His report is, in fact, his full statement. Not some sound bite after the fact.
55
The Mueller report gave me two facts: Russia interfered in 2016 election in order to "damage" one of the candidates. This means the winner is an illegitimate president which is probably why Trump grovels to Putin. The second fact is this: Mueller did not exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice; the DOJ rules forbade it. But all the testimonies and interview materials are being preserved for future use if any. So Trump is not in the clear and will probably go to jail once he leaves the WH. When that happens he will tell his base to have an armed rebellion and civl war 2.
25
Mueller answered the two main questions he was asked to investigate:
Yes, Russia interfered.
No, there was no collusion with Trump.
But he refused to take a position on whether there was a cover up, arguing that it’s a political question.
It’s not a political question; it’s a criminal question. And his refusal to take a position on that question is an abdication of his responsibility that he accepted to report on all crimes deriving from his investigation.
Just because only Congress can indict a sitting president, does not absolve the special counsel from taking a position on whether there is sufficient evidence to indict.
Why are so many giving Mueller a pass on this?
57
No. Mueller did take a position. He simply was not empowered to act on it.
4
@Steven Roth Absolutely right. The battlefield lion has become the Cowardly Counsel hiding behind departmental opinion that clearly should be questioned under the present circumstances. The by-the-book bureaucrat cowers behind the books. But it is worse than that. Mueller's statement that it "is unconstitutional" to indict a sitting president is a lie. And deferring to a congress that will not convict is a highly partisan act in defense of the status quo.
2
@Steven Roth
Did he say there was no collusion or that he was unable to find enough evidence to prove collusion? There's a huge difference.
And if there was no collusion, why did Trump try so hard to obstruct the investigation. I can think of three reasons:
1. Trump and/or his cronies did conspire with Russia.
2. Trump believes he's above the law and no one has the right to investigate him.
3. Trump is a complete idiot.
We certainly have proof beyond any doubt that #3 is true.
I vote for all three.
Otherwise, I think your conclusions are absolutely valid.
1
I'm with you Gail,
Mueller could've easily said "While DOJ guidance does not allow for a sitting president to be indicted, ample evidence is provided in the report of obstruction of justice, sufficient to indict an ordinary citizen." ...for example.
167
"If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so". This sentence seems to be a glaring anomaly and strangely inconsistent with all we know about the person of Mr Mueller. It does not fit a profile of a man of courage, an unrelenting, meticulous prosecutor and an incorruptible character, singularly devoted to his task. Here is my speculation: the sentence is a compromise, forced by Barr upon Mueller, in a negotiation about the concluding statement. Perhaps Mueller in the end felt compelled to accept this feeble formulation as a bargain, to avoid a far more drastic suppression of his report by Barr.
38
@Emrysz I suspect that Mueller's problem may be less a blatant cowardly capitulation to Barr, but rather a naive belief in his own objectivity combined with a habit of bureaucratic self-preservation by using regulations to appear to be above the fray. Still bad.
2
@Emrysz I hate to repeat this, but I said from the beginning, "somebody has gotten to Mueller"!!! The Democrats now have to begin impeachment hearings BECAUSE if they don't , they look like wimps and I personally do not want to belong to a party of wimps!
Mr. Mueller shouldn’t have to apologize for operating within the confines of his mandate nor for using purposeful language to lay an outline for a complicated and multifaceted conclusion. This is an frustratingly simplistic interpretation and editorial title. It always gives me pause which rapidly morphs into alarm when we as a public need nuanced discussions distilled into their most reductive, binary state.
11
The Justice Department needs a root canal. It can't solve the problems we need solving.
16
A policy is neither law nor should it necessarily be free from scrutiny on a case by case basis. Mr. Mueller's decision appears to reflect a need, or strong desire, to be free from controversy arising from an appointee's questioning or challenging the Department of Justice's position on indicting sitting presidents, and an inevitable response by Mr. Barr characterizing his report as an effort to exceed the scope of his authority by such a challenge.
It matters little whether this reflects expediency, exhaustion, or cold feet. What matters is the absence of any actual law forbidding indictment of a sitting president. Article II of the Constitution creates a special category of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the basis for Impeachment, but there is no such (to my understanding) language suggesting that a president is above the law either by notional, or argumentative, gestures of purported common law or self-pardoning by a president -- whose duty is, after all, to insure laws are faithfully executed.
But there is absolutely no reason why Mr. Mueller, an other agent of the Department of Justice, or any one else of standing cannot suggest, or bring, charges against the president. And such an act based on actual evidence should engender neither censure nor vilification, but rather praise and thanks.
27
Just how is it that republicans sell their soul to their party??? That is some strong koolaid they drink.
36
Gail, just a small correction. It’s the Alien and Sedition Acts. There were four acts in total.
7
@Clio
And presidents don't have be "born in the United States".
"Natural born" doesn't mean "native born". A child of an American citizen is born a citizen no matter where the birth takes place.
1
Don Quixote, 2019.
1
Oh Gail, you always put it perfectly!
9
Mr Mueller is a former U.S. Marine. He learned long ago
that it is unwise to make a frontal attack on a fortified position.
He also learned that there's no point taking it if you can't
keep it.
Throughout history, the most successful leaders were those
that chose the ground for their battles and enticed opponents to fight on their terms.
Hitler's army came to a sticky end when he rushed off to Russia at the onset of winter. First came the mud, then the ice and
snow.
Ancient Canadian gunner
23
Thank you, Gail Collins! Your first 7 paragraphs are clearer that Robert Mueller’s 9-minute explanation of his 448-page report. Mueller could have shaved 8 minutes, 30 seconds off his statement and gone off to his life as a private citizen by saying, “Look, the guy obstructed justice, but you can’t charge a president with a crime while he’s in office. You’re gonna have to impeach him first.”
57
@Ockham9 . In effect, that's what he did say. But, agreed, he might have said it better by talking to us, not at us. We have lost civil discourse and when we hear it, it sounds unnatural. And when it sounds unnatural, can you imagine what reading the report would be like for the general public? So we are stuck with a serious report that has been simplified into one big lie by Barr, Rosenstein, Trump, and, now, perhaps unintentionally, by the author himself.
15
@Harvey Perr. Civil discourse and what Robert Mueller uttered are two different things. I fully agree that the average American’s ability to speak, read and understand standard English is woefully inadequate. A comparison of speeches by presidents or other public figures 50 years ago and today displays a shocking degradation. But the legal jargon that Mueller (and many other public figures) employ is needlessly obscure, just as Trump’s word salad is incomprehensible. The answer is better communication skills.
2
@Ockham9 I don't disagree. I think we are pretty much on the same page. I was confusing the legal jargon with civil discourse. Another sign of how communication is failing us. Thank you for clarifying.
1
Who could possibly be gullible enough to believe any of Trump's Tweets full of self-serving, malicious lies?
Why, the basket of deplorables, of course. They swallow it all: hook, line and stinker!
48
I find Ms.Collins attude about Robert Mueller's actions as special counsel truly unfortunate. I think his actions were totally appropriate and correct and I find his statements about obstruction proper, wise and direct. He has investigated, he reported,the rest is up to Congress, it seems to me. I admire the man and how he has handled this entire issue: with clarity,directness and acting within his given mandate.
Ms. Collins' article is also condescending in my view. What she wanted him to report he clearly did. Just not with Ms. Collins' unfortunate sassy attitude.
19
@Richard Williams
Well said. Though Ms. Collins is an insightful columnist, a sassy attitude is the last thing needed for this investigative report and for Mr. Mueller's first appearance.
15
@Richard Williams
People like Ms. Collins didn't want a thorough, objective, and professional prosecutor. They wanted a magic wand they could wave at President Idiot and make him disappear. Since Mueller declined to play the role they assigned him, they are lashing out.
1
yeah. robert mueller one of the few the the proud...... wants to return to private life...... and leave others to decipher his oblique message. profiles in courage? NOT.
54
@coale johnson Right, but it may be worse. Mueller cannot fail to know what he is doing. Giving an outdated departmental opinion the status of established constitutional law is as much a lie as Barr's silly summary. Deferring to a congress he knows won't convict is equally partisan and more consequential. And rushing offstage leaving every one else in the burning theater is a desperate strategy to escape unsinged.
What a disappointment that mr mueller is now added to the list of men whom we wonder about how they sleep at night.
49
@Phoebe
I’m sure he sleeps well.
He was thorough and did his job with honor and integrity. No leaks and a thorough report.
It’s Congress’s turn now to decide whether to impeach or not.
Hopefully Mr Mueller can now take a relaxing and much needed vacation.
3
@phoebe
Dear Phoebe, I think your disappointment is more because you wanted Mr. Mueller to come out and fix this mess once and for all and not because you think he is a bad person.
I wanted him to be able to end it too, but I see why he couldn't. He is not the white knight who will save us but he is the trusted servant who has provided us with the material to save ourselves if we will just do so.
2
Gail needs to get into infrastructure, specifically how Elalne Chao and Mitch McConnell, a happily married couple, both with some power inside the beltway, are not improving it.
34
To me, the Russian investigation is closed.
I don't care anymore about Mueller, his report, if he is a warrior, a wimp, wicked, or a wizard -- who today claimed he can prove evidence of absence.
What I care about is, the never-Trumpers must stop being anti-vaxxers and start their medication for their Trump Derangement Syndrome.
