- First, Muller is "losing it." Though no one actually used the word "dementia," I thought dementia was implied in an article in The New York Times headlined, "A Halting Delivery at Odds With a Laser Focus of the Past." I am citing to the hard-copy version. Online, the headline was a bit different, but the story was the same: Mueller is losing it!
- Second, Mueller's testimony, such as it was, provided no significant support to those who want to claim that the Special Prosecutor's investigation really proved that the Trump campaign had violated the law, or that the Trump campaign provided active assistance to Russia, as Russia tried to subvert the 2016 election. I gather that Mueller did affirm that there might be some grounds for an obstruction of justice charge against someone, which "someone" could include the president, but Mueller refused to make any strongly affirmative statement to that effect. One of Mueller's statements did seem to lend credibility to the idea that Mueller would have prosecuted the president for obstruction of justice if he legally could have, but Mueller promptly walked that comment back. To the degree that Democrats hoped that Mueller's testimony would solidify the case for impeachment, or undermine President Trump otherwise, the Democrats pretty much came up empty. As another story in The Times indicated, it is probably true, as President Trump claimed, that the hearings were a "disaster" for the Democrats and gave the Republicans "a good day."
- Third, there is no doubt that Russia tried to sabotage the 2016 election, and make Trump the winner. The Times carried a story that uses the word "sabotage" in its headline, and that story makes clear that Mueller not only found very strong evidence that there was serious Russian interference in the 2016 election, but also found that the Russians are still trying to interfere.
There may have been something more, too, according to a a "breaking" New York Times' report, released on July 25, 2019. That would definitely be serious, and we must do everything possible to maintain the security of our voting systems. Again, though, it looks like the Republicans, not "the Russians," may be the biggest obstacle to securing our voting systems.