I watched and listened to most of the testimony today (July 24, 2019) as I did in 1973 and the Watergate hearings unfolded. I remember thinking how I needed to rethink my support for Nixon as Republican members of congress started to support impeachment.
Substance versus Presentation
Today, I saw theater which did not play well. We should have expected the lawyer Robert Mueller staying with his script, the report. Which is exactly what he said he would do. The presentation was dry and did not manage to hold interest. The format of 5 minute questions and swapping between Democratic and Republican committee members provided a narrative which jumped between characters, much the way some fiction writers intertwine their narrative to hide the conclusion.
The presentation was dry and difficult to follow.
Republican Questioning
The Republicans questioning centered on invalidating the entire release of Volume II. The narrative pushed that a tainted investigation source and a partisan investigation. Not only did Mr. Mueller’s testimony not support claims, he defended his process and his team.
Democratic Questioning
As stated in the report, there does not need to be a crime for there to be obstruction. On three (3) of the obstruction narratives provided in the report, the Democratic members of congress through questioning of Mueller, showed that the 3 elements of obstruction:
- An obstructive Act
- A nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
- And one or more of the following:
- Corruptly
- Witness Tampering
The questioning by the Democrats, showed that all 3 elements of obstruction applied to the 3 potential acts of obstruction. While Mr. Mueller did not support the full conclusion that obstruction occurred, he did support the process with Yes answers to all three elements of obstruction being satisfied. So my conclusion is that the facts and substance of the morning session showed the obstruction investigation should continue.
House Intelligence Committee
When the testimony continued in the afternoon, the topic changed from legal definitions to Russian Involvement in the 2016 and future elections. Chairman Schiff started with a series of questions which I will paraphrase as:
- Did the Russians interfere with the 2016 election? Answer – Yes
- Did the Russians wish for Donald Trump to win the election? Answer – Yes
- Also, was there contact between Russian entities and Donald Trump during the election cycle? Answer – Yes
- Did these contacts and Russian activity need to be investigate? Answer – Yes
- Conclusion, so there was no “witch hunt?” Answer – No “witch hunt”
As the Democratic side demonstrated how good relations with Russia would benefit Donald Trump and the Trump family. The Republicans continued to beat up Mr. Mueller on the source of the investigation.
There were a couple of questions late in the afternoon which concerned what action to prevent future foreign intervention should occur? But none of these questions were prominent in the post hearing coverage. What a shame. As Mr. Mueller’s main conclusion is that influence from foreign powers is major threat to our democracy.
Conclusions
So by the afternoon, public opinion had decided that because of presentation the Democrats had not made their case for continuing the investigation.
After the committee sessions concluded, Mr. Trump took a victory walk from the White House to a waiting helicopter making comments that his previous summary was accurate. Going back to the report being a “witch hunt.” How totally wrong those lies are.
So I wonder why there is there anyone left in this country, who believes that Donald Trump is truthful? His comments this afternoon continued the Barr summary which testimony today showed misrepresented the intent of the Mueller Report.
Oversight
I’m sorry Mr. Trump. But I can not accept your conclusion. Nor does your total disregard for the House constitutionally granted right of oversight help your case. For me to accept your premise I need proof. That proof would include complying with congressional subpoenas to let key members of your administration testify. Release your and your family’s tax returns to prove that you or your family are not financially benefiting from your office.
You are now a sitting President and while you may be innocent until proven guilty. Our democracy demands transparency. As a public figure you must release your tax returns.
An aside to testimony…
Also, there is your statement that Article 2 of the constitution says that as President, you can do anything is not only not true it is scary. There is a reason that the founding fathers wrote into the constitution a separation of powers. Congress does have constitutional rights and obligations which currently are being tread upon by a self professed lover of dictators…
Recent Comments