For those who have lived long enough to remember the 1944 presidential election, there was a photo, taken in Jersey City’s Journal Square, that told — and rather sadly — the underlining story of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s last re-election campaign. One he should not have been part of, as he was not only clearly tired after three long years of war and almost a decade of depression before it, but also failing physically.

But FDR was the money card and Democratic handlers dragged him out day after day to parade (as best he could) before the public. The photo in Jersey City shows the president in an open touring car, the rain beating off his raincoat and clouding his eyeglasses. For any American, regardless of party affiliation, that photo tugged equally at the heartstrings and at repositories of vitriol. This man was being used, solely for the sake of maintaining political power. The man, stricken by polio, needed to be in a warm bed, not the back seat of an open car.

Anyway, why bring up this snapshot now? Because, on a far lesser scale Wednesday, we saw a similar pathetic scenario. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller repeatedly said he did not wish to testify before Congress on the 400-plus-page “report” that supposedly laid out the case for President Trump’s collusion with Russia and obstruction here at home.

Mr. Mueller presumed, we suppose, that his work would speak for itself, and for him. But the ugly truth is that he, testifying before Congress on Wednesday, could scarcely speak for his report. For instance, he drew a truly befuddled blank on GPS Fusion, the oppo firm used by Democrats to get dirt on Mr. Trump.

For six hours, the Democrats, with Mr. Mueller as their mouthpiece, did not lay a hand on Mr. Trump, largely because Mr. Mueller did not — or could not — get out of his own corner. He stumbled a lot in his speech, he repeatedly asked for questions to be repeated, and he established a Capitol Hill record for use of the term “beyond my purview.” Beyond his purview? This was the Democrats’ meal ticket for impeachment, the man who would provide the informative sound bytes to sink this president, the man to whom Hollywoodians sang Christmas carols last Yuletide. In the end, he looked confused, pitiful — and old, far older than the man his age (or close to it) he is trying to overturn.

So now comes the unraveling. How to explain Robert Mueller? The most likely explanation is that he was little more than a figurehead, a nominal Republican in a nest of vipers who shunted him aside and did the lion’s share of the political scouring of Mr. Trump on their own. And when the time came to write the report, one of the 19 Democratic staff attorneys — Andrew Weissman, perhaps — did the dirty work and slapped Mr. Mueller’s name on it. How else to explain — other than a “guilty conscience” (PJMedia’s Roger Simon’s explanation for Mr. Mueller’s cloudy behavior) — why the special prosecutor was hazy about his own report?

You can pretty much expect Democrats, drunk with power and “too smart by half,” to overplay their hand. This may be one such instance, as their dreams of impeachment seem all but scuttled, by their own doing, after that spectacle/debacle, atop Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

(10) comments

Jim McCarthy

Why doesn't my TV bring the same shows and broadcasts that the Star editors watch? I was certain that I heard and saw Mueller state that he did not exonerate the President--tired as he might have been.


The editors and Star gazers should read Connie Schultz"s column below.


What is more important, the message or the messenger? We heard the details of multiple instances of obstruction by Trump and gang, the lies, the threats. We heard that our election system is under attack and the Republicans block efforts by Congress to stop it. Why does the editor put quotation marks around "report"? And the theory that you pass on that Mueller has a guilty conscience is really pathetic. Many Republicans are finally seeing the light about Trump, perhaps some day soon the editor will too.

Spock Here

Another spin might reason that Mueller is an anachronism...throwback to the day when rules were followed. But a few nuggets were gleaned by those that know how to listen such as the republican who asked if the president could be indicted out of office, which the reply was not one, but two "yes". And of course SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?” MUELLER: “Yes.” SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”. — MUELLER: “Yes.” But the really big nugget is no one seems to care about the bottom line, that is, a hostile foreign government invaded our election, and want to do it again, and we aren't doing anything about it.

Don Specht

^^^ This. So where are those strong conservative voices when President Trump and Moscow Mitch refuse to take steps against foreign interference in the U.S. election process? I always thought that conservatives would maintain a national defense strategy that didn't amount to a toy the president could play with.


Obama did nothing about it, but you only want to whine about it because it didn't have his intended consequences.

Don Specht

Obama did nothing because Moscow Mitch ran the same blocking scheme that he employs today.


Don, don't you know watching MSNBC causes mental pause?


Whataboutism is a terrible disease, wouldn't you say?

Spock Here

"Obama did nothing about it...…." didn't quite answer the question. But that's ok. There is no answer. Everyone and his brother say they did, are doing, and will do. It's a matter of integrity, which the Asset has none, and neither do you. And a matter of national security. Saudi Arabia and China are watching this. Better git that gun of yours ready so you can protect your homeland

Welcome to the discussion.

Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.