Yes, I’m waiting for someone to make a good-faith argument to the effect that having Mueller testify is somehow unprecedented or wrong or whatever the hell they think it is.
The Supreme Court is going to give a pre-determined, pro-secrecy-about-the-report (pro-Trump) ruling. That’s what the numbers say. We aren’t going to get to see the report if it’s left up to the Supreme Court.
So why not let Mueller respond to a Congressional request for testimony? It is their duty and prerogative to exercise oversight. They need to know what Mueller found, in order to carry out that oversight.
It’s said that: “Democrats involved in the oversight process say they recognize that subpoenaing Mueller directly would be a nuclear option, typically done as a last resort”. I’m not sure exactly what the reasons are, but all the Democrats’ talk at the moment is about getting the unredacted report, and there is little discussion about subpoenaing Mueller.
Maybe, unlike court battles, there isn’t precedent for subpoenaing Special Counsels. As the above link points out, there was a somewhat similar scenario when Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee in 2016 over the Hillary email thing. He wasn’t subpoenaed, though. Instead they asked Comey’s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to speak to him directly. So perhaps there might be some chain-of-command complications if Barr is head of the Department of Justice, and theoretically Mueller’s boss.
I think that when Barr refuses to comply with the House’s subpoena for the report, it will be the right time to issue the Mueller testimony subpoena, as at that point Barr will have formally refused to comply within a written order/request from Congress, and deadlock will have been reached.
Remember that in 1974 the Supreme Court voted 8-0 (with one abstention) to uphold the subpoena. Neal Katyal, who wrote the Special Counsel regulations, feels confident they will vote in a similar way this time, if it comes to it. Hopefully, it’s not wishful thinking.
A bit of discussion about Mueller testifying here. Mueller would be bound by rules over what he would be able to say in testimony, and so the key to finding out what he knows will be through reading his report, not from speaking to him. He would probably be able to give an answer, though, to the question of whether he felt the redactions of the Barr version of the report were fair.
I’m cautiously optimistic. The thing about the current court is that while they are biased pro-conservative, I’m not sure that they are biased pro-Republican. Roberts in particular seems to be very concerned about the court appearing overly political. So while they might generally give rulings that follow Republican ideology, they aren’t necessarily likely to give out rulings simply because it helps the Republicans and hurts the Democrats. I don’t think that even some of the more conservative justices are particularly happy to have a incompetent Russian Stooge running the white house.
The more cynical angels on my shoulder keep whispering that Roberts does not want “The Roberts Court” to go down in history as being mentioned in the same breath as the Dred Scot decision.
Rep. Adam Schiff: “I think it’s inevitable Bob Mueller’s going to have to testify before Congress. I would think that he will probably be needed before more than one committee.”
I apologize if this has been asked and answered already, but I didn’t have time to read through 10,000 posts and couldn’t think of search terms that would narrow it down for me.
How will the general public ever know if any version of the report that gets released is a true, accurate, and complete copy of the original? I certainly wouldn’t trust any version released by AG Barr or the White House, and my levels of cynicism and paranoia are rising to the point that I might not even trust one released by the Democrats.
How can we be sure we have everything, straight from the lips of [del]God[/del] Mueller?
I mean, getting down to it, 99% of everything you know you were told by others, so you would treat differing versions of the “Mueller Report” as you would treat any other thing you read.
And the MR isn’t about “everything”, and in a rational world, the likes of you and I aren’t going to get “everything” as some stuff will likely be redacted.
Speaking of which…
Was the Starr Report redacted? I don’t think the issues involved were of such a sensitive nature as to require it, but my Google-Fu is weak today and can’t find/filter for that information. Anyone know?
I’m speculating, but I would guess that it will be several decades before the general public sees the Mueller report with no redactions, when it becomes a historical rather than political document.
I would trust the Democrats, personally. Republicans will have the same information as the Democrats, so it’s not as if Democrats can just make stuff up and not get challenged on it.
Speculating on the versions of the report, and what the general public might see over the years, there might be:
Mueller Report (original). Locked in Attorney General Barr’s desk, and hidden from Congress and the general public.
Mueller Report (Barr version). Released in mid-April 2019. Heavily redacted.
Mueller Report (Congress version). Released mid-late 2019. After the subpoena for the Mueller report has been upheld in SCOTUS, Congress or Congressional Democrats release to the public a partially-redacted version with only essential redactions.
Mueller Report (Updated). Some redactions from the report are because they relate to active investigations, so when these investigations have been concluded, there will be no reason to keep these parts redacted. This may be years away, rather than months.
Mueller Report (Historical artifact). In a few decades, the full unredacted report may be publicly released.
I sort of hope that Trump either implies or says outright that “his” Justices “owe” him somehow, and will rule in his favor. That’d be about the best way to get them really thinking hard about everything.
According to a meme I saw on Facebook, the whole 445-page Starr report was released without redactions. Take that with all the authority it deserves.
But that raises the question of how previous similar reports have been released and whether Walken After Midnight’s multi-part scenario is likely. Is that how previous reports were treated?
Also consider that everyone on the Mueller team (including Mueller), plus several individuals in the Justice Dept, have seen the unredacted original. They can’t all be lying scum…if the redacted version is at odds with the memories of those individuals, I suspect the Truth Will Out, one way or another.
On the contrary, I imagine that they may be subject to some form of NDA which prevents them commenting on their work in any fashion. Wouldn’t that be why Schiff has to subpoena Mueller?
Here’s an article discussing what Mueller might be able to say in testimony. Basically, Barr will decide what Mueller will be able to reveal.
The special counsel statute Mueller has been working under — which is different than the one independent counsel Kenneth Starr operated under in the 1990s — says decisions about disclosure are left to the attorney general (Barr) and not Mueller. Furthermore, the statute under which Mueller is operating do not support the idea of Congress being able to compel disclosure from him.
Mueller is by-the-book and so, even if he wanted to, Mueller would not reveal more than he is legally allowed to. It will not be possible to get an oral version of the Mueller report by asking him questions in testimony.
I think there will probably still be some things that will be learnt speaking to Mueller, though. As said former Obama Justice Department official Matthew Miller: “Of course, if he feels that DOJ is doing something inappropriate, maybe that changes things.” So if Mueller believes that Barr is obstructing justice, then maybe he would say that in testimony.
