Opinion: Commentary on the Mueller hearing

After listening to hours of staccato testimony from Robert Mueller, the man whose job it was to answer difficult questions, the country is left with yet another unknown: Why won’t Mueller say what he really thinks?

If he thinks Trump has committed impeachable crimes, why doesn’t he say it? If he thinks Trump did not act in a way that would warrant impeachment or indictment, why doesn’t he say it?

A reading of his lengthy report lays out a hefty but dense case for obstruction of justice, and a not-exactly-thin one for questionable links between members of the campaign and Russia. Mueller’s Congressional testimony reaffirmed everything in the report. And yet, Mueller won’t say it out loud, in public.

He has repeatedly stated that he was acting as a prosecutor. He viewed his job as gathering evidence and presenting it to a jury (Congress and the American people) so that they can reach a verdict. He didn’t want to get involved in what is not only a criminal but also a political case. Despite entreaties from Democrats and Republicans, he refused to act as judge or jury. But even prosecutors have to make decisions on indictments.

The Special Counsel has presented extensive, persuasive evidence of Trump’s culpability, but he won’t say the words. 

Robert Mueller was appointed to help Americans with the urgent task of figuring out if they could trust a president who was elected after a hostile government actively backed his candidacy, a president who denied that hostile government’s interference and then sought to block the investigation into whether he or his associates committed crimes.

Mueller has offered a compelling but cloudy answer to questions about the president’s actions. For a country eager to see some resolution, he stubbornly refuses to offer with clarity his own professional judgment. 

The question is: Why?

Frida Ghitis, a former CNN producer and correspondent, is a world affairs columnist. She is a frequent opinion contributor to CNN and The Washington Post and a columnist for World Politics Review. 

What a nightmare Robert Mueller’s testimony has been for Congressional Democrats and their dreams of impeachment momentum. In his much-anticipated bombshell performance, Mueller bombed. Aside from difficult to watch testimony, there has been no new information and no elaboration on the 448-page report. 

The former Special Counsel’s testimony is another in a long series of Rorschach tests that essentially has yielded nothing. Democrats still look at the Mueller Report and see corruption; Republicans still look at it and see exoneration.

As for the testimony, the take-away for Democrats was simple: Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler asked if Mueller intended to totally exonerate the president, to which Mueller replied, “no.”

The Republican take-away was equally direct: Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, accused Mueller of “perpetuating injustice” as the former argued that Trump had a right to feel he was under attack by a biased investigation. 

President Trump, in fact, did not interfere with this investigation. Trump and the White House cooperated with Special Counsel Mueller and were committed to transparency.

It’s important to remember that the Mueller report, in its own words, “did not establish that the [Trump] campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” Mueller and his team found no “evidence that any U.S. person who coordinated or communicated with the IRA [the group that carried out Russia’s election interference efforts on social media] knew that he or she was speaking with Russian nationals engaged in criminal conspiracy.”

Despite Democrats’ best attempts to pull Mueller outside the parameters of his report, he did not take the bait. With that, it’s time for Democratic leaders to stop obsessing over this closed case and to put the American people first.

Alice Stewart is a CNN Political Commentator, Resident Fellow at the Kennedy School Institute of Politics at Harvard University, and former Communications Director for Ted Cruz for President.

Robert Mueller has been surprisingly unsteady and often confusing in his presentation. His constant request to repeat questions and his seeming inability to understand relatively straightforward questions was surprising for such a smart guy.

Both Democrats and Republicans have gathered some useful sound bites for damaging political commercials. But one thing is clear. If Trump were a “civilian” rather than the President, he would have been indicted for obstruction, even though Mueller “cleaned up” his answer to Rep. Ted Lieu’s question.

Justice Department policy prohibiting indictment of a sitting president saved the day for Trump. Yet the case for impeachment is weak, as Trump’s defense will be that his obstructive acts were those of an innocent man (no collusion proven by Mueller) angry at having a special counsel relentlessly investigating him and “obstructing” his ability to serve as chief executive.

I don’t see the votes to remove the President from office in the Senate, even if Democrats have the votes to impeach in House, which is also unlikely. So far Trump has been bloodied a bit but a knockout isn’t in the cards. 

Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and of counsel to the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. Follow him on Twitter @paulcallan.

Wednesday’s Mueller hearings had a little bit for everyone. For Democratic partisans, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s opening question pierced through over a year’s worth of statements from President Donald Trump that the Mueller investigation was just a “witch hunt” – and that he was entirely exonerated of wrongdoing. Mueller, simply and succinctly, laid those claims to rest.

