Mueller testimony is political Rorschach test

“They have information — I think I’d take it.”


With these words, President Donald Trump confirmed in June what opponents have suspected for years, that he is morally bankrupt and incapable of putting loyalty to country above loyalty to self (or, perhaps more accurately, loyalty to self-interest, as a friend puts it).


Trump was speaking to ABC News when he was asked how he would handle a foreign government approaching him with dirt on a political opponent and whether he would contact the FBI.


He said he would contact authorities in such a situation only if he “thought there was something wrong,” not realizing or perhaps not caring that an overture from a foreign power falls squarely into this category.


The June exchange was never far from my thoughts as I listened to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress last week.


Mueller, who has been roundly criticized by both parties for appearing unfamiliar with the details of the report to which he’d signed his name, nonetheless laid out a sweeping case of foreign interference in the American election process.


He haltingly, yet authoritatively, dispelled a prevalent belief among Republicans that the report fully exonerated Trump. He objected to the characterization of his investigation as a witch hunt, noting Trump could be charged once he leaves office. He condemned Trump’s approval of WikiLeaks.


Yet it wasn’t long before Trump, who said earlier in the week that he wouldn’t watch the testimony, proved that statement, too, was a lie. He tweeted and crowed throughout the day, appearing at one point to misunderstand an important clarification that Mueller made regarding the ability to indict a sitting president, saying that Mueller had instead walked back an earlier statement about indictment after leaving office.


Of course, the whole Mueller affair did little to sway anybody’s opinions. Those who supported Trump before the testimony still did, and those who did not, still didn’t. One commentator called it a political Rorschach test, probably the most accurate summation of the day’s testimony.



Of course, it’s not really over for Trump, investigatively. In a piece in the New York Times, Caroline Frederickson, president of the American Constitution Society, spelled out the legal and ethical concerns still facing him. These include ongoing cases against many people named in the report, the president’s past and present business deals with Russia, and how much he and his campaign may have coordinated with WikiLeaks’ release of hacked Democratic emails.


Mueller, for his part, called Trump’s praise of WikiLeaks “beyond problematic.”


In many ways, Mueller’s report and his testimony could be seen as an indictment of unfettered capitalism, where the cutthroat, competitive nature of the business world lends itself to strange bedfellows and situational ethics.


In such an environment, one takes any advantage over an opponent, including insider information from disreputable sources.


Not surprising, then, that some in the Trump election team, well-versed in pages from corporate America’s book of dirty tricks, might resort to the same tactics in politics, perhaps without even knowing that such shenanigans, when undertaken with a foreign country intent on disrupting an election, might be more than unethical. They may be treasonous.


Proving this, however, has been challenging. The smoking gun, if one exists, is well-hidden. And the public seems to have grown weary of the search.


Less challenging is the issue of obstruction. Mueller laid out a damning case for that, including his opinion that the president’s written answers to investigators indicated Trump “generally” was not being truthful.



But there, too, Democrats have to proceed with caution. To impeach the president for attempting to cover up incidents that can’t be proven to have happened in the first place is a tough sell, and they must realize they would never garner the two-thirds Senate majority necessary to remove him. Pursuing the other concerns that Frederickson noted could lead to a stronger case, but it must never take precedence over genuine governance.


Focusing on the 2020 election is likely the better course of action, but still fraught with peril, especially if Trump continues to control the narrative via tweet and bumper-sticker-ready rhetoric.


Yet the president’s own words could also come back to haunt him. If the Dems make election security a key issue — and they should — then Trump’s June statements are as effective a condemnation as any impeachment hearings.


As a bonus, Dems don’t have to prove anything: He already indicated in that interview just how bereft of ethics he truly is. As Maya Angelou said, “When somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”


Many Americans, especially Republicans, haven’t done that with Trump. How about now?