Mueller Hearing Generated Less Than 13 Million Viewers

The House Democrats and the media built up the Mueller hearings for weeks as the long awaited moment in the Trump investigations. It appears that the moment came far too late for most Americans. Less than 13 million viewers tuned in for the hearings, which was widely described as a disaster for the Democrats and, frankly, Mueller. In another example of the growth of cable over broadcast, Fox News secured the largest audience for the day — an ironic conclusion given the false report that Fox would not cover the hearing live. Yet, the numbers were down overall from the hearing of former FBI Director James Comey. The hearing undermined the Democratic position with a remarkably ill-conceived plan of having members just read portions of the report to Mueller who came across as befuddled and confused.

Here are the results:

Fox: 3.03 million

MSNBC: 2,408,000

ABC: 2,124,000

NBC: 1,989,000

CBS: 1,905,000

CNN: 1,515,000.

In the most sought after demographic group, NBC drew 536,000 people in the advertiser demo. ABC News came in second among people between 25 and 54, notching an average of 489,000, followed by Fox News with 441,000; CBS with 406,000; CNN with 365,000; and MSNBC with 347,000.

Since Attorney General Bill Barr garnered 11 million for his hearing, this was well below what the Democrats and the media had hoped for. This is a case where the coverage numbers carry a strong political meaning. Democrats worked hard to drive up the viewership and spend weeks prepping and planning with members. What they produced was an anemic and conflicted hearing.

194 thoughts on “Mueller Hearing Generated Less Than 13 Million Viewers”

  1. It sure poured gas on the fire and got AG Barr the information, documents, records, etc he needs and the backing that clearly states the mission and provides no limits authorization in all branches of government. No more hiding behind a personal versioin of ‘wide ranging.’

  2. I love it when Leftist shoot themselves in the foot, repeatedly. Think they would get tired of failing so much. If we could just get rid of around 99.9% of the Leftist, 100% of the Rino’s and Neocons, we might just have a country again.

  3. Professor: “Mueller……Mueller….”

    Simone: “Um, he’s sick. My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this senator who knows this page who’s going with the girl who saw Robert pass out after granting 31 Political Favors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.”

    1. Economics Teacher: “Thank you, Simone.”
      Simone: “No problem whatsoever.”

      Democrats/Trump Resistance: “First of all you can never go too far. Second of all, if we’re going to be caught, it’s not gonna be by a guy like that!”

      Mueller: “Incredible! One of the worst performances of my career, and they never doubted it for a second!”

  4. It is apparent that Mueller was a figurehead. If Nadler and Schiff really wanted to conduct oversight they would have the de facto team leader and author of the report, Weissmann, testify. One way or another that might lead somewhere.




    Robert Mueller sat before Congress this week warning that the Russia threat “deserves the attention of every American.” He said “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious” challenges to American democracy he has ever seen.

    Not three hours after Mueller finished testifying, Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, went to the Senate floor to request unanimous consent to pass legislation requiring presidential campaigns to report to the FBI any offers of assistance from agents of foreign governments.

    Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) was there to represent her leader’s interests. “I object,” she said.

    Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) attempted to move a bill that would require campaigns to report to the FBI contributions by foreign nationals.

    “I object,” said Hyde-Smith.

    Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tried to force action on bipartisan legislation, written with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and supported by Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), protecting lawmakers from foreign cyberattacks. “The majority leader, our colleague from Kentucky, must stop blocking this common-sense legislation and allow this body to better defend itself against foreign hackers,” he said.

    “I object,” repeated Hyde-Smith.

    The next day, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the minority leader, asked for the Senate to pass the Securing America’s Federal Elections Act, already passed by the House, that would direct $600 million in election assistance to states and require backup paper ballots.

    McConnell himself responded this time, reading from a statement, his chin melting into his chest, his trademark thin smile on his lips. “It’s just a highly partisan bill from the same folks who spent two years hyping up a conspiracy theory about President Trump and Russia,” he said. “Therefore, I object.” McConnell also objected to another attempt by Blumenthal to pass his bill.

