MORE STORIES<\/h2>\n\n\n- \n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.theatlantic.com\/assets\/media\/img\/mt\/2019\/07\/mueller_repubs\/thumb_wide_300.jpg?mod=1563986886\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/figure>\n\nRepublicans Take Their Shot at Mueller\u2014And Narrowly Miss<\/a><\/h3>\nRUSSELL BERMAN<\/a><\/address>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.theatlantic.com\/assets\/media\/img\/mt\/2019\/07\/RTX6X0QW\/thumb_wide_300.jpg?mod=1563921938\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/figure>\n\nRead Robert Mueller\u2019s Opening Statement to Congress<\/a><\/h3>\nCHRISTIAN PAZ<\/a><\/address>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.theatlantic.com\/assets\/media\/img\/mt\/2019\/07\/RTX70TA4\/thumb_wide_300.jpg?mod=1563980933\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/figure>\n\nThe Most Revealing Exchange of the Mueller Hearing<\/a><\/h3>\nDAVID A. GRAHAM<\/a><\/address>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.theatlantic.com\/assets\/media\/img\/mt\/2019\/07\/RTX70TQM\/thumb_wide_300.jpg?mod=1563979149\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/figure>\n\nThree Ways Mueller Says Trump Is Lying<\/a><\/h3>\nDAVID A. GRAHAM<\/a><\/address>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\nBecause Mueller himself was determined to make no news and break no ground\u2014and by and large, he didn\u2019t\u2014it\u2019s perhaps inevitable that accounts of his testimony should focus on the visual and aural impression he left, and not the still-stunning clinical conclusions of his report. And in the beginning, especially, he did<\/i> look halting, his voice tremulous, his eyes searching as he strained to locate his congressional interlocutors on the dais or asked them to repeat their questions\u2014by one count, more than 30 times. For most of the hearing, the former special counsel\u2019s favorite answers were \u201cyes,\u201d \u201cno,\u201d \u201ctrue,\u201d \u201cgenerally,\u201d \u201cI can\u2019t get into that,\u201d and \u201cI\u2019m not going to comment.\u201d CNN\u2019s Evan Perez calculated that he declined to answer a question at all 206 times.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nRead: Robert Mueller keeps his promise<\/a><\/p>\nBut Mueller\u2019s testimony nevertheless gathered a certain quiet force as the day wore on, first before the House Judiciary Committee and then the Intelligence Committee, whose chairman, Representative Adam Schiff of California, had the last word and sought to have Mueller help \u201cbroaden the aperture\u201d at the hearings\u2019 end.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom your testimony today, I\u2019d gather that knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government is unethical,\u201d Schiff had barely said before Mueller quickly interrupted him. \u201cAnd a crime \u2026 given certain circumstances,\u201d Mueller said.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo the degree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can also agree that it\u2019s unpatriotic and wrong?\u201d Schiff continued. \u201cTrue,\u201d Mueller agreed. \u201cThe behavior of a candidate shouldn\u2019t be merely whether something is criminal,\u201d Schiff persisted. \u201cIt should be held to a higher standard, you would agree?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not going to answer that, because it goes to the standards applied by other institutions besides ours,\u201d Mueller said, before finally acknowledging that \u201ccertainly,\u201d as Schiff put it, \u201cwe should hold our elected officials to a higher standard than mere evidence of criminality.\u201d<\/p>\n
If Mueller\u2019s testimony frustrated Democrats\u2014and delighted the Trump White House\u2014it\u2019s because he repeatedly refused to be drawn into either partisan talking points or legal and constitutional hypotheticals. His staff had warned the committees that he would not so much as read aloud from his own report if asked, and at one moment, he pointedly declined even to utter the word impeachment<\/em> as a remedy for presidential misconduct. Again and again, Mueller passed up the chance to utter anything that might approach a riveting sound bite, much less a bold headline.<\/p>\nNone of this is to say that Mueller\u2019s testimony lacked moral authority or intellectual force. On the contrary, if his answers had only been read on paper\u2014and not seen and heard on live television in an age of instant gratification and minuscule attention spans\u2014the most important replies were crisp and clear enough: Yes, a president can be charged with obstruction after leaving office. No, his investigation was not a witch hunt. No, Russian interference wasn\u2019t a hoax. Over and over, Mueller affirmed findings that many Americans would find deeply troubling.<\/p>\n
