An open letter to Robert Mueller.
Director Mueller:
I know what you said. You are reluctant to testify before Congress. You think your report speaks for itself. And no one can accuse you of a 180 degree reversal in behavior (as is the case with attorney general William Barr). Leading up to your date with the House Judiciary Committee next Wednesday, several news outlets have produced decades of your past testimony on Capitol Hill and consistent is an understatement. You are the real-life Joe Friday of your generation. “Just the facts, ma’am.” (Historical Footnote: Actor Jack Webb never once uttered those exact words.)
And that may have made sense, UNTIL yesterday. If you did not watch Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s press conference in response to media coverage of his sweetheart deal with known pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, you need to do so before next week. Why? Because history is the ultimate judge of the choices we make in the present. With all due respect, if you choose not to:
- elaborate on your team’s findings and Barr’s inaccurate interpretation,
- affirm 140 contacts by Trump operatives with Russians during a presidential election cycle constitute any common sense (if not legal) definition of collusion and coordination,
- identify specific instances where potential witnesses, particularly those who were critical to a potential charge of conspiracy, refused to testify in person or claimed protection against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and
- share any instances where White House or Department of Justice officials made it more difficult for your office to get to the truth about Russian interference in the 2016 election,
you should not be surprised when, sometime in the future, an enterprising journalist like Julie K. Brown at the Miami Herald takes a second look at your actions. And you feel the need to justify the indefensible just as Acosta did yesterday.
In fact, it might as well have been you on that podium yesterday. Just as Acosta wrongly claimed there was insufficient evidence to make a solid case against Epstein, reporters will remind you, “YOU were the one in charge. YOU could decide to continue the investigation if necessary. If a journalist could make the case, why couldn’t YOU?”
And don’t you dare suggest the journalists uncovered new evidence. Nothing presented in their exposé happened outside the same time-frame of your investigation. It was all there, ready for harvesting if you had shown the determination and will to follow the leads to their logical conclusion.
And, as did Acosta, you too have claimed you were ham strung. By whom and by what? An acting attorney general Matt Whitaker whom you could have challenged on principle and eviscerated before any judge? William Barr, a Roy Cohn doppelganger who committed perjury before a Congressional committee? A departmental memo affirmed by two Republican administrations to protect the incumbent from legitimate law suits? For someone with a classic poker face, you do not seem to know when you have a winning hand.
And finally, you need to come up with a better excuse than the labor secretary why you did not take a different tack. “It was the best deal I could cut at the time,” Acosta’s bottom line, does not hold water. “The best deal’ is not enough whether the stakes include the protection of “girls” (not young women) from sex trafficking or the future of the on-going American experiment in democratic governance. Acosta allowed a serial pedophile, who we know to this day maintained his collection of child pornography, if not worse, to reenter society as though nothing had happened. Likewise, you gave Donald Trump a similar slap on the wrist, and allowed him to continue to shred the Constitution and place himself above the rule of law.
Next Wednesday morning, take a good look in the mirror before you head over to Capitol Hill. And ask yourself the question you will surely be asked one day, “In hindsight, could you have done better?” Wednesday is your chance to avoid having to answer that question.
Respectfully,
Dr. ESP
Amen!
Yes!
We are confronting the limits of what our system of laws can do. We all want others to do the hard, dirty work of analysis and draw conclusions for us. The sad thing is that complex cases are long, detailed, and difficult ones to present to a jury – much less to gain a conviction. Robert Mueller relied on the integrity of his role as a fact finder, not a “concluder” as to potential treasonous/criminal acts leading directly to Trump – and his report is as detailed a factual analysis as he initially could provide. I am very interested in his testimony next Wednesday morning, but the jury returns it’s verdict November 2, 2020. Here is an interactive, searchable link to his report – as redacted – to see just how complex this is.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html