Is Mueller compromised?

Has Robert Mueller been compromised in some way? The simplest explanation is usually the best, and the "compromise" theory is the simplest way to explain the bizarre spectacle we just witnessed.

Here is a man who clearly believes that the president committed a crime. His report says as much. He states that he found insufficient evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, but he also says in his report that there was interference in the investigation. If his witnesses had cooperated, he surely would have been able to make the case. There is only one possible explanation as to why Trump openly dangled pardons: He's guilty. An innocent president would not have told Manafort (for example) to keep his mouth shut.

Yet Mueller is not acting the way one would expect him to act. He's not taking action at all.

If you believe that the president is a crook, you do something. You take chances. You make bold moves. You ignore precedent. You have no choice but to try to change history, even if doing so leaves you open to the inevitable charges of grandstanding. (Such things are said of all who try to change history.)

Mueller is not doing anything. A former Marine is now as inert as a barnacle.

I don't think that he has lied on Trump's behalf or that he is Trump's stooge (in the sense that Barr clearly is). Compromise, if it exists, extends only so far. But Mueller has couched his truth in excruciatingly careful verbiage which gives Democrats a glimpse of what really occurred, while at the same time allowing Trump to spin, spin, spin. This verbal parsing lets Trump create an alternative reality for his dim-witted hordes of wrestling fans, Bible-thumpers, Fox Newsers and Alt Rightists.

Mueller understands very well what Barr and Trump are up to, yet Mueller has just made clear that he won't expand or elaborate. He has signaled that, if dragged before Congress, he will remain maddeningly opaque.

Here's a key example of important things left unsaid: Today, we heard nothing -- nothing! -- about the claims relayed in Wolfe's new book that Mueller initially laid out an obstruction indictment. Although I have long had a skeptical attitude toward Wolfe (and had expressed those doubts well before Trump ran for office), I must note that this new claim is apparently buttressed by independent documentation.

How the hell are we supposed to square this with what Muller said today? Why on earth would Mueller refuse to address such an important issue?

He stated that he always felt bound by the Justice Department's opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He even stated that any action contrary to this opinion would be "unconstitutional," which is a clear lie. An opinion is not a clause of the Constitution. What section of the Constitution can Mueller cite?

There are many other questions that need responses, questions not adequately addressed by the report itself: What about the counterintelligence investigation? What about Trump's finances? Did Mueller look at Trump's taxes -- and if not, why not? What about the claim that Obama "spied" on Trump? What about Barr's Stalin-esque threat to besmirch the origins of the probe? What about Barr's gross mischaracterization of the report?

Mueller's refusal to provide answers is not reticence. It's not rectitude. It's not professionalism. It is...something else.

Whatever it is, it's infuriating.

Why is he acting this way? The standard answers to that question no longer satisfy me.

Everyone has a pressure point. Everyone can be compromised or blackmailed or threatened or manipulated. No human being is that saintly -- not even the saints themselves, if you examine their biographies. No human being can achieve high position without hiking through a moral grey area or two.

Moreover, we all have loved ones. Even if you have no failings, you surely love someone who does.

Think of the many forces -- the Russians, the Republicans, Cambridge Analytica, the Israelis, the Saudis, the international fascist movement, and probably a large sector of American intelligence -- which have scoured every molecule of Robert Mueller's existence, looking for any chink in the armor. We know that they wanted to launch a "Me Too" attack, and they were even willing to pay for false claims. Although that attempt came a-cropper, the incident told us that the Trumpists have compiled a list of every female who has ever crossed paths with Robert Mueller.

I'm not saying that there really is a "woman problem." I'm simply saying that the Trumpers put in that kind of effort. The Russians have been trying to intercept the man's private communications ever since he first came to public life. Perhaps they found something. Can you be sure that they didn't?

When you think about it, Mueller has had a relatively easy time of it in the Trumpist media. Sure, the Office of Special Counsel has been attacked by Limbaugh and his cohorts, but the attacks always felt a bit limp and pro-forma to me. They weren't really out for blood. Mueller has not really felt anything like the hate campaigns directed at Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Lisa Page and others.

Why didn't Trump shut down the Mueller probe? Why did Trump's lap dogs on the Hill (I'm thinking, in particular, of Lindsey Graham) continue to support Mueller?

Added note: It is instructive to compare Muller's performance today with Lawrence Walsh's press conference after completion of the Iran-Contra investigation. At the time, everyone derided Walsh as weak and insufficient. But Walsh was a Goliath compared to Mueller.

Congress should drag Robert Mueller and everyone connected with that probe in front of the microphones. Show no deference. Treat 'em as hostile, if need be.