He only served one term so he’s a loser?
(I dunno, I got nothing else. I tried.)
I think that Mueller would simply quote his report in answer to all of these questions.
“if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
*- Mueller Report - Vol II conclusion *
Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities."
*- Mueller Report - Vol I conclusion *
“**In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. **… Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
*- Mueller Report - Vol I conclusion *
“if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
*- Mueller Report - Vol II conclusion *
"… we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”
*- Mueller Report - Vol II introduction *
"The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”
*- Mueller Report - Vol II introduction *
“if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
*- Mueller Report - Vol II conclusion *
And yet somehow, it’ll be BREAKING NEWS to 3/4 of the country.
Exactly. I worded those questions so that they could be easily answered by what the Report said. I doubt that we will get anything out of him that isn’t included in the report, but I still think its worth it. The point is to have him state clearly state in a public hearing with TV camera’s that Barr’s and Trumps interpretation of what the report says is flat out wrong. Its harder to convince people that “Mueller totally exonerated me” when there is a clip of Mueller directly saying that he did not.
Agreed, but we can be fairly certain that Mueller will decline to make any such declarative statements.
Even to get him to say in plain terms that Barr misrepresented the report will probably be impossible.
New parlor game: come up with wording for questions that will keep Mueller from uttering fuzzy, clause-heavy, qualification-laden sentences. (I’m not claiming to have any yet, but it’s a project worth working on…)
I expect that someone will ask Mueller: If not for the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, would you have indicted Trump for obstruction?
A: Yes
B: No
C: I don’t answer hypotheticals.
I’d put my money on C
“Absolute Authority”
There are certain things that you will never get him to say,
- Whether or not Trump is guilty or would he have been indicted were he not president
- Whether Barr lied about the report.
- Should Trump be impeached
But you can get him to make statements that contradict Trump and Barr by asking leading yes/no follow up questions.
Q: Does the report exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice or conspiracy with the Russians?
A: if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Q: So since you did not so state it would be incorrect to say that your report exonerates Trump?
Also you need to remember that Mueller is not a hostile witness. I believe that Mueller really does want his report to be understood by the American people, and I think deep down he wants Congress to impeach Trump but he also wants to remain apolitical and feels its not his place to instruct congress as to what they should do. There are certain places he won’t go, but he also won’t try to evade questions that are just trying to illuminate clearly what is stated in the report.
Buck Godot is 100% on the right track as to how the questioning will go.
[del]“I don’t chew my cabbage twice. What part of what I just said did you not understand?[/del] I stand by the statement I just made.”
Not gonna give you much credit for a gimme, but here ya go.
Wow, not very creative. He must have been tired out.
For my next trick, I shall predict that the sun shall rise in the east tomorrow.
Yeah, I think so. Or he’ll just repeat the quotation from the Report again.
He will be extremely careful not to utter any useful soundbites. He won’t say ‘yes’ or even ‘that is likely’ to anything as clear-cut as “would President Trump have been indicted if he were not President?”
There will be no 10-second clips of Mueller responding in a way that clearly affirms or denies a substantive statement about Trump’s misconduct. He will respond to such statements with hedging and qualifying clauses.
Which is not to say that his testimony will be useless. Around the margins, some people who skipped reading the report yet are capable of understanding complex language will watch, and will have their views affected.
Various people (Wittes, Comey, etc.) are throwing in their 2 cents on questions for Congress to ask Mueller when he comes before them.
To add in my own:
- In your understanding of the security clearance reviews, what sort of thing do investigators look for that are red flags?
- Why are those things red flags?
- What sort of history has made those things be red flags?
Maybe he can explain the process a little bit. Because, after all the evidence is in and has been reviewed and a possible crime has been established, there are a few more steps that prosecutors need to take before they issue an indictment and sentencing recommendations. That involves looking at the case histories of similar past crimes and citing those cases as justification for the charges and sentences they are recommending. You can see this if you read the legal documents of the indicted players in this drama. They might even use cites in anticipation of legal arguments, for example they might cite the Martha Stewart case as precedent for indicting for obstruction without establishing an underlying crime. BTW, IANAL.
So they never did that in Trump’s case, because the buck stopped before they could get to that point. And I’ve always been suspicious about that decision, ( as well as the decision to wrap up the investigation prematurely) I think Barr was involved. Really, if that was a given, he MIGHT have mentioned it at the beginning.
If Mueller had found crystal clear evidence that Trump was compromised and an active Russian asset, I bet he would have indicated him hard. While he might not have indicted him for obstruction, I’m still surprised they didn’t indict Don Jr. Again, I think that was Barr.
The Trump Tower meeting was really a big deal. Sometimes I’m surprised that no one gets that. It matters not one freaking bit that the attempt at collusion was wildly unsuccessful. I don’t think the Russians had any dirt to give. I think the entire reason for the charade was to generate that ridiculously compromising e-mail chain. It was a laughably transparent trick that only a stupid and insecure person desperate to curry favor with his own father would fall for.
Because, for over a year that e-mail chain remained hidden from the press and the public. But the Russians knew about it and had a copy. That is classic kompromat. It actually happened.
I read the other indictments. Mueller didn’t cut anyone any slack, he hit them hard and I was under the impression that he was a true believer. I actually believe that Barr leaned on him hard at the end. Too bad he caved. Maybe, when this is over one way or another, he’ll write a book,
Only Mueller knows but, I suspect, it was simply a matter that between the difficulty of getting laypeople to make a reasonable distinction between information of public interest and things of value, a campaign versus the press, and a 3rd party of foreign nationality vs the operatives of a foreign nation. And further contending with the pardon power, any attempt to prosecute Jr. would have been a giant clusterfuck that the Mueller team most likely would have lost, turning them whole thing into political win and further exoneration for the President.
Even the members of the board here are fairly weak when it comes to debating the difference between a 3rd party foreigner and a foreign operative.
Did the investigation wrap up on your timeline? Was the timeline influenced by outside parties? If so, whom?
Do you feel that there are avenues of investigation that you wanted to pursue that were blocked? If so, by whom?
In your investigation, did you uncover any evidence that pointed to the members of the Clinton Campaign?
Mr. Mueller, would you vote for Donald Trump? Is that answer informed, influenced, or strengthened in any way by the discoveries you made while investigating the President?
I don’t think it’s legal to ask you, on the record, who you voted for or will vote for. While not federal law to my knowledge, every state has laws in place to protect voting privacy and I don’t think the federal government would want to step on that.
Can’t see it being legal to compel an answer, but an invitation to volunteer one should meet standards of legality.