    Pleaded Schumer: “I would suggest to my friend the majority leader: If he doesn’t like this bill, let’s put another bill on the floor and debate it.”

    But McConnell has blocked all such attempts, including:

    A bipartisan bill requiring Facebook, Google and other Internet companies to disclose purchasers of political ads, to identify foreign influence.

    A bipartisan bill to ease cooperation between state election officials and federal intelligence agencies.

    A bipartisan bill imposing sanctions on any entity that attacks a U.S. election.

    A bipartisan bill with severe new sanctions on Russia for its cybercrimes.

    McConnell has prevented them all from being considered — over and over again. This is the same McConnell who, in the summer of 2016, when briefed by the CIA along with other congressional leaders on Russia’s electoral attacks, questioned the validity of the intelligence and forced a watering down of a warning letter to state officials about the threat, omitting any mention of Russia.

    No amount of alarms sounded by U.S. authorities — even Republicans, even Trump appointees — moves McConnell.

    On Tuesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray — Trump’s FBI director — told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Russians “haven’t been deterred enough” and are “absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections.”

    This year, National Intelligence Director Daniel Coats — Trump’s intelligence director — told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “foreign actors will view the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests. We expect them to refine their capabilities and add new tactics.”

    And on Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report finding that “Russian activities demand renewed attention to vulnerabilities in U.S. voting infrastructure.”

    The committee concluded that “urgent steps” are needed “to replace outdated and vulnerable voting systems.” (The $380 million offered since 2016 is a pittance compared with the need.) “Despite the expense, cybersecurity needs to become a higher priority for election-related infrastructure,” the report concluded.

    But one man blocks it all — while offering no alternative of his own.

    Edited from: “Mitch McConnell Is A Russian Asset”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Whatever you do Shill, don’t dig deeper than assuming your headline is reasonable. What is more likely, that the Senate Majority Leader is a traitor to this country, or is there something about the bills that deserve a no vote? So before we perp walk McConnell to the gallows, let’s eliminate the most obvious reasons; political gamesmanship, riders, federalism and so on. I offer this article for consideration, link and all:

      As an act of political theater, the Democrats’ recent attempt to cast Mitch McConnell in a bad light has been quite successful. The Internet is awash in headlines contending that he blocked election-security reforms despite warnings about ongoing Russian interference from Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

      The reactions are overwrought and unfair. McConnell was right to stop the two bills at the center of the controversy, and the Democrats knew full well ahead of time that he would do so. And “Cocaine Mitch” is a far better nickname than “Moscow Mitch” anyway.

      The Democrats tried to push these bills by unanimous consent. One of them, a bill giving states hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their voting systems and requiring the use of paper ballots, had already passed the House — and won only a single Republican vote, meaning its support is far from unanimous. The other would require candidates to report foreign offers of assistance; this would encounter numerous practical difficulties and at minimum cannot simply sail through the Senate unimpeded.

      Senate Democrats asked for unanimous consent to these bills knowing they would not receive it and pretended to be shocked when they didn’t get it. The media then gobbled up a narrative about McConnell stopping action on an issue right after being warned about how serious a problem it was.

      To be clear, foreign election interference is, indeed, a serious threat. According to the recent Intelligence Committee report, while there’s no sign that vote totals have been manipulated, there have been successful efforts to access sensitive information such as voter registration.

      Less well known, however, is that there’s already been immense progress on this issue. The Department of Homeland Security and the states have gotten far better at addressing it since the 2016 election; Congress provided the states $380 million for election security just last year; under McConnell, the Senate has passed bills to further deter and punish those who interfere in elections. Still, additional efforts are warranted, and some of those efforts could require legislation.

      We share McConnell’s hesitance toward federalizing election policy. This is an area traditionally handled by the states, and on those grounds McConnell has held up several efforts, some with bipartisan support, in recent months. But we encourage him to be open to narrow, bipartisan legislation to tackle problems that only the federal government can tackle, and have every reason to believe he will be.

      These bills were not that.

