VIEW from behind the plow

The House hearings with former special counsel Robert Mueller regarding the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election last week provided no bombshells.

Fred Lucas, a reporter for The Daily Signal, a publication of the Heritage Foundation, related the actions of the House members who interviewed Mueller about the event in a column he titled eight takeaways from Mueller’s appearances before the house.

Our interpretation of the report was “no new news.” New York Congressman Jerry Nadler’s hopes to raise a groundswell of support to impeach the president suffered a sudden (but not unexplained) death.

A portion of Lucas’ report follows:

Former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia before two House committees.  

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

He was referring to his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored report released in May to the public.

But many of Mueller’s responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”  

He also asked frequently for lawmakers to repeat their questions.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.  

Democrats on the intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping Trump.  

But neither of these points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.  

Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”  

“True,” Mueller said.  

Trump repeatedly has called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow “a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.

Here is one key takeaway from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.  

1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ on Exoneration

With regard to obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI director, when the Department of Justice ever had held the role of “exonerating” an individual.  

“Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”  

Mueller appeared not to be clear about the question.

“Let me make it easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”

Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”  

Ratcliffe followed up by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until proven guilty.  

“You can’t find it because – I’ll tell you why – it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:

The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.

It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.  

Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.  

“Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.

The column goes on for another half page of newspaper type and ends with Mueller commenting that “this may be the new normal in government.” Not too encouraging, huh?