Read: Three ways Mueller says Trump is lying<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cIt was hard not to be shocked again by the damning and sordid findings from his dense, two-volume report,\u201d the Los Angeles Times<\/i> editorialized<\/a> this morning. \u201cAnyone tuning in should have been appalled anew by the dramatic lengths the president went to stop the probe into possible obstruction of justice, as well as the efforts that his campaign staff took to capitalize on Russian meddling.\u201d<\/p>\nYet all along, the substantive punch of Mueller\u2019s report has been muted by public and media focus on performance and optics\u2014on how Mueller\u2019s work is perceived<\/i>, not on what it actually says: first, when Attorney General William Barr preempted the report\u2019s official release with his own skewed and selective summary of its findings; again when Mueller felt moved to read his own statement to the public summarizing it; and finally during his testimony this week.<\/p>\n
A CNN poll<\/a> in April found that only 3 percent of respondents had read all of Mueller\u2019s report, despite it being a best seller. If the Democrats\u2019 goal in subpoenaing Mueller was to create a viral-video version of his report that would change the partisan stalemate over his findings and spark a groundswell of public support for impeachment, they\u2019ve so far failed. If their goal was to get him to repeat, in Joe Friday fashion, his essential conclusions\u2014that the Russians sought to meddle, the Trump campaign welcomed their help, and the president then tried to cover it up\u2014they probably succeeded, especially in adroit questioning by Schiff and the Judiciary Committee chairman, Jerrold Nadler of New York.<\/p>\nBut the larger problem with Mueller\u2019s case was neatly summed up in his exchange with Republican Representative Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania. \u201cYou made a decision not to prosecute?\u201d Reschenthaler asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo,\u201d Mueller replied, \u201cwe made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.\u201d<\/p>\n
That one fundamental decision\u2014the decision not to decide, because he believed doing so would be inherently unfair, given Justice Department guidelines barring indictment of a sitting president and Trump\u2019s corresponding inability to have his day in court\u2014ensured that Mueller\u2019s testimony, like his investigation itself, wouldn\u2019t resolve anything. And that\u2019s far more than a matter of mere optics. It\u2019s a built-in flaw in the basic script, one that Charlton Heston as Moses himself couldn\u2019t counter\u2014and one that Mueller would strenuously argue was neither his preference nor of his own making, but one that he, and the rest of us, must to learn to live with. To act on, or not.<\/p>\n
The Navy commendation that Mueller won for his combat action in April 1969 in Vietnam noted that \u201calthough seriously wounded during the firefight, he resolutely maintained his position.\u201d The same could be said, for better and worse, of his career-capping appearance\u2014all right, performance\u2014on Capitol Hill: It was much more than a mere show.<\/p>\n
TODD S. PURDUM<\/a> is a staff writer at The Atlantic <\/em>and the author of Something Wonderful: Rodgers and Hammerstein\u2019s Broadway Revolution<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n
- \n
- \n<\/picture><\/a><\/figure>\n\n
Republicans Take Their Shot at Mueller\u2014And Narrowly Miss<\/a><\/h3>\nRUSSELL BERMAN<\/a><\/address>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
<\/picture><\/a><\/figure>\n\nRead Robert Mueller\u2019s Opening Statement to Congress<\/a><\/h3>\nCHRISTIAN PAZ<\/a><\/address>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
<\/picture><\/a><\/figure>\n\nThe Most Revealing Exchange of the Mueller Hearing<\/a><\/h3>\nDAVID A. GRAHAM<\/a><\/address>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
<\/picture><\/a><\/figure>\n\nThree Ways Mueller Says Trump Is Lying<\/a><\/h3>\nDAVID A. GRAHAM<\/a><\/address>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n
Because Mueller himself was determined to make no news and break no ground\u2014and by and large, he didn\u2019t\u2014it\u2019s perhaps inevitable that accounts of his testimony should focus on the visual and aural impression he left, and not the still-stunning clinical conclusions of his report. And in the beginning, especially, he did<\/i> look halting, his voice tremulous, his eyes searching as he strained to locate his congressional interlocutors on the dais or asked them to repeat their questions\u2014by one count, more than 30 times. For most of the hearing, the former special counsel\u2019s favorite answers were \u201cyes,\u201d \u201cno,\u201d \u201ctrue,\u201d \u201cgenerally,\u201d \u201cI can\u2019t get into that,\u201d and \u201cI\u2019m not going to comment.\u201d CNN\u2019s Evan Perez calculated that he declined to answer a question at all 206 times.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nRead: Robert Mueller keeps his promise<\/a><\/p>\n