For Republican partisans, Mueller’s refusal to answer questions, despite the fact that the limitations on his testimony were set by the Justice Department, gave them a forum to revel in their conspiracy theories about FBI surveillance before a national audience.  And Mueller’s performance, where he asked for a question to be repeated and at times seemed unfamiliar with his own report, will likely be fodder for Fox News for weeks.

But the bottom line is that these hearings are not about what the partisans and Twitter users think. They made up their minds a long time ago. These hearings brought to life the Mueller report for large swaths of the American population, who did not read the report and may have been heavily influenced by Attorney General William Barr’s mischaracterizations of it. Those Americans heard a very different version today – a story of lies, obstruction and disloyalty to American democratic values.

Those people in the middle are not likely to run out and call for impeachment, but they can vote in 2020. And today is a strong statement that the President is unfit to hold the office and certainly should not be reelected in 2020.

Joe Lockhart was White House press secretary from 1998-2000 in President Bill Clinton’s administration. He co-hosts the podcast “Words Matter.”

Democrats got a big payoff from their practice sessions, as their questions were far more effective than the Republicans’ during Wednesday’s hearings with Robert Mueller. 

Democratic questions reflected the hallmark of good preparation for public questioning: fluidity. They were able to adjust on the fly to (or perhaps had accurately predicted) Mueller’s red-flag issues like impeachment or anything to do with disagreements with Attorney General William Barr – and, importantly, to Mueller’s lack of superhuman mastery over every detail of the investigation.

While Democrats initially tried to get Mueller to quote from his report or read from it, he declined to do so and Democrats easily adjusted by doing the reading themselves and having Mueller agree with their readings. This accomplished putting the words of the report into the public consciousness in a way the public would attach to an image of Mueller himself. 

Huge home run for Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler in eliciting from Mueller the concrete denial that the report exonerates the President. Even though Trump will keep claiming it does, Mueller’s response will make it much harder for the President’s supporters to make the same claim. 

In contrast, Republicans engaged in typical ineffective Congressional questioning consisting of telegraphing the bias of their question ahead of asking it and engaging in speeches or chest-thumping while their time ran out. Mueller simply waited patiently for a question he could answer. Some Republican ineptness was particularly comical, such as when Representative Greg Steube undercut his own attempted cross-exam questioning by asking Mueller: So you disagree with my characterization? Mueller: Yes. 

Lesson learned: Never tell witness on cross that your question is a “characterization” – it’s like putting a sign on your bottom that says: Kick me.

Shanlon Wu is a former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst. He served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno. Follow him @shanlonwu. 

It’s quite possible that Robert Mueller does not want his testimony to become the trigger for a historic indictment of President Trump. But drip by drip, word by word, Mueller has nonetheless—however reluctantly – produced the case that Trump is lying when he says Mueller exonerated him, that Russia wanted and tried to help Trump to win and that Trump systematically engaged himself and his staff in an effort to obstruct justice, which would be a crime.

Mueller’s discomfort and reticence were visible in his body language and his clipped, one-word answers. He avoided handing Democrats the soundbite they wanted, the one that would perfectly encapsulate their contention that Trump has committed impeachable crimes. But the message was there.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler asked, “Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Mueller’s answer: “No.” Perhaps that’s news to Americans who have not read the Mueller report, who read Attorney General William Barr’s misleading summary of it, and heard the President declare it a “complete and total exoneration.”

Mueller again said there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy with Russia. That does not equal innocence.

Mueller confirmed that, contrary to Trump’s claim, Russia expected to benefit if Trump won.

The obstruction questions – despite Mueller’s short answers – were devastating for Trump. “Your investigation found evidence that President Trump took steps to terminate the special counsel, correct?” Mueller: “Correct.”

Congressman Ted Lieu, elicited a three-word bombshell. “The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”  “That is correct,” Mueller said.

Later, in his opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller paused to clarify the exchange with Lieu: “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

Democrats wanted Americans to pay attention to Mueller’s report. They wanted the movie to go with the book they didn’t read. They wanted to wash away Barr’s deliberately-distorting report summary.

Anyone watching objectively would agree that Mueller did not want to play politics. Republicans, badgering him, probably turned off non-partisan viewers.

In the end, Democrats did not get the perfect soundbite. But drip by drip, they may just have enough to convince at least part of the country that Trump committed crimes. Enough for impeachment? Maybe. Enough to swing votes in 2020? Definitely.

