Mueller Testimony: Impressions

Mueller has spoken, and it was about as disappointing as the much anticipated Mueller Time was. We think that Mueller is going to be like a refreshing beer after a hot day’s long labor, but it turns out to be a bitter brew that might slack your thirst and wash the dry mouth away, but gawd it claws on its way down and threatens to be coming back out of every exit possible.

There are many many opinions about how people will react to Mueller’s testimony; who won the day; who made better points, and other partisan motivated-reasoning outcomes. So, what is reality? How will Mueller’s testimony affect our perceptions of impeachment, the Ol’ Pussy Grabber, and Russia’s interference with our election?

First Impressions Count

Psychology points us in several directions for anticipating the response to Mueller’s testimony at the two hearings. First, and foremost, is that it probably wasn’t watched by most of the population. It was seven hours long on a workday. Those folks who may not be working on that day are of a lifestyle who probably will be less interested in watching the hearing. Most people’s impressions of the hearing will be formed by the places where they consume their news: Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and social media.

Media Narrative

There will be millions of soundbites and clips from the hearings that are shown, but I’m willing to bet that they will quickly settle on the same three or four to show. They will also settle on the same few comments and “insights” reinforcing the importance of the media narrative on shaping and limiting our interpretations of events. Whatever the chattering class of your preference is saying is pretty much what you’re going to believe.

It was less TV spectacle and more TV morgue.

Mueller Underwhelmed

For those of us who watched some, most, or all of the testimony, or who have the wherewithal (actually executive functioning) to watch the chattering classes chatter and still come away with our own opinion, then your first impression is probably the one. Mine was that overall, the testimony was too goddamn boring to make much of an impression. Watching Mueller for seven freaking hours have one of five responses:

  • I stand by my report.
  • I don’t agree with your characterization.
  • Refers to internal DoJ deliberations.
  • Interferes with other investigations.
  • Or, not my purview, others are looking into that.

That did not (a) make for riveting TV, and (b) just didn’t matter to the average uninformed, disinterested, distracted, “independent” occasional-voter. My initial reaction was just that: from the get-go it fell flat. It was less TV spectacle and more TV morgue. That said, there were more positives coming out of it than negatives in spite of my fav’s, Vox.com’s, rather pessimistic reaction, Five Losers and 0 Winners… Yes it was That Bad.

The Democratic Performance

Democratic Questioning

First, Nadler’s opening soundbite of getting Mueller to agree that he did not find no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration, but rather “could not be exonerated” could and should be used in Dem 2020 commercials and the forces for impeachment irrespective of Repube attempts to discredit it by finding that there is no exoneration principle in US legal jurisprudence. The simple statement of no exoneration uses the Repube tactic of reducing a complex problem to a simple phrase or soundbite and forces the Repubes to play the Dem hand of trying to clumsily refute it.

Second, in the first hearing, the Dems’ strategy of focusing only on five of the ten obstruction charges helped them focus on a few which, theoretically, should’ve made it easier to create a clear impression about each of them. That probably didn’t work. But, Rep. Lieu’s sequence walking Mueller through the three parts of obstruction with regard to the Lewandowski incident was effective in spite of Mueller saying he did not necessarily agree with the points Lieu was trying to make with it.

Really, Mueller? You have to be that obtuse? Your reputation as an honest broker is so important to you now at this stage of your career that you gotta take a key moment down a notch? It’s enough to make you question whose side Mueller is on and start believing in conspiracy theories. That was just shyte.

Third, although I cannot pin it to a specific representative, I have a clear memory of the near resignation of McGahn over the request to create a false paper trail about being asked to fire Mueller. If I have that kind of impression, they did a good job of going over it repeatedly to create it despite Mueller’s lack luster fumbling responses.

