Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What if Mueller Was “Used” from the Start?
Yesterday was a sad day for Robert Mueller. Many have already focused on his inept and befuddled performance in front of the House Committees. After reflecting on the two meetings, I have an even more tragic and disgraceful theory of what we watched.
They used Mueller from the very beginning.
Let’s go back to when Mueller was first hired. I surmise that even then, Mueller was showing signs not only of age but of mental difficulties, albeit to a lesser degree. Although he was no longer in government, he associated with people who were, people who might have realized that he was no longer the brilliant, dedicated, and admirable man he once was. Wouldn’t he be the perfect person to “put in charge” of a group of operatives who were working to take down the president? Especially if the position of Special Counsel were presented to him as a worthy way to save the country from a crazy and incompetent president?
And they would provide him with all the help he needed: dedicated and smart attorneys who would do all the leg work, and one man who had shown his “bulldog” approach to investigations would lead the group: Andrew Weissmann. The investigation would be the project of the century, and Robert Mueller would be the best man to head all of it.
Only the whole thing was One. Big. Lie.
I think that Robert Mueller may have signed up with mostly respectable motives. I don’t know if his capabilities were already questionable. But Andrew Weissmann, who had worked with him before, would handle most of the day-to-day oversight. The challenge for Mueller of what could become one of the most consequential investigations in American history was too enticing. Even two years ago, Mueller might have suspected he wasn’t quite up to snuff. He probably didn’t say he wasn’t at his best, but if Weissmann didn’t know Mueller had limitations, he figured out pretty quickly that he basically had carte blanche to run the investigation as he wished.
What “evidence” do I have for my theory? For one, we barely saw Mueller during the past two-plus years. Was he trying to avoid public exposure? Or maintaining the confidentiality of the investigation? When he gave his May 2019 press conference, he appeared awkward, even though he read his presentation. He was adamant that the report would be his testimony, hoping to avoid a committee hearing. He stalled for weeks in agreeing to show up, probably in a panic about appearing, knowing that not only might his mental state be exposed, but his lack of involvement with and oversight of the investigation would be obvious. In addition, AG Barr tried to rescue him on a couple of occasions. He downplayed his disagreements with the final report. He couldn’t figure out why Mueller was writing about his disagreement with Barr’s summary, rather than just calling him. (We can guess that Weissmann was the one who was angry and he wrote the letter.) AG Barr insisted that Mueller could agree to or decline appearing before the committees; it was Mueller’s decision. And finally, at Mueller’s request, he wrote a letter stating that Mueller could only testify about information within the report, so that he couldn’t be drawn into subjects about which he knew little or nothing.
By this time, AG Barr knew that Mueller was in deep trouble.
At the last minute, Mueller had a member of the Special Counsel team attend with him. Perhaps he came for moral support; perhaps he was there to bail out Mueller if he was about to bury himself.
But he was unable to stop the calamity.
I think Mueller’s testimony reflected not only his age, but his mental deterioration, as well as his lack of familiarity with some of the most basic parts of the investigation and the report. He had trouble understanding several of the questions. He contradicted himself. He asked for sections of the report to be read rather than read them himself. The list goes on.
Some people will ignore Mueller’s performance. Our local newspaper had as the headline, “Mueller did not exonerate Trump.” Today, do people really care?
From my viewpoint, I see only tragedy. I believe Mueller was used and abused by political operatives. I believe they knew he could be manipulated by appealing to his long-standing commitment to the country. Millions of dollars have been spent. People’s lives have been damaged, even destroyed, emotionally and financially. The country has experienced enormous upheaval.
But the President has survived.
And I have no way of knowing how much of my theory is true.
Let’s hope that the promised investigations by AG Barr and the Inspector General will shine some light on this entire, ugly process.
And let’s say a prayer for Robert Mueller.
Published in Politics
It seems like we had cover-ups all over the place, didn’t we, @phenry? I’m glad that you think that this premise was possible. Thanks.
I work with dementia patients at various levels of disability. For a lauded man like Mueller, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had at least an inkling and (1) didn’t think it was too bad to make a difference; or (2) was completely in denial at that point. Something like, well, we are all a little absent-minded now and then, aren’t we? Regardless, lots of people behaved unethically and unprofessionally, to say the least. Thanks, @aaronmiller.
Watching the lefty media last night, I think I sense the next tactic on the left. “Since Mueller was clearly not in charge and aware of the investigation details, now we need to bring in the people who worked under Mueller to testify.”
