To the Editor:
Robert Mueller, the special counsel in the Russia investigation, testified for hours before two congressional committees on Wednesday (nytimes.com, July 24). As Bill Clinton famously said in a very different context, I want to say to Mr. Mueller, “Bob, I feel your pain.”
In the morning hearing, the Republicans’ rapid-fire barrage of questions, often referring to a specific sentence of the special counsel’s report, seemed to keep Mr. Mueller off balance and struggling to keep up.
Although Mr. Mueller made crystal clear what he would talk about and what he would not, the Republicans kept badgering him to respond, knowing that he would not. Their goal was to make him look as if he were vacillating, obfuscating and confused. At least among Republicans, they may have well succeeded.
The Democrats had some success making their case that President Trump was “guilty” of obstructing justice. They also tried to make abundantly clear that if it had not been for the Justice Department policy that no sitting president can be indicted, Mr. Mueller would have indicted Mr. Trump.
Each party gave sustenance to the pre-existing beliefs of their base constituency, but they probably changed very few minds. The afternoon hearing before the Intelligence Committee went better for the Democrats and for Mr. Mueller. While the Democrats may have won the fight on substance, they lost the overall battle on the optics.
Ken Derow
Swarthmore, Pa.
To the Editor:
Apparently believing that the strategy had worked well for them during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Republicans on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees decided to use the tactic of discrediting the witness, the witness here being Robert Mueller.
Within the first hour of Mr. Mueller’s testimony, the intent of Republicans was clear: Paint Mr. Mueller as a liar and if not himself a partisan, guilty of hiring others who hated the president.
There was little effort to get to the truth. Instead, Republicans were blatant in their efforts to ensure that all of President Trump’s talking points and criticisms of the investigation and his questionable accusations against Mr. Mueller got on the record.
I have always been sickened by the president’s behavior, but I am even more sickened by congressional Republicans who consistently dance to his abhorrent music.
Patricia Weller
Emmitsburg, Md.
To the Editor:
Since Robert Mueller didn’t file charges against the president (although he didn’t exonerate him either), many Americans oppose impeachment because they believe that there may not be enough evidence to do so. Here is where the confusion lies.
Impeachment is the process by which the legislature levels charges against a government official and not an indictment, which is a formal charge of a crime. Once this becomes clear, there will not be any reason not to proceed with all the actions needed to clarify the conundrum we are in regarding collusion and obstruction.
So allow the process to take place and impeach the president. This may or may not lead to an indictment.
David S. Cantor
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
Robert Mueller’s fundamental job as a prosecutor is to enforce the law, not to opine as a neutral oracle. In his testimony before Congress, he failed at that mission. He conceded during his testimony that Justice Department internal policy prohibits indictment of a sitting president and justified his inaction on that basis.
He should have condemned that baseless policy.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a phrase or provision prohibiting indictment of the president. If the president murders or arbitrarily jails political enemies, is he beyond indictment? If he, without authorization of Congress, uses nuclear weapons to obliterate foreign countries, is he above indictment?
This was a time for a prosecutor to courageously and articulately demand the rule of law. Dignified and square-jawed, he failed us.
Neil Mullin
Montclair, N.J.
To the Editor:
What could be behind the enigmatic Robert Mueller, whose responses to Congress pleased no one? Here is yet another interpretation of the ambivalent conclusions that Mr. Mueller reached in investigating President Trump’s possible obstruction of justice.
Think about Mr. Mueller’s personal history: He is a Vietnam veteran, a Marine who fought in one of the worst wars in American history. My sense of him is that he is humble and an unstinting patriot. He fought willingly and honorably in a wrongful war. He continues to be more than loyal to his country, perhaps to a fault.
By refusing to call out a dangerously narcissistic president who clearly appears to have obstructed justice, Mr. Mueller followed a legal precedent not to indict a sitting president. He has clung to the law to avoid admitting the obvious and left it to Congress to do what his conscience as a patriot will not allow him to do: State a clear and unequivocal opinion of the president’s collusion and obstruction of justice.
If we can apply the word “fundamentalist” not only to religious people but also to others who rigidly deny reality in the name of loyalty to a country and its leaders, then perhaps we can better understand this inflexible soldier-patriot.
If we can draw from a man’s history, then Mr. Mueller is a man fearful of bringing down the government.
Libby Zinman Schwartz
Princeton, N.J.
To the Editor:
The House Judiciary Committee members didn’t need Robert Mueller to appear before them just to listen to their perorations, and they displayed conduct bordering on rudeness by regularly interrupting him on the few occasions he tried to respond to a genuine question.
The committee members squandered an opportunity to illuminate the president’s egregious behavior for the public.
Lawrence Weisman
Westport, Conn.