7
@Bhaskar Yes, Mueller’s investigation is closed. If Democrats had the votes, they would impeach and remove Trump for cause without a shred of doubt. Trump derangement syndrome, or TDS, characterizes the narcissistic personality disorder that is uniquely Trump’s. As for his followers, the diagnosis hasn’t yet been invented.
35
@Doug Lowenthal
What's the definition of the stage of development called the Terrible Twos?
You know when 2 year olds learn the word NO and love saying it stubbornly without the comprehension of the rightness or wrongness of doing so.
It's understandable in a 2 year old. Defiance is the normal development stage.
So what is the definition of an adult stuck in that stage called?
Trumpism.
2
@Doug Lowenthal
"Talk to the red hat" syndrome?
1
Wimp. Mr. Mueller lacks the courage necessary to defend the integrity of the Constitutional Democracy of the founders. He trembles before the awesome might of the GOP slander machine, and the oligarchs who pull Trump’s puppet strings. Admittedly, they are a scary bunch, especially as the FOX microphone amplifies their terroristic threats and gaslighting disinformation.
41
He wasn't special. He wasn't a Prosecutor. He had overwhelming evidence of a crime. But wait! He's a Republican first. How to appear to do the job without doing any harm? That was the final message. It's a James Comey move. Destroy the Republic while trying to appear above the fray. He had to tell us about Hilary one week before the election. B/c James Comey was so honorable. But Comey failed to mention all the treason about Trump being dug up by the FBI...until it was too late. Mueller refusing to reach a decision because of an Opinion by a bunch of white house nobodies chosen for their willingness to whitewash. The Special Counsel, at a cost of millions and with the entire world hanging on the outcome, passed. He just ducked and ran. From nobody and nothing. With Democracy in the balance. Well, at least we won't have to read a book explaining why he's a great guy and everything he did was so righteous and heroic. He doesn't have the guts to finish his job so he won't have the guts to go on late night t.v. to sell a book. I hope people pursue him for an explanation of his inactions every day of his life.
60
@Martin Veintraub
Or: he left the best possible roadmap for impeachment that a Republican could.
1
Watergate had its patriotic Deepthroat. We can only hope that a similar patriot will emerge soon.
93
@J.Actually, what we had during Watergate was an honorable AG: Elliot Richardson. Listen to Rachel Maddow's podcast, "Bagman." That is how we ended up with this "policy" about not indicting a sitting president.
1
@J.
Anyone who was holding his breath for that expired a long time ago!
@Nancy
Don't completely agree. Somebody has leaked stuff from DOJ (about the dissent among Mueller's people) and also drips and drabs, like the "draft" from the IRS saying his taxes had to be turned over.
1
Mueller is a wimp, unable to take a stand and straddling the fence resulting in the inability of the country to get closure. He could have said “Trump committed a crime but I cannot prosecute” but instead said “I can’t determine if a crime was committed since regulations say I cannot indict.”
It was the cowards way out.
66
I just read Mr. Blow's column--in which he excoriates the Dem's for neglecting their duty.
And then I read yours, Ms. Collins.
I am remembering Mr. Comey's remark--oh, long long ago--which he made in reply to a direct question. Do you feel you swayed the 2016 election?
The thought, he said, "made him physically sick to his stomach."
I believe him. Absolutely. I cannot escape the sense--some such feeling actuates Mr. Mueller. The notion of a highly placed official of the DOJ doing partisan politics--politicking if you will--
--seems to leave him "sick to his stomach."
I don't know this. It's only a guess.
I wish (like you, Ms. Collins) Mr. Mueller had spoken out more forthrightly, more directly. "If the trumpet shall give an uncertain sound," says the Bible, "who will prepare himself for the battle?"
If there was a call to arms from Mr. Mueller, he played it on a harmonica. Not a trumpet. But moving on--
--Democrats!
It's time to impeach. Not because you'll succeed in removing Mr. Trump from office. No. His lapdogs in the Senate will see to that. Marshaled by Mr. Mitch McConnell. A despicable hack.
Do because--because what?
Because the honor of the United States of America--the honor of this people--and your own honor demand no less.
The man is a living, walking vileness.
He should be removed. Or at least--
--a good faith effort ought to be made to remove him.
Thanks, Gail. Thanks Charles.
And all of you--thanks.
81
@Susan Fitzwater
your assertion that Trump is “vile” raises a question that is not often addressed: Are the tens of millions of his adoring supporters also vile? And if they are not vile, what are they?
The Republicans in the senate are complicit in Trump's crimes against our country. And by all indications, they're feeling pretty smug and plan to protect their flossy golden boy until the clock runs down.
We've been hijacked.
64
Mueller deserves a nickname. He's earned it. How about "Dodgin' Bob" for how successfully he has dodged political bullets? Or "Bunker Bob" for how he took cover under DOJ's extralegal policy against indicting a sitting president. Then there's "Pass the Buck Bob." I'm sure the lite-night comedians can do better.
28
@abigail49 How about "Nothing To Do With Me Bob"?
I appreciate that Mueller made the short address to correct the spin Barr was promoting.
Also, bravo to Mueller for making his comments about the integrity of the FBI and intelligence personnel .
As for the headline on this column: isn’t it sensationalism?
6
Ms. Collins
Mr. Mueller did not vacillate and he did not look robotic as another Times opinion suggested and he was certainly not a wimp. In fact, he appeared rested but grave with the seriousness of his mission.
I saw a well respected public official giving a clarifying and apolitical speech. It effectively hit all the right notes in an amazingly short 10 minutes. He clearly explained his mandate that he could not indict by DOJ rules but by the end of that speech he had in an understated way "emphatically" said I cannot find Mr. Trump innocent ...and with only a few deft inflections, Mr. Barr lay skewered on his DOJ Seal as well.
21
I agree and will add that I also sensed his frustration with congress for not picking up and taking action. Senator Pelosi, you must take more substantive action. Trump's deflection of the importance and seriousness of the Russian hacking and interference is itself of grave and growing concern.
Very unfortunate that AG Barr prefaced the report with a misleading summary. There is just too much obfuscation coming from Donald Trump. So much so that if any body associated with him exudes even a whiff of impropriety they risk immediate identification as untruthful or a liar. The stink of it is very difficult to remove and has a great propensity to ruin reputations.
12
Robert Mueller's double negative stating words to the effect that he could find no reason NOT to indict Trump--and it's the job of Congress to do that, could have been put into more cogent words. His brief appearance seems to have given everyone something to be thankful for, including Trump, who claimed that he's been cleared of any wrong-doing.
One expects more from an intelligent lawyer. While he has had numerous testimonials of his integrity from former colleagues, I feel cheated. He could have repudiated Wm. Barr, for example, but chose to deliver his few words with blinders on. His appearance was anti-climatic, to say the least.
31
The only option we have open to us to rid the country of Trump is to vote him out of office. We need to stop spinning our wheels over what can be inferred from the Mueller Report, frustrating though it may be. Opening impeachment proceedings would have a negative effect on Democrats, and is useless in the face of a Senate controlled by the Republicans. We need to move on, and focus on the 2020 election and removing as many Republicans from office as we can, starting at the top. Further, if the House wants to investigate anything, it needs to focus its energy on the voter suppression that took place in the last election that has had lasting effects, and needs to be prevented from happening again. We need to leave it to the intelligence agencies to keep the Russians from once again interfering in the 2020 election. I do not believe the agents will allow Trump to bully them into forsaking their duty to this country.
Mr. Mueller did an excellent job. He deserves to retire in peace, having served his country well. There is nothing else warranted from him.
11
@Diana
Why would impeachment hearings affect Dems badly? We should impeach because:
a) no one should be able to obstruct justice in plain sight with no consequences at all - not doing anything is a bad precedent
b) though there's no way he'll be removed from office, there is always the chance he'd quit rather than allow investigations to unearth things from his past that could lead to indictments after he is no longer president.
15
@mm
Not (b). He will not quit. He does not fear litigation: he knows that if you always double down, no matter what, you will wear out any opponent.
@mm
Right now no one associated with Trump or named as witnesses has cooperated with Congress except for Michael Cohen, whose testimony is questionable given his proclivity for lying. Subpoenas are being ignored. Yes, there will be a court fight to get people to testify, but that is going to take time. 2020 is looming large. If there are impeachment proceedings the Republicans will close ranks in both houses of Congress. When Nixon was impeached there were honorable Republicans who stood against him. We have one Republican, Justin Amash, who has bravely raised his voice in support of impeachment. We're hearing crickets from the rest.
What you know and what you can prove has proven difficult, and why I believe Mueller made no recommendations. He did say that the report did not exonerate Trump, and hinted were Trump not President he would have recommended indictment. If he could not find concrete proof to back up collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians, Congress won't either. Manafort was the key, and he did not cooperate.
Given Trump's ego and penchant for revenge, I do not believe he will resign even in the face of exposure. He believes he his all powerful and will prevail. He cannot be removed from office through impeachment, it just will not happen. That is why we need to put everything we have into the upcoming election and concentrate on soundly defeating him. If we do, then indictment can follow. He will be powerless to stop it.
1
For democracy to work we need a SWAT team with straight jackets to truss up Trump and haul him out of the oval office. This is a case for the mental health professionals.
37
@Darkler
No, Darkler, for democracy to work we need every sentient voter to vote out our unpatriotic and self serving congress. And that includes lots of Democrats, not just republicans. I haven’t watched it but my grandchildren have been watching a movie called “The Despicables.” Perfect name for most of this Congress.