      1. Olly, this sounds like healthcare. Mitch is always saying ‘no’. But what Mitch McConnell ever offering? What’s he offering as an 2020 Election Security Bill?

        You can’t seem to tell me. Updated voting infrastructure is too expensive for the states to pick up all the costs. Maybe McConnell is just too cheap? I wouldn’t doubt it, actually.

        It would be just like McConnell to decide Election Security is just ‘too expensive’. But one imagines McConnell would hasten to add he’s tough on Illegal Voters!

        1. What’s he offering as an 2020 Election Security Bill?

          See, now you’re asking the questions that should have been your headline.

          You can’t seem to tell me. Updated voting infrastructure is too expensive for the states to pick up all the costs. Maybe McConnell is just too cheap?

          Congress provided the states $380 million for election security just last year; under McConnell, the Senate has passed bills to further deter and punish those who interfere in elections.

          First of all, the states need to be committed to election security. Election security implies an infrastructure that prevents foreign interference in our electoral process. Foreign interference implies entities, without a legal basis, have an impact in our electoral process. In my opinion, those states that have declared themselves to be a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and/or with municipalities openly defying federal efforts to enforce federal immigration laws, have made clear they have no interest in receiving federal funds for election security. Those states defying federal laws have tacitly declared they do not need federal funding for anything, let alone funding for election security.

          I believe any federal funding must involve providing a nationally recognized voter ID to every US citizen eligible to vote. I believe each state needs to demonstrate they are committed to ensure everyone on their voter rolls are eligible to vote in their state. And they need to demonstrate a commitment to aggressively monitor and eliminate voter fraud and aggressively monitor and eliminate efforts to suppress voter participation. States that demonstrate this commitment to election security should receive the maximum federal support the law allows.

          1. Olly, I’m not positive what specific legislation you’re referring to. You’re not pasting any sources or naming any bills.

            But it sounds like you want to link this issue to Sanctuary Cities and the imagined votes Illegal Aliens are casting. Though it’s hard to discern where your opinion ends and ‘where’ the actual facts begin.

            You’re framing the issue in these terms: “Either Sanctuary Cities Go, Or Russia Interferes”. So it all sounds rather menacing. Like we have to choose between Putin or Sanctuary Cities. There’s no in between!

            It sounds dumb enough to be the Republican position. Or a talking point from rightwing media. And we all know that Trump would frame it in those terms. Though we shouldn’t think for a moment he’s a stooge for Vladimir Putin.

            1. I’m not positive what specific legislation you’re referring to. You’re not pasting any sources or naming any bills.

              How positive then were you implying McConnell was a traitor? The point is you write a headline without bothering to gather all the facts, and then proceed to whine that someone’s not doing your thinking for you.

              You’re framing the issue in these terms: “Either Sanctuary Cities Go, Or Russia Interferes.”

              Interesting, I say foreign and the only country your feeble imagination can think of is Russia. I never mentioned Russia, you did. Why is that? Are you only concerned with Russian interference in our electoral process? Perhaps you need to define what a secure election means to you. How do you define foreign?

              I offered this description of what I see as election security and foreign interference. Is that reasonable? If not, why not?

              Election security implies an infrastructure that prevents foreign interference in our electoral process. Foreign interference implies entities, without a legal basis, have an impact in our electoral process.

              If I told you there was 11+ million Russians living in this country illegally, with an estimated 100k crossing our borders every month and protected by cities and states from federal immigration enforcement, would you want to protect them? Would it matter to you if they were being protected in Republican-controlled districts and states?

              How do you define voter suppression? Is there a difference between suppressing a vote by preventing them casting it in the first place and suppressing a vote by nullifying the legal vote with an illegal vote?

              1. Olly, you’re repeating BS. I gave you the studies. There is no significant voter fraud at the ballot box in the US. The penalties are severe and the pay off non-existent. At this point you’re just spewing lies in an attempt to suppress the votes of demographic groups not favorable to your party which represents a minority of Amercans with a declining demographic.

