More shouting
Republicans seeking to run cover for Donald Trump are using Robert Mueller’s refusal to stray from his report as a weapon to bludgeon his credibility. The president’s allies on the House Judiciary Committee used their allotted time during Wednesday’s hearing to float wild conspiracy theories about his integrity and the Russia probe, suggesting that Mueller is biased against Trump and that his investigation was corrupt. Mueller, his hands tied by his wish not to appear politically-motivated, largely declined to fight back.
Representatives Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, and Matt Gaetz are among the Republicans who used Mueller’s reticence to their advantage. Jordan, sporting his signature shirtsleeves, pressed the former special counsel on a conspiracy theory about the origins of the FBI’s probe that suggested Joseph Mifsud, the professor who reportedly told George Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton, was actually sent by the United States government to set up Papadopoulos and justify the probe’s launch. Trump, who has spread numerous conspiracy theories of his own about Mueller’s efforts, appeared to give Jordan a nod of approval, retweeting a video of his monologue with the caption, “Boom…Jim Jordan just blew the lid off the Hoax.”
Mueller, who told lawmakers in his opening statement that there were matters he could not and would not discuss, mostly avoided hitting back at the Ohio Republican, telling him, “I can’t get into it.” He responded similarly to Gohmert, who mostly used his time to shout accusations at the former special counsel, saying that the episodes in which Trump attempted to obstruct justice outlined in the second part of Mueller’s report were merely a justified reaction by the president to an unfair, unlawful investigation. It was not Trump who obstructed justice, Gohmert charged, but Mueller himself. Minutes later, Gaetz used his allotted time to fire off a number of conspiracy theories, including that the dossier prepared by Christopher Steele was based on Russian disinformation.
This is the swamp.
Updating to add, with thanks to Screechy Monkey:
And another one. “Year after year after year…”
If he hadn’t stood by the report, they would have used that to attack his credibility, as well.
Not to mention, AG Barr essentially ordered Mueller not to discuss anything beyond what is in the report. Which he didn’t really have the power to do, but Mueller seems to be a compulsive rule-follower.
Meanwhile, Chuck Todd just tweeted out the most Chuck Todd thing ever, which is that the substance of Mueller’s testimony was great for the Dems, but the “optics” were bad. Like, because Mueller didn’t stand up and thump the table like he’s Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, I guess. Next Sunday on Meet The Press: “More on Trump wetting his pants in public, and how that’s bad news for the Democrats.”
Who taught all these public servants that docile acceptance would stop the Republican bullying?
The pundits. They’ve been mouthing that mantra for years. The voters don’t want mean people, they tell us. When the voters elect a Donald Trump solely on the basis of his mean, crude vulgarity, they still continue telling us the voters want civility. Which seems to be interpreted as shutting up and letting the other side have their way. Sad.
I think Bruno Gianelli put it best on The West Wing, starting around 2:04 of the video here. Democrats are the “please, don’t hurt me” party cowering in the corner under an onslaught of GOP lies.
Which tells you that this isn’t a new problem, if Aaron Sorkin was griping about it in the 90s.
Oh yes, it’s far from new. There’s another West Wing with a flashback to the time when Bartlett was deciding to run and Leo (future chief of staff) gives a glorious rant about how sick he is of being told to support the timid mediocre candidate because that’s the most Democrats can ever possibly expect, we can’t ever seek real change in a leftward direction.
Yes — from “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen.” Starts around 1:00 of this clip
Which makes it ironic, or tragic, that Bartlett governed as a fairly milquetoast moderate. (In “Two Cathedrals,” when he’s justifying himself to God, his list of achievements is fairly middle-of-the-road, X many jobs created, etc. “You get Hoynes”? Seems like we already got him! Still a magnificent episode of television, though.) Although at times it was implied that it was as much the fault of his own party in Congress, which wouldn’t get behind him and then lost the majority, following the Bill Clinton pattern.
Found it at the same moment you posted, I think.
Added both to the post.