1
@Darkler
Yes sir, padded cell time.
1
If we’d swapped James Comey to fill in as the special council, and Robert Mueller to run the 2016 FBI, this mess might have been a little less messy.
6
"Warrior or Wimp" - Anyone can look up his record.
Robert Mueller was a marine corp officer in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive and its aftermath, earning a Bronze Star with V and a Purple Heart. Read his lips. He owes the pundits [like you] and citizens of the US absolutely nothing.
We would probably be a much better country if there were more of his tribe on both sides of the aisle.
And - yeah - just in passing the "V" stands for valor - do you know a lot of folks in your life with an award for valor?
7
@SteveRR
But as Charles Blow notes in his column, both Mueller and John Kerry share a certain patrician sense of honor and duty which, ironically, does not serve them well in today's jungle environment. Kerry, also a war hero, was savaged by the Bush campaign for being a wimp, and he allowed the narrative to take hold. It was beneath him to accept the challenge to his honor, and as a result, we got the bungling of the Iraq War and the financial crisis. For both of these men, why was it worth fighting the North Vietnamese and not the most proximate threat to our democracy?
2
@stan continople
There are many times in life when the pragmatic does not trump the noble.
This is one of those times.
Sensible people do not castigate our war heroes in this fashion - ever.
@SteveRR Yes, Bob Mueller acted heroically in 'Nam (I resisted words like 'hero' & 'valor' given it was an unjest(ifiable)... if not criminal, war). More recently, Mueller stonewalled and slow-walked FBI mistakes/issues after (and regarding) 9-11, as well as allowing/enabling unlawful FBI surveillance techniques. Mueller then bungled a few investigations (e.g., Ray Lewis)... an now the Russia probe (in my view).
Maybe a chain-of-command military person (regardless of their integrity/valor) doesn't best fit the requirements/needs of a role as crucial as the Russia probe -- in fact, that was my reaction the day he was named a Special Counsel 2 years ago.
We’re living in an upside-down world, with an incompetent liar in charge who thinks he’s an emperor. “Thank the stars he hasn’t been tested by a whole-nation-impacting tragedy,” I comfort myself. Then I read about the likelihood of a worldwide recession on the horizon! Another night of tossing and turning’s on my menu, boys.
8
You know what the problem is? We're all sitting on our duffs acting like it's someone's job to do the dirty work of democracy for us. We need to stop popping the popcorn and start taking our OWN responsibilities as citizens of this country seriously. Mueller did his job -- really, he did. Now it's our turn. Call your Congressman, go out and protest, vote vote vote.
69
@JKR
Excellent !!!...salient commentary.
18
@JKR
General strike. General strike. General strike.
This calls for a general strike. Shut this country down until such time as our "leaders" address this most dire of problems in a direct and meaningful way.
3
This whole thing is played against a backdrop of good soldier bad President. I still believe that Mueller was not finished with his investigation and that Barr told him to rap it up. This is why there are so many things missing from the report. Mueller feels compelled to take orders and to respond to the chain of command. He did not want to address us today, but he did. And under much internal distress, he cryptically told us what we needed to know. Mueller did as good a job as he could, given that he got the boot from Barr who distorted his report findings with delight. If I were Mueller, I would not want a Congressional probing either. The questions would be intense and he would have to speak against Barr, his boss but not his better. Still we have what we need to proceed with and to complete hearings if the courts continue to find against Trump and for us.
14
Ironic that Barr and Rosenstein have turned the DOJ into a Trump lap dog and Mueller appears to have been neutered in the process, to the extent his words require interpretation.
If he were as forthright as he was advertised, he would have acted as the lawman and former AG that he once was by telling it like it is.
Yes, he was a wimp, as Gail said, and the very ambiguity of his report requires that he should explain himself and not leave the Country with Barr's mendacious interpretation as the last word.
41
So, if Trump can't be indicted for a federal crime, can he be indicted for a sub-federal crime? If he shot and killed an unarmed nobody in front of hundreds of witnesses with working cell phones, would he be arrested, cuffed, taken down to the police station, charged, tried, convicted and thrown in prison? Or, because he is the President of the United States, does he blithely take a walk on that one, too?
28
The canonization of Robert Mueller was decidedly premature.
29
Any first-year law school student learns that an executive agency “policy” is not really law. It is better than nothing and needs to be followed as a default position, but it needs to be tested and upheld by courts to truly be “law.”
In this particular case, it is simply “dicta.” Look up “dicta.” This particular “policy” originated in an argument re Spiro Agnew that a Vice President can absolutely be indicted. However, to make this VP decision more palatable, the write-up threw out the but-not-the-President dicta. But that is all it was, dicta. It has never been litigated. Never been confirmed by lower courts, let alone appeals courts. It isn’t really law. Mueller was/is a fool and would fail first-year law school.
19
@SRP
From the Code of Federal Regulations regarding Special Counsel and dicta:
§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
The last sentence is the clincher. AG Barr had written his 14 page screed defending the “dicta” that won him the job.
Do you think Barr would have relented to Mueller? Absolutely not.
Non-law school students also know that the CFR is the law of the land not general legal concepts.
9
@Agent 99 -
Yes the CFR is “law” as it is the list of regulations promulgated by federal governmental AGENCIES.
But regulations are challenged in court—and the agencies lose—all the time. This “policy”, and your CFR section pertaining it, are not the U.S. Code. And this policy and regulation has never been examined, tested, by a court of law. “Consulting” one particular AG is not a “clincher;” it is irrelevant.
The “policy” or “regulation” in question goes to the very heart of the U.S. Constitution separation of powers and the fundamental rule of law. It MUST be firmly grounded in established, high-level lawmaking and review to be accorded the deference that has been accorded here. The simple fact in this case is it hasn’t been. It should only be accorded the level of respect and authority that it has earned—which is very, very little.
1
Where is the concern that the "hacking" was done during the Obama administration?
What did Obama, the NSA, and the full staff of our fantastic, world renowned spy apparatus do?
1
@John from Brooklyn They began an investigation, which Trump and Barr now characterize as “spying”.
10
John from Brooklyn,
An investigation of Russian meddling in our presidential election was begun during the Obama administration. Mitch McConnell would not cooperate to join a bipartisan approach to the investigation. The Mueller investigation is the result of that original investigation, begun by the FBI under Comey, which Trump tried to obstruct by firing Comey. Now the new Trump AG, Barr Sinister, is investigating the motivations of the original FBI investigation. Your head spinning yet, America?
Blue wave 2020!!
What if Mueller appointed a translator for the document? If sees his line of duty is only to speak in legalese, what would be the harm of anointing a translator and sanctioning the translation?
1
It's almost as if Mueller is such a staunch, starched shirt Republican, he can't bring himself to indict the Criminal-in-Chief even when he has the evidence. Regardless, he basically laid the groundwork and handed off to Congress to do what he doesn't have the guts to do.
24
He is not a hero. Heroes step out of the box when it's necessary. He had physical courage, got shot at in Vietnam, following orders, but he's an "institutionalist" who can't or won't see that our institutions are failing us and is falling back on an arbitrary DOJ "policy" and thereby allowing a man he knows is a criminal to remain as president. Yes, he's throwing it to Nancy Pelosi, and I'm sorry to say she's no better than he is.
13
Please retract this editorial!
It's too, good and replete with info. Trump doesn't know about the Alien Sedition Act, (it's actually a series of four acts). If he learns about it, anyone, anywhere in our nation could be tarred as an alien and accused of rebelling against the United States of Trump!
My son attained a residency in South Florida. He will begin next month. My wife and I met with him Easter week to help him find an apartment. While driving down Collins Ave. in Sunny Isles, we noticed many mega-buck Trump condo towers, beach side.
At the local restaurants etc. we heard the prolific use of a strange language- Russian. Evidently many Russians own condos on that strip. I spoke with someone who left her teaching job back in the USSR. I couldn't afford the condo she owned.
Evidently Mueller doesn't like the beach. Hopefully, congress will find a way of using his report to do the deed.
I know! I know! You're thinking, Borscht!
12
So endeth what was an obvious stalling action from the beginning. Has Trump evolved to a competent president yet?
1
The Donald has stated that his father was born in Germany. Not true. Well we can all agree on one thing. The Donald was born in America. A true American. Only his draft evasion undermines his patriotism.
3
The Mueller Report - buried in plain sight...
8
Brava! I share your outrage that Trump continues to evade justice. Mueller has let the American people down.
18
“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so,” Pass it round the campfire circle. See what you get. Then go the other way – does the law of micro-reversibility apply?
1
Many of us wanted and hoped for a more definitive condemnation on the part of Mr. Mueller. Still it appears he did what he was charged to do. Ms. Collins snarky and demeaning characterization of him as wimp rather than warrior is inappropriate and reminiscent of the noxious, ad hominem comments of the current president.
3
@Louise Agreed. Mueller did his job well and doesn't want to be the face of the Trump opposition. If only there more like him!
3
A DOJ policy has very little legal weight, yet everything seems to hinge on this. As a person who works in government, I can assure you that internal agency policies do not override the constitution, a federal law, or even a federal regulation. Why we are relying on this to decide the fate of the presidency is absurd and dangerous. The report concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove collusion, not that it didn't happen - big difference. Undoubtedly this was because the evidence was systematically destroyed in real time by programs like Snapchat and What's App - the modern equivalent of shredding documents. Mueller was in essence handcuffed before the investigation even started. The administration held all the cards once Kavanaough and Barr were appointed. Some might say they committed the perfect crime. Will the truth ever come out?