Fourth, Rep. Escobar’s tantalizing dance with Mueller around using the word impeachment. It was one of the few moments of amusement during the entire damn dry desert of a hearing. There was almost honest-to-god flirting happening. She was inviting him to list the Constitutional remedies for Trump’s obstruction since he cannot be tried in the court’s while in office. The closest she came to the “I” word was, I think you mentioned at least one. Mueller actually smiled when he said it.

But, again, why? Why at this critical juncture when the Dems need only one selfie-instruction to huddle closer together and take a step back to get them to fall over the impeachment cliff, couldn’t Mueller bring himself to say it? It’s like your parents knowing that you’re going out drinking without anyone ever saying it openly. FFS. Aren’t we all grown-ups other than the Repubes? But, okay. It is a usable soundbite and clip of film.

Fifth, a similar thing happened with Rep. Schiff at the end of the second hearing. Schiff was going through a list of behaviors and conduct that is not welcome in the man paying pee-hookers to piss on the Resolute Desk, Constitution, and American values. He was trying to get Mueller to agree with him in a step-by-step walk up to impeachment. Mueller went a long for the most part, but at key moments, who drop a fly in the ointment by saying, I can’t agree with your characterization. Poor Adam Schiff’s face dropped every time like his prom date just pushed his hand away… AGAIN!

And sixth, Rep. Maloney getting Mueller to discuss why he didn’t subpoena the Ol’ Pussy Grabber’s testimony was brilliant. Mueller essentially said he had enough rope to hang him with and the bit more he would get from questioning him wouldn’t be worth the time or effort.

Clearly the Dem strategy was to get the reticent Mueller to agree with parts of his own report. It wasn’t going to be the dramatic j’accuse moment they hoped for, but it was better than nothing. But, its effectiveness rested on the ability of the representative to be clear, succinct, and hold the attention of the listener.

They did repeat their main point: anyone else who obstructed justice in this way would have been indicted and jailed. Many of them hit their marks a bit mechanically, but the sheer repetition of the line will power-drive it into the heads of the listener whether they want it or not. That’s the way propaganda works.

Mueller’s Response

The other thing it depended on was their reluctant partner, Mueller. He had to be a credible witness. His halting, stammering, flustered uncertainty, especially in the first hearing, really hurt his reputation. He was not the witness that they had hoped for, but he also wasn’t neutral. Some of his reactions, answers, and behaviors were harmful. He looked old, slow, and confused in the judiciary hearing most of the time and seemed to perk up in the second. Maybe he had had his nap, I don’t know.

These portions of the hearings and more all serve the Dems. They can use them in multiple ways to bolster either claims that the Ol’ Pussy Grabber should be impeached or defeated in 2020. The scary thing is that we’re waiting on Dems to make the right political choices. Christ, has there ever been a group that can snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory any more consistently than the Dems?

The Republican Strategy

Lot’s o’ Yelling

The Repubes’ strategy was to yell at Mueller for not doing his job good. As I watched it, my reaction was that they were creating sympathy for Mueller. Remember, angry white men get the benefit of the doubt, unless they seem to be overreacting. Louie “I’m NOT Gomer Pyle” Gohmert was the worst offender. His over the top scream fest did not score any points. Others were the fellow who puffed his chest up with the jactation that he had questioned the Butcher of Baghdad or some such, and, therefore, and ipso facto, he KNEW Mueller was practicing bad law and was a bad hombre.

Conspiracy Theories Galore

The other Repube strategy was to spout conspiracy theories and wonder aloud with suspicious undertones why none of this was investigated. Particular star power goes to the rank minority member, Devon “That’s NOT what I do with cows” Nunes (R – Cows), who opened the hearings by suggesting that it was Clinton who was colluding with Russia to get the Ol’ Pussy Grabber elected!

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it flies in the face of the commonly accepted narrative. Remember, persuasive design tell us that when you’re trying to get people to make a change that violates a social norm, it will seen as more difficult and require more motivation to do. The social norm here is that the Ol’ Pussy Grabber colluded with Russia not Clinton. You’ll have to do better than a scary voice, a sad face, and innuendo to get that job done.