In other words, we can keep beating this dead horse up to and beyond the 2020 election. Lack of proof of impeachable offense just means we need more hearings, investigations, and accusations.
If any of this speculation borders on the truth then it raises a whole new set of questions, not the least of which is why Andrew Weissmann didn’t get on the phone to Nadler and Schiff and say, “Gentlemen, if you want to advance the ball don’t make Bob go in front of the committees.”
And if he did do that and they proceeded anyway, then Fat Man and Little Boy got the bomb they deserved, a sort of Manhattan Project of Stupidity.
One also has to wonder about Mueller’s family. He has a wife and two daughters. If he really was just a figurehead and was showing signs of either mental or physical decline, why would they allow him to be used like that? Protecting the old man’s dignity would be Job One, wouldn’t it?
Still, even if one takes the position of David French, that old Bob was just having a bad day, it was still painfully obvious he wasn’t really in command of the report that bears his name. The man who should have been there was the man who actually ran the the whole operation but the Democrats could hardly have placed Weissman in the chair and allowed him to be grilled about his own political cheerleading.
What really needs to be uncovered now is whether or not the team assembled under the figurehead leadership of Robert Mueller was part of a planned and pre-assembled ‘insurance policy’ designed to do more or less the precise damage that we have seen.
He may have done so, @ejhill. But Nadler (whose ego is so inflated it’s a wonder it hasn’t exploded) probably said it would be okay, they’d help him through, whatever.
Yeah, I’m not suggesting he saw himself exactly that way, but (from what I gather) his management style has always been rather hands-off. I’m thinking that’s how he was used. He probably doesn’t like Trump (I think that’s pretty clear), he thought he’d be the knight in shining armor (sorry @percival) whose reputation would give the imprimatur of fairness, bipartisanship and decency to the proceedings. After all, who could question the Mueller report?? Certainly not the Left, if you paid attention to everything they said prior to its coming out. Then, when it came out and wasn’t what they wanted, it had his name on it, and they looked to him to save them (again).
It’s entirely possible that two or three years ago he was much more “with it,” and on top of things. Mental deterioration in old age can catch up with one rather quickly.
Sadly, yes. That is what it looks like. Every impression yesterday was that he isn’t, at least today, up to the job.
Surprisingly, Weissman didn’t fabricate a crime by the President considering what is known regarding his techniques, probably figured discovery of such might be career-ending for him.. Ratcliffe demonstrated that there was no legal basis and so, no excuse, for the statements made in the report regarding exoneration. Maybe some legal careers will be ended after all.
The bottom line is that yesterday’s show was one of Scott Adam’s “two movies” moments, where both sides watched and came away with what they wanted to see. That makes it inconsequential in the long run as it’s not going to significantly move the needle one way or the other.
I think that’s quite likely.
I agree with that assessment. Waiting for the results of ongoing investigations mentioned several times in yesterday’s show.
From Politico (via RedState):
None of us are qualified to accurately assess his mental state.
If we cannot investigate and punish abusers of the trust the people place in law enforcement and intelligence agencies, we will not in the future be able to secure and protect our country against acts of criminals, terrorists, and other inappropriate acts, both foreign and domestic.
This would make Rod Rosenstein, and perhaps several others, guilty of abuse of their authority position in government.
It will not move the needle… unless this inspires a skilled journalist to investigate the history of Mueller’s dementia and there really is such a problem.
If there was a coverup of dementia, it would be an important story with electoral ramifications, though probably no legal punishments.
Well said, @susanquinn. The same people, or people with the same mindset, who used Mueller used Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser in the same way. I believe they took a well-meaning person and used them as a tool to further their overriding cause. To the people with this mindset, individuals mean nothing — their lust for power overrules all other considerations. The “cause” is everything.
Perfect picture of the team leaders!
Very good point. Mueller’s mental state at any point only goes to further undermining what we were always being told by the media – we shouldn’t question the integrity of the investigation because Mueller was a straight arrow even though it sure seemed like a lot of partisan Democrats were on his staff. But it doesn’t go to the substance of the report and all that surrounds it. It’s garbage regardless of Mueller’s state of mind.
I wrote back in April on Ricochet that I thought Mueller was a figurehead but that was for different reasons.
The first was I’ve had experience seeing older, senior partners at law firms who were nominally in charge of matters having rings run around them by more junior lawyers on their own team. My hunch was that was happening in this case, particularly given the aggressive nature of the staff, many of whom Mueller had known for years, obviously trusted and was willing to delegate to.