16
@BJW
Sadly, I'm compelled to agree.
Pretty scary.
5
Let’s not forget that Muller has always been part of that corrupted ruling class that poses as the leaders of an exemplary democracy. And we are not such a thing!
7
In my view, Mueller was hyped as a decorated war hero, a former FBI Director, an upstanding fighter for truth and justice.
The Mueller I saw today was a tired old man who was telling the fire brigade, I’ve done my job, I rang the alarm. Now you take over and put out the fire. I’m going home.
I suppose he should be thanked for his service, but as he knows, the situation is dire, and there is much more that Mr. Mueller could do to bring the attention of the citizens to the dangers.
I expected that he would have clearly heard his call to duty. I was surprised and disappointed that either he didn’t hear the call, or chose not to answer.
62
If Mueller is forced to testify it will probably be in front of House Judiciary and/or Intelligence.
We can only hope that someone like Alexandra Occassio Cortez can pin a few questions about Mueller’s preoccupation with guidelines instead of the rule of law.
AOC is also very capable of asking why Mueller can pronounce something as unconstitutional when it is only a DOJ guideline.
In the end, Mueller did set a precedent that a president is above the law.
Such a sad day for America.
54
"Portraits in a Lack of Courage": The story of the Republican Party in the Trump years.
Party before nation.
55
If a doctor told you she “couldn’t rule out” that you were dying of cancer, what would your reaction be? To ask her to elaborate, maybe? And enact steps to address the problem? Mueller needs to be available to Congress whether he wants to be or not. And it’s time for Pelosi to take Mueller’s screaming hint and pick up the ball. Trump knows how to get his way, and it isn’t by sitting by quietly. Get moving, Congress. It’s your job.
35
"Robert Mueller: Warrior or Wimp"? I have to disagree with this essay's title, Gail. Mueller did his job. And he explained well his position and the crux of this report. The Russians interfered big time, and Trump can not be exonerated for obstruction of justice. To paraphrase, Mr. Mueller stated that if they could have proclaimed Trump innocent - indeed, an oxymoron - they would have. So getting back to the "warrior or wimp." Right now I believe the wimp in this pathetic, sad debacle of sorts, is our Democratic House. Mueller all but swung from the proverbial chandelier in his strong implication that it is now up to Congress. Yet, what do we hear? And first let me be clear that I LOVE Speaker Pelosi and have the highest respect for her, but... Today she stated that before the if or when of impeachment proceedings, all evidence must be strong enough for the Senate to come on board. That is not going to happen, not with Mitch leading his equally malevolent GOP menagerie. The time is now. I really do not know what more "evidence" Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, et al. need. It's there staring them in their faces.
20
@Kathy Lollock
Are they waiting until serious campaigning is in full force to drop some political bombs on trump? I hope so.
Pelosi is the wimp.
(I like her, but she is being a wimp.)
There are crimes in the Mueller report.
As Mueller, said, he is not the one who will charge a sitting President.
This is a GIFT to the Democrats.
Nixon went into impeachment hearings with a high approval rating. It tanked by the end of the hearings.
Republican Senators WILL have a hard time defending this President when his crimes are laid out in hearings.
If you REALLY believe it is imperative to reduce Trump's ability win in 2020 - IMPEACHMENT IS THE BEST ROAD.
30
Wrong.
Mueller said: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."
You translate that as follows: “Look, the guy obstructed justice, but you can’t charge a president with a crime while he’s in office. You’re gonna have to impeach him first.”
Not so. Longstanding precedent may have prevented Mueller from CHARGING a sitting President with a crime.
But NOTHING prevented Mueller from telling America: "If we had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime we would have said so."
Evidently he wasn't convinced that the evidence said that.
2
@Ian Maitland
Nope.
According to Mueller, it's unfair to accuse someone of a crime if there isn't going to be a court proceeding where the accused can defend himself against the accusation.
That seems pretty weak to me, but I guess it's by the book.
21
@Diego
Yes, that is exactly what Counsel Mueller said.
4
@Diego & @Blanche
"Weak" is far too weak.
Are you saying that, if Mueller had found collusion, he would not have accused Trump of a crime, because there could not be a court proceeding?
1
Are we so sure that The Donald was born here, Ms. Collins? We know his mother was born in Scotland, HE says his father was born in Germany. At the very least we should insist upon seeing his birth certificate- and assume that he'll present it at the same time he presents his tax returns, his bank records, his school records and his White House visitors' ledger.
Just out of curiosity: if Robert Mueller refuses to testify before Congress about Trump's obstruction of justice would he, too, be guilty of obstruction? I can just see Trump shouting "I told you so!"
21
Lost in all the commotion about Mueller's statement today is that he managed to issue a "summary" of his report that was even shorter than Barr's. The difference is that Mueller's summary was accurate. What is disappointing is that he was too timid to say one word about Barr's outrageous misrepresentation of his report or Mueller's reason for not coming to a conclusion of his own on obstruction. Mueller may be a gentleman but the practical effect is that he is making it easier for Barr to get away with his lies.
38
Great - the only time this bipolar nation is united is to besmirch Robert Mueller. I am flummoxed by derogatory comments
A mantra of one was “every report must stand on its own.” He demonstrated by folding a report lengthwise and standing it up on a desk. Then he knocked it down proclaiming “this report does not stand on its own.”
Mueller’s report stands on its own. The conclusions are clear as day and his reasons are legally, constitutionally and ethically valid.
Mueller is above reproach. It’s not his fault the conspiracy wasn’t discovered. Trump as Capo Don and with help from his BFF Vlad surely constructed layers of protection, deception and dead ends. Mafia bosses aren’t brought to justice with ease. Trump’s date with Lady Justice will happen. Be patient.
On obstruction - Mueller provided the evidence within established constraints. It’s not his job to violate them. He has spoon fed Congress & my fellow Americans who are now responsible for making Trump accountable.
Mueller has upheld the law and unlike Trump would not create his own universe to placate the drooling masses (including me) who want Trump checking in to Camp Fed.
Clinton asked what the definition of “is” is. Today Mueller said “Any testimony from this office...” FROM THIS OFFICE - Mueller is no longer FROM THIS OFFICE. If he is called to testify I’m sure he would climb the hill just as he did when as the heroic warrior on a hill in Vietnam.
10
It never ceases to amaze me how, when the rare hero comes along and does what no one else has the courage or horsepower to do, they get criticized for not doing everyone else's job as well.
Robert Mueller battled for 2 years, carrying the ball to the 1-yard line while the pundits and politicians stood on the sidelines complaining about unfair it was that Trump was getting away with being Trump. Mueller's debt is paid in full many times over.
Now it's time for Nancy Pelosi or someone else in Congress to pick up the ball and put it in the end zone.
19
Robert Mueller is well aware that the actual findings of his report were initially taken over and distorted by the recently Trump appointed AG, who is reportedly a long time friend of Mr. Mueller as well;
The actual findings of the full report are still pretty much a mystery to the public at large, thanks greatly to the editing by Trump's choice for AG; and the chorus of Trump Republicans in Congress and in his cult-like following;
Mr, Mueller owes the country and all of us more information and feedback than he has provided to us so far, including today, after such a long investigation.
I say he WIMPED OUT, passed the buck, and gave us a bunch of mishmash , rather than an intelligent, honest response...and skip. the rationalizing and phony legalese....it was possible.
21
It sort of helps to understand lawyers ,,,, they do have lot of rules. It is always necessary to read between the lines and M works for the FBI. He has to keep to its "culture", which allowed him to make a map for the democrats to use in gutting Trump for the crime of obstruction of justice, and actually impeaching him.
The Dem party hacks are all playing to the next election, and beating T in the election is a different goal, and of course has nothing to do with justice, which is what the People need and deserve.
3
The facts are truly remarkable when we look at them: our long-time enemies, the Russians, interfered with our presidential election resulting in the election of a man totally unfit to be president. The current POTUS retains his support because a network news organization created by an amoral Australian, maintains a steady stream of lies to keep 40% of Americans mislead. How is it that we can allow this to continue?
26
The man’s hands were tied. What more
could he have done? It’s up to Congress to act.
Gail, I love you but this is disappointing.
5
Seems to me he overcorrected based on the Starr/Comey precedent of passing both legal and moral judgment by doing neither.
7
Robert has been metaphorically shot on fifth avenue.. he's going to need a triage team..
4
Warrior or wimp? Neither. Mueller is a sharp guy who probably really wishes he never got involved in all this. He's also practical, and I think reasoned that if you cannot try someone it makes no sense to charge them. It's like trying to charge a foreign diplomat with a crime when the diplomat has diplomatic immunity, and the best you can do is require him/her to leave the country. If you cannot try a sitting president, it makes no sense to indict him. The only thing you can do is "deport" him in 2020. Even if impeached in the House, a not guilty verdict in the Senate gets you nowhere. So, what is Mueller? Cagey, smart and practical.
5
I'm not sure whether the answer is that he is a wimp -- or that, despite a law school degree, he is incapable of communicating clearly. But either way, with his refusal to clarify maters, he is shirking his duty to the public, the people paying for the investigation.