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Robert Mueller’s Fateful Day on Capitol Hill
Opinion | Robert Mueller’s Fateful Day on Capitol Hill
To the Editor:
Robert Mueller, the special counsel in the Russia investigation, testified for hours before two congressional committees on Wednesday (nytimes.com, July 24). As Bill Clinton famously said in a very different context, I want to say to Mr. Mueller, “Bob, I feel your pain.”
In the morning hearing, the Republicans’ rapid-fire barrage of questions, often referring to a specific sentence of the special counsel’s report, seemed to keep Mr. Mueller off balance and struggling to keep up.
Although Mr. Mueller made crystal clear what he would talk about and what he would not, the Republicans kept badgering him to respond, knowing that he would not. Their goal was to make him look as if he were vacillating, obfuscating and confused. At least among Republicans, they may have well succeeded.
The Democrats had some success making their case that President Trump was “guilty” of obstructing justice. They also tried to make abundantly clear that if it had not been for the Justice Department policy that no sitting president can be indicted, Mr. Mueller would have indicted Mr. Trump.
Each party gave sustenance to the pre-existing beliefs of their base constituency, but they probably changed very few minds. The afternoon hearing before the Intelligence Committee went better for the Democrats and for Mr. Mueller. While the Democrats may have won the fight on substance, they lost the overall battle on the optics.
Ken Derow
Swarthmore, Pa.
To the Editor:
Apparently believing that the strategy had worked well for them during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Republicans on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees decided to use the tactic of discrediting the witness, the witness here being Robert Mueller.
Within the first hour of Mr. Mueller’s testimony, the intent of Republicans was clear: Paint Mr. Mueller as a liar and if not himself a partisan, guilty of hiring others who hated the president.
There was little effort to get to the truth. Instead, Republicans were blatant in their efforts to ensure that all of President Trump’s talking points and criticisms of the investigation and his questionable accusations against Mr. Mueller got on the record.
I have always been sickened by the president’s behavior, but I am even more sickened by congressional Republicans who consistently dance to his abhorrent music.
Patricia Weller
Emmitsburg, Md.
To the Editor:
Since Robert Mueller didn’t file charges against the president (although he didn’t exonerate him either), many Americans oppose impeachment because they believe that there may not be enough evidence to do so. Here is where the confusion lies.
Impeachment is the process by which the legislature levels charges against a government official and not an indictment, which is a formal charge of a crime. Once this becomes clear, there will not be any reason not to proceed with all the actions needed to clarify the conundrum we are in regarding collusion and obstruction.
So allow the process to take place and impeach the president. This may or may not lead to an indictment.
David S. Cantor
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
Robert Mueller’s fundamental job as a prosecutor is to enforce the law, not to opine as a neutral oracle. In his testimony before Congress, he failed at that mission. He conceded during his testimony that Justice Department internal policy prohibits indictment of a sitting president and justified his inaction on that basis.
He should have condemned that baseless policy.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a phrase or provision prohibiting indictment of the president. If the president murders or arbitrarily jails political enemies, is he beyond indictment? If he, without authorization of Congress, uses nuclear weapons to obliterate foreign countries, is he above indictment?
This was a time for a prosecutor to courageously and articulately demand the rule of law. Dignified and square-jawed, he failed us.
Neil Mullin
Montclair, N.J.
To the Editor:
What could be behind the enigmatic Robert Mueller, whose responses to Congress pleased no one? Here is yet another interpretation of the ambivalent conclusions that Mr. Mueller reached in investigating President Trump’s possible obstruction of justice.
Think about Mr. Mueller’s personal history: He is a Vietnam veteran, a Marine who fought in one of the worst wars in American history. My sense of him is that he is humble and an unstinting patriot. He fought willingly and honorably in a wrongful war. He continues to be more than loyal to his country, perhaps to a fault.
By refusing to call out a dangerously narcissistic president who clearly appears to have obstructed justice, Mr. Mueller followed a legal precedent not to indict a sitting president. He has clung to the law to avoid admitting the obvious and left it to Congress to do what his conscience as a patriot will not allow him to do: State a clear and unequivocal opinion of the president’s collusion and obstruction of justice.
If we can apply the word “fundamentalist” not only to religious people but also to others who rigidly deny reality in the name of loyalty to a country and its leaders, then perhaps we can better understand this inflexible soldier-patriot.
If we can draw from a man’s history, then Mr. Mueller is a man fearful of bringing down the government.
Libby Zinman Schwartz
Princeton, N.J.
To the Editor:
The House Judiciary Committee members didn’t need Robert Mueller to appear before them just to listen to their perorations, and they displayed conduct bordering on rudeness by regularly interrupting him on the few occasions he tried to respond to a genuine question.
The committee members squandered an opportunity to illuminate the president’s egregious behavior for the public.
Lawrence Weisman
Westport, Conn.
Source: Read Full Article