Mueller's Live Statement Yesterday Was Aimed At Congress, Especially House Democrats And Their Cowardly Leaders

In a move that perfectly mimics Orwell's Ministry of Truth, the Trumpist Regime has begun calling toxic hydrocarbon pollutants "molecules of freedom." So why should it surprise any one that Señor Trumpanzee himself, moments after watching Mueller give that televised statement above, tweeted/gaslighted something that could have come from an alternative universe?

The case is anything but closed and the Trumpist Regime then almost immediately issued an official press statement from Sister Sarah to further muddy the waters and confuse the already-- and always easily-- confused Trump supporters and media partners:

You watched, I watched, we all watched it. A few moments after Mueller addressed the nation, Briana Urbina, the progressive woman running for the Maryland congressional seat occupied with anti-impeachment coward Steny Hoyer told me that "This congress under Steny Hoyer's 'leadership' is failing to protect the American people and carrying water for Trump every day that we do not initiate impeachment hearings. How do we expect to distinguish ourselves from the Republicans if we do not take bold action to promote the rule of law and preserve our democracy? I am not afraid of the political consequences that impeachment may bring and those who care to seek justice should not let politics from carrying out their constitutional duties as elected members of Congress." Michigan Republican Justin Amash tweeted 7 words to his colleagues on Capitol Hill: "The ball is in our court, Congress." I wonder if the failed Democratic Speaker follows him on Twitter. I doubt it.

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)-- who many members are hoping runs for Speaker in 2021-- put out a strong and unambiguous statement:

Today, Special Counsel Robert Mueller powerfully stated a key finding of his two-year investigation: “If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” He once again reiterated that he was unable to exonerate the president of committing any crimes. He made it clear that he abided by Department of Justice guidelines that state a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime through an investigation alone, but clearly laid out the evidence for multiple potential obstruction of justice acts by the President. He also made it crystal clear that the responsibility of holding a President to account for any crimes committed must-- according to the Constitution-- fall to Congress.

The Special Counsel’s office did their job; now it’s time for Congress to do our job. We will continue the essential work of oversight with hearings and enforcing subpoenas to get testimony from key witnesses. No one is above the law, and Congress must respond with full force to the President's abuses of power, repeated cover-ups and ongoing obstruction of justice.

In addition, Special Counsel Mueller drew special attention to the critical need to address the report’s conclusions around “multiple, systematic efforts by Russian intelligence to interfere in our election.” We will continue to demand that Congress act in a bipartisan manner to force the President and Republicans in the Senate to immediately attend to this matter. Republicans must decide whether they intend to condone the President’s ongoing refusal to hold Russia to account or protect the integrity of our election process.

Writing for CNN.com, Chris Cillizza took it on himself to translate Mueller's legalese for non-lawyers. He wrote that Mueller "emphasized two things of real importance-- both of which, with a bit of reading between the lines, provided a glimpse into what Mueller really thinks regarding Trump and obstruction. Here they are:

• "If we had had confidence that the President had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so."
• "Charging the President with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

[I]t's impossible to dismiss the fact that Mueller called out specifically the report's finding that the President had not been exonerated on obstruction. In fact, Mueller reiterated the fact that, had his office been able to exonerate Trump, they would have done that. And they did not.

...Mueller said flatly Wednesday that the reason that the special counsel's office did not consider charging Trump with obstruction was because it was not an option he was allowed to consider under Justice Department precedent.

...What Mueller was saying Wednesday is actually better understood by what he was not saying-- and what he was not saying was that the President of the United States was an innocent victim in all of this... Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction by the President. Mueller didn't say he wouldn't have charged Trump even without the guiding OLC ruling. And in so doing, he said a whole hell of a lot.

The NY Times headline was more succinct: Mueller, in First Comments on Russia Inquiry, Declines to Clear Trump.

David Frum, like Amash, a Republican who hasn't been amused by Trump's extra-constitutional approach to his duties, reiterated yesterday that the words of the Mueller report themselves are "damning." And what did Mueller say today if not to read the damn report?

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.

There is insufficient evidence to accuse the Trump campaign of criminal conspiracy with its Russian benefactors. However, “the social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”

These contacts were covered up by a series of lies, both to the special counsel and to Congress. Lying by the Trump campaign successfully obscured much of what happened in 2016. The special counsel in some cases “was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.” In particular, the investigation never did determine what happened to proprietary Trump-campaign polling data shared with the Russians.

Within hours of the appointment of a special counsel to investigate 2016 events, Trump began defaming him. Trump had already fired the FBI director who investigated these events. His first order to fire the special counsel appointed in the director’s place was issued on June 17, 2017, a month after Mueller’s appointment. That order would be followed by many more. Trump directed his staff to lie about these orders.

Over and above his efforts to fire the special counsel, “the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

The subversion of the investigation was brazen. “Many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view.”

Obstruction of justice, though, need not be clandestine to count as a crime. What matters is intent—and that must be judged by Congress, not a special counsel subordinate to the Department of Justice and bound by its rule that a president cannot be indicted.

The full report is rich with details. But that’s the essence. A foreign power interfered in the U.S. election to help the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign welcomed the help and repeatedly lied about it. The lying successfully obscured some questions the investigation sought to answer; in the end, it found insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. President Trump, in public and in private, worked to stop the investigation.

Those are the facts. What are the remedies? Mueller underscored at his press statement: He did not exonerate the president. Under the Department of Justice rules he was subject to, he lacked the power to act.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration refuses to take steps to secure the next presidential election against the interference that swayed the last. The question of why Russia so strongly wished to help Trump remains as mysterious as ever. In particular, if you wish to understand the breadth and depth of Trump’s Russian business connections before he declared for president in 2015, Mueller’s report will not help you.

Mueller says he can do no more. The rest, Congress, is up to you.

Mike Siegel is the progressive Democrat in TX-10 running for the seat held by Trump enabler Michael McCaul. Siegel didn't beat around the bush after carefully listening to Mueller yesterday. He told us that "Time is of the essence. Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty as a check and balance. Only by honoring the work of the Special Counsel, and beginning an impeachment inquiry, can we we re-assert the rule of law and assure the American people that we have a functioning democracy."

Eva Putzova's opponent is a Blue Dog Democrat who opposes impeachment, "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran. Eva's vision is filled with clarity. "There are numerous instances in Mueller’s report," she told me, "that provides evidence that Trump and his cronies tried to obstruct Mueller’s investigation into the Russian military’s interference in the 2016 election. In my view that constitutes 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' under our constitution and that mandates impeachment. It is time for the House of Representatives to begin with the proceedings."

Even Status Quo Joe, who I would expect to pardon Trump and his spawn if-- God forbid-- he ever gets into the White House, issued an almost, nearly, close to semi-quasi-pro-ish impeachment statement yesterday.