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
The future will tell us.
Mueller has too much pride to deliberately make himself look like a fool. And Weissman just used the NY Times to stick a knife in his back.
Is this something new? Could you give me a link?
I agree completely, @aaronmiller. I was in dementia-family-member thinking mode and was probably being too kind. It had to be obvious to the family at some point, and they absolutely should have spoken up much earlier. If they did and it fell on deaf ears they need to let us know that too. Heads absolutely need to roll on this. Maybe it will show up in the Inspector General’s report… which will be coming out when??? Wasn’t it supposed to be out by now, even with their revised projected release date?
Mueller is not an honorable man. You can ask the four men imprisoned falsely to protect Whitey Bulgar who was acting as an FBI informant. The families eventually collected $5 million but two of the innocent men died in prison. Stephen Hatfill who was pursued for years by Mueller’s FBI.
https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/pursuithatfill.html
Hatfill finally got another $5 million from the feds.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/05/21/when_comey_and_mueller_bungled_the_anthrax_case_133953.html
He and his team hounded Bruce Ivins to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Edwards_Ivins
The FBI subsequently requested a panel from the National Academy of Sciences to review its scientific work on the case.[14] On May 15, 2011, the panel released its findings, which “conclude[d] that the bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins.”[6][15] The committee stated that its primary finding was that “it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origins of the B. anthracis in the mailings based on the available scientific evidence alone.”
Mueller is not an honorable man.
And if he does retain his faculties, he was probably unduly conscious of the risk he was at in this hearing and did whatever he could to avoid any criminal jeopardy.
You might find this article … written in March, 2018(!) … supportive of your premise …
CTH: How Do You Square Mueller In All Of This?
See comment 50
The spirit of Robert Mueller is not missing in this investigation saga though his fingerprints are clearly missing in some aspects. Therefore, I cannot exonerate him for the peculiarly low quality of the report and the divisive damage he did to our country he caused.
On the one hand, there are items in the Report which are simply asinine (the great inquiry as whether President-Elect Trump may have somehow sneaked into the chess championships in New York to meet with Russians) and the rambling nonsense about obstruction. A full-on Bob Mueller would probably have not gone there. But the vindictive elements (the perjury raps for Papadopoulos and Flynn) could well be the kind of thing Mueller would do.
He was not oblivious to the fact that his team saw their mission as the destruction of the Trump Presidency if not the man. The presence of an even-handed investigation was abandoned early which may or may not be Mueller-like. The decision not to go seriously near Josef Misfud (who was allowed to lie to them) or anyone in the Obama White House who handled and shared the dossier, and the constant mischaracterization of everyone in the Report as somehow connected to Putin was not inconsistent with how Mueller handled the anthrax case or the Whitey Bulger fallout in the Boston FBI office. His team would know that he was not the kind of guy to disrupt establishment figures and interests and has no qualms about taking (even innocent) scalps where the interests of the right sort of people are at stake.
The Report was a garbage product written if not by a committee then so as to honor the inputs of committee members however tangential or even silly those contributions. The obstruction section looked like a reworking of a desperate B student in law school on an exam question where he tosses out dozens of dubious legal theories because he is not confident he understands the question being asked.
So Mueller did not put his stamp on the final product but the truth is if fully engaged he likely would have gone done the same paths just more succinctly. He is not a victim of the sleazoids he brought on board nor would he have any reason to disown what they wrought. There is enough Mueller here to assign responsibility.
Thanks for sharing that excellent article, @columbo. Can’t believe it was written in 2018! This is all starting to scarily make sense.
Tell’m Jon! Tell’m Jon! Tell’m Jon!
By the way, in Comment 50 regarding the New York Times article, the real target of Weissman’s leak was Aaron Zebley, not Mueller. By leaking his calendar to prove he had little contact with Mueller but implying Zebley had a lot, he’s trying to distance himself from Mueller and accusations Weissman ran the investigation. He’s pointing the finger at Zebley.
Subtext – I was just keeping my head down, working hard, and doing my job.
Subsubtext – If only Mueller’d been as sharp as he used to be, we would have nailed Trump.
Now THAT is interesting . . .
I saw that comment, Mark. Are you saying that Weissmann giving the NYT access to his calendar was sticking a knife in Mueller’s back? Sorry–still not clear.
I guess I’m not devious enough to make the connection. Thanks, @gumbymark.
But how about making the Republicans and the committee look like bullies. It seems so plausible to me that the Democrats were doing just that: “Oh, they are attacking us.”
If they can’t win the argument, they resort to a feigned pathetic stance to make the person arguing look aggressive. They do it all the time.
Mueller doesn’t strike me as mentally incompetent. Just tired. And let’s face it, seven and half hours in a single meeting would exhaust anyone at any age. :-)
Susan, my impression is that your sympathy is misplaced. I’ve seen only snippets from the testimony, but Mueller appeared sufficiently cogent, at least at times, to preclude the possibility that he is suffering from serious dementia and does not know it.
I can’t be sure about this, but my opinion at present is that Mueller let himself be used.
Robert Mueller would not play the victim in that way. It is completely incompatible with everything else in his public life. Whatever his condition is I think what we saw was real. Now the Democrats are trying to figure out how to construct a new narrative in order to proceed.
