Embarrassing former special prosecutor Robert Mueller and themselves, Democrat members of the U.S. House Intelligence and Judiciary committees failed miserably in their quest to get Mr. Mueller to say something — anything — they might get to impeach President Trump.
Democrats judged Mr. Mueller’s six-hour testimony disappointing because he didn’t establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. And because he said he couldn’t determine that Mr. Trump committed a crime.
Prior to Mr. Mueller’s appearance in the committee room in which every seat was occupied by 5 a.m. Wednesday, Rep Gerry Connolly, D-Va., one of the House Democrat caucus members, said, referring to the possibility of impeaching Mr. Trump, “The dam is holding back the floodwaters. But we are one explosive testimony, one new consequential outrage, from that dam being breached.”
Which didn’t happen.
Leaving Democrats dejected.
Which pleased Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has opposed impeachment, fearing it might lead to Democrats losing a House majority as polls show voters oppose impeachment.
Prior to Mr. Mueller’s testimony, Thomas Baker, retired FBI special agent and legal attaché, said Mr. Mueller’s investigation established there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It also established there was no obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump or members of his administration.
After Mr. Mueller released his report in April, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller special counsel, said that it did not show obstruction of justice. As did Attorney General William Barr.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mr. Baker said former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee May 3, 2017, six days before Mr. Trump fired him, that interference in the counterintelligence investigation “has not happened.” And on May 11, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, told the Senate Intelligence Committee there had been “no effort to impede our investigation to date.” However, in his book, The Threat, Mr. McCabe wrote, said Mr. Baker, “that he ordered the bureau to investigate obstruction solely because of Mr. Comey’s firing. Yet Mr. Comey acknowledged in his farewell address to agents that the president has the right to fire him ‘for any reason, or for no reason at all.’”
In an effort that proved to be utter nonsense, Mr. Baker says Mr. Mueller “folded’ obstruction of justice into his inquiry that began May 17, 2017, focusing on conversations between Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey about former national security adviser Mike Flynn, as well as Mr. Comey’s firing. Then he wrote a 19-page memorandum that he gave Mr. Rosenstein “explaining why, as a matter of law, these actions could not constitute obstruction.”
Yet, emphasizes Mr. Baker, although Mr. Mueller couldn’t prove obstruction, he “couldn’t bring himself to say there was none. Rolling through the pages of his report’s second volume is the president’s frustration with the unfairness of it all. He was, as we now know, an innocent man angry about being investigated for collusion that had never happened.
“He expresses himself strongly, shifting in Mr. Mueller’s account from anger at the investigators to disappointment with those he felt should be protecting him. But it was all talk, no action. Mr. Trump never did anything to interfere with either the original counterintelligence investigation or with the special counsel’s inquiry.”
So Mr. Mueller’s investigation was an expensive $30 million political charade that occupied Congress and the American people in a goose chase, creating resentment toward Mr. Trump.
Nonetheless, because of his hatred of Mr. Trump, Democrat House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York will pursue impeachment. As will other Democrats, all of whom fear losing face. But they have. They are cheats.
As Mr. Trump has stated Mr. Mueller’s investigation of more than two years has been a total waste.