This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/24/the-guardian-view-on-robert-muellers-testimony-what-will-democrats-do-next

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on Robert Mueller’s testimony: what will Democrats do next? The Guardian view on Robert Mueller’s testimony: what will Democrats do next?
(about 3 hours later)
Is it possible to talk of political theatre when the star of the show refuses to take centre stage? The special counsel Robert Mueller was obliged to come to Capitol Hill on Wednesday by a subpoena, and made his distaste plain on arrival. His reluctance underscored the unlikelihood of great revelations emerging from his testimony to the house judiciary and intelligence committees on potential obstruction of justice, and election meddling by the Russians. He hoped that his 448-page report would speak for itself, even after Donald Trump’s attorney general had misspoken on its behalf.Is it possible to talk of political theatre when the star of the show refuses to take centre stage? The special counsel Robert Mueller was obliged to come to Capitol Hill on Wednesday by a subpoena, and made his distaste plain on arrival. His reluctance underscored the unlikelihood of great revelations emerging from his testimony to the house judiciary and intelligence committees on potential obstruction of justice, and election meddling by the Russians. He hoped that his 448-page report would speak for itself, even after Donald Trump’s attorney general had misspoken on its behalf.
So the hearings were not about discovering new material, but about deploying the existing facts: the Democrats, seeking compelling soundbites that might help to rouse the public and rally them behind the party; the Republicans, seeking to damage the credibility of the investigation itself as biased, unfair and even un-American. The inherent implausibility of claiming simultaneously that the inquiry was a partisan witch-hunt, and that it exonerated Mr Trump, go unaddressed.So the hearings were not about discovering new material, but about deploying the existing facts: the Democrats, seeking compelling soundbites that might help to rouse the public and rally them behind the party; the Republicans, seeking to damage the credibility of the investigation itself as biased, unfair and even un-American. The inherent implausibility of claiming simultaneously that the inquiry was a partisan witch-hunt, and that it exonerated Mr Trump, go unaddressed.
Mr Mueller’s initial statement stressed the impartiality and integrity of his team. He pushed back against Republican attacks upon its composition. But overall he was reticent. He seemed less like Mr Trump’s nemesis than his antithesis: sober and tight-lipped. He sidestepped attempts to prompt him to read out sections of his report. Again and again he returned to yeses and noes and the same non-answers. There were no viral moments . Mr Mueller’s initial statement stressed the impartiality and integrity of his team. He pushed back against Republican attacks upon its composition. Addressing the question of obstruction of justice, he seemed less like Mr Trump’s nemesis than his antithesis: sober and tight-lipped, repeatedly returning to yeses and noes and the same non-answers.
Yet the facts of the report are telling and Mr Mueller spelled at least some of them out. He contradicted Mr Trump’s claims of exoneration: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.” He confirmed (contradicting the attorney general William Barr) that he had not reached a decision on indicting Mr Trump because of the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion that indicting a sitting president would be unconstitutional. He stated that the president could be charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office.Yet the facts of the report are telling and Mr Mueller spelled at least some of them out. He contradicted Mr Trump’s claims of exoneration: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.” He confirmed (contradicting the attorney general William Barr) that he had not reached a decision on indicting Mr Trump because of the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion that indicting a sitting president would be unconstitutional. He stated that the president could be charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office.
Mr Mueller’s report made clear the scale of the Russian attack on US democracy and how the Trump 2016 campaign embraced a foreign adversary’s help, made use of it, and then covered it up. His testimony reinforced this. Mr Mueller has done his job. His appearance is unlikely to transform public attitudes, still less to resolve the Democrats’ struggle over whether to impeach the US president. It demonstrated yet again that the Republicans are squarely behind a man so signally unfit for office, and appear less troubled by a foreign power’s interference in a democratic election than by the inquiry into it. All this is part of the process by which Congress holds the president accountable. How far that process goes is the question which Democrats must now answer. A still more urgent issue is how to make sure the US is protected from the kind of election meddling which prompted this inquiry, as 2020 approaches. He saved his indignation for the second hearing. His report had made clear the scale of the Russian attack on US democracy and how the Trump 2016 campaign embraced a foreign adversary’s help, made use of it, and then covered it up. Now he described the document as a flag warning people not to let it happen again.“I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is,” he added, when asked whether future campaigns could accept foreign interference.
His appearance is unlikely to transform public attitudes, still less to resolve the Democrats’ struggle over whether to impeach the US president. The Republicans remain squarely behind a man so signally unfit for office, and appear less troubled by foreign interference than by the inquiry into it. All this is part of the process by which Congress holds the president accountable. How far that process goes is the question which Democrats must now answer. A still more urgent issue is how to make sure the US is protected from further election meddling as 2020 approaches.
Robert MuellerRobert Mueller
OpinionOpinion
Trump administrationTrump administration
US politicsUS politics
Donald TrumpDonald Trump
US elections 2016US elections 2016
DemocratsDemocrats
RepublicansRepublicans
editorialseditorials
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content