This ploy shows you how desperate the Repubes are. They are experts at persuasive design. If they are trying to make the hard sells of Mueller is not the man you think he is and that the Russian interference was really involving the Dems and Clinton, which violate the standard narrative.

So, the outcome of the hearings is that there is probably increased sympathy for Mueller, no changes in opinions about the Ol’ Pussy Grabber and impeachment, and a foundation and beginning framework for impeachment that the Dems, if played well — Christ, what a thing to hang your hat upon — could lead to impeachment and/or defeat of the Repubes in 2020.

14 replies »

  1. Well…it’s pretty obvious that Hillary colluded with the Russians so that they would work against her and she would lose the election! JEEEEEEZZZZZZ.!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Howdy Jay!
      This claim, which is never spelled out by the claimants, can be filed under the heading of illusory explanation. Here are these connections — never mind how tenuous — between Clinton and the Russians! Therefore, Clinton conspired with the Russians. It sounds good, and because it sounds good, you don’t need to think about it any further especially if motivated to absolve Trump and damn Clinton.



  2. That’s a good point about the Repubs and the narrative. Bringing up the conspiracy “Why didn’t you investigate ___” theories, they stepped on their main narrative of “The whole thing shouldn’t have happened.” Are they all watching “Q” on You Tube? Or, does constant gaslighting, pandering, and denial eventually erode whatever executive functioning they may have started with? I’m guessing “yes” on that effect.

    On exoneration, there is such a thing in our legal system, but it usually is a judicial action connected with the overturning or expunging of a criminal conviction.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Howdy Bob!
      I’ve seen commentary in which they think it is a good thing because it dilutes the public discourse and competes with the collusion-obstruction narrative, but that only works if media outlets repeat the conspiracy theories and give them equal time. Hopefully, that won’t happen, but knowing the both-sideism of the media they’ll be idiot enough to actually report on the crap.

      Good to know about the exoneration thing. It is handy to pull out during trolling incidents.


      Liked by 1 person

      • I think we can expect that every conceivable conspiracy story will be pushed through social media, no matter how bizarre, with the hope that the regular media will have to talk about them if only to fact-check. And, there will be more actors involved, domestic and foreign. It won’t be just the Russians. The Iranians need Trump gone very badly. The Chinese have to be getting tired of dealing with him. North Korea is clearly frustrated with photo-ops with no followup and the demand that they disarm first and then see what their reward might be. India is feeling disrespected on trade issues. One way or another, everybody has a dog in this fight and cyber skills are cheap and plentiful. So, there will be a bewildering variety of people trying to put out something that goes viral.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Howdy Bob!
          Your point about motivations of various state-actors in meddling in our elections is an interesting one. It occurs to me that there could be others, too. For example, Israel and Saudi Arabia both would like to keep Trump in office. An Israeli company offered to build a social media campaign to help Trump in 2016, which the Trump campaign officially turned down, but paid out a large some of money to an Israeli entity after the election. More curious, though, is the motivation of our European allies. It is in their best interest to have Trump gone. Would France and Germany band together to influence the election? Obama did get busted for tapping Merkel, right?

          The thing about the conspiracy theory or any other lie that one cares to tell is that it influences the hearer. If you hear it again, you have a greatly increased chance of believing it is true. It also muddies the waters and confuses people. Since we disdain thinking, people will simply turn away if the situation is too confusing. A point I’ll make when I next post about the Dem debates.


          Liked by 1 person

          • When it come to Trump v (whoever), everybody has a dog in the fight. One of my speculative predictions is that if Trump gets a second term, the world at large will be forced to impose punishing sanctions to force the US to get with the program about climate change, even at the risk of a full on depression. That assumes that he doesn’t manage to cause one with his tariff obsession.

