A Republican Congressman Just Proudly Declared, on National Television, That He Hasn't Read the Mueller Report

Jack Holmes

From Esquire

They don't want to know. Republican members of Congress are fully aware that if they read the Mueller Report and evaluate its contents on the merits, they will not be able to defend the Presidential Behavior they find as befitting of the office. After all, the report shows that a hostile foreign power interfered in the 2016 election to get Donald Trump elected, that Donald Trump welcomed that help, and that he abused his power to obstruct the subsequent investigation into an attack on the American republic. So, they just won't read it.

Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (!) and a bona fide political parasite who's lately glommed onto Donald Trump, American president, recently opened up a meeting of that committee by proudly declaring he hasn't read the whole report. That hearing was convened to elicit testimony from William Barr, Trump's pet attorney general who blatantly misled the public about the report's contents before releasing it. Way to set the tone, Mr. Chairman. Good to know who you work for. It ain't the American public.

But last night, his colleague in the legislature's lower chamber seemed determined to make Graham-who you'll be shocked to learn has changed his tune on impeachment since the Clinton days-look like a Brave Man of Conscience. Rep. Rob Woodall joined MSNBC's Kasie Hunt and declared he has not read the report, he will not read the report, and na-na-na-na-na I can't hear you.

There's not a goddamn word in here that supports his decision not to read the report. Not a word. It's all bluster, often contradictory bluster, and it's just another embarrassment to the Legislative Branch. He trusts Robert Mueller, but he thinks the Russia investigation had an "agenda" because the whole weight of the Justice Department was behind it. Wouldn't reading the report and evaluating the evidence and reasoning laid out therein be a great way to determine whether it was an agenda-driven political hit job or a legit probe?

It's almost like Mr. Woodall has an agenda of his own: defend the president at all costs, likely because the president polls well in his solid-red congressional district and he doesn't want a primary challenge. The best way to do that is to maintain plausible deniability about whether the president repeatedly broke the law and abused his power, all while somehow making definitive statements on what the report contains.

As if that weren't enough, Woodall then suggested that adjudicating whether the president obstructed justice is somehow not in the purview of Congress. Yes, impeachment is a political mechanism, but it can obviously be used to remove a president who has violated his oath of office or otherwise broken the law. ("High Crimes and Misdemeanors," bucko.) That is what the last two impeachment questions-Richard Nixon, who resigned before his could begin, and Bill Clinton, who was impeached and acquitted in the Senate-were about: obstruction of justice.

Then Woodall somehow tried to spin out of things by suggesting the report outlined no further action because it did not press criminal charges, even though 1) he did not read the report by his own admission, and 2) it specifically details why Mueller felt he could not indict, and why he was referring the evidence to Congress for further action. No worries, though! He didn't read Kenneth Starr's Bill Clinton report either, which he considered "salacious." This guy doesn't read anything!

A brief reminder of the oath of office that members of Congress take when they are sworn in:

“I, Rob Woodall, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

There's nothing about Not Bringing Down a Sitting President in there. Not a word about protecting President Fox News Grandpa to ward off a primary challenge from the right. If the president has betrayed his own constitutional oath, or otherwise violated the public trust, it is Woodall's duty to make him answer for what he's done. But why do that when you can just toe the party line and lie to your constituents about the report fucking says? It's all an absolute disgrace, but the most striking element is that Woodall felt he could say this proudly on television. Shame ain't what it used to be. We're in a whole new territory now.

('You Might Also Like',)