The word “DISASTER” links to a Fox News clip in which a Fox anchor describes Mueller’s testimony using that term. Remarkably, the following sentence is even more egregiously biased.

According to the email, “Mueller confirmed what we’ve known from the very beginning: there was NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, and the treatment of President Trump is TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED.”

AD

AD

The evidence for that? Three snippets tweeted out by the campaign’s “war room” Twitter account.

In the first — “no collusion” — the account quotes Mueller’s opening statement.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller said.

What’s not included in the tweet, though, is what Mueller said next.

“We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term,” Mueller then said, “rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not.”

As the report said, not only did Mueller not find “no collusion,” but his team also does not assert that no evidence of criminal coordination existed.

AD

The email’s second claim — “no obstruction” — is even more obviously incorrect.

AD

The related tweet shows a clip of questioning in which Mueller agrees that his campaign was not at any point “curtailed or stopped or hindered.”

Later in his testimony, Mueller noted one way in which the investigation was hindered: Efforts to get sit-down testimony from Trump never came to fruition. Instead, the investigators got answers to written questions, answers that were predominantly claims that Trump didn’t recall the answers.

What the campaign is trying to do is wave away the actual evidence that Trump attempted to interfere directly with Mueller’s probe. That effort constitutes the entire second volume of Mueller’s report, involving various incidents in which Trump reportedly tried to fire Mueller or to interfere with witness testimony.

AD

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked Mueller about that explicitly.

AD

“Director Mueller,” Nadler asked, “the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?”

“Correct,” Mueller replied. “That is not what the report said.”

Nadler later deployed a somewhat awkward double negative.

“So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked.

“That is correct,” Mueller replied.

That questioning from Nadler, incidentally, preceded the snippet shared by Trump’s campaign. In other words, they chose a line of questioning that didn’t address the main thrust of Mueller’s obstruction claims — after Mueller explicitly stated that Trump wasn’t cleared on claims of obstruction of justice.

AD

Later, during Mueller’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, he engaged in a related exchange. Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio) pressed Mueller on the report’s statement that it couldn’t exonerate Trump. Wasn’t it true, Turner argued, that it wasn’t possible for a prosecutor to effect such an exoneration? That, in essence, a prosecutor could prove only guilt, not innocence?

AD

Mueller declined to get into a legal debate. But Turner’s line of questioning does make things a bit rocky for one proponent of that term.

The final claim made in the campaign email — “totally unprecedented treatment” — centers on that same theme. Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) asked Mueller to identify another point at which prosecutors stated that they couldn’t exonerate a criminal suspect. Mueller wasn’t able to do so. Ergo, per the tweet: unprecedented.

AD

What Mueller noted, of course, is that this was an unusual case. A special counsel, appointed under a relatively new statute, navigating both criminal statutes and the broader question of what a candidate-turned-president had done.