17
Gail, as Mueller said in so many words, "Everyone needs to read the report." But, people don't read anymore, so what is a democracy to do?
Someone, maybe you, needs to break down the report into small "bites," maybe in a question and answer format with short and clear answers--and links to video or news reports that "illustrate" the questions and answers.
Gail, democracy needs you!
8
@Marilyn
Excellent idea! I was thinking that there should be reading/ study groups across the country and quizzes to go along with it.
5
In your poll at the end of the column, I vote for C. Something must be done to free us from this nightmare of a "presidency".
I just hope it won't be too late to repair the damage that's being done.
1
I went to CSPAN to listen to Meuller's statement without the talking heads. Under Mueller's criteria I'm not sure why Don Jr, wasn't charged -- he's not a sitting President.
26
What Muller said, “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."
What Muller meant to say, "The president committed crimes as outlined in my report. Congress better do something as the DOJ and OLC memo don't allow me to indict the president."
11
If I thought the Special Counsel's reticence wasn't particularly unhelpful to uncovering the truth, I would have said so here.
15
Congress and Senate should read the report.
Perhaps they could take a day next week and have a remedial reading class, instead of their usual daily schedule of stonewalling.
It is embarrassing to know that most of our ELECTED leaders haven't read the report!
9
Mueller still can be in the history books. Unfortunately it depends on currently spineless congressional Democrats perhaps even more spineless than their Republican counterparts.
3
He suffered excruciating pain for two years in order to kill Vietnamese and get medalled for it. He had lots of dead time to wonder what the war was for and either he didn’t or he had an answer that failed the history test. He has struck the gravitas note in yet again a decrepit American attitude. Last man to exude depth was Cheney of all people who knew everything about nothing and lied so as to get our spies murdered by Iran. Mueller has spoken as if he is entitled to parse language about a policy inside DOJ that has no legal standing, that was concocted by mid career legal eagles who supervened the Constitution, Congress and Federal Court. When the Constitution is silent that is all it is, and there is nothing in it that says I must mow my lawn or that a President can’t be indicted. The policy is unconstitutional, not the choice to indict. A criminal President is not preferable to a crisis since that would be the worst crisis of conscience.
14
Mueller came out and disappeared. The more he talked, the less he said, the more the image of a person seemed to fade from the TeeVee screen. Poof. Gone.
Well, heck, I know the law and lawyers are set up to be of every possible assistance to established powers, those with money, position and influence, but this shakes my windows
and rattles my walls (my bones are in bad shape, too). Faith in law and democracy? Should I be so foolish as to protect my childhood illusions from this travesty?
We can't indict a sitting president because of long standing Justice Department "policy". We couldn't find enough evidence to say the president was innocent or we would have said so. But, for those keeping up, we didn't decide the issue of guilt or innocence one way or another. WHAT DID YOU DO, MUELLER? Conduct a 24 month long seminar with some of the best law graduates in the land?
The conclusion is that there was no conclusion but, Congress, the ball's in your court!
Even if you can't indict a sitting president, at least you could tell us that all of the available evidence indicates that Trump committed obstruction of justice and it will be up to the House and Senate to decide whether that action should be punished by impeachment. But, NOOOO!
If Trump were any other developer, he likely would have been indicted years ago for some of his business dealings. Since he had platoons of lawyers to fight back, they backed off. Was the Mueller team afraid of Trump, too? Looks that way.
24
Mueller’s comment that if he comes have exonerated Trump, he would have clearly got under Rudy Giuliani’s skin. That’s a pretty good sign that the Trump camp knows the president has dirty hands - and that the Special Counsel caught a glimpse of them. That’s not a major triumph, but still, a small victory.
2
WWII Ended when Emperor Hirohito made his radio address, but it was so formal and surprising to hear his voice that most Japanese listeners did not understand that they had surrendered until newspapers published the remarks with commentary. That's what this address felt like. I have followed the news closely throughout this investigation, and yet I struggled to really process all the implications of Mueller's remarks (and I, too, was surprised to hear his voice, which sounded older than I had expected).
But that last line, about how this should concern all Americans. That should haunt us with its clarity.
13
For the last two years, Trump has managed to successfully turn lies into the law of the land. By saying it so, he has made it so. The House and Senate will be complicit if he is allowed to continue. There is no excuse for not starting the impeachment process.
6
Even if all Mueller did was testify in public by reading verbatim his report, the visuals would finally focus peoples' attention on this issue in a way Democrats are not now doing with their hodge podge of unrelated investigation with no clear goal.
5
The American public paid Mueller's salary and for the report. We are owed Robert Mueller testifying before Congress.
The news reports are he doesn't "want to". This is not about what Mueller wants. This is about what we deserve as the voting public.
How can we know the truth if he does not testify and parts of the report are being withheld from Congress and us?
Do the integrous thing.
19
I do think the opinion is biased,the writer seems to expect more from Muller to meet the expectations,but Muller can only lead and conclude the investigation within the law,he has finished the excruciating investigation which the media has portraited it as a game changer,but when Muller couldn't deliver the report they want,the media disappointed and kind of undermine his work.The media is biased and complain about the ambiguous words Muller uttered,but he had done his part within the law, isn't it enough for the public?His words and conduct represent more in the divisive media circle and the divided nation.Were it for any other people in the special counsel's position,we might expect less of it.So be objective like he does and don't build up so high of the expectations for public.
Remember last week when our president was throwing around the word "Treason"? He associated that volatile word with the investigation into Russian interference in his election. He named names of particular people whom he considered to be traitors. And he ordered up an investigation of the investigation. Hard to believe it was only last week.
And now--today--came Robert Mueller to deliver a public message, a nine-minute speech about the work he's been doing for the past two years and how exactly he came up with the conclusions stated in the report that bears his name.
He helpfully restated a few of those conclusions for us: (1) Russia intervened in our election; (2) Mueller said he could not prove that President Trump obstructed justice--but he couldn't prove Trump didn't, either; ((3) DOJ guidelines prohibit the indictment of a sitting president; (4) and--the hardest one to digest because we were already pretty sure about the first three--Mueller said that the rest is up to us.
As I watched the public presentation today, it seemed as if the special counsel had chosen his words with extreme care. Did you--like me--get the feeling that Mr. Mueller might be more than a little concerned that our authoritarian president will throw the word "traitor" at him, too?
We're in uncharted waters now.
21
Here's another standard we can apply:
Last night I was wondering how many of the Ten Commandments Trump has broken and which ones he's kept. The only one I could conclusively say he hadn't broken was #5, "Honor thy father and thy mother, so that you may live long in the land...". By all accounts he revered his father, not the least because he kept him financially afloat until he learned to fleece others - the Trump version of teaching a man to fish.
I decided he's broken #6 by either 1) skipping the draft so someone else got killed in his place or, 2) driving at least one person to their death in at least one of his bankruptcies or, 3) driving at least one person to their death with his disastrous (for others) Trump University or, 4) at the very least, creating a situation where at least 2 immigrant children have died in our custody.
There's no doubt about the other 8.
In our current state, a 448-page report is too much to digest. Maybe just stick to a short, 10-item list.
16
When watching Mr. Mueller give what probably won't be his last public comments about his report, Several thoughts crossed my mind. From out of nowhere, while fumbling through thoughts of wanting more targeted specific statements from Mr. Mueller, a jarring, neck snapping image floated into view. Except for Robert Mueller, I could have witnessed Rudy Giuliani saying farewell. It gave me whiplash.
Regrettably it’s not just the Russians or Putin who are interfering with our democracy. Other countries and special interests have a hold on Congress. The Kushner family not long ago was offering visas to potential Chinese investors as an inducement to invest in their company. With so much corruption, even the Congressional committee chairmen won’t be able to do their job. Too many compromises. Didn’t Secretary Clinton get hundreds of thousands of dollars for “speeches” from Goldman Sachs, among others, months before the election? With a set of values predicated on the “for lack of a better word, greed is good” creed, what could go wrong?
In previous decades, the Mueller Report would have been enough to set the country in the right direction, not any more. Robert De Niro has a great accompanying piece in these pages that asks Mr Mueller to
6
@Ted. make himself available to the public so that they can hear his findings from his own voice. This will be quite powerful
2
Political correctness also has very partisan boundaries. Mueller walked the fine line of partisan neutrality throughout the investigation and into his resignation.
Disagree with Gail - Rather than an asterisk, this sets a historic example of true objectivity and not swaying to the day’s petty political expectations. And that makes it more than Special.
9
I did read the entire report--at least the parts of it that weren't redacted.
And I certainly can understand how Mueller, an institutionalist if ever there was one, has come to the conclusions that he has, given Department of Justice guidelines and the like--and why he seems to think that being asked to testify or comment further is not in keeping with that institutionalism.
But I will say two things that most lawyers will not take well, probably because they are often true, but would undermine a lot of lawyerly machinations:
1) Eschew obfuscation. People aren't that knowledgeable about finer legal points--don't make them even more confusing with double negative sentences and jargon which has as its main function gate-keeping, not explanation.
2) Ultimately, silence gives consent.
212
I'm still not entirely certain when Treason became a partisan issue.
Last I checked, Sen. McCarthy was hunting down Soviet sympathizers.
He's rolling in his grave that they have not only been found, but that they have taken over his Party and the United States of America.
51
@Castor Troy I do think that we have all had 60 years to realize that Joe McCarthy was, like Trump, just playing his credulous supporters. The grave is a fine and proper place for their bodies.
