Front Burner - The key takeaways of Robert Mueller’s marathon testimony

Episode Date: July 25, 2019

Today on Front Burner, the CBC’s Paul Hunter on Robert Mueller’s very reluctant testimony on Capitol Hill, and why both sides of the aisle are claiming victory.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. In a gravel pit in rural Saskatchewan, a mystery unfolds. There was no articles of clothing. There was no blood or anything. An empty truck and no body. Something went wrong and she's not coming back.

I'm Alicia Bridges. And I'm Victoria Dinh. The Pit, a story about the murder of Sherry Furtuck. Subscribe at cbc.ca slash the pit or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Matthew Braga, sitting in for Jamie Poisson. On Wednesday, Robert Mueller sat for six hours of questions in front of members of Congress. Democrats wanted to know if Donald Trump should face criminal charges, while Republicans kept suggesting his investigation was biased.

And the former special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation just didn't give either side what it wanted. Well, I'm not going to speculate. I can't get into internal deliberations, which is one of those areas which I declined to discuss. Leave it with the report. So is this the final word on the Mueller investigation? Will it alter the course of the 2020 election?

And what about impeachment? We're going to put those questions and more to the CBC's Paul Hunter. Something tells me he'll have a bit more to say than Mueller did. This is Frontburner. Hello, Paul. Hey, how's it going? You know what? I feel like I've spent six hours staring at a television screen, so I'm ready to process this with you together. My eyes are not quite square. I think it's 16 by 9, I think they say they are. Yeah, I've been watching a lot of it. So let's get into this. In March, the U.S. attorney general releases this summary of the Mueller report.

A letter in which he said Mueller found no evidence of collusion with Russia. And when it comes to obstruction of justice, Robert Mueller stopping short of exonerating the president. But the attorney general essentially did. And then we get to see the report itself, albeit it's this redacted copy in April. Even in its incomplete form, however, the Mueller report outlines disturbing evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. This has been a political proctology exam, and he's emerging with a clean bill of health. And then three months later, Mueller himself is dragged before Congress,

and that's what happened yesterday. Good morning, Chairman Nadler and ranking member Collins and the members of the committee. So we've already been talking about this report for months. What was the point of all this? Why? Why were we there? You know, I think a lot of Americans might say, well, that's a good question. You know, there was lots of anticipation, but medium expectation, if I can put it that way. Because indeed, I mean, as you note, all this time in, we've heard a lot about what Robert Mueller found, but he had not taken questions, really, from anyone on any of this throughout the whole process. And we've had statements, we had those comments without questions at that podium a few weeks ago.

Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. But he'd never really been pressed on stuff. And so this was a chance for that. We had the 448 page report, right? And the thinking is, truth be told, hardly anyone's actually read the whole thing all the way through. So this was a chance to put some meat on the bones. Well, and let's talk about that, because I know that when Mueller stepped down to special counsel at the end of the investigation, he gave this brief statement and he basically said

that he wasn't going to say anything else more about Trump or Russia, anything more than he did in the report. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. And he seemed very reluctant to appear before Congress. It just seemed like he wanted to retire to private life and ride off into the sunset. So did he give us anything new on Wednesday? He certainly left the impression he didn't want to be there. It is unusual for a prosecutor

to testify about a criminal investigation. Forced to be there today sounds like a little bit over the top, but he was he was subpoenaed. He wanted to let the report speak for itself. And he said that many times today. But, you know, nonetheless, there he was, walks in, gets sworn in. Raise your right hand, please. So what did we learn? Right. Well, a few things. I think it's safe to say what Democrats wanted was for people to pay attention and to hear firsthand some of this stuff, some of the nuts and bolts free of White House spin from what Mueller found, to kind of reframe it while people are paying attention. So right off the bat, chair of the committee, Democrat Jerry Nadler, rhymed off a string of well-thought-out, pointed questions

that brought a kind of dramatic string of effectively one-word answers from Mueller, chief among them. The report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice. Is that correct? That is correct. And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president? No.