Mueller got steamrolled, no doubt. But I think any presumption of “using him like an old dishrag” gives those attempting to set-up Trump far more credit than they deserve. No, I think Mueller took on the job because it was important, historic and he likely believed that he was fit to serve. Plus, there was the possibility of money, especially on the back end with the speaking fees and book deals. So he jumped in and allowed Weissman (a driven, energetic man despite his partisanship) to quickly take over the entire investigation. That must have been kinda nice; light work; Mueller provided wisdom, oversight, encouragement, mentorship… roles worthy of a senior government official brought back for his final, reprise role.
Plus, the law is clear. The report is confidential and for the AG only. Mueller likely underestimated the likelihood that his report would be released or subpoenaed. (No doubt it would have been leaked in any case, which is probably why Barr released it so quickly and with only grand jury related redaction.) The man who made the appointment was Rosenstein. He doesn’t seem quite Machiavellian enough to use Mueller as you surmise.
But no doubt, Mueller was not the one who conducted the investigation that led to the report. All that, and no conspiracy and no case for obstruction.
The report is, as we all know, a prosecutorial review – an investigation where a prosecutor (Mueller and his team) reviews evidence and makes a judgement as to whether indictments and trials are warranted. Subjects are innocent until a Judge bangs his gavel after a finding or confession of guilt. Prosecutors can recommend charges (indictments) but even with an indictment, the accused are innocent. In this case, no charges were recommended, which is a reinforcement of the presumption of innocence. Mueller’s team, despite their partisanship, could not recommend charges. Had Mueller’s team “exonerated” the president in its report that would be the first time in the history of Federal jurisprudence any such thing had ever occurred.
And Trump has every right to state that he was, in fact, exonerated (not in any legal sense as legally he was innocent all along), but in an informal sense; his adversaries were heating up the tar and tearing up the pillows. Their little rally was thwarted by the facts and Trump remains untarred! Huzzah!
Everytime you read a New York Times article touching on politics you need to do several things:
This is how smart readers of Pravda used to approach reading that publication. It serves just as well here.
You’ve also explained why I refuse to read the NYT. Yes, it will likely give me the Progressive line, but is it worth all the work?
That is dishonest, devious, and underhanded.
I hope Zebley is lawyered up.
I was a long time reader until giving up the ghost around 2004. But I still read it occasionally or just look at headlines on its homepage because it predicts the next progressive line of attack. The Times, more than most media, has the ability to conjure a story out of nothing that is then picked up and becomes the new conventional thinking across a broad array of media from which it seeps into the wider culture. The Times serves as a front for progressive activist groups and the Democratic Party who assist in the strategy for rollout of each new campaign. It has a remarkable unity of purpose and viewpoint across its news, special sections (including sports, science, arts), and editorially, unlike a paper like the Wall St Journal in which national news coverage leans left and the editorial and op-ed pages do not.
Everything that you just wrote crossed my mind in the kitchen just a few moments ago – Dear God!! Was this the “insurance policy”? Is this what it’s come to? If so, the Russians are not our biggest problem!!!…. Lord Jesus – help us!
Yes, when this started no one expected Trump to win. If, as expected, Hillary won, no one would ever know about the dirty dealings in 2016 When Trump stunned them (and me!) by winning they (1) needed to make sure what they had done did not come to light and (2) undermine the Trump presidency. Comey was trying to do this before he was fired and Mueller and his team were brought in continue both efforts.
That’s why Mueller declared everything that might harm the conspirators as out of his purview.
That’s why, when Trump told Comey in January 2017 that he was considering directing the FBI to investigate the allegations in the Steele Dossier, Comey strongly, and successfully, argued against it. Comey knew an investigation would lead to revealing the falsity of the allegations, the connection with the Clinton campaign, and its use in obtaining the FISA Warrant.
I’ve never felt comfortable with Rod Rosenstein, I wonder if his recommendation that Trump fire Comey was just part of the whole process to set up the pre-planned insurance policy. Such a memo would ,of course, raise Trump’s comfort level with the act of firing Comey. Then Rosenstein is the person who appoints Mueller and he can see all the people added to the special counsel staff is loaded with Clinton people but he never says anything or acts.. His hand is in every piece. I have never heard exactly how Rosenstein got Trump to nominate him for DAG. Anyone know?
I suspect it was Sessions and others who saw him as a reliable Republican and straight shooter. Rosenstein was appointed US Attorney for Maryland by George W Bush in 2005. In 2007 Bush nominated him for a seat on the 4th Circuit but Senate Democrats blocked it. He was well-respected enough that Obama left him in place during his terms (of course, maybe that should have been a tip-off, but in February 2017 there was shortage of experienced people willing to staff DOJ).
His role and what he was really doing is hard to figure. The one thing clear to me is that if Sessions had to recuse himself from the Russian matter, Rosenstein certainly should have done so regarding the decision to appoint Special Counsel and then oversee the investigation, and investigation that included possible obstruction of justice charges a matter in which Rosenstein was a fact witness. And then we have the really strange events of May 16 when Rosenstein brings Mueller to the White House to meet with Trump and Pence regarding the open job of FBI Director and then, the next day Rosenstein names Mueller as Special Counsel, something both he and Mueller must have been aware of when they met with Trump.
That’s why I continue to take the WSJ, too. I take the news stories with a grain of salt, but appreciate the op-ed page.
This might explain everything if he was serving under the Loretta Lynch, and before that Eric Holder, for all those years under President Barack Obama. He didn’t last long as DAG after Sessions was out.
It emphasizes the mistake in appointing Sessions though it was for understandable political reasons. Given Trump’s inexperience with government he needed an AG who would be his consigliere as Holder and Bobby Kennedy were for their bosses.