Well, Mueller the Magnificent turned out to be more like Mueller the Mumbler, in which his ability to respond to his Republican interrogators showed as much dynamism as a bedtime cup of warm milk. In general, the GOP goons were much more energetic and telegenic than the Demos who showed little spark and less “on their feet dexterity” with which to deviate for even 30 seconds from their prepared questions in order to spontaneously rebut some of the points the GOP’s scored off of an often stuttering (and more) often sounding un ready…if not very old and somewhat bewildered, old man.
The morning Ohio Republican Representative (Bob Latta??) in particular… like many of his colleague devoted the majority of his morning time to a rant criticizing M’s integrity and ability, likening his analysis in his report as a waste of time that improperly violated its mandated  purpose, ethical standards and basic legal precepts such as the presumption of innocence, specifically by virtue of the clause that stated (approximately): “We cannot say that this report exonerates the President”… harping on the term  exonerate.
Mueller who obviously had no appetite for fighting back at these offensive charges could have turned the table with a simple arrogant and condescending rejoinder such as, “Mr. X, with all due respect you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about”…or “You are obviously confused as to the purpose of my report” or  “Your misconstruing of the meaning of my words will require more education than my time permits.” Anything would have been better than the blank look that he seemed to have adopted for his standard reply to insult and invective.
But it were the House Democratic “protectors” ( any one of them) who could have stepped up like any “quick on their feet”, agile trial attorney and began their time with some parenthetical remarks to resurrect Mueller by explaining that the use of the word exonerate in context was specifically chosen to indicate a non-legalistic form of excusing (Look it up in Webster’s dictionary…or even Black’s legal dictionary). It has a meaning of excusing improper (not necessarily illegal) conduct in a way that also does not necessarily carry any legal weight. Mueller’s report, which declined to prosecute, did not mean that the President was blameless or the that he was nor responsible for wrong doing…he was blame worthy…he did do wrong…and if that blame, if that wrong,  was meant to rise to the level of legal culpability…it was for another “Process” or another “Forum” to decide or to make that determination. That determination was not part of Mueller’s mandate. And in that context, the choice of the word “exonerate” was precisely the correct word so as to not unfairly tar the President with a charge of criminal behavior in a context that he could not defend himself.\
So, Republican sycophants, take your  3-minute rants and crumble them up and store them where the sun don’t shine…or words to that effect. You are exonerated from being charged with libel because you are basically ignorant. But you are definitely charged with being guilty of devious stoogery for the dirtiest President in the history of our country.
Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. I saw a man who did his job with thoroughness, integrity, and honor.
    Could not indict.
    He obviously was making sure he was accurate since the slightest mistake would
    be used politically. He was apolitical to a fault and accurate.
    We didn’t get a show we got facts.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here