Frida Ghitis, a former CNN producer and correspondent, is a world affairs columnist. She is a frequent opinion contributor to CNN and The Washington Post and a columnist for World Politics Review.

This post has been updated to include Mueller’s comments to the House Intelligence Committee on his earlier exchange with Rep. Ted Lieu.

Right before the 1980 Winter Olympics gold medal ice hockey game, United States coach Herb Brooks purportedly gave his team a pep talk for all time: “If you lose this game, you’ll take it to your f—–g graves.” Somebody needs to reprise the Brooks speech for House Democrats today: “If you don’t stand up to Donald Trump’s abuse of power now, you’ll take it to your graves.”  

I know, I know. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks it’s bad politics to impeach (and she just might be wrong; at best, she’s speculating). At some point, however, House Democrats need to understand that history will judge them harshly if, in pursuit of an elusive few points in public opinion polling, they turn their backs on what their own leaders – and now Robert Mueller – have effectively described as an obstruction of justice crime spree. 

Even before today’s hearing, House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler had declared that there is “very substantial evidence” Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” – the precise formulation set forth in the Constitution to justify impeachment. Even Pelosi, despite her entrenched anti-impeachment position, accused Trump of “engag[ing] in a cover-up” and reportedly said she wants to see Trump “in prison.” Despite this hot rhetoric, neither Pelosi nor Nadler have authorized even an impeachment inquiry.

On Wednesday, Mueller had his say and confirmed that Pelosi and Nadler have it right, at least in their words if not yet in their (in)action. Mueller already had written that the Russian state interfered with the 2016 election to help Trump win; that the Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally” from that Russian interference; that “substantial evidence” exists that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation; and that the evidence “does not exonerate” Trump.  

He also said several important things out loud. No, Mueller’s investigation did not exonerate Trump and did not find “no obstruction,” as Trump has endlessly – falsely – claimed to the American public. Yes, Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president prevented Mueller from making a determination on obstruction of justice. No, Trump did not fully cooperate with the investigation. Yes, a president can be indicted for obstruction after leaving office.   

Now comes the moment of truth. Will House Democrats cower at the dated, preconceived, speculative notion that impeachment – or even an impeachment inquiry – might hurt them politically by a few polling points?  Or will House Democrats do their constitutional duty, take a stand against an epic and unprecedented abuse of presidential power and let the political chips fall where they may? The legacy of this Congress, and our fundamental notions of accountability, hang in the balance.

Elie Honig is a CNN legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor. Follow him at @eliehonig.

Democrats got what they wanted out of the hearing right off the bat in Robert Mueller’s testimony to Congress on Wednesday. Mueller made clear he had not exonerated the President and indicated that Trump could be charged and prosecuted after he left office. 

If the hearing had ended after the first 30 minutes, Democrats could have felt pretty good about the outcome. Whether or not this hearing leads to a shift in public opinion (which is the Democrats’ real objective) is a harder hill to climb. Whether they will succeed will take longer to determine.

On the other hand, Republicans appeared to have conflicting strategies. While holding up the Mueller report as clearing Donald Trump of all wrongdoing, they also used the hearing to attempt to discredit Mueller. Why would you discredit the author of the report that you are simultaneously holding up as evidence of the President’s innocence?

Their questioning was all over the place, from charging Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama to an obsession with the Strzok texts. It showed a weakness of strategy and a lack of direction about where Republicans can and should effectively go as momentum builds toward potential impeachment.

Jen Psaki, a CNN political commentator, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration. She is vice president of communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Follow her at @jrpsaki. 

The legal and political wrangling during Robert Mueller’s testimony may have been difficult to follow for many Americans. But one thing Mueller made absolutely clear was: Russia interfered with the 2016 US election, using multiple social media campaigns and other methods, to influence voters with the goal of putting Donald J. Trump in the White House.

This should put all Americans on notice. But black voters need to take special caution heading into the 2020 elections. 

According to Senate Intelligence Committee investigations held shortly after the election, the Russians specifically targeted the black community. The goal was to suppress black voter turnout and sway public opinion of Hillary Clinton by using existing divisive racial tensions in our nation.

Many Americans – including in the black community – downplay the situation or outright refuse to believe that Russia, in any way, swayed their decision to vote, or not, in 2016. All of us want to believe that we are smarter than a Russian bot designed to influence our political opinions. As if we are not swayed every day by Trump’s tweets or by other divisive political rants on both sides of the aisle. 

