The Mueller Hearings in a Nutshell

Much ink has been, and will be, spilled about the Mueller hearings.

On May 17, 2017, Robert Mueller, a Vietnam War veteran and former FBI director, was appointed to serve as special counsel to the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate possible links and coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. On June 14, 2017, it was reported that Mueller is also investigating Trump personally for possible obstruction of justice, in reference to the Russian probe. On April 18, 2019, the Department of Justice released the special counsel’s final report and his conclusions.

The two-volume report concludes in its 448 pages that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government and did not pursue charges against the president (in Volume I). For obstruction of justice, the report took the approach that a sitting president cannot stand trial; the investigation does not conclude that the President committed a crime, although “it also does not exonerate him” as investigators were not confident that Trump was innocent after examining his intent and actions (in Volume II).

In July 2019, Mueller reluctantly agreed to give testimony before Congress answering questions about his report.

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019, Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and submitted about eight hours of questioning regarding his report of almost two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections and related matters.

In a nutshell, we have learned that:

– (1) Mueller did not check his staff (consisting mainly in Hillary Clinton’s people) for conflict of interest in order to avoid bias in investigation;

– (2) he did not know, or was not familiar with, the Fusion GPS/Steele Dossier (of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign), which was the original source of information that sparked his appointment and report;

– (3) he was not threatened to be fired by the president, and there was no White House interference during his investigation;

– (4) his assistants were more familiar with the report, making him a figurehead;

– (5) he could not legally justify his non-exoneration of the president, since prosecutors do not “exonerate” but only prove or not guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This is how some prominent Democrats summarized the hearings in their own words:

– “This is very, very painful.” (David Axelrod, on Twitter);

– “On optics, this was a disaster.” (Chuck Todd, on NBC);

– “A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions…” (Michael Moore, on Twitter);

–  “It’s an epilogue… I think the issue of Russia’s attack on our election is not getting enough traction.” (Andrea Mitchell, of MSNBC).

Compared with other investigations, related to Nixon Tapes, Iran-Contra, and Clinton Impeachment, the Mueller Hearings appear as a pathetic witch-hunt improvisation, disguised as an “investigation.” Actually, this was the day the Impeachment died.

Next: Attorney General William Barr will get ready to investigate the investigators. The counter-investigation should get to the bottom of the “Russia collusion” delusion, and to the real players of this malevolent scheme: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their henchmen.


NOTE – A version of the article was previously published in AMERICAN THINKER.


TIBERIU DIANU has published several books and a host of articles on law, politics, and post-communist societies. He currently lives and works in Washington, DC and can be followed on MEDIUM.





Comments are closed.

Recent Comments

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner