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
Don’t have time to read all the comments, but this is where you lost me, Susan.
The predicate for the obstruction portion of the investigation (and appointment of a special counsel) was the well-deserved firing of James Comey. Robert Mueller and James Comey have been friends for long time (one of them is godfather to the other’s child). Robert Mueller agreeing to take the special counsel position is a blatant conflict of interest and discredits Mueller’s intelligence, dedication to the truth, and/or integrity. He is not a good man. He aligned himself with a coup attempt. And that doesn’t even address his record of putting innocent men in jail to protect an FBI informant and botching multiple investigations affecting our national security.
I know Andrew McCarthy respected Mueller at the beginning. I like Andrew McCarthy. But, even he can be wrong. Mueller has stink all over him, whatever his current mental state. Hubris had a date with Nemesis at that hearing.
@westernchauvinist, I don’t see why both our premises can’t be true. I didn’t say he was a good man, or even suggest it. The reasons you bring up are also likely and he could be at the beginnings of dementia, and it got increasingly worse over time. Again, mine was just a theory, although not implausible.
And Barr is supposed to be a friend, but we don’t know if that’s a close relationship or just casual and no knowledge about what effect current events have had. Mueller and Comey are long-standing close associates and friends, reportedly, so that’s a real conflict.
I’m not disputing the dementia bit. I’m disputing that he was used.
Maybe you weren’t conceding that he was “brilliant, dedicated, and admirable.” You were simply saying others thought that about him. But, I’m not inclined to concede anything to the Left. I prefer to disabuse them of their false and dangerous ideas. I don’t care that he may be suffering dementia and it showed at that hearing. I only care that the entire two-and-a-half year debacle was (is?) an attempt to overturn a valid election.
Barr, in how he handled not just the release of the report, but in the clarification letter he sent Mueller when the other letter came out that disputed how Barr’s summary had phrased the findings of the report, seemed to show he was aware of Mueller’s condition and was trying to back him off as gently as possible, as to not have to openly dispute him or talk in any way about any possible mental failings or Mueller being totally detached from the bulk of the report.
Compared to say, how Trump would have handled the rebuke, it was a way to try and allow Mueller to save face and not expose himself to the public. But Jerry Nadler had other ideas (and the New York Post had a long and interesting story today about the 35-year feud between Trump and Nadler).
I’m not aware of anyone on the committee asking him if he read the report. This just strikes me as a fundamental question someone should have posed.
Barr has all the cards and he’s played them well.
Love this point, @stevec. I think it would have sounded sarcastic, no matter who said it: Did you read the report? And he probably would have assumed it was rhetorical, rather than genuine. Sure wished someone has asked!
I’m not sure I agree with this – the parts I read (In particular, the 2nd half) seemed to be a rehash of media reporting from sources like the New York Times and Washington Post with no verification or second sources. It seemed pretty amateurish to me.
It seems that Mueller’s performance doesn’t matter. What matters is how the media reports it and if the Sunday Talk Shows are any guide, they are just making things up however they want to make it seem that the hearings were very consequential and damaging to Trump.
I confess I haven’t read it. I assumed since it didn’t conclude guilt that it was done professionally and without the partisan nonsense.
I have read the full report (hey, I’m a retired guy so can waste my time!) and it is done professionally in the sense that for someone reading it who does not know much else about the events it seems like it is “just the facts”. If however, you’ve read the FISA warrant applications, the intelligence community assessment, the transcripts of those who testified at the House intelligence community and other original documents, you realize this is a prosecution brief, deliberating omitting any context or contradictory information. Also, the skillful use of adverbs and adjectives implies many things to the casual reader that are not supported by the actual facts in the report. Even in Part 1 which finds no collusion, the contacts between anyone associated with the Trump campaign and anyone the Mueller team claims is associated with the Russians is written in the most damning way, again stripped of context and filled with omissions and inaccuracies.
Do you know that the person sitting next to Mueller at the hearing, who was sworn in and presumably available to assist Mueller and was Mueller’s deputy and staff director during this investigation, was the attorney of record for Bryan Pagliano, who was Hillary Clinton’s IT specialist who set-up her private server when both were working at the State Department?
EDIT: I got this from watching Fox News so I cannot personally vouch for it. Think that piece of information was conveyed on other MSM networks?
As well a Donna Brazile, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, and a few others at the DNC. I have heard that the DNC was trying to keep news of the ‘hack’, private – and didnt complain to any law enforcement official for nearly a month after it actually happened. Although I am not clear on that time line.
We should also investigate the congressional democrat hack. Where their IT consultant – who had no IT experience – managed to walk out the door with millions in computer hardware, and may have provided data to the Pakistani Intelligence Services.