9
Thank you, Castor Troy. Because if Trump does it, the Republicans will simply change the law defining what constitutes Treason—or twist themselves into a pretzel explaining that apparently treasonous acts actually aren’t, because Trump’s personal fixer, Barr, said so.
5
Really disappointed in Robert Mueller right now. He’s respectable and ethical, certainly, but in these times where the President and Republicans are anything but, we needed someone bolder. Someone who would clearly and directly defend his own investigation. and report. As someone mentioned above, he did not rise to the challenge of the times.
99
@Meowzer
I can't agree. We needed a professional beyond reproach and someone who was the exact opposite from Trump and, so far, I think we were fortunate.
Imagine where we would be today if Mueller had been seeking the limelight and took every opportunity, like Ken Starr, to get his face in the camera.
I would like to remind everyone to be thankful that we were given an honest man. That's rare on any stage.
7
Ms. Collins, there is a sense that we are on a political hamster wheel ride and running out of time. My knowledge of legal jargon is limited to 'anything you put in writing, can be held against you':
1) Can Mueller tell the Nation whether the President lied or not;
2) Can he confirm that a sitting president caught in a crime cannot be removed from office;
3) Are you planning to go on book leave if we have another second-Trump presidency?
24
Where does the US Constitution explicitly state a sitting president can not be indicted and prosecuted no matter how serious the offense.
392
@david We both know that it doesn’t. Bob Mueller undoubtedly knows it, too. Consider what that means...
33
@david
It doesn’t but the Code of Federal Regulations states the following. After reading it will become clear that Mueller was bound by the law of the land which Barr clearly wasn’t going to challenge. He made that abundantly clear in his 14 page “Trump cannot be indicted” fealty that ultimately got him the AG appointment.
§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
14
@Agent 99
What you quote is NOT LAW. I wish people would understand that. It's DOG policy. Policy! It has no teeth as rule of law. It was not voted on and enacted by lawmakers. It is written as, and remains, policy only. Please understand that and make others understand it too.
It needs to be changed. Eliminated.
65
Even after everyone stops rolling their eyes, lawyers will continue to use the time-honored disclaimer, 'the evidence speaks for itself.' Mueller was told us today, in so many words, that his investigative report and its underlying evidence speaks for itself, and, by the way, he couldn't indict his lawless target because a 25 year old 'opinion' by the Justice Department says a President cannot be indicted while in office. He said this without smirking even once.
Not to put too a fine a point on it, Mueller put the burden exactly where it belongs if he truly believes that the DOJ Legal Counsel's opinion is correct: right in Nancy Pelosi's lap. The Report and the evidence will remain hidden from view unless the Speaker decides to bring forward a true bill of impeachment. On the one hand, the idea that Trump will 'impeach' himself by his continued disregard of the law and obstruction of justice is a pretty juicy prospect but it will not reveal the evidence Mueller acquired during his lengthy investigation.
And, that is precisely what I want to see: the evidence. Only the evidence, not someone's interpretation of it, is meaningful. The evidence will show us whether Trump broke the law, obstructed justice, interfered with witnesses, misused his charitable foundation, conspired with foreign powers, and, yes, used his 550 LLCs as illegitimate enterprises.
Releasing that evidence will rid us of the Beast. Watching Trump self-destruct does not guarantee it.
66
Robert Mueller’s emphasis on Russia at the beginning and the ending of his statement was quite powerful. He was warning all of America that the Russians were successful in helping Trump be elected. And that the Russians are still working to undermine our democracy. Mueller’s scope for the investigation was very narrow. His statement concerned two issues, Russian involvement in the results of the election, and whether there had been obstruction of justice concerning the investigation. His heavy emphasis on Russian efforts to destabilize our democracy in the past indicates that there is a continuing strong effort in the present. Essentially, he strongly implied that Trump would not have been elected without the help of Russia. The scope of his investigation did not include whether there is currently a conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump administration concerning the 2020 elections. But he gave us a very serious warning concerning the present and the future.
74
If Mr Mueller had done anything beyond what he has done, he would be tilting towards one of the two political parties.
By so doing the other party would automatically have stopped listening.
He's between a rock and a hard place - and he's right. He was responsible for investigating, not for passing judgement.
33
@ms Republicans in Congress stopped listening to any bad news about Trump the day he became their nominee for president. And they certainly haven't listened to a word of the Special Counsel's report. That is, if they even read the report.
19
@ms
Exactly.
1
@Obie Well at least one Republican Congressman has read it, and put ethics over tenure.....
1
For anybody who read the report and thought about it, two things were obvious--1) Mueller believed he could not indict a sitting president and 2) he didn't say 'but for that I would have indicted Trump,' because he is a respectful and courteous person. He did not believe he should say that about Trump or any occupant of the office of president because said occupant would have no forum in which to defend himself.
We may disagree about his courtesy and respect, but no one should have doubted 1) and 2) from the moment one had finished reading the report. It is sickening to hear journalists and politicians making noise about Mueller's obtuseness when they have had their head in the sand since Barr's sleight of hand.
40
Sadly, the Republicans in Congress, with one exception, don't care what Mueller did or did not find. Our last resort is the ballot box in 2020. If the American public continues to support Trump's criminal behavior, we might want to look at living in another country. New Zealand seems to get it.
116
@White Rabbit: Yes, well, it's not so easy to be accepted into other countries. You have to have money or a skill they want. No retirees on SS - except maybe Mexico. I've told my only child that she should move to New Zealand. Get as far away from this country as possible - young people do not have positive futures here, especially women.
4
Republican Amash is there to bait Democrats into impeachment. If you didn't notice that TRICK yet...
Write to Nancy Pelosi explaining your views on impeachment. Work to register Democratic voters and to ensure that their ballots are properly counted. And strive to convince others that Democrats offer the United States the best hope for a robust and sustainable future.
It's up to the American people. It's up to us.
212
@Blue Moon. It’s hard to convince people that the Democrats offer the best hope when all you hear them talk about is impeachment. It’d be nice if they’d at least try to sell other parts of their agenda.
5
@Traymn
Democrats have a lot of good ideas, from working to prevent Russia from hacking our elections, to hold our president accountable for his actions, to mitigate climate change, to bolster public education, and to help all Americans have affordable and robust health insurance and health care. And to strive for a country that embraces racial and gender equality and fewer wage and wealth disparities. Democrats could be more united, though; that seems to be a work in progress.
7
@Traymn The Democrats have passed 200 plus pieces of legislature but the Republican senate has refused to schedule it for votes. Correct me if I am wrong but, I believe it is a fact.
7
Gail Collins' sadly funny column needs some historical correction. There is not single "Alien and Sedition Act." Four laws that have become known as the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798. The Sedition Act was used to prosecute supporters of Jefferson's opposition party. The Naturalization Act increased the residency requirement for citizenship from 5 to 14 years. The Alien Enemies Act allowed the prosecution and deportation of citizens of an enemy country during war. The Alien Friends Act allowed the President to order the deportation of any non-citizen suspected of anti-government plotting, even if the US was not at war. Collins seems to imply approval of these laws, but they have not been viewed kindly by history. When Jefferson was elected President, he pardoned all of those convicted under the Sedition Act, which Congress then repealed, preventing a Supreme Court review of a law that is now generally viewed as unconstitutional.
17
That our legal system is not equipped to hold a sitting President to account is not Mr. Mueller's fault. The Trump presidency is an existential and political challenge that only Congress - his coequal - could address before the 2020 election. And that will likely not happen.
34
For months - years - we counted on the integrity of Mueller. There was not one leak from his office. You or I could have served as his "no comment" spokesperson. So now that we are unhappy with the initial outcome of his report, suddenly he's a political hack? I don't think so. I read every word of the Mueller Report - even the footnotes, for god's sake. It's eminently clear from "Volume II" that Trump took steps to obstruct justice. What saved him from succeeding? His staff members who refused to carry out his orders. (Remember the NY Times "Anonymous" column.) So Mueller did his job and did it well. Congress - the ball is in your court.
625
@Barbara
The point that many of the commentators made today, including Robert DeNiro, was that people don't read a 400 page report (Barr made it harder to skim by getting rid of the Control F function) and they get their summaries from Barr, FOX and Trump. So they are all saying that it would behoove Mueller to be direct and not so oblique. The masses are not readers or critical thinkers and they go with soundbytes. He needs to get with the 21st century, and provide them. Trump seizes the narrative, lies, distorts with help of Barr and what, Mueller is a fount of moral rectitude and we are supposed to applaud him for it? it's not what the times demand.
89
@T
Well said. The fact that Mueller makes no effort to correct any of these distortions and misrepresentations is clearly not a sign of courage. It makes one wonder: what is he afraid of ?
65
@Barbara
"Congress - the ball is in your court."
Agreed. But are the plural form of same there?
34
A by the book Special Council is for a good time when president and lawmakers are all virtuous and no one is above the law.
A bold Special Council (willing to sacrifice himself) is for a dark time when president is above the law and partisan law makers are willing to go along. When our democratic values/norms and rule of law are in danger.
Mueller has not met the challenge of his time.
76
@May MacGreger Thank you - spot on
2
@May MacGreger
Thanks May.
Mueller was exactly what he was supposed to be: a consummate professional, not a partisan operator. Those who defended Mueller’s investigation did so knowing that he was the former. And here we are. Mueller has done his job, which was not to rescue us from the disastrous White House. That responsibility belongs to us, not him.