But Mueller\u2019s testimony nevertheless gathered a certain quiet force as the day wore on, first before the House Judiciary Committee and then the Intelligence Committee, whose chairman, Representative Adam Schiff of California, had the last word and sought to have Mueller help \u201cbroaden the aperture\u201d at the hearings\u2019 end.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom your testimony today, I\u2019d gather that knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government is unethical,\u201d Schiff had barely said before Mueller quickly interrupted him. \u201cAnd a crime \u2026 given certain circumstances,\u201d Mueller said.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo the degree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can also agree that it\u2019s unpatriotic and wrong?\u201d Schiff continued. \u201cTrue,\u201d Mueller agreed. \u201cThe behavior of a candidate shouldn\u2019t be merely whether something is criminal,\u201d Schiff persisted. \u201cIt should be held to a higher standard, you would agree?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not going to answer that, because it goes to the standards applied by other institutions besides ours,\u201d Mueller said, before finally acknowledging that \u201ccertainly,\u201d as Schiff put it, \u201cwe should hold our elected officials to a higher standard than mere evidence of criminality.\u201d<\/p>\n
If Mueller\u2019s testimony frustrated Democrats\u2014and delighted the Trump White House\u2014it\u2019s because he repeatedly refused to be drawn into either partisan talking points or legal and constitutional hypotheticals. His staff had warned the committees that he would not so much as read aloud from his own report if asked, and at one moment, he pointedly declined even to utter the word impeachment<\/em> as a remedy for presidential misconduct. Again and again, Mueller passed up the chance to utter anything that might approach a riveting sound bite, much less a bold headline.<\/p>\n
None of this is to say that Mueller\u2019s testimony lacked moral authority or intellectual force. On the contrary, if his answers had only been read on paper\u2014and not seen and heard on live television in an age of instant gratification and minuscule attention spans\u2014the most important replies were crisp and clear enough: Yes, a president can be charged with obstruction after leaving office. No, his investigation was not a witch hunt. No, Russian interference wasn\u2019t a hoax. Over and over, Mueller affirmed findings that many Americans would find deeply troubling.<\/p>\n
Read: Three ways Mueller says Trump is lying<\/a><\/p>\n
\u201cIt was hard not to be shocked again by the damning and sordid findings from his dense, two-volume report,\u201d the Los Angeles Times<\/i> editorialized<\/a> this morning. \u201cAnyone tuning in should have been appalled anew by the dramatic lengths the president went to stop the probe into possible obstruction of justice, as well as the efforts that his campaign staff took to capitalize on Russian meddling.\u201d<\/p>\n
Yet all along, the substantive punch of Mueller\u2019s report has been muted by public and media focus on performance and optics\u2014on how Mueller\u2019s work is perceived<\/i>, not on what it actually says: first, when Attorney General William Barr preempted the report\u2019s official release with his own skewed and selective summary of its findings; again when Mueller felt moved to read his own statement to the public summarizing it; and finally during his testimony this week.<\/p>\n
A CNN poll<\/a> in April found that only 3 percent of respondents had read all of Mueller\u2019s report, despite it being a best seller. If the Democrats\u2019 goal in subpoenaing Mueller was to create a viral-video version of his report that would change the partisan stalemate over his findings and spark a groundswell of public support for impeachment, they\u2019ve so far failed. If their goal was to get him to repeat, in Joe Friday fashion, his essential conclusions\u2014that the Russians sought to meddle, the Trump campaign welcomed their help, and the president then tried to cover it up\u2014they probably succeeded, especially in adroit questioning by Schiff and the Judiciary Committee chairman, Jerrold Nadler of New York.<\/p>\n
But the larger problem with Mueller\u2019s case was neatly summed up in his exchange with Republican Representative Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania. \u201cYou made a decision not to prosecute?\u201d Reschenthaler asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo,\u201d Mueller replied, \u201cwe made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.\u201d<\/p>\n
That one fundamental decision\u2014the decision not to decide, because he believed doing so would be inherently unfair, given Justice Department guidelines barring indictment of a sitting president and Trump\u2019s corresponding inability to have his day in court\u2014ensured that Mueller\u2019s testimony, like his investigation itself, wouldn\u2019t resolve anything. And that\u2019s far more than a matter of mere optics. It\u2019s a built-in flaw in the basic script, one that Charlton Heston as Moses himself couldn\u2019t counter\u2014and one that Mueller would strenuously argue was neither his preference nor of his own making, but one that he, and the rest of us, must to learn to live with. To act on, or not.<\/p>\n
The Navy commendation that Mueller won for his combat action in April 1969 in Vietnam noted that \u201calthough seriously wounded during the firefight, he resolutely maintained his position.\u201d The same could be said, for better and worse, of his career-capping appearance\u2014all right, performance\u2014on Capitol Hill: It was much more than a mere show.<\/p>\n
TODD S. PURDUM<\/a> is a staff writer at The Atlantic <\/em>and the author of Something Wonderful: Rodgers and Hammerstein\u2019s Broadway Revolution<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n
- \n