                1. At this point you’re just spewing lies in an attempt to suppress the votes of demographic groups not favorable to your party…

                  With such a declarative statement, you should have no problem citing the lies I’m supposedly spewing. Identify anything I’ve written that suggest I want to suppress any legal vote.

                  For the record, I’m registered Independent. I believe Independents are a growing percentage of our electorate.

                  1. OLLY – if it make you feel better, Independents were the largest registered group in Arizona in 2018.

                    1. It does Paul. I believe it forces the parties to clearly define their platform and more importantly, to be held accountable to taking positive steps to carry it out.

                    2. OLLY – when I first registered as an Independent some 40 years ago, we could not vote in the primaries. Now, we can vote in the primary of our choice. However, the Democrats select all their candidates in a state caucus so only the Republicans leave the Independents any choice at the primary level.

                  2. Olly, my post is a complete statement and of course is supported by data I provided and directed to you in this thread.

                    As an independent I hope you use your head in the general, though so far there is no evidence that will happen, and if you live in my state I hope you remain blocked from party primaries that you don;t belong to.

                    1. my post is a complete statement and of course is supported by data I provided and directed to you in this thread.

                      For the record, I didn’t ask you about your statement or the data in it. I asked you about this comment from you:

                      At this point you’re just spewing lies in an attempt to suppress the votes of demographic groups not favorable to your party…

                      My questions were:

                      With such a declarative statement, you should have no problem citing the lies I’m supposedly spewing. Identify anything I’ve written that suggest I want to suppress any legal vote.

                      At this point it is obvious that the only one of us spewing lies is you.

                2. I guess Anon was providing some more meaningless statistics that he doesn’t understand.There is plenty of evidence to suggest voter fraud. One video I posted showed a man go into vote under the name of Eric Holder and they wanted no evidence what so ever that he was Eric Holder. They kept telling him as long as he said he was Eric Holder and knew his address he could vote. This means if dead people are on the rolls people can use those names and old addresses and vote.

                  Anon wants to believe whatever cr-p is in his head and that is why he is generally wrong.

      2. “Is Mitch McConnell a Russian Asset?” Hmm, let’s see…….McConnell’s political foes could contact Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele to find out for us. Steele could then report his findings to the FBI, and then the investigation may require a couple of additional years of a Special Counsel looking into it.
        Then the Special Counsel could ask who Fusion GPS is.

    2. Hill – isn’t this the paper that thought the Sandmann kid was racist???? Yep, I am going to follow their orders.

      1. Paul, I don’t follow rightwing media. So give me some hint of what you’re talking about.

        1. Hill – do you read the Washington Post regularly? They said that Nick Sandmann was a racist because of a snippet of a video that went viral. Everyone who waited to see the entire video saw that everyone except Nick Sandmann and his classmates were racist. I think they were sued for $125M.

          1. The wapo did not call the Covington kids racist. They reported on the first video posted anonymously on the incident and then immediately reported on follow up videos which gave context and showed the kids to be the most responsible and well behaved of the groups at that event.

            Both MCConnel and Trump are doing nothing on the threat that even Trump appointees are continuously warning us about. As Peter points out, this us just like health insurance in which McConnel and Trump have been promising without delivering anything. We know Trump is Putin’s bitch and McConnel and his GOP colkeagues are Trump’s

            1. Anon1 – Congress was given a classified briefing on election security by the WH just the other day. For someone who is Putin’s bitch, Trump sure has made things tough for him.

              1. Paul, Mitch McConnell shot down several bipartisan bills. Including a bill co-sponsored by Tom Cotton of Arkansas. What legislation is Mitch McConnell offering??

                Olly seems to imply we have to choose between Putin or Sanctuary Cites. But I can’t tell if that’s Olly or a rightwing talking point. Maybe you can verify. Is that the talking point on rightwing media? ‘Democrats have to choose between Putin or Sanctuary Cities’?

                1. Hill – I do not speak for Olly and I am not sure what you consider to be “right-wing.” To me, Mitch McConnell is not right-wing.

