Bob Mueller speaks at last

With only a few hours notice, Special Counsel Robert Mueller held a press conference at the Justice Department on Wednesday morning, in which he said that his work is done, the Office of Special Counsel is closing, and he will be leaving the Justice Department and returning to private life.

He spoke for about 9 minutes, highlighting some important statements from his report, but being careful not to go beyond the written report.   In his almost oracular style of speaking, a careful analyst with knowledge of the report can clarify and speak about the importance of what he said.

He is thorough and clearly factual -- but he is also highly nuanced and subtle.   You have to read carefully to grasp the importance.   A casual reader will miss even the most important points -- which may be why so many people have not actually read the full report.

But, unfortunately, this same style allows President Trump and his minions to spin it their way.   For example, Trump has already tweeted that there is nothing new (true) but also saying that the case is "closed, period."   That is not true.

Some of the main points Mueller highlighted, as clarified by those I respect as legal analysts on MSNBC, include these points:

1.   Mueller quoted from his report:   "If we had confidence . . . that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."  However, based on the evidence, we cannot so state.   Conclusion:  There is evidence that the president did obstruct justice.    He can't say he did commit a crime, but he can and does say that he "can't say that he didn't."

2.  Mueller, by speaking about it, emphasized the fact that he does not see this as a finished investigation;  in fact, he made it clear that he does see it as now up to Congress to take it from here.   Neither the Justice Department nor the Attorney General has the authority to clear the president of obstruction.   Mueller seemed clear in saying it was not the AG's job to make that determination but Congress's.  In fact, one can read the report as a direct referral to Congress for them to consider an impeachment process.

3.   He also made it clear that, but for the Office of Legal Counsel memo that a sitting president cannot be indicted -- which is an opinion, not a law -- there was sufficient evidence that the president had committed acts of obstruction of justice.   Mueller's report lists the acts of obstruction that he has evidence for.    He did not take the next step of charging him for it because he was bound by the OLC ruling.

4.   He also repeated what's in the report that, in addition to being unable to indict because of this DoJ policy, it would be unfair to make an indictment that cannot then go to trial where the president would have the opportunity to try to clear his name.

5.   Mueller spoke to his possibly testifying before Congress.    He clearly does not want to testify, but he did not say that he would not.  What he said was that, if he did, he would not go beyond what's in the written report.   In other words, he will not elaborate, give additional evidence, or possibly even speak to clarify what people may have questions about.   He would simply, in effect, read that part of the report to them.  The report is his testimony, he was saying.

I understand and can admire Mueller's very careful choice of words and his wish to avoid hyperbole or saying things that others will sensationalize.    But I also think he has some responsibility to not let his reticent style contribute to that sensationalizing in the opposite direction -- like Trump saying that the report "completely exonerates" him -- when in fact it says the opposite.

The biggest take-away, I think, is this:   Mueller is saying:   "Don't look to me to do your job for you.   I've done my part.   Now it's up to Congress to do it's job.    Don't wait for me to testify to tell you what we found.   It's all there in the report.   Read it.   Read it carefully.  It's all there."

Yes, but . . .   Mueller assumes that people will actually read it.   And, if they read it, that they will read it carefully.    And, if they read it carefully for what it says, they will also read it without putting their own political spin on it -- and then claiming that that's what the report actually says.

I guess I'm saying that I think a writer has some responsibility not to be mis-understood.

Ralph