Calling someone a coward is an ugly thing to do. I do not take the subject lightly and do not do so without due consideration of the facts surrounding his service as a Special Prosecutor over the past two years.
His mission was straight forward:
One, did Candidate Trump collude with the Russians to gain an advantage resulting in his election as president of the United States in 2016?
Two, has President Trump misused his power and obstructed justice?
I am not implying the task was easy but it is important that the mission statement be clean, clear and unambiguous. It is.
Mueller accepted the challenge and our country waited impatiently for almost two years for the following statements:
Evidence shows that Candidate Trump did (or did not) collude with the Russians during the 2016 Presidential election campaign.
There is sufficient evidence to conclude that President Trump has (or has not) obstructed justice.
Mueller did OK on the first requirement but he punted on the second. He accomplished 50% of what he was explicitly tasked to do. In my up-bringing, a 50% grade is an “F”, as in failure.
Why did he fail? Was it because he lacked the resources? It does not seem so.
Time: Unlimited.
Budget: Over $30 million spent.
Manpower: He was provided a huge, experienced, hand-picked staff of 19 lawyers and at least 40 investigators; over 200,000 manhours of work.
Evidence: Over a million documents provided and reviewed.
Authority: He issued over 2800 subpoenas, executed 500 search warrants, issued 230 orders for communications records, requested evidence from 13 foreign governments and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The bottom-line question from this massive, exhaustive effort is, how could there possibly be any additional evidence to consider? Answer, there probably isn’t any.
During the 22 months Bob Mueller led the effort, we did not hear a word from him and that was as it should be. And all the while we were assured by most Republicans and Democrats alike and by the media that Mueller is a good man. He is fair and impartial. He will do a good job. He has vast experience and his reputation is impeccable.
He may be some of those but the bottom line is, he is a coward. When it came time to do the nation’s bidding, to stand up as a patriot, to act professionally, to answer the two questions that hung over the nation and the Trump administration for two long agonizing years, when all was said and done Mueller folded under the pressure. He let us all down.
In the days that have followed the release of the report, we have all learned that under a Justice Department memorandum a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office as it would interfere with a chief executive’s constitutional responsibilities.
That was the crutch that Mueller leaned on. Why, he rhetorically asked us, should I answer the question as to whether the president obstructed justice when charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider?
The answer, Bob, is that if you could have found one example of obstruction and put it in your report the process would have, most certainly, moved directly to impeachment. Look at your mission statement!!
Prosecutors, all prosecutors, do one of two things. One, they conclude there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with having committed a crime; or, two, they conclude there is insufficient evidence to charge a person. That’s it. All he had to do was pick one and say it.
He certainly had enough resources to reach a conclusion one way or the other. But he took the coward’s way out; over to you Congress, you sort it out. As if the amateur-hour congressional investigative committees can devote a fraction of the effort, expertise and time that Mueller had at his fingertips for 22 months.
So, where does that leave us? It leaves the nation divided on the critical question of obstruction. It leaves the Trump Administration with a cloud hanging over it. It leaves the Congress hopelessly divided on impeachment. It gives the congress license to “investigate” ad-nauseum.
Mueller’s words, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” What a pile of crap. You had all the recourses one could possibly hope for and you can either cite an example of obstruction or you can’t. Which is it?
Thanks for nothing Bob, you have just done our great nation a grievous disservice.
Lieutenant General, US Army retired, Marvin L. Covault is the author of Vision to Execution, a book for leaders