Mueller Agonistes

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/opinion/robert-mueller-trump.html

Version 0 of 1.

This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.

Throughout his investigation of President Trump’s campaign, Robert Mueller has acted honorably. But in the final stages of the inquiry, he has also been surprisingly ineffective and muddled. His public remarks yesterday, as he resigned as special counsel, underscored the problems with his end game.

He has declined to clear Trump of wrongdoing. He has also declined to accuse Trump of wrongdoing. Either choice was within his power as special counsel. Instead, Mueller has left the country with a tortured non-conclusion: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” he said yesterday.

His statement marginally increases the pressure on the House of Representatives to open impeachment hearings. But it mostly leaves the country exactly where it was, with Trump’s defenders believing he’s innocent and his critics believing he’s guilty.

Michael Tomasky has an excellent Op-Ed in The Times that lays out the problem with Mueller’s approach. “Robert Mueller,” Tomasky writes, “did not want to be seen as being part of anything too ‘political.’ As a creature of his generation, his class, the Marines and the Justice Department, being political surely goes against every instinct he has.”

Tomasky continues: “But there is another ideal that men like Mr. Mueller … were raised to uphold: the willingness to stand up to the dark impulses of the moment.”

Leadership often requires making difficult calls and accepting the consequences. In this case, Mueller would have been viciously criticized if he had a made a clear decision — and concluded either that Trump’s behavior didn’t seem to rise to the level of a crime or that it did. But making that call would have been the right thing to do.

For more …

“Mueller is, in his own Mueller-like way, screaming for presidential impeachment proceedings. But he’s too respectful to say it as directly as America (and Congress) evidently needs him to say it,” tweeted Wired’s Garrett Graff, who wrote a book about Mueller.

Mueller’s mere recital of his findings suggests that “congressional Democrats waiting for a clear sign on what to do from their constituents will probably be waiting for a while,” Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick writes. “For anyone who’s been hoping that Mueller is going to lead us out of this morass, well, no, he’s not.”

“The biggest message Mueller wanted to leave with the American public was 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,” my colleague Gail Collins writes. “And it succeeded.”

New podcast episode

Should you be afraid of all the new talk about democratic socialism or excited by it? Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and I debate that question on the latest episode of “The Argument” podcast.

If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.