93
@NM, It's not partisan to be clear about the truth.
3
"He made it pretty clear that if he’s forced to testify before a congressional committee, he’ll just point to his mammoth report"
But he did say (which I see as a flashing light: look here!):
"In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office."
While his testimony is the report, Mueller made a point of reminding us that Congress seeks access to the underlying work that led to the report, and that he is not in control of whether Congress sees this important and essential information.
38
If Mr. Mueller truly has nothing more of value to say to the American people than what is written in his report about the criminal acts of Donald Trump, then let him say so in response to questioning under oath in Congressional testimony.
150
It was and still is a deeply illegal cover-up, with piling obstruction on obstruction.
58
Well, I am closing in on the end of the report and using my markups to measure progress.
Russia attacked our election system and inserted themselves into our citizens' dialogue. The Russians successfully penetrated state election systems and companies that supply our voting machines. They made up fictional citizens to post on our social media, creating conflict, and fed disinformation to domestic allies (in WWII, they would have been known as a Fifth Column). We know who and how much of it was done.
Trump and his campaign knew this was going on and welcomed it. Only the strictest interpretation of laws defining conspiracy shields them. That rigor is appropriate in our justice system. Notwithstanding, any reader with capacity for critical thinking, applying a "reasonable man" test, is going to conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government.
Trump knew his fingerprints and those of his minions were all over the cookie jar. Consequently, he repeatedly engaged in conduct that, were he not shielded by the DOJ's policies, would have been sufficient to bring multiple indictments.
As a criminal he's as stealthy as a Mack Truck and clever as a sixteen year old delinquent of modest intelligence
And that, gentle readers, is my book report.
1294
@Patrick Borunda
"The Russians successfully penetrated state election systems and companies that supply our voting machines."
To what extent is the real question.
Of course, Trump was not president in 2016. My fear is that China will not want to help him in 2020, so Trump will instruct government security agencies to guard against Chinese cyber incursions. Then Trump will meet privately with Putin, after being briefed by his own agencies, and give Russia a backdoor to hack the election.
We are not secure. We are in peril.
132
@Blue Moon
I absolutely agree. This fact makes McConnell's obstructionism and the GOP's passivity in the face of what should be a nonpartisan call for all hands on deck all the more criminal.
147
@Patrick Borunda
Thank you. Would you be willing to testify before Congress?
47
A lot of people are wishing for a Deus ex Machina to sweep in and carry Trump away. Such as, Impeachment, or a Giant Thunderbolt.
That's fine in theater but our politics doesn't work that way..
The House could begin impeachment proceedings against Trump at any time, but Nancy Pelosi knows that Trump is practically begging for impeachment. Because then he can portray himself as the innocent victim of a witch-hunt, and his base will lap it up like cream in a dish.
Politics, in this case, is a game of wits as well as a game of strength. Trump's not very smart but he has a lot of low cunning. Nancy Pelosi is very smart and can read Trump's hand.
Mueller is playing his own role, which is to remain impartial. If there's one thing we need right now it is maintain impartial authority figures, and Mueller understands that. Trump wants to see everything divided along partisan lines.
Trump would love to see Mueller take a more antagonistic position. That would feed the story that he's being persecuted by the special prosecutor. Mueller understands that and does not take the bait.
Patience, friends, patience. Patience.
We will toss the Trumpster into the Dumpster in 2020. Vote!
553
@Duane McPherson
I think that is a good estimation of Muller's position. The report puts the Republicans on the spot, no one seems to know who besides the AG can prosecute the president for crimes, that leaves congress, and the GOP will not let it happen.
27
@Duane McPherson
So from here on in only Democratic presidents can be impeached?
Likely you are correct which spells doom for this country's democratic future.
28
@davey385,
Impeachment is an option, not an obligation. Congress was under no obligation to impeach William Clinton, but Republicans choose to pursue the option.
You want to use impeachment as a tool to eject Trump. I get that. I want him ejected, too.
But Trump wants to turn impeachment to his own ends and use it as a tool to divide the nation. He has already convinced his base that the Mueller investigation is a witch-hunt.
Yes, his base of support is only about 40% of the voting population. But almost all of them are angry and many of them could be incited to violence, and we are already closer to civil war than any time since the 1850s. People like Stephen Bannon would like nothing more than to see a civil war and outright destruction of our nation.
Trump wants impeachment, and I don't want to let him have it.
11
Yes, we had high hopes that Robert Mueller would help protect our democracy. But he wrote a wordy 448-page report that he knew might never even see the light of day, and afterwards let the extremely partisan attorney general interpret it to the public. He did whisper something about the attorney general's interpretation being not quite right, but then refused to be questioned publicly by congress so that the American people could clearly understand how wrong the interpretation actually was. Finally, he got up in front of a podium and mumbled something about the president not being entirely proved to have not done anything wrong, sort of, kind of, and then scuttled away as fast as he could. I'm not saying it was his job to bring, or even recommend, an indictment, but he could at least say, "if this person weren't the president he would be indicted," which seems to be the underlying message. The problem is, we need an honest person, in authority, to say that loud and clear so that even the poorly educated, the apolitical and those who remain in denial can fully understand it. I feel disappointed in Robert Mueller right now.
357
@Mary Newton
Agreed. If he means that the president can't be indicted, but would have been indicted if he were not president, he should say so.
Next step should be Congressional hearings. Nadler can ask him directly and make him say yes or no on national TV.
45
@Mary Newton
Mumbled? Whispered? Scuttled away? I certainly was not watching the same Robert Mueller as you. Perhaps you should watch his news conference again.
8
@Mary Newton - just a thought but I think the special counsel law and its use under the Department of Justice makes no mention of any "obligation" to reveal contents of any report. Barr could simply be sitting on it right now. Barr was never and is not now under any legal doctrine forcing him to reveal anything.
2
When Robert Mueller interviewed witnesses he was quite clear that he expected them to answer HIS questions, not just the questions they would like to answer, and to tell the whole truth, not just the part of the truth they felt comfortable disclosing.
It would be nice if he would extend the same courtesy to Congress.
While Mr. Mueller may feel that his report speaks for itself in perfect clarity, it is not his decision to make on behalf of Congress, especially given that the Congress still hasn't seen the full report thank's to Mr. Barr's obstruction.
Still, it is a rather minor issue. Congress doesn't need more from Mueller to do their job. Trump's obstruction was open, obvious, and often. It is well documented. Mr. Mueller's opinion about Trump's actions is no more constitutionally relevant than his opinion that he get's to decide the scope of his (potential) congressional testimony.
So get on with impeachment. Subpoena Mueller as needed for clarification. Perhaps he'll be so kind as to answer the questions he is asked in an impeachment hearing.
Chapter or asterisk, this story is not about Mueller. It's about an openly criminal President and the Party that protects him. And the Party that MUST step up an hold this President accountable.
202
@LT - "it is not his decision to make on behalf of Congress, especially given that the Congress still hasn't seen the full report thank's to Mr. Barr's obstruction."
This is of concern inasmuch as I expect that Barr revealed as much exculpatory evidence as he could. Which makes one really wonder how bad the redacted information is. While I can understand not revealing intelligence agents and methods, concealing grand jury evidence is another matter. In the usual situation, such evidence is sequestered because it may be introduced as evidence in subsequent trial. That case does not apply here. Certainly the -deliberations- of the grand jurors is privileged; the evidence is not.
3
"When Mueller became special counsel, a lot of us thought he’d wind up as a chapter in the history books of the future. Well, maybe at least an asterisk."
Well, he figures it's his asterisk.
17
@Mark Rolfson: “he figures it's his asterisk.”
I saw what you did there.
3
Jefferson, in the midst of our Revolutionary War wrote ,"One man with courage is a majority." Surely, Robert Mueller would not be a Jeffersonian example of courageousness.
Why do we long for and so desperately need courageous leaders?
Churchill said it best. "Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... because it is the quality which guarantees all others".
I wonder what Emile Zola would be writing after listening to Mr. Mueller's testimony?
37
@Steven L. Goldblatt, CPA Courage has it's place, but it
is truthfulness, veracity, that is most important. And Trump has topped 10000 lies in two years in office.
Who would credit such a liar ?
3
@zarf11
Zarf11, I most whole heartedly agree with your statements, of our country's need for both truth and credibility. However, I feel courage must be the first of human attributes; for speaking truth to power requires courage and virtuousness. Sadly, our President lacks both of those essential traits.
3
J’Accuse!, of course!
1
While I admire his approach, Mueller presented offered important inconsistency. He argued that an accusation (e.g. a sealed indictment for after Trump’s presidency) would be unfair, since there would be no process in the meantime for Trump to defend himself. The very clear implication in Mueller’s comments, though, is that Trump acted in a way that would - for all other citizens - lead to a trial to determine guilt or innocence. Even though I believe the report clearly suggests a high likelihood of criminal conduct, after today’s comments Trump is left with precisely that: the allegation and no mechanism to have his day in court.
6
We live in an age of illusion, and illusion inevitably leads to disappointment.
The White House -- our very own White House -- has been captured by an invasive species, a domestic version of the golden jackal. He is decimating the endangered native songbirds and threatening untold numbers of other fragile species with extinction. The golden jackal has urinated around the outer perimeter of the White House lawn and snarls menacingly at anyone who threatens to cross his invisible line.
