Following Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s press conference on Wednesday, NBC News national security correspondent Ken Dilanian repeatedly took to MSNBC to complain how “very frustrating” it was that Mueller failed to find President Trump guilty of a crime. At one point in the coverage, he even proclaimed: “We expected a verdict from Mueller.”
Appearing on Andrea Mitchell Reports during the 12:00 p.m. ET hour, Dilanian shared the frustration of liberals on social media reacting to Mueller’s presser: “And I’m seeing some criticism of Robert Mueller on my Twitter feed, more than I have before, after this statement, because this is, in a way, very frustrating to the resistance and to some Democrats who had hoped that Robert Mueller was gonna get in there and get the truth about what happened with Donald Trump and his campaign and Russia.”
He continued his lamentations:
And not just the narrow question of whether crimes were committed, but you know, what was – what were the moral and ethical obligations that the Trump team had when they were approached by those Russian operatives. Did they call the FBI? Was national security harmed? And the fact that Mueller is not able to speak to that nor is he able to say clearly whether he believes Donald Trump obstructed justice is really frustrating to a lot of people.
Wrapping up his commentary, Dilanian worried that Democrats were unable to successfully push an impeachment “narrative” against Trump: “And the Democrats have been unable to put a narrative in front of the American public. They’re being blocked....it’s unclear whether they can get a narrative that drives to impeachment in front of the American public.”
Showing up again in the 2:00 p.m. ET hour, Dilanian repeated his concerns about Mueller to anchor Chris Matthews: “I’m seeing, though, some criticism of Mueller on my Twitter feed, which is that he essentially punted....We expected a verdict from Mueller.”
Matthews whined: “Why didn’t he tell us we weren’t going to get a verdict?” Dilanian added: “And not only – we knew he couldn’t charge a president...what we didn’t know is that he couldn’t even say, ‘I think the President committed these crimes, over to you Congress.’” Reporter Kasie Hunt interjected: “That he should be charged.” Dilanian agreed: “Yeah, that he should be charged.”
The media have clearly been disappointed by Mueller’s conclusions in the Russia investigation, they’re only hope now is help Democrats push the “narrative” of Trump being guilty of a crime.
Here is a transcript of Dilanian’s May 29 remarks:
12:17 PM ET
(...)
ANDREA MITCHELL: And the very fact that they did not have testimony from the President, aside from the written answers. They didn’t push that. But, Ken Dilanian, pick this up here. There’s a lot that they could not get to both because of the refusal of the President to testify, other witnesses not being available, people changing their story, Manafort and the problems that they had with him as a witness. So there are a lot of reasons why they could not reach conclusions about what did or did not happen.
KEN DILANIAN: That’s correct, Andrea. Including also the destruction of e-mails and other evidence that is cited in the report. But it’s also the case, Andrea, that because of the regulations under which Robert Mueller was operating, the special counsel rule is very different from the independent counsel rules that governed Ken Starr and Lawrence Walsh from Iran Contra fame, this whole thing transpired in a much different way than it might have.
And I’m seeing some criticism of Robert Mueller on my Twitter feed, more than I have before, after this statement, because this is, in a way, very frustrating to the resistance and to some Democrats who had hoped that Robert Mueller was gonna get in there and get the truth about what happened with Donald Trump and his campaign and Russia.
And not just the narrow question of whether crimes were committed, but you know, what was – what were the moral and ethical obligations that the Trump team had when they were approached by those Russian operatives. Did they call the FBI? Was national security harmed? And the fact that Mueller is not able to speak to that nor is he able to say clearly whether he believes Donald Trump obstructed justice is really frustrating to a lot of people.
And yes, people can say, “Well, it’s over to you, Congress.” But you know, your point about a select committee is a very interesting one. We don’t have a select committee right now. What we have are disparate congressional investigations. The Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, the House Judiciary Committee. And the Democrats have been unable to put a narrative in front of the American public. They’re being blocked. One of the key witnesses on obstruction is former White House Counsel Don McGahn. He is going to fight tooth and nail testifying. So it’s unclear whether they can get a narrative that drives to impeachment in front of the American public. And as we all know, right now, there just aren’t the votes in the Senate to convict the President, Andrea.
(...)
2:40 PM ET
(...)KEN DILANIAN: But look, I think Mueller made this much harder and he’s getting a little bit of a pass. I’m seeing, though, some criticism of Mueller on my Twitter feed, which is that he essentially punted. You were getting at this earlier. We expected a verdict from Mueller. We did not realize –
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Why didn’t he tell us we weren’t going to get a verdict?
DILANIAN: And not only – we knew he couldn’t charge a president, we knew that was the OLC doctrine, what we didn’t know is that he couldn’t even say, “I think the President committed these crimes, over to you Congress.”
KASIE HUNT: That he should be charged.
DILANIAN: Yeah, that he should be charged.
(...)
