Roger Simon at PJM [1]:
Robert Mueller’s eight- to nine-minute statement Wednesday morning at the DOJ was designed for one thing only: to avoid having to answer one key question in his testimony. When did you know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
If the answer, as many, including Andrew C. McCarthy, are indicating, is somewhere in Fall 2017, what in the Sam Hill was Mueller doing putting the country through two years of prolonged agony? It’s not likely he did all this to prop up CNN’s faltering ratings.
Was it, just by chance, to induce obstruction from one Donald J. Trump who — like a relatively normal person but with a shorter fuse than most, justifiable in this case — would react like a stuck pig to being falsely charged for so long? That would have been essentially entrapment.
Further, Mueller’s hiding behind the canard that he could not charge a sitting president on obstruction makes a mockery of his initial assertion that there was no collusion. Most of us can’t have it both ways. But I guess Mueller can. Or has. I leave it to Jerrold Nadler to explain that to us.
Another key indication of where this is going is that Nadler is not screaming fire and brimstone, as he has in the past when thwarted about getting what he wants.
I am forced to conclude that the Democrats have, reluctantly ascertained that having Mueller testify before Congress in open session is it going to be counterproductive to their aims.