            As for the fake news and conspiracy theories, at some point the confusion and cognitive dissonance do get people to give up and go watch some other reality show they can understand. The question then becomes who will throw up their hands and not vote.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Howdy Bob!
              If Trump does get a second term, and England Brexits, I guess our allies in Europe and Asia will have to re-work their system and begin treating the US as a hostile country. Climate change is a big enough threat that they would be wise to sanction the US into compliance. I wonder if Putin’s view of climate change, though, is that it will help Russia because it will make Siberia and the Arctic more accessible and productive for them. That the GOP cannot see any nefarious reasons behind the friendly Russian money in their elections and detect a threat to our country is most concerning. Not only would Russia be very happy if we were to become a single-party pseudo-democratic authoritarian state like they are, they would be happy if we divided into multiple countries. Both of those futures are possible for us. I doubt anyone really takes either of them seriously.

              Hopefully, the Q-Anon people and other right-wing conspiracy theorists will become so frustrated with their inability to explain or predict the world using their conspiracy theories that they withdraw for the next election cycle or two. One can only hope.


              Liked by 1 person

              • The Republican leadership have long since gotten to the position of, “Winning is the only measure of what is true, right, acceptable behavior, and any and all forms of help are good, no matter how dangerous or tainted.” The problem for Putin is that even if the US were to become a single-party pseudo-democratic authoritarian state, the geo-political dynamics of spheres of influence, access to resources and markets, etc. would not change and he could well find himself facing a nationalistically aggressive and expansionist adversary with a much bigger military. He wants to weaken the US, not make it more dangerous.

                Conspiracy theorists can always either explain away results contrary to their model, or make the supposed conspiracy even more complex, deeper, and more nefarious as needed. The hope, then is that they will become so mind numbingly intricate and incomprehensible that ordinary folks with more immediate and pressing needs will stop paying attention.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Howdy Bob!
                  But would a single-party pseudo-democratic authoritarian US government that exists only to transfer wealth as quickly as possible to the 1% actually oppose Russia or would they view him as an ally with whom to divide up the spoils of the world? Trump really is doing Putin’s bidding by genuinely damaging the US: damaging our alliances, damaging our economy, and damaging our environment, so that recovery of our once former position in the world may well nigh be impossible after he is gone. And, that is probably the reason that Putin is supporting both election interference and Brexit in the US and Europe.

                  The Republicans, but especially #MoscowMitch, see the Russians and their money as a means to an end. There can be no denying that #MoscowMitch is not a believer in or supporter of democracy. He believes he is right and that implementing his policy agenda is the best thing for the country. That is the basis of all authoritarian rulers: opposition and critics be damned, I’m right, so that’s what we’ll do by any means necessary.

                  It is groupthink that blinds them to the possibility that their policies and actions may so damage the US that it will cease to exist. The best case scenario is that we continue to exist in name only as a hollowed out shell of a democracy. The worst case is that we actually dissolve the union like the USSR did. Given Putin’s love of the USSR, that’s probably his goal: do to us, what the West did to them.


                  Liked by 1 person

                  • The breakup of the US, the EU, and NATO would be Putin’s ultimate wet dream of revenge. Of course, it is an open question whether any of the super-states (and many small ones) will survive climate change and the resulting migrations and other disruptions.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Howdy Bob!
                      I really think that Putin thinks climate change will be good for Russia. I think they’ve looked at the scenarios where vast tracks of Siberia and the Arctic become arable productive land and sea lanes and believe they can manage the calamity with their fossil fuels and military and ruthlessness.


                      Liked by 1 person

                    • The maximum sea level rise maps show much of southern Russia (including Volgograd and much of the Volga valley, due to the joining of the Black and Caspian seas) under water, as well a large swaths of that newly arable land on the Arctic coast, but by then Putin will be long dead.

                      Liked by 1 person

Howdy Y'all! Come on in, pardner! Join this here conversation! I would love to hear from you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.