Second was the very nature of Robert Mueller. I think he really views himself as a man of unshakeable integrity. It is also clear he views the government organizations he has worked for, and led, over his career, DOJ and FBI, in the same category. Harvey Silvergate, a noted civil liberties attorney, has written about the difficulty of dealing with Mueller when he was in Boston with DOJ because he would preemptorily rule out any discussion of possible questionable conduct by the FBI or DOJ. Oh, and Harvey thought he was on friendly terms with Mueller until Mueller tried to entrap him into an obstruction of justice charge.
What this means is the Mueller has over and over again been played for a dupe by those who’ve worked for him, from the time he was head of the Criminal Division of DOJ’s Boston office and the FBI was being corrupted by Whitey Bulger, to being suborned to writing letters objecting to clemency for a man convicted of murder whom the FBI knew to be innocent (and refusing to acknowledge any error when, while he was FBI director, the government made a huge settlement payment in the matter) to the anthrax investigation when his team fingered the wrong man, leading to years of harrassment, all actions defended by Mueller.
As he testified yesterday, he counted on his own integrity to, in essence, provide a blanket insurance policy to those he hired regardless of their partisanship and, in Weissman’s case, significant ethical problems.
Mueller’s idea of integrity has blinded him over the years to problems within his organizations. And it led him to his biggest, and final, mistake, taking the Special Counsel role in the first place, when someone less prideful of their integrity would have recognized their own conflicts of interest, and to hiring a team that damaged the credibility of the investigation from the start.
I’m adding a comment I made over at Paul Rahe’s post on this issue.
From today’s NY Times via Hot Air:
My guess is that there are some in the media who have known this for a long time but were never going to report it because it interfered with the narrative of the uncorruptible hard-working Mueller up to his elbows in the details and making sure his team stayed on course with a laser focus. Now they are going to turn on Mueller.
And notice in the article there is a reference to the calender of Andrew Weissman which the Times reporter evidently had access to. Gee, I wonder who gave the Times access to Andrew Weissman’s calendar? Is Mueller alert enough to know who stuck the knife in his back?
And Aaron Zebley, who before this week none of us paid attention to, may have been running the whole thing. Perhaps not coincidentally another Clinton loyalist who defended the Clinton IT guy’s destruction of evidence in the email investigation, an act usually called obstruction of justice, through that term apparently does not apply to Hillary.
I don’t like the extensive use of the ‘ongoing investigation’ mantra to evade pertinent facts from being revealed. That is mostly used to protect individuals’ reputations when they have not been charged with a crime. Since this has not protected the President in the Mueller probe, or Hillary Clinton in the Email probe, perhaps we should abandon this policy for public figures or political figures or high level bureacrats so we can possible have a justice system that works.
This is a very fine point, @gumbymark, including your other comments. I can’t help wondering, too, if this is an extreme example of the Peter Principle, with his possibly being promoted over and over again. There is plenty of guilt, arrogance, manipulation and deception to go around. Will we ever get to the bottom of it all?
Maybe not, but it is a dangerous situation. It appears that a lack of integrity below the top level is a big problem.
I think the Dems did help him along with their project. Mueller affirmed all their points about obstruction without contention.
Even today I hear people like Juan Williams arguing that all the Republican lines of questioning are in the weeds conspiracy theory distraction while the obstruction is of course the heart of the matter (along with keeping alive the possibility that there really was collusion but insufficient evidence was uncovered probably because Trump obstructed the investigation). They are still saying all of that with a straight face.
I agree, particular where it is used to justify deliberate blindness as with the Steele Dossier and Mifsud.
I am so disappointed in Juan Williams. There was a time when he spoke sanely, although was misguided. Now he sounds like a Leftist fool. I’m baffled that he and others don’t see the wisdom in answering these questions. Just baffled.
Could he, and a couple of others who act the fool at Fox News, just be carrying out to the extreme their role to bring balance to the discussion. After all, their positions as expressed simply match what one sees from anchors on the other networks.
I don’t know. He likes to position himself as an ethical person, and I’ve always thought of him that way. Maybe this behavior is his new mandate.
I’ll throw out an alternate theory. Mueller (who is a hack) played the greatest game of rope-a-dope ever. He is cunning and knew this investigation was a disaster and wanted to wash himself of the whole thing. What better way to that than go on TV and appear out to lunch. Mob boss Gigante did this very successfully. Weissman prosecuted Gigante. Think about it….
FYI, Sessions, who didn’t have recuse himself, allowed this cluster to happen.
I like him, and have thought of him as you describe, but the Left is making it very difficult for him to look both sincere and ethical.