Mueller Quietly Established His Credibility and Re-Focused the Agenda: Part 2, What He Didn't Say

Robert Mueller, FBI photo

People are asking, why did Special Counsel Robert Mueller not take a firmer stand when he spoke to the public yesterday? The answer is simple: although his talk frustrated both of the opposing sides, Mueller’s calm, fact-filled strategy helped to reestablish his credibility.

When Mueller spoke, his number one challenge was credibility. This is not because he had done anything wrong. No, it is because President Donald Trump and his supporters have unleashed the foulest vitriol against Mueller, challenging his integrity and objectivity in the harshest possible language. Although the Special Counsel’s report uncovered extensive unethical and possibly illegal conduct by the President and his team during the 2016 campaign, Mueller did not file criminal charges. The report explained that a Department of Justice opinion says that a sitting president cannot be indicted. (That opinion is at this link.)

My previous post noted that neither President Trump nor his surrogates have questioned the report’s factual accuracy. Their only defense has been to attack Mueller. Russian interference isn’t the issue. The issue is whether Mueller conducted a fair investigation.

To reestablish his credibility, Mueller used three brilliant rhetorical tactics: First, he stayed above the battle. Second, he confined himself to information that was already in the written report. Third, Mueller praised his staff’s quality and objectivity. Let’s look at each tactic in turn.

Above the Battle

Mueller neither took sides nor spoke for any policy. Importantly, he never mentioned the word “impeachment.” Saying “impeachment” (as Special Prosecutor Ken Starr did 17 times in his report when he investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton) would have made him seem political and would have created the impression that he was taking sides. Instead, he said: “the [Department of Justice] opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” We all know that the other process is impeachment, but Mueller didn’t say that. 

However, impeachment is what the opinion talked about. Page 32 of the Department of Justice opinion suggests that: “an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office.” By referring to the Department of Justice policy, but not using the word “impeachment,” Mueller gave his conclusion without using the exact word himself. Clever.

Sometimes, what you don’t say is more important than what you do say. Sometimes the best way to make a point is to not make it out loud!

Did Not Add to the Written Report

News reports show that many news analysts, many members of the public (and surprisingly many members of Congress) have not even read Mueller’s report. Mueller performed an important public service by reviewing the report’s findings in a brief, newsworthy speech. This made it more difficult for people to spin or misrepresent his findings. This is especially important since his superior, Attorney General William Barr, had reinterpreted the report in an inexcusable and distorted manner. Mueller was able to set the record straight without contradicting his boss. Indeed, he praised his boss (on a different issue!). Yet Mueller gave no information that was not already in the report itself. This gave the impression that he was measured, dignified, and determined to follow procedure. 

As he refocused attention on the written report, with its detailed findings and summary of evidence, Mueller not only conveyed a sense of objectivity, but he also drew attention back to the report itself:

“The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office. So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.”

Did the President obstruct justice? Mueller stated his point very carefully: “if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.” This left the issue to Congress, making Mueller’s position clear enough without stating it outright and avoiding the harsh, politicized language of Ken Starr’s report.

Mueller’s #1 lesson was, do your homework! Read the report!

Third, He Praised His Staff

A speech like this, given by the boss at the end of a lengthy investigation, would normally end by thanking staff members. Not a surprise. But Mueller fulfilled an obvious purpose: aware of the numerous criticisms of his staff, who President Trump often referred to as “13 Angry Democrats” or “18 Angry Democrats,” Mueller praised his staff to reinforce to the public that they did their jobs in a professional, non-partisan way:

“Now before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly 2 years with the special counsel’s office were of the highest integrity.”

Mueller’s word choice was very clever: “the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.” His people were “of the highest integrity.” I’ve seen some pushback against Mueller on social media, but Mueller contradicted the “Angry Democrats” tweets and made his point.

Conclusion

In public speaking, sometimes less is more. Lincoln’s short Gettysburg address is the United States’ best-remembered speech. Mueller said enough, and only enough, to refocus attention on his report. He chose words very carefully, saying just enough to make his point and not a word more. He stayed above the fray and reestablished his reputation.

