Responding to subpoenas by House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, 74-year-old former Special Counsel Robert Mueller agreed reluctantly to testify July 17. Mueller’s only public remarks came May 29, when he spoke to the media, saying very little other than referring to his March 22 final report, essentially clearing 73-year-old President Donald Trump of Russian collusion and obstruction of justice. Mueller indicated in his remarks, and his report, that he could not say with certaintly whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice, but he did not recommend charging the president. Atty. Gen. William Barr and former Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein decided not to charge or recommend that Trump obstructed justice. Muller’s May 29 remarks gave partisan House Democrat Committees new life in pursuit of finding Trump criminally liable.
Mueller’s decision to say he could not state with certainty that Trump didn’t committed obstruction of justice was highly improper for a federal prosecutor whose rules under the Department of Justice requires charges or no charges AKA “declination.” When the DOJ decides to not charge, federal prosecutors don’t name defendants because they were essentially cleared of criminal wrongdoing. But in Trump’s case, Mueller said he could not find anyone in Trump’s campaign or anyone else that coordinated or conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election. Mueller’s comment., “If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller stated in the report. “Charging the president with a crime is not an option we could consider.” But there’s nothing in the DOJ rules that say Mueller could not recommend charging the president.
Democrats have hung on to Mueller’s words when it came to the possibility that Trump committed obstruction of justice. Mueller’s Report found 10 instances of possible obstruction of the investigation by Trump or his campaign associates. Yet, Barr and Rosenstein found that none of those 10 instances met the legal threshold for obstruction of justice. Trump told Fox New Business host Maria Bartiromo that Mueller “terminated” certain text messages between former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page. Text messages and emails between Strzok and Page talking about stopping Trump from becoming president resulted in their terminations. Strzok and Page worked for the Special Counsel before their anti-Trump texts-and-emails went public, forcing Mueller to fire them. Trump told Bartiromo that Mueller terminated some of Strzok-and-Page’s texts-and emails.
Trump’s allegation that Mueller “terminated” certain texts-and-emails between Strzok-amd-page is the textbook definition of obstruction of justice. When former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton physically destroyed 13 cell phones and paid computer technicians to acid-bleach her hard drive, that also meets the textbook definition of obstruction of justice. When Mueller talks of 10 instances of Trump’s possible obstruction of justice, he’s referring to conversations with former FBI Director James Comey about former National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn or his May 9, 2017 firing of Comey. Whatever Trump said-or-did, Barr and Rosenstein determined that his acts did not meet the legal threshold for obstruction of justice. If Mueller or anyone in the Special Counsel’s office expunged some of Strzok-or-Pages tests-or-emails, that would qualify as obstruction of justice.
No one knows for sure how many of Strzok-or-Page’s texts-or-emails went missing. Some reports had as many a 19,000 went missing, though at least some of them were recovered and made public. Agreeing to testify July 17, Democrats hope to show that there’s at least some possible grounds to charge Trump with obstruction, something that could be used to start impeachment hearings. But Mueller’s stated for the record May 29 that he has nothing more to say, other than referring to his final report. Democrats could watch Mueller’s testimony backfire, especially if Republicans demand that Mueller answer questions about the origins of the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation on Trump. If Mueller doesn’t acknowledge that it centered around Hillary’s paid opposition research AKA “the dossier,” it could discredit his entire 22-month, $40 million investigation.
Getting Mueller to testify could be good for Trump if he has nothing more to add to what he’s already said in his final report. Democrats hope to raise more doubts about the Report’s conclusions, especially that Trump did not conspire, coordinate or “collude” with Russia to win the 2016 election. Democrats hope to get Mueller to admit that it’s still possible Trump colluded with Kremlin and obstructed justice. That would be everything they need to start impeachment proceedings. But if Mueller is true to his word, he has nothing more to say on the investigation other than what’s in the report. He isn’t likely to help Democrats wild speculation about Trump’s alleged high-crimes-and-misdemeanors. If Republicans get Mueller to admit that FBI’s investigation on Trump was based largely on Hillary’s paid opposition research, it’s going to leave Democrats holding the bag.