Let Mueller’s 448-page report and his Congressional testimony silence any doubt about Russia’s ability to interfere in our elections in an attempt to influence how we vote. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin played us all for fools in 2016. Americans should not be fooled twice.

Roxanne Jones, a founding editor of ESPN Magazine and former vice president at ESPN, has been a producer, reporter and editor at the New York Daily News and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Jones is co-author of “Say it Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete.” She talks politics, sports and culture weekly on Philadelphia’s Praise 107.9 FM. 

Robert Mueller is clearly not comfortable being cast as an extra in somebody else’s drama. But that is where he finds himself today. 

In the first hour of the hearing, Democratic lawmakers attempted to get Mueller to emphasize and expand on sections of his report that show President Trump expressing concern, rage or frustration about the investigation of his campaign. Republicans, predictably, accused Mueller and his team of going beyond his legal mandate and improperly drawing conclusions about the motives and actions of Trump campaign members.

Both sides, in part because each representative is limited to 5 minutes apiece, have been rushing to score points, flinging rapid-fire questions at Mueller that he clearly is hesitant (and, perhaps, unable) to answer at top speed. The overall effect is that Mueller appears confused by the flow of questions.

Today’s proceedings are a world away from the 1974 Watergate hearings, which unfolded at a slower pace and revealed a great deal of basic information about the range and extent of misconduct the public was learning about for the first time. Today, by contrast, the conversation is about a dense report that is familiar to all of the lawmakers, but known in only vague terms by the public. 

It’s ironic that the man who drove and directed the investigation has been reduced to a taciturn, slightly baffled secondary character at a hearing about his own work. 

Errol Louis is the host of “Inside City Hall,” a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel.

After the first – and very effective – round of questioning by Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Democrats have not figured out how to use the hearings as a way to build a narrative out of the report about what President Trump did wrong. The damning substance of Robert Mueller’s report has been out there for months and, as he confirmed, the findings are not good for the administration. 

But ever since Nadler’s questions, the back-and-forth has been accessible largely by people who have been following the story day-to-day. You need to know all the references to understand what Democrats are getting at.

Republicans are predictably grandstanding while Mueller is doing little to defend his team and all the investigators. At times, the Republicans are also not allowing him to even answer as they put out their accusations.

It is hard to imagine that the hearings, based on what we’ve seen thus far, will do anything to fundamentally shift the political dynamic on Capitol Hill that has continued to stifle impeachment and allowed Trump to flex presidential power in aggressive fashion.

Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and author, with Kevin Kruse, of the new book “Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974.” Follow him on Twitter at @julianzelizer. 

Rep. John Ratcliffe’s questioning and statements regarding the “presumption of innocence” – he argued that Mueller overstepped Department of Justice principles by asserting in the report that the investigation did not exonerate Trump – reflect a view deeply held by many Republicans who believe the justice system has been warped in the Trump era. 

Whether it’s the Mueller report or the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, many Republicans have come to believe that Democrats and other government actors are abandoning long held American principles that, as Ratcliffe said, form the “bedrock” of our justice system. We believe people are presumed innocent, unless you are Donald Trump or anyone who has met him and then…never mind. 

No prosecutor is charged with finding that a person is not exonerated, as Mueller did with Trump on obstruction of justice. You are either charged with a crime or not, and you are either guilty or not guilty. This has been true since the beginning and tossing it aside in any case drastically shifts power to the government and away from American citizens who come under investigation. This, to use a technical term, freaks out conservatives. 

Mueller’s answer that this investigation was “a unique situation” looks like an attempt to get around the fundamental view that innocence is presumed and not bestowed by the government. This will reinforce Republican views that Trump is being treated unfairly. Good for Ratcliffe for making this point so early in the day. 

Scott Jennings, a CNN contributor, is a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and a former campaign adviser to US Sen. Mitch McConnell. He is a partner at RunSwitch Public Relations in Louisville, Kentucky. Follow him on Twitter @ScottJenningsKY. 

This is a perilous moment in the history of our country. Not since the McCarthy period during the Korean War have the elected members of one of our two great parties been so fearful of an energized segment of our population that they have chosen passivity over the defense of our basic liberties and the Constitutional separation of powers. Meanwhile the other party is divided over whether there is a roadmap to remove a dishonest president as in 1974. 

Although it won’t break this impasse, one step to a healthier political environment would be a fuller national conversation based on broader public understanding and appreciation of the Mueller probe and the implications of President Trump’s reaction to it. In that spirit, I suggest here 10 questions that a Member of Congress (Democratic or Republican) might ask, and why.