Tangentially related is what communication experts call the "rhetoric of silence." In other words, what you don't say is as important as what you do say. I've blogged about that a few times. 

Mueller Quietly Established His Credibility and Re-Focused the Agenda: Part 1, the Problem

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, appointed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, spoke yesterday to explain his team’s principal decisions. His speech brilliantly established his credibility.

What Is Credibility?

Rhetorica

In his book Ars Rhetorica, Greek philosopher Aristotle explained thousands of years ago that the means of persuasion are logos (the speaker’s proof and argument), pathos (emotional appeals), and ethos (the speaker’s credibility). Aristotle said that credibility was the most powerful: the speaker’s “character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion.”

In his brief speech, Mueller did not establish his character by boasting about his  credentials, but by speaking in measured, careful tones that gave his critics no ammunition against him, while he praised his team’s integrity and his investigation’s thoroughness. He took the issue of character off the table. In this post, I talk about why Mueller, an esteemed public servant, needed to deal with a credibility problem. In the next post, I’ll explain how he overcame it.

Mueller’s Rhetorical Situation

Communication scholar Lloyd Bitzer wrote that certain “rhetorical situations” cry out for speech. Mueller faced such a situation. His investigation threatens Donald Trump’s presidency. Partisan responses range from Democrats calling for Trump’s immediate impeachment to Republicans claiming that Mueller had cleared Trump of wrongdoing. Wishing to demonstrate that his report was objective, Mueller needed to overcome partisan responses on both sides – not just one. Only a personal appearance and speech could accomplish that. 

Mueller had a credibility problem because, angry that Mueller’s investigation looked into his own actions, Trump had repeatedly complained about Mueller and his “18 Angry Democrats:”

or the “13 Angry Democrats” supposedly leaking to the "Fake News Media:"

(I’ve never understood where Trump found his different numbers. How many angry Democrats did he think Mueller hired? We may never know.)

Trump has never, even once, refuted the specifics of Mueller’s findings. He has quarreled with none of Mueller’s facts. So far, all he has done to defend himself is to launch personal attacks against Mueller and his team. That made Mueller's credibility the investigation's number one, two, and three public issues. Everything else was in the background. But, if he could reestablish his credibility, Mueller could refocus attention on the issues. 

Why Would Trump Care?

Mueller’s detailed report presented extensive evidence that the Russian government and various Russian civilians and actively attacked the integrity of the United States’ 2016 presidential election. A number of indictments were presented and some of Trump's close advisers have been convicted of serious but ancillary crimes. Part one of the report detailed extensive but apparently legal contacts between the Trump campaign and various Russians. Part two documented numerous instances in which President Trump tried to interfere with the Russia investigation. Mueller's team asked Trump to answer several questions in writing. The appendix clearly shows that Trump gave cursory answers to most of the Special Counsel’s questions while ignoring some of them completely.

Although the Special Counsel’s report did not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign in Russia, it includes material that puts the president in a very bad light indeed. This disappointed both sides: Democrats wanted Mueller to prove that Trump had engaged in a conspiracy, while Republicans hoped for his exoneration. Each side is trying to see in the report what they want to see. Democrats are calling for impeachment, while Trump falsely claims to have been cleared. Attorney General William Barr muddied the picture when he reset the agenda in Trump’s favor by twisting Mueller’s findings. Mueller needed to convince Democrats that his investigation was thorough and was not a whitewash, while also showing Republicans that politics did not motivate his findings.

The Question Was Credibility

Motivated, to all appearances, strictly by a sense of duty, Mueller did not need to establish the details of his findings. Those were explained in his report of more than 400 pages. What he needed to do was to convince both sides that he did his job fairly and comprehensively. That was a credibility question, not a factual question. He needed to calm the passions, take his own personality out of the picture, and put public attention back onto the facts. In the next post, which I hope to post later today or early tomorrow, I will explain how Mueller accomplished that goal and forced his critics to change their tactics.

Here's my follow-up. 


Image: Personified picture of Rhetorica. I don't think she was actually a Greek goddess, but  isn't it a great picture? The sword symbolizes the power of persuasion, while the trumpets show how loud Rhetorica can get.