Contrary to what we've been hearing from the president time and time again. Now, it should be noted, you know, Mueller also reiterated a finding that Republicans are happy with, that he found no criminal conspiracy, or as Trump and others typically put it, no collusion between his campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election. At least not enough evidence for a criminal indictment. Another distinction that ought to be drawn. All that said, you know, if Democrats walk away with the headline today, it's probably that other part. Emphasized by the guy who did the investigation once and for all. Trump was not exonerated on obstruction. I want to zero in a little bit more into the Democratic side of questioning. And there was one moment in particular that I think really demonstrates pretty well what they hope to get out of this. There was this exchange with California Democrat Ted Lieu.

And let's let's take a listen. Ted Lieu. And let's let's take a listen. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. And I'd like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct? That is correct. So what was the significance of that moment? Well, everybody thought that was huge. correct? That is correct. So what was the significance of that moment? Well, everybody thought that was huge, right? This is it. This is what we paid our money for.

If you listen to the precise way the question was asked, it seemed when Mueller answered that he was saying that was the reason why Trump wasn't indicted. And then a break came along and all pundits, you know, everybody's heads were blown. People thought, ah, that's it. That's the news of the day. And then the break ended and Mueller came back for round two with another committee. We will come to order.

First thing he did was clarify that and said, no, no, no, no, no. We will come to order. First thing he did was clarify that and said, no, no, no, no, no. Donald Trump wasn't indicted because we didn't go down that path because those are the rules. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. So he was like that. That was very typical, really, all day long. He was very careful to not stray from the boundaries in which he found himself. And on a couple of occasions would even jump in once we were into the next question or after he had already spoken to say, actually, maybe I want to clarify that.

So there was another moment as well that centered around what constitutes obstruction of justice. Donald Trump, one, committed an obstructive act. Two, connected to an official proceeding. Three, did so with corrupt intent. We had Mueller being questioned by New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries. This is the United States of America. No one is above the law.

No one. The president must be held accountable one way or the other. Let me just say, if I might, I don't subscribe necessarily to the way you analyze that. I'm not saying it's out of the ballpark, but I'm not supportive of that analytical charge. So what was Jeffries trying to accomplish here? First, I've got to say, I don't think any American can answer a question without making a sports analogy. But it wasn't out of the ballpark. He's trying to get Robert Mueller to say something that Robert Mueller didn't want to say, which is to connect the dots.

But Democrats also knew that they've got a lot of eyeballs on this stuff today. So all they need to do is reiterate some of the findings in the Mueller report and let people see the dots being connected for them. They knew Mueller wasn't going to answer that. And Mueller was very careful every single time not to do their work. But in a sense, it didn't matter for Democrats because they just wanted to lay it out. At times, they wanted him to read lines from his report. And he said, I'd rather you do that if it's all the same with you. I think there were 43 times, according to a CNN analysis, where Mueller basically threw to the report. I'm not surprised. I direct you to the report and adopt what we have in the report. That is in the report. And I rely what's in the report. I would have to refer you

to the report on that. And I will say, you know, throughout the day while I was watching, it seemed like as the day wore on, Mueller did seem to engage at least a little bit more, maybe candidly isn't the right word, but more explicitly in some cases. I know that the Democrats were able to get him to say that the investigation was not a hoax. Well, your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it? It is not a witch hunt. When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it? True. Which, you know, make for nice little sound bites, I guess, and things like that.

Were there other scenarios like that? Were there other moments during the day when Mueller perhaps surprised you with what he said, contrary to what we were expecting? Yeah, on the thing that we haven't talked about, which is really, you know, the Russian meddling, you know, it's kind of bearing the lead here a little bit. I mean, that's what started this whole thing off in the first place, right? He kept it to a few words, but it was sobering. I mean, he said, this was the whole second part of the second of the two hearings. You know, in effect, he said, don't kid yourself.

Russian meddling is still happening. It wasn't a single attempt. They're doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign. He said it's a serious problem and maybe the most serious threat to democracy he's ever seen. Think about that. I mean, he was FBI director on 9-11. He knows about threats to democracy he's ever seen. Think about that. I mean, he was FBI director on 9-11. He knows about threats to democracy.

