Robert Mueller's minimal answers leave impeachment a matter of political will
Former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday. Credit: AP/Andrew Harnik
The cautious congressional testimony delivered Wednesday by former special counsel Robert Mueller neither propels nor prevents a future impeachment drive by House Democrats.
The Republican former FBI director confirmed what we already knew — that his two-year investigation didn’t exonerate President Donald Trump, who nonetheless claimed it had.
Everyone also knew in advance that Mueller would sidestep, as before, the question whether White House efforts to block the Russia probe could support charges of criminal obstruction.
But for pro-impeachment Democrats, who have yet to win over their party leadership, Mueller’s daylong mélange of “Yes's,” “No’s” and “Can’t say's” brought renewed public attention to the special counsel findings.
That could help their cause.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) used her allotted question time to underscore page 12 of Volume II of Mueller’s report, which says: “We determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction-of-justice issues involving the president.”
Trump met with ex-FBI Director James Comey and demanded loyalty, then asked he not pursue his former top security aide, Michael Flynn. Trump reached out to intelligence agencies about the Russia probe. He involved himself in making misleading statements about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with connected Russians.
As Mueller showed, the president tried but failed to get his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to have Mueller fired on a conflict-of-interest pretext. And Trump pushed to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to revoke his recusal from the case — a recusal based on Sessions’ own Russian contacts as a Trump campaign supporter.
The House Judiciary Committee has been trying to get McGahn to testify.
Though McGahn complained to ex-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus that Trump was asking him to do “crazy” stuff, it is unknown whether McGahn can or will elaborate.
Trump’s ducking of testimony also came up. ”If we did subpoena the president, he would fight the subpoena and we would be in the midst of the investigation for a substantial period of time,” Mueller said.
Democrats plotting impeachment might consider the timing of any move.
If they wait a few months, for example, popular support for removing Trump might wax or wane, depending on circumstance. The Senate is under GOP control and only huge developments would dislodge them from their support for keeping Trump in office.
For the time being, even Mueller's refusal to confirm or deny the premise of certain questions about his report gave Trump’s detractors a chance to make a public point.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-Manhattan) asked: “So President Trump’s efforts to exert undue influence over your investigation intensified after the president became aware that he personally was being investigated?”
As he did repeatedly Wednesday, Mueller replied: “I stick with the language that’s in front of you.”
The next step, if any, was going to be up to Congress anyway. Mueller's appearance simply reinforced it.
Dan Janison is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