To read more from Timothy Naftali’s op-ed, click here.

Timothy Naftali is an associate clinical professor of public service at New York University and a CNN Presidential Historian. He is co-author of “Impeachment: An American History” with Jon Meacham, Peter Baker and Jeffrey A. Engel. The views expressed here are his.

Those of us who have studied Congress long enough know that contentious hearings typically follow the same pattern: one side of the aisle spends their time attacking a controversial witness, while their colleagues on the other side of the aisle spend theirs trying to rehabilitate the witness.

What is certain to make the Mueller hearings unique will be the speed with which the historical script goes out the window once Mueller equally exhausts all patience on the Democratic side of the aisle. In fact, I suspect we’ll begin to see signs of frustration by Democrats before we even hit the half-hour mark.

The reason stems from the fact that Mueller has signaled he has no intention to go beyond the four corners of his 448-page final report. He said so explicitly the first and last time we heard from him during a brief statement to reporters at the Justice Department in May.

To read more from Josh Campbell’s op-ed, click here.

Josh Campbell is a CNN analyst covering national security issues. He previously served as a Supervisory Special Agent with the FBI, special assistant to the bureau’s director and is the author of a forthcoming book on the origins of the FBI’s Russia investigation. Follow him on Twitter at @joshscampbell. 

Imagine an old-fashioned Western movie, the kind where a powerful outlaw and his gang gradually take over a remote and dusty frontier town. “I always loved to fight,” declares the outlaw. “All types of fights, including physical.” The townspeople, who don’t like to fight, still must find a way to defend their peaceful way of life.

In America today, Donald Trump is the man who loves to fight. (The quotes above come from my interview with him in 2014.) The gang is the revolving crowd of political enablers who think they have something to gain from going along with the President’s program of divisive speech, abusive policies and apparent lawbreaking. And they are forcing those who want better to fight back.

If you stick with the Hollywood Western analogy, the back-to-back hearings before the House Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees with former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday may be a pivotal moment in the drama.

To read more from Michael D’Antonio’s op-ed, click here.

Michael D’Antonio is the author of the book “Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success” and co-author with Peter Eisner of “The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence.”

Having Americans hear Mueller say aloud that there was sufficient evidence to conclude the President obstructed justice could be much more potent than having reporters merely tell viewers the same thing. (“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” was the way the report put it.)

Mueller’s emphasizing before the cameras how extensive Russian efforts were to interfere in the election, with continued points of contact with the Trump campaign, would be more damning that the legalistic narrative in the report.

Maybe, just maybe, Mueller’s testimony would provide the “turning point” that many Democrats have been waiting for, which could push the House to start impeachment. Perhaps it will be the final straw that totally turns public opinion against the President and causes Republicans rethink their political support for the administration.

This is highly doubtful. In the short term, Mueller’s testimony probably won’t have much of a political impact.

To read more from Julian Zelizer’s op-ed, click here.

Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and author, with Kevin Kruse, of the new book “Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974.” Follow him on Twitter at @julianzelizer.

I understand what Mueller has tried to do. He has been careful. He understands the stakes of his investigation, and he has erred on the side of caution – the far, far, side of caution, it turns out, to the point of obscuring his own factual findings and legal conclusions. He has tried so hard to color inside the lines that he hasn’t completed the picture.

Because Justice Department policy counsels against indicting a sitting president, Mueller “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.” Mueller took it a step further: not only did he not indict (consistent with the policy), but he declined even to say whether he found sufficient evidence to indict.

Instead, Mueller gave us an ambiguous, Yoda-like pronouncement: “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” Ultimately, Mueller declared to head-scratching effect that “[w]hile this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

To read more from Elie Honig’s op-ed, click here.

Elie Honig is a CNN legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor.

We can expect the testimony that Attorney General William Barr should have given. In short, Mueller will act and testify with all the dignity and integrity lacking in the current attorney general. Mueller will be factual, dispassionate and, most of all, accurate in his testimony.

There will be no partisan spin. While we will not hear Mueller express sympathy for President Donald Trump’s feelings (or anyone else’s feelings), neither will we hear him express moral outrage over Trump’s actions. Mueller will also defend to the death his right not to speculate by reciting – mantra-like – his belief that his testimony must be limited to the four corners of his 400-page report.

To read more from Shanlon Wu’s’s op-ed, click here.

Shanlon Wu is a former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst. He served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno. Follow him @shanlonwu.