Byron York Deconstructs Nadler's Obstruction "Movie"

In a lengthy article at The Washington Examiner, Byron York explains what the Dems hope to accomplish with their Mueller hearing, and then proceeds to deconstruct it. To do this York borrows a metaphor from a Dem staffer:

Democrats know the report has failed to capture the public imagination, and they hope bringing Mueller to Capitol Hill for questioning will catch the nation's attention.

"Not everybody is reading the book, but people will watch the movie," a House Judiciary Committee official told Politico's Playbook.

York is, rightly, skeptical, because the movie will prove no more compelling than the book. As York observes: Some movies bomb.

Here are the Big Three obstruction narratives--or, wait, possible obstruction narratives--what the Dems will focus on:

"Democrats...intend to dwell heavily on ... the most glaring episodes of possible obstruction of justice that Mr. Mueller documented," the New York Times reported Saturday. 

[1] "They include Mr. Trump's direction to the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II to fire Mr. Mueller and then publicly lie about it; 

[2] his request that Corey Lewandowski, a former campaign chief, ask Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reassert control of the investigation and limit its scope; 

[3] and possible witness tampering to discourage two aides, Paul Manafort and Michael D. Cohen, from cooperating with investigators."

Of course the "possible" aspect is exactly what will lose viewers at the outset. York explains succinctly:

The first thing to notice about the Democrats' choice of evidence is what is not included. If news reports are correct,  

[1] the firing of FBI director James Comey, once treated in media discussions as Exhibit A in the case for obstruction, is not among the episodes Democrats will highlight.  

[2] Nor are the conversations between Trump and Comey that Comey wrote up in his famous memos, including a talk in which Trump allegedly asked Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn -- another episode that was routinely discussed in the media as solid evidence of obstruction.  

[3] Nor are the president's efforts to spin the public story of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting -- yet another incident often characterized as obstruction. 

Also important to remember is that the Muller investigation was not actually obstructed by the president, and neither was the FBI Trump-Russia investigation that preceded it. In the report, Mueller often argued that this or that act -- say, firing Mueller -- could have obstructed the investigation, had it actually occurred. But it did not. So the Democrats' accusations of obstruction will in fact be accusations of attempted obstruction. 

Actually, it wasn't even "attempted." At most it was probably something like "contemplated," or "considered," or ... something vague like that.

Finally, it is important to recall that Mueller could never establish that the underlying crime he was assigned to investigate -- conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia -- actually took place. So in Wednesday's hearing, Democrats will be showcase an investigation that was not obstructed into a crime that investigators could not establish actually happened.

Really? A movie about "an investigation that was not obstructed into a crime that investigators could not establish actually happened"? Who was the screenwriter for that one? York concludes:

Democrats seek to make a movie of Mueller's findings to win public attention. But some movies bomb. Without the sort of solid, incontrovertible evidence they can sell to the public, Democrats face an uphill climb, no matter how much attention the Mueller hearing attracts on Wednesday.

Read it all here: Democrats think they've got a slam dunk obstruction case against Trump. They don't.