And on Trump-ry Russia, he was asked about all those times in the campaign, 2016, talking about, you know, I love WikiLeaks, all that kind of stuff. This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart. You got to read it. Donald Trump, October 12, 2016. And he said, I think the quote was... How do you react to that?

Well, it's problematic is an understatement. You know, given how Mueller parsed his words throughout the rest of the day, to hear him say that kind of thing, said, hey, it may not have hit the bar of being criminal, but it's not good. So after six hours of this testimony, what do you think Republicans got out of this in the end? They get to say he didn't do it on one of the key questions

that Mueller was asked to resolve, which is, did the Trump campaign conspire, as Mueller would put it, but as everybody else puts it, including Donald Trump, was there collusion with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election campaign? And the answer is no,

not on a criminal basis. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. And it was not. And that's huge for Republicans and huge for Donald Trump. I mean, we'll continue to hear him say no collusion. That's powerful because they also get to say, therefore, they were out to get us. It was a waste of time. You'll hear witch hunt is not a forgotten term

after today. It'll be used again and again and again, despite anything else that came out. I mean, there's stuff in there for both sides. I mean, that's politics, right? You can pick and choose what you want to highlight. But for Republicans, there's plenty to be feeling pretty good about tonight. What he showed more than anything else is that this whole thing has been three years of embarrassment and waste of time for our country. And you know what? The Democrats thought they could win an election like this. I think they hurt themselves very badly for 2020. And Republicans also seem to take some pretty hard shots at Mueller over the course of the day. What sort of things did they have to say to him?

They wanted to suggest bias at the end of the day that he indeed was out to get Trump. In what sense? What would have been some of those connections they tried to draw? The people on his team had political views that were the opposite of Trump's, that they were not Republican supporters. I mean, this has been talked about for some time, sort of at various stages throughout the investigation. Sure. Mueller pushed back hard on that.

It was like he had a look of indignation when that was raised. I can't imagine a single prosecutor or judge that I have ever appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated. Let me went on to the fact

that I put on the table, and that is we hired 19 lawyers over the period of time. Of those 19 lawyers, 14 of them were transferred from elsewhere in the Department of Justice. Only five came from outside. He talked a lot about integrity and that he does not seek to find out what people's politics are because that's not a part of what they do. But if something comes to light, and a couple of times it did, famously, in the course of this investigation, he dealt with it promptly and got rid of those people. But it is not a part of it. And it was to the degree that Mueller got close to looking, you know, PO'd at something.

It was on that kind of stuff. But nonetheless, Republicans pushed and pushed and pushed because they know there is an appetite for that, that people are going to want to think that, yeah, he is out to get them. So they pushed hard, but equally, he pushed hard back. The drafting and the publication of some of the information in this report, without an indictment, without prosecution, frankly, flies in the face of American justice. But when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick. And that is fundamentally unfair.

I would not agree to that characterization at all. What we did is provide to the attorney general in the form of a confidential memorandum our understanding of the case. of the case. And if, as you say, they've been raising these points for months and months, if not longer, what is the value then in raising them again today at a hearing like this? We're in an election campaign, baby. The election is a long way away, but it's tomorrow for all intents and purposes. It's going to blink and we're going to be there. And by the way, we're going to be exhausted when it does come around, right? So we'll see how this plays. If it means anything, ultimately, to anyone, that's the test, right? I mean, yes, it's a divided country, right? I mean, there are millions of Americans who love Trump, no matter what. Millions who are embarrassed and fed up with him, and hardly anyone in between,

and fed up with them and hardly anyone in between, right? I mean, Mueller may in the end simply reaffirm beliefs one way or another. People say, you know, you could have an election tomorrow or you could wait until next November and the result would be the same because people know how they feel about this guy. For all the anticipation for Mueller today, the truth is, in the end, it might not change anything. And that's an interesting point, because I think about my experience watching these hearings today, and I got to say, at times it felt frequently overwhelming, like the lines of questioning were hard to follow or some of these questions seem to kind of come out of left field, like we jumped around a bit, people kept circling back to the same questions. And I mentioned all this because I think that one of perhaps the hoped for outcomes prior to this hearing was that, as you said at the beginning, given how most people haven't even read this report, it would be a chance for Mueller to speak directly to the American people, or at the very