The Themes of Savannah Guthrie's Commencement Speech at George Washington University

Savannah Guthrie, 2014 photo

The Today Show’s Savannah Guthrie gave the commencement speech yesterday at George Washington University in Washington DC. Let’s chat about her speech, and commencement speeches in general.

What Guthrie did was to tell the students about some of her own life experiences and decisions as she graduated from school some years previously. Her key story was this: after beginning a career in broadcast journalism, she decided to go to law school and become a lawyer. She received a JD degree from Georgetown University in Washington and secured a placement at a major law firm and a clerkship with a federal judge. These are extremely auspicious beginnings for a young lawyer. Much to everyone’s surprise, including the judge’s, she turned down everything to resume her career in broadcast journalism. She got a job at a small station, which closed ten days after she started work, and then advanced onto a larger market. She explained that her setbacks helped her learn, made her stronger, and helped her succeed.

Her point was that each decision was a stepping stone to the next. The skills that she learned in a few days at the small station served her well when she advanced to a better job. This led to her conclusion: “But here’s the thing I want to tell you: the challenges you come across, the cliffs you climb, the weight you’re carrying — this is what is making something of you that is worthy and strong.”

Continuing, Guthrie talked about the people who got to the top of Mount Everest, only to find that they were too exhausted to climb down safely. This led to another point: “Could you imagine? They reached their goal only to die on the way down.” She wanted the students to remember that we sometimes get so goal-oriented that we forget to enjoy life’s journey:

“I think there is something to learn here. As much as you might desire a certain kind of success or accomplishment, don’t get summit fever. Don’t be so intent on reaching the top that you kill yourself to get there, or hurt others doing so. And even more, don’t be so focused on some summit that you miss the beautiful views on the way up. This is a metaphor for life. Stop and rest. Look around. Talk to the people traveling with you. Who cares if you make it to the top? The ‘getting there’ is the point anyway. Your climb, your path — that is your real life. The effort, the things you learn, the skills you acquire on the way, and most importantly, the people you keep company with — that is the whole point.”

Guthrie made a spot-on point that we can become so focused on goals that we can lose track of what we really want. All my own students as freshman were ready to answer the questions “what you plan to major in and what you plan to do with your degree once you graduate?” Very few of them ended up completing the major they planned on and entering the career they intended. Some of them lacked confidence to pursue their dreams, but many others discovered something they liked better. That was my case: for most of my youth, I planned to attend law school. I was admitted to an excellent law school and instead studied speech communication in graduate school. It worked out well for me and I think I enjoyed my career much more than if I had followed my original path.

Guthrie gave, all in all, an excellent but typical commencement speech. She illustrated her points with her own life experiences, Her speech got extra attention in the press because she was a famous journalist. It never hurts to have friends in television! She delivered her speech well, which one would expect that she was used to speaking on television. Her voice was energetic; she emphasized points by being louder and softer, faster and slower. She gestured with her hands, smiled, and maintained eye contact.  She interacted with the audience, which many commencement speakers don’t do. Good for her.

Ceremonies are important. I’ve heard some very good commencement speeches over the years and some awful ones. (My own college commencement speaker, Chief Justice Warren Burger, read a thoroughly second-rate presentation about social contract theory.) A commencement speaker has a chance to reach out to the graduates and say something important. The graduation ceremony and graduation speech help people realize that graduation is something important. Students often rush to the ceremony in near-panic after finishing their last exams and turning in their last paper (usually late!). They can hardly believe that it's over, while the professors who only yesterday were running them through a grindmill are suddenly proud to have known them. Families are not only excited, but relieved that the students graduated.

P.S. I visited George Washington University when I was in high school. It’s an impressive urban university. Congratulations to the students.

P.S. If you read some of my other blog posts about commencement speeches, you can see that some of the speakers took up controversial national issues. Guthrie did not, instead focusing squarely on the graduates themselves. Which is the better way? What do you think? 

Image: US Navy photo by Naval Aircrewman Mechanical 3rd Class Michelle Marzec, cropped. Original here.