                  1. McConnel has demonstrated how modern Republicans have no ideology or principles but act solely as Trump’s bitch. “Right wing” and conservative are anachronisms in Congress – none exist there anymore.

                    1. McConnell is literally ‘Senator No’. That’s all we ever hear from him. During the darkest days of recession Americans were sure Mitch McConnell would ‘No’ any bill helping people.

                      McConnell is opposed in principal to the basic idea that government can play a positive role in the lives of Americans.

                      You see that’s the slippery slope on the road to socialism; ‘any program that plays a positive role in people’s lives’. Legislation like that sets bad example. McConnell would have to ‘Yes’ something.

                      Then people might expect a ‘real’ healthcare system. Or new infrastructure. Or a plan to deal with warmer temperatures and rising sea.

                      Those priorities would require McConnell to say ‘yes’ and broker bi-partisan deals. A course that would make McConnell look ‘weak’ on Fox News.

                      The fortunes of Republicans come first to Mitch McConnell. ‘Party over country’ summarizes Mitch. Therefore I’m skeptical that Mitch McConnell cares about the security of elections.

                2. Olly seems to imply we have to choose between Putin or Sanctuary Cites.

                  Just another does not compute implication from the befuddled prognosticator.

                  How do you define foreign interference?

                  How do you define election security?

              2. Paul, the briefing was requested by Schumer and Is not from the WH, which has offered absolutely no plan, but by the FBI, Homeland Security, and National Intelligence. If you somehow haven’t noticed, Trump is on Putin’s side on this against our intelligence agencies and the FBI.

                1. Anon1 – you do realize that the entities you mentioned are under the purview of the WH, which has a plan, which includes those agencies. I am against our intelligence agencies who tried to bring down our current President and I do not have much faith in the FBI, which helped to try to overthrow a President.

                  1. Paul, you and I might laugh but Anon still believes the Steele Dossier was legitimate.

                    1. Allan – even Mueller did not think the Steele (Hillary) dossier was legitimate.

                    2. “Allan – even Mueller did not think the Steele (Hillary) dossier was legitimate.”

                      Paul, I haven’t heard Mueller saying that. If you have please let me know where. I don’t think many believe the Steele Dossier was legitimate. Based on what it says and what has been released about it, calling the Dossier legitimate is left for those that are unknowledgeable or lie a lot.

                    3. Allan – one of the Congresspersons put on the spot about it. He did not deny the characterization of the dossier as false. Mueller got hammered on it pretty good.

                  2. Thanks for making my point Paul. You’re apparently … cough, cough, …possessed by Trump as well, as he thinks exactly what you do, and as I noted then, that was not a WH briefing but a briefing requested by Schumer and done by the FBI, Homeland Security, and National Intelligence.. His FBI appointee Wray warned the Senate publicly this week that we needed to do more.

                    The enemy is in the WH, and you’re apparently standing with him and Putin against our side.

                    1. “Thanks for making my point Paul”

                      Paul, can you figure out what Anon’s point is that is based on fact and logic? I think when you left a prior alias of Anon might have gone off the deep end and now that you are back perhaps you you can bring him back into reality.

          2. It was $250 million, not $125.

            The case was just dismissed. There will be an appeal, so we’ll see. There are two other lawsuits that are still pending. (See excerpt, below.)



            “Nick has also sued CNN and NBC. Before Friday’s dismissal, he was seeking more than three-quarters of $1 billion against the three media companies.

            “The cases against CNN and NBC remain pending as of Friday afternoon.”

            1. Sandman and the Covington kids were wrongly slandered by many for their part in the event at the memorial, but less in news coverage which was based on amateur videos, and more in opinion pieces. This raises interesting questions about opinion that is factually wrong, but that happens all the time on all sides. That private citizens who were also underage were maligned puts this in a special category and damages seem morally legitimate to me. Don’t know about legally. The overblown amount was not in my opinion.

              1. $750,000 seems excessive, as you’ve noted. We’ll see what happens on appeal — and with the other two cases.

              2. Anon1 – you are a 15/16-year-old kid who has been libeled by a major paper and you refuse to apologize for getting it wrong. What do you think your damages are?