least for Democrats and Republicans to be able to convey what they felt were the most important takeaways. And I don't know. I don't know if it actually played out that way, did it? Mueller has taken criticism for not speaking out, for not trying to frame it however he would like to frame it, to not lead people to where he wants them to go. It's a funny one because on the one hand, as I was saying, his brand really is this

straight shooting, play by the rules guy. But by playing by the rules, a lot of people, certainly among Democrats and on the left, think it's been a missed opportunity. You've been leading this investigation for so long, and you know so much, and yet you seem unwilling to take even a step beyond your lane. And I think some people have been let down by that. And so people who came to watch the hearings, I think they were hoping for a bombshell or something fantastic or illuminating or crystallizing it all. And it didn't happen because that's the kind of guy Mueller is. As he said so often, you know, let the report speak. So maybe the real message is that.

Go to the bookstore. Read the 448 pages. Never mind the redactions. It has great reviews on Goodreads. That's right. We were looking them up. So I'm curious then, now that we are done with this hearing, this might be the last time that we ever hear from Mueller. What does this mean for this big question that I think has been looming over the last couple of months? Impeachment. Wow. Well, that's that's a good one. It's

what Democrats have to think hard about. They're divided on it. Lots of people say go for it. Lots say don't even think about it. The very vote Democratic leaders had hoped to avoid is forced to the forefront by a single lawmaker, Congressman Al Green of Texas. The move to start impeachment proceedings was defeated by a vote of 332 to 95 with 137 Democrats joining Republicans to block the effort. I mean, the first thing you have to consider is are there grounds for it, right? The short answer on that is it is literally up to Congress. There is no legal definition of what specific act leads to impeachment, what is so-called high crimes or misdemeanors. But let's say Trump's contact with Russia or the degree of obstruction that wasn't criminal but that went on anyway. Let's say that meets the bar as deemed by Congress.

First off, the process begins in the House, controlled by Democrats. But if it passes the House, it'll go to the Senate. And that's controlled by Republicans. So unlikely to convict. Say some. So why bother? Say others, because it keeps all this in the headlines for the next bunch of months as the 2020 gets ever closer. But is there actually an appetite for it among Americans?

Polls say no. NBC News, Wall Street Journal poll shows 27 percent of Americans now say there is enough evidence to begin impeachment hearings. 24 percent say Congress should continue investigating. The real impeachment process is the 2020 federal election. So, you know, let the people do it. federal election. So, you know, let the people do it. There's that. But there's another aspect. Given all the findings of Mueller, everything that the Trump campaign and the president himself has done, even if it's not criminal, by not trying to impeach, are you saying, so that's okay? You know, and that is certainly a message to Trump for next year's campaign or for that matter to any party in any election in the future if you don't impeach. So in other words, inaction on impeachment may

also have a price. But people know this stuff, you know, and I think they know what they want to do next November. It's just a matter of counting down the whatever it is, 15 months now to get there. A long time, but also a short amount of time. Oh, it's tomorrow. It's tomorrow in a lot of ways. Paul, thank you for joining us. Pleasure. So Robert Mueller wasn't the only tight-lipped public figure to sit reluctantly behind a microphone yesterday. Wednesday also marked former Toronto Raptor Kawhi Leonard's introduction

as a Los Angeles Clipper. But don't worry, he did go out of his way to show some love for his former team. Just think of Toronto, the city, the country. You know, it was a great, amazing season. Best parade ever. Thanks to the doctors for, you know, delivering my baby, my baby boy. He's three months now, still healthy. I also just want to, you know, thank the city as far as the restaurants are still heading into the next NBA season as champions.

And while it's no secret that a repeat performance is unlikely without Kawhi, with a team president like Masai Ujiri, never say never. That's it for today. I'm Matthew Braga, in for Jamie Poisson. Thanks for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy?

Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone. Available now.