The jackal must leave, we don't care how. We just want him gone, quickly and cleanly. Do whatever it takes. Things like this simply don't happen in America. It's all a huge misunderstanding.
Please call an exterminator at once. We want the jackal removed and his mess cleaned up immediately -- by tomorrow noon at the latest.
Robert Mueller came to his task with impeccable credentials: quiet, thorough, honest, experienced, a man of absolute integrity. He will get the job done. Trust him. You may not understand how exactly he is going to do it, but don't worry. He knows so many things that nobody else has even an inkling about. He is at least three steps ahead of everyone else.
Everybody trusted Mueller implicitly even though no one quite understood how his mind worked. OK, maybe just one exception. William Barr knew precisely how Mueller's mind functioned.
Barr understood who the Wizard of Oz really was.
71
Barr didn't appoint Mueller.
@woofer Spot on.
1
Written by Norma Barnett
I worked as a psychotherapist and supervisor in a large training organization for therapists in training. Each supervise had 3-5 supervisors. There was lots of contention. Supervisees wanted only the most "popular" supervisors: most in training had one favorite supervisor and a least one hated supervisor. The favorite tended to be a cheerleader for the supervisee; the least favorite became the critic. Sometimes teams broke up because of tensions among supervisors. Then we started conceiving of each person as having some piece of truth to offer. Robert Mueller provided what he did--meticulous information; understated but clear messages; a tightly run, loyal, competent, ethical team. Then Nancy Pelosi can chide Trump as a undisciplined child (and get criticized); Mayor Pete can be thoughtful and a little cagey, in the nicest possible way, on Trump (and be criticized); and Elizabeth Warren can be criticized for everything, even by Democrats.There are enough critiques of Trump (and Trump adversaries) to go around, and varieties of ways in which people have used their power and position to speak the truth about him, and some who have taken legal or other effective action against him. Can't we take the best of what we know and what others have done and move on? Apparently not. Thank the man for his two years of gruelling work, and then let"s figure out what"s next.
12
With his dignity, expertise and valor in war as well as in peace, Mueller placed the responsibility of acting upon the results of his
unimpeachable investigation where it truly belongs: Upon us, those of us who are committed to preserving, protecting and enhancing the future of our democracy. Before you see the movie or the play, read the report, come to your own conclusions and then ...
Vote.
182
Gail, we have to understand that Mueller must be careful in what he says to make sure he does not 'prejudice' any possible future cases against a future-exited-Donald; it is perfectly reasonable that Mueller not take the chance of testimony to Congress which might allow the exited-Donald to skate, as the risk of harm from a verbal misstep by the Special Counsel or the spectacle of public comments by grand-standing Congress critters, is much greater than a possible reward.
Much (so, so, so very much) as we'd like to hear a sober answering of questions by Mueller, public testimony sliced up into 5 minute Congressional Theater question/answer blitzes would demean Mueller and drag down his work - his team's work.
It would be an unnecessary distraction, since the report (full report including all the yet-unseen grand jury testimony, etc.) is Mueller's testimony. Congress simply has to choose to stand up to the bullying White House - and his GOP'er Senate Capos.
By the way, why hasn't anyone told America how long the full report is ? Is it 5,000 pages or 50,000 or 500,000 ? We already know it doesn't take 448 pages to say 'innocent', but how many pages of 'evidence' - exactly - are there ?
Anyway, Mueller knows that those who lie down with dogs get up with fleas; he is wise to stay out of the dog-house and avoid a 3-ring flea circus.
81
@R. Law
Excellent post. Thank you.
3
@R. Law
Golly R. Law, doesn’t Mueller also have a responsibility to ensure that others, like Barr, Trump and the Repub sheep cannot “prejudice any possible future cases.”
Muller was very clear that only Congress has the authority to charge a sitting president with a crime and he gave Congress all the information they needed to do that. He did his job perfectly and now expects Congress to do its job.
As much as it is clear that Donald J Lump does not understand or respect the Constitution and the rule of law, it is equally clear the Robert Muller both respects the Constitution and the rule of law and will following faithfully and exactly. Bravo for a true American patriot!
232
@Dudley
The vast majority of folks in this country and most members of the senate and congress need specific directions to connect the dots.
The ambiguous language of Mueller today and in his rrport is subject to interpretation.
How difficult would it have been for him to say one way or the other that if Trump had not been the president he would or would not have been indicted?
I know kind of unfair to say he would have been indicted and the president does not have a legal forum to argue his innocence but where are left in the interim. Same place .
18
@Dudley
The House may do its job under its Democratic majority and charge the sitting president with crimes, but the Senate will not do its job under its Republican majority and give him a fair trial. The problem is the same one the South had in prosecuting lynchings -- white juries would not convict, and it looks like Republicans will not convict a Republican president, no matter what.
The rest of the country, and in particular the federal judicial system, for generations gave this travesty of the rule of law the respect it did not deserve.
Somebody should ask Mueller if he is still a Republican in light of what the party has become.
12
Mr. Mueller stresses that the American people should be concerned with Russia's efforts to sabotage our election...I take it he wants the Republican party and its president to know that he's including them in that concern...assuming that party believes it's still an American party and not an extension office of the Kremlin. There are some Republicans who seem to be concerned. But the president isn't one of those because he has a dubious friend in that place and the two of them love to yuk it up together privately with no note taker around. I wish that Mr. Trump would let the American people in on the joke.
No doubt, Robert Mueller would like to know, too.
49
Mitch McConnell, Republicans proved they are ANTI- USA and pro-party strictly.
8
I didn't read the 448 page report, I didn't watch or listen to Robert Mueller's summary, and I didn't read most of this article.
Rather tired of it all and will look forward to the day Trump leaves office, and, and, the Southern District of New York AG's office goes into attack mode. By 2021 they'll have a mountain of evidence about his tax schemes, and business misadventures to keep him running for years, and hopefully some jail time to boot.
Oh, and I have the greatest respect for Robert Mueller and his team.
52
@cherrylog754
Billy Barr will fire everyone in the Southern District of New York office and burn their evidence on the White House lawn. Then, cherrylog754 will still be “Rather tired of it all.”
2
What Mueller said to me was that DJT committed crimes of obstruction but is protected by Department of Justice policy. Time for a change of policy and AG.
967
@James A
Right? Making the WH a safe haven for criminals...what could possibly go wrong with that?
15
@James A
An absurdly-interpreted 40-yr old OLC opinion paper written in a different era and for a different situation-- NOT a law, NOT a regulation, even, but a DOJ policy position -- was used to specifically protect an authoritarian criminal mob boss from accountability to the law. Mueller hid behind it no less than Trump has. He could have recommended charges, he could have explicitly recommended impeachment hearings, he could have said 140+ clandestine meetings by Trump people with Russians and the lies they told to hide the broad and deep criminal conspiracy and the numerous attempts to bury the evidence and stop the investigation required immediate action against the perpetrator who used the conspiracy to gain power and then use it every day to undermine and damage democratic institutions from before even Inauguration Day and do incalculable harm to millions of citizens now and in the future by way of evil policies and tactics. Mueller did none of those things, and he remained silent for months while his report was hidden, misrepresented and lied about.
Now he doesn't want to testify about any of it. He wants to hide.
Mueller, and, for that matter, Rosenstein, turned out to be loyal Republican bureaucrats overseeing and enabling the cover-up of the most insidious crime in US history, not heros.
25
@TS ~
"Mueller, and, for that matter, Rosenstein, turned out to be loyal Republican bureaucrats overseeing and enabling the cover-up of the most insidious crime in US history, not heroes."
Superlative conclusion which bears repeating!! Well stated.
12
Nevertheless, Robert Mueller and Justin Amash, two Republicans, have had more to say between them about collusion and obstruction then most of the Democratic leadership.
123
Nah, REPUBLICAN Amash wants to BAIT Democrats into an impeachment mistake. Thanks but no thanks!
1
Foolish baiting.
@teach: The Democrats should be ashamed that it took a Republican to make the case for impeachment so clear and concise as Justin Amash. I'm grateful that someone has done it. Those tweets should be widely distributed - by the Democrats!
3
If anyone needs proof that the case against Trump is not at all closed, it is Trump's assertion that it is. It's amazing how Trump can matter-of-factly misrepresent what everybody themselves heard Mr. Mueller say. What's even more amazing is that many if not most of Trump's base will believe him. How is democracy supposed to function under these conditions?
747
@Jay Orchard,
It's amazing that Trump could say that he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and get away with it before he was even in office, leaving some of us gawking, others applauding.
Now. Having told a staunch Republican neighbor, whose motto is 'Trump is my Man', that there is reason to believe that Trump might serve a second term, he did look a bit sheepish.
'In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it...', so wrote Orwell who was not always right.
After three years of this presidential ride, it feels for some Americans as if an attempt has taken place to break our country's spirit, but we are still functioning.
Mueller will be remembered for his honesty and responsibility, but mostly for 'The Report' he gave to the nation on these allegations of presidential wrong-doing, but how we reacted and acted, only history knows.
28
Democracy can't work in these conditions. What we need is resident Trump to be hauled out in a straight jacket from the White House first.
45
@Jay Orchard
By this time I'm amazed that anyone is amazed by Trump's lies and the gullibility of his base. More importantly, the Republican strategy, in which Trump is mostly a pawn, is to exploit part of our government that is not democratic in order to maintain minority rule. In other words, democracy is not supposed to function.
37