SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
God only knows what Trump might try under those conditions, but one thing is for sure: Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything to stop him. (Photo: Illustrated | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images, Strawberry Blossom/iStock)
Hey, Democrats: Robert Mueller Still Isn't Going to Do Your Job For You
Instead of using the Mueller report to build a general case against Trump, and satisfy their base's demand to at least try to provide a check on his accelerating abuses, they hauled Mueller before the House to summarize his own report back to them like it's kindergarten story hour
Jul 25, 2019
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.
But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.
So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.
However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "The president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction, and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.
As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."
Read full article here.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Week
Ryan Cooper
Ryan Cooper is the Managing Editor of The American Prospect. Formerly, he was a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.
But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.
So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.
However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "The president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction, and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.
As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."
Read full article here.
Ryan Cooper
Ryan Cooper is the Managing Editor of The American Prospect. Formerly, he was a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.
But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.
So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.
However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "The president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction, and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.
As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."
Read full article here.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.