Democrats betting on Robert Mueller's public testimony to make the case his report so far has not
WASHINGTON — Robert Mueller had hoped that his first – and, so far, only – public statement about the two-year investigation he led into Russian election interference would be his last.
“There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress,” Mueller said last month, after delivering a damning report that also cataloged a series of efforts by President Donald Trump to derail the inquiry. “Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report…The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”
Now, House Democrats are wagering that the spectacle of Mueller’s public appearance before two congressional committees next month will make a case that the special counsel’s 448-page final report so far has not: that Trump’s conduct is either worthy of impeachment or enough to torpedo his 2020 re-election bid.
Following weeks of difficult negotiations, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced late Tuesday that they had finally secured the former special counsel's appearance for July 17, nearly three months after the final report was made public.
Mueller's reluctant appearance comes as Democrats remain conflicted over whether to launch impeachment proceedings against the president, and as the 2020 election cycle has kicked into gear. Trump officially announced his re-election bid last week while a stable of Democratic contenders Wednesday staged the first in a series of debates Wednesday.
"He (Mueller) will be a very compelling witness," Nadler told reporters Wednesday, even if he offers nothing beyond what his office has already said in writing. "Just if he says what was in the report and he says it to the American people so that they hear it, that will be very, very important."
That report detailed 10 episodes in which investigators said the president tried to thwart their work, though Mueller made no determination on whether the president's conduct was criminal. The document also described wide-ranging efforts by the Russian government to intercede in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf, but it did not find sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy with Trump's campaign.
Testimony: Robert Mueller to testify publicly before Congress next month
Obstruction: Trump repeatedly tried to impede the Russia probe, Mueller report said. Was it obstruction?
As damaging as the findings appeared on paper, Trump and his Republican allies Wednesday were gearing up to press Mueller on the origins of the investigation that they believe was biased against the president from the beginning.
"The Mueller thing never stops," Trump told reporters Wednesday. "The criminal activity was on the other side."
The president referred to claims that federal law enforcement authorities engaged in unauthorized surveillance of the campaign. Those claims are now the subject of ongoing investigations by the Justice Department's inspector general and a separate review launched by Attorney General William Barr.
Republican lawmakers said Wednesday that Mueller should be prepared to answer questions about how the investigation was conducted when he appears before Congress.
"I've got a lot of questions about how Bob Mueller spent $35 million in taxpayers (money) to find out there was no collusion," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio tweeted.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said there are "legitimate questions" about investigators who were part of Mueller's team.
Gaetz referred to two FBI officials who were removed from the investigation after it was discovered that they exchanged disparaging messages about Trump. He cited others who had donated to Democrats.
"There did not seem to be sufficient balance," Gaetz said in a tweet.
Democrats, meanwhile, appear to be leveraging the power of national television to hammer their case that Trump directly attempted to thwart the inquiry. Several of the instances contained in the report involved former White House counsel Don McGahn, whom Trump ordered to have Mueller removed because of alleged conflicts of interests. Following press reports of Trump’s directive to McGahn, the president ordered his White House counsel to dispute the reporting and to create a record stating he had not been ordered to have Mueller removed.
McGahn refused to carry out the directive.
Matthew Miller, a former Obama administration Justice Department official, said that hearing Mueller talk about such a directive would likely have a greater impact than the report itself.
“I think if you read the report, it’s clear that the president committed a crime and if he weren’t president, he would’ve been indicted," Miller said. "I don’t think Mueller will say that in so many words."
But Miller believes Democrats should Democrats temper expectations. Any prospect of kick-starting momentum for impeachment may have already lost steam.
“By the time of his testimony, it will have been 17 weeks since he turned in his report," Miller said. “There’s not much time left on the legislative calendar. Next year, Democratic primaries will be in full swing.”
Mueller also is not likely to be an expressive witness, a former colleague said.
"There are important questions to be asked, for sure," said Chris Swecker, a former assistant FBI director who worked closely with Mueller. "Why did he make the call on obstruction? Did he intend the report to be referred to Congress (for possible impeachment proceedings)?
"But what I think you'll see is someone who goes by the book," Swecker said. "In this case, I think he'll let the report speak for itself. And I think you'll hear him say, maybe three or four dozen times: 'Congressman, I would refer you to what's in the report.' "
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Dems betting on Mueller to make public case against President Trump
