Being a working dude, I didn’t have the time to sit and watch Mueller testify; however, I have been working my way through the transcript. But just is interesting is how partisan pundits are reading the testimony. Liberal Steve Benen of Maddowblog has not, insofar as I can tell, remarked upon some of the lapses present in the testimony, concentrating on what he considers the remarkable testimony, and Trump’s reactions to it. See here and here and here for some examples. The impression I gain from reading Benen’s material is that Trump’s becoming increasingly desperate. The material present in the testimony suggests he can be criminally tried if he loses his re-election, and, meanwhile, he continues to lose on multiple fronts unrelated to the testimony, such as building the wall (not an inch constructed), and not revealing his tax returns.
National Review conservative contributor Kevin Williamson sees the testimony as evidence that impeachment is impossible:
The Mueller circus offers us one lesson and one lesson only: The Democrats still believe they can defeat the star of The Apprentice in a reality-show election.
Ain’t nobody gonna beat Donald J. Trump in a goat rodeo.
The Democrats are running a scorched-earth, high-drama spectacle campaign against President Trump, who specializes in scorched-earth, high-drama spectacles and who today has the power of the presidential bully pulpit to amplify the drama and magnify the spectacle. Put another way, the Democrats apparently are intent on fighting Trump on his own ground, challenging him to a duel in the one thing he’s actually pretty good at: putting on a show.
David Thornton on the theo-conservative The Resurgent has an interesting observation:
For those of us who were unable to watch the hearings but were able to hear parts of it on the radio, Mueller sound calm, collected and careful. However, those who watched the hearings on television thought that Mueller underperformed. Much of the difference seems to be a question of style versus substance.
In the hours that followed, Republicans attacked Mueller’s style as well as his refusal to answer questions about the Steele dossier, even though his opening statement made clear that he would not comment on ongoing matters or privileged information from within the Justice Department. This is consistent with Mueller’s public statement in May in which he said that any testimony would not go beyond his office’s written report.
Mueller’s grueling testimony before two committees seemed to largely consist of Democrats baiting him to attack President Trumpand Republicans attacking the Russia investigation vicariously through him and chortling when he failed to show that he had every passage of his two-volume report memorized. Mr. Mueller didn’t give either side what it wanted, parsing his words carefully as lawyers tend to do.
As a software engineer, I sympathize with the need to parse statements carefully. I fall into the third group Thornton doesn’t mention: a reader. I’m only part way into the morning testimony, and so far Mueller seems a little under-prepared. This, too, is theo-conservative Erick Erickson’s observation:
Bob Mueller may be credible by reputation, but not by delivery. Trading messages yesterday with senior Democrat campaign operatives, even they agreed that Mueller did the Democrats more harm than good. They were hoping for some very clear statements and, while they got them, they were overshadowed by Mueller’s performance and his deflection of questions. Put bluntly — Bob Mueller seemed old and tired and ill prepared for the congressional hearing. It left people wondering if Mueller had even read his report.
Major Garret, CBS News Chief White House Correspondent, stated on the 24 July 2019 CBS Evening Newscast that he felt the testimony, summarizing now, was a disaster. However, I noted in his work history a preponderance of conservative news organizations present, such as Fox News, so I have to take that into account. Without, at the time, having begun reading the testimony, his language struck me as the sort of someone stating a desired conclusion, rather than an observed fact.
Back on National Review, apparent cheerleader Michael Brendan Dougherty believes the Democrats have stepped in a hole:
All along, Democrats were hoping the special counsel would do their dirty work. It’s the same mistake all of Trump’s opponents have made.
Toward the end of today’s long hearings, special counsel Robert Mueller struggled to find even the word “conspiracy” on his lips. Instead of drama, the hearings amounted to a recitation and endless reiteration of the stock phrases: no collusion, no exoneration. No interference from the Justice Department, and no charge of obstruction. That’s just the policy. “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller said.
It’s really a ridiculous remark to make. Trump has been caught in lies by judges, who then have punished him for it. He lost the popular vote, his legislative agenda is in ruins, as are most of his promises, judiciary nomination exception duly noted. I find Dougherty so hard to believe I didn’t bother to finish the article.
Of course, the problem is reading partisan pundits can be misleading. Thornton seemed ambivalent, but didn’t say a whole lot. So where does a reader who’s more interested in analysis than cultish mumbo-jumbo go for an evaluation? In this case, it’s hard to think of any truly third-party, disinterested observers.
But I think the Lawfare analysis is interesting, as their angle is both scholarly and concerned with national security. Here’s the crew opining on the important factors of the testimony. After some performance-related disappointments, they get onto the meat of the exercise:
Yet Mueller’s testimony, notwithstanding the atmospherics, was a productive exercise. Over the course of the day, he seemed to gain confidence and by the end managed to have some genuinely moving exchanges with key members on important issues. He proved sharper, and more forthcoming, about matters directly related to President Trump in the afternoon Intelligence Committee hearing than he did in the morning before the Judiciary Committee. Perhaps he had better command over the subject matter of Russian electoral interference, which dominated the second half of the day, than he did over the discussion of obstruction that dominated the first half. Perhaps it was just his getting used to the high-pressure setting of public testimony after years out of the spotlight. But by the end of the Intelligence Committee hearing, he was offering thoughts and views that went ever-so-slightly beyond the four corners of the report itself. And they are thoughts and views every American should pause over.
An important note about what is being established in the legislative record:
One notable feature of the day was that the Republicans essentially accepted the assertions of the Mueller report as factual. By and large, they did not seek to contest the facts Mueller reported, but rather attacked alleged bias and the legal significance of the facts in the document. One of the functions of the report was to establish a common set of facts, and today’s hearing—in its own peculiar way—suggests that it has done that, at least to a point. The Republican members’ questions did not seem to doubt that McGahn was telling the truth and that Trump was lying. They accepted that Trump had asked Corey Lewandowski to get Sessions to unrecuse. While they fought on other matters, they didn’t contest the factual ground that Mueller has staked out.
A possible future tactic is to accuse the Republicans of supporting a liar, and that they have acknowledged exactly that.
My own reading has been limited, but one thing I’ve noticed is that the Republicans seemed to be tuned in to using a tactic in which they’d spend most of their 5 minute slots to raise irrelevant issues, and then with time running out, they’d make some accusation – often outlandish, as Committee chair Rep Nadler called them on time, thus leaving Mueller with no time to reply. Combined with his reluctance to speak, it left some interesting remarks unanswered, and I think that was unfortunate.
I haven’t made it to the Intel committee as of yet.