  6. Apparently people have been questioning Mueller’s cognitive abilities for a while and it seems he exhibited some questionable signs during another public appearance May 29th.


    Mueller needs his head examined

    On May 29, Mueller read a prepared statement while exhibiting the following indicia of dementia. Mueller repeatedly had difficultly pronouncing the words in the statement and often spoke haltingly. He didn’t seem to be familiar with the material even though he claimed he wrote it. Mueller had a long career in criminal justice but forgot it isn’t a prosecutor’s job to “exonerate” a suspect; rather either to indict or not. Mueller claimed he knew he couldn’t indict a sitting president (so his work as a prosecutor was futile) but spent two years and millions of dollars anyway. Mueller’s statement asserted it was applying the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by long standing Justice Department opinions, but it applied a vague non-constitutional standard of “misconduct” rather than “treason, scandal or high crimes.”

    It’s time for the people in the white coats.



    There’s a lot more to the case against Mr. Trump and his associates than what came up in Wednesday’s hearings.

    First, while Mr. Mueller’s inquiry generated 37 criminal indictments and has secured at least seven guilty pleas or convictions, some of these cases, including the prosecution of the longtime Trump associate Roger Stone, are ongoing, and were not fully addressed in the redacted Mueller report.

    Second, the extent of Mr. Trump’s past or continuing business dealings with Russia remains a mystery. Mr. Mueller confirmed that it was outside the scope of his investigation to address whether Russians laundered money through Trump businesses, and declined to discuss whether he reviewed Mr. Trump’s tax returns.

    And third, the special counsel has referred numerous cases to other law enforcement authorities — including at least one involving alleged misconduct by the president regarding campaign contributions.

    The Roger Stone chapter may seem like a sideshow, but it raises the question of how much advance knowledge the Trump campaign had of WikiLeaks’ release of Democratic emails hacked by Russians, and how Trump associates used that information in their campaign strategy.

    Elements of this saga are part of the public record. Mr. Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen stated in sworn congressional testimony that in July 2016, he heard Mr. Stone inform Mr. Trump that he had spoken with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and that Mr. Assange planned to release emails that would “damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” And according to the Mueller report, Rick Gates, the deputy Trump campaign head, said that by the late summer of 2016 the campaign was planning “a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.” Mr. Mueller confirmed in testimony yesterday that the campaign devised its strategy around documents stolen by Russia and covered this up.

    However, the public is still in the dark about much involving the WikiLeaks releases, and specifically how much Mr. Trump knew about or participated in the arrangement. For example, the Mueller report heavily redacts the text surrounding its references to conversations Mr. Trump had with Mr. Cohen, Mr. Gates and his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, after the July 2016 WikiLeaks release — including the discussion Mr. Gates reported, in which he said Mr. Trump told him “more releases of damaging information would be coming.”

    Congress needs to examine whether the extremely convenient coincidence of the leak of more emails on Oct. 7, 2016, just one hour after an “Access Hollywood” tape revealed Mr. Trump bragging about assaulting women, was in fact just that, a coincidence, or was instead another act of coordination by the Trump campaign or the candidate’s associates.

    Mr. Mueller’s testimony and report also do not resolve questions about the extent of Trump financial dealings with Russia. Congress needs to examine closely whether the president or his associates are compromised in any way by those relationships.

    Whatever the press and pundits are saying in the aftermath of Mr. Mueller’s testimony, Wednesday’s hearings were not the end of the road; they were not even the beginning of it. Examination of the questions concerning President Trump’s actions and other misconduct identified by Mr. Mueller should be the highest priority for every member of Congress, no matter their party affiliation. Public accountability requires nothing less, because no one in this country, no matter how high, should be above the law.

    Edited from: “What The Mueller Hearings Did Not Tell Us”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. so rich in irony this comes from the NYT. I suppose they think that NYT v US only protects them. Do journalists have a license? I suppose the NYT would want them to, since only they are allowed to not only report leaks but use them.

Comments are closed.