It would be an incredibly bad idea for a Democrat to ask such a question. They need above all to avoid the appearance of partisanship. If Mueller were to answer “no,” (and I can’t imagine he would agree to answer such a question, no matter how much he might disapprove of Trump) it would be spun (further) that his investigation wasn’t impartial.
The questions I’d ask would be something like,
“When deciding whether to issue an indictment for a particular set of actions, what criteria do you use?”
“Is one of those criteria that the actions must not have been committed by the person who is currently president?”
“You have listed six [or whatever] criteria that a set of actions must fulfill in order to be indictable. One of those criteria is that the person who committed those actions must not currently be the president of the United States. When considering the set of actions described in your report, how many of those criteria you listed were fulfilled?”
“To be clear, the president’s actions fit all the criteria for indictable actions, except that they were committed by the president?”
That’s right. It is far more serious than most Americans realize.
The question of ‘receiving something of value from a foreign national’ has been muddied and confused by the deliberate (and cynical) efforts of Trump enablers. But the underlying issues could be explained in a way that most would understand:
- A foreign adversary gets the son of a candidate on the written record as being willing to accept material help from that foreign government:
[ul]
[li]Overture to Don Jr.: 6-3-16: … This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump …[/li][li]Don Jr. replies: 6-3-16: … if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. …[/li][li]emails 6-6 and 6-8 have the subject line: Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential[/li][li]Overture to Don Jr. 6-7-16: … Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow*[/li][/ul]
-
The son and others in the candidate’s campaign consistently lie about this and many other contacts with the foreign adversary. They know the contacts must be kept secret—destroying any later claim that they didn’t realize they were committing offenses (some legal, some ethical).
-
When you have a secret, those who know the secret can use the threat of disclosure to make you do what they want.
The last point is surely something that most people can understand, even if they’re confused by the mass of names and dates and incidents contained in the Mueller report. ‘Let the Russian government have something to hold over you, and your actions are no longer going to be in the best interests of the US—they’re going to be in the best interests of Russia.’
That’s Tan the Conman’s only saving grace: he is completely incapable of keeping a secret. This is exactly how you know the SOB has zero plans when he announces “My plan is the best; you’ll be amazed when you see it”. And everybody knows that he has no plan and cannot keep a secret.
a) One would expect him to give a more detailed response than that.
b) Mueller is the one person who you can’t make the argument that he is partisan. He built the system that has protected us after 9/11, he was clearly a Republican appointee, both parties in Congress chose to make him the longest serving head of the FBI (since Hoover), and both parties gave him the thumbs up when he started the investigation into Trump. Certainly people can try to say that he’s anything other than a straightforward and dedicated, Republican servant of our nation, but that just won’t stick.
Are you kidding? Have you not been paying attention to the past 3.5 years? Trump and his people don’t need facts or logic at all. If Trump says Mueller is a shapeshifting wombat, 27% of America would be clamoring for more wombat traps in Washington, D.C. Red states would have a new cabinet level position of Wombat Combatant within weeks. And they’d all tell you how they always hated that stupid Democrat Party Wombat, ever since they helped Lincoln free the slaves. By the way, did you know that Lincoln was a Republican?
“Can’t make the argument that he is partisan.” :rolleyes: Ha!
True enough about the bull-shitting. He can’t keep from bull-shitting to save his life.
But in fact he did work pretty hard to keep secrets about multiple Russian contacts. And so far as I know, the reason Mueller found out about them was that other people talked—not that Trump talked.
Agent Orange does have a well-developed sense of self-preservation.
Absolutely not. I’d expect Mueller to limit himself, to every legal degree, to what he’s already said in his report. Questions about whom he’d vote for I’d expect him to punt; I expect him to flatly refuse to answer hypotheticals.
I think the correct way to ask question is just to get him to answer clarifying questions about his report: not to add anything new, but to address a possible interpretation of what he said. Thus the questions I proposed.
The cognitive dissonance required to support this man is stunning. Here is his twitter account this morning.
“Highly conflicted Robert Mueller should not be given another bite at the apple. In the end it will be bad for him and the phony Democrats in Congress who have done nothing but waste time on this ridiculous Witch Hunt. Result of the Mueller Report, NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION!..”
In three sentences, we learn that Robert Mueller is conflicted and ran a witch hunt. But that witch hunt exonerated him. But Democrats want him to testify about that exonerating report which will be bad for them, while he (for reasons I can’t understand) does not wish for Mueller to testify about that exonerating report which will be bad for Democrats.
That was awesome. Going to attribusteal this:
Even under oath. Mueller may have thought it would not be worthwhile even to try to get a straight answer from him.
It all makes sense to stupid people.
But, yes: for months now, that paradox has been hanging over the heads of Trump defenders: Mueller Exonerated Him AND Mueller is Untrustworthy.
There are a lot of broken brains out there.
I can fully understand anyone’s reluctance to wade into the bullshit. That stuff is soul-destroying, or at least, hard to remove with dry-cleaning.
But if Trump had testified, he would have become guilty of perjury within a minute of sitting down.
It’s…irregular…that Trump was given a pass. Clinton wasn’t. So why Trump?
There’s always the possibility that Bob Mueller is a big Trump supporter.
I guess. But what’s more likely, I think, is that he thinks of himself as a conservative above all else—and on some level, preserving the status quo is what’s most important to him.
He was assigned a job, and he did it. But he’ll be very careful to say nothing that could be used to dislodge the current President from office. He doesn’t want anything like that in the history books. He wants no part of efforts to get rid of Trump, because getting rid of a president is disruptive of order.
I’m pretty sure that whatever Mueller testifies to in light of the DOJ muzzling him will be underwhelming. Even though on Maddow last night she had on an expert who pointed out that he was a private citizen now who didn’t need to comply - except he actually asked for their guidance.
Fuck Mueller.
My ire isn’t about how he won’t be saying the things I wanted to hear; it’s more like he is looking for every way out to not say anything. He repeatedly said in that press conference that his report is all he wanted to say. Never mind that Barr has gone out of his way to completely change the whole conclusion of the report before anyone saw it, he still feels that asking him for “guidance” was a prudent move. Never mind that Americans and congress have legitimate questions about the report (and also whether Barr shut it down or had any influence that Barr claimed in his confirmation hearings he wouldn’t do), and legitimate questions about what the report didn’t get into (like “following the money” which is not a part of it at all even though that was the next logical step in the investigation), but he doesn’t want to answer questions and invites the DOJ to ensure he doesn’t have to.
I am not ascribing malice to him, but I do think that he views himself as an investigator only, above the political fray, which is bullshit because he’s investigating dirty politics which necessitates not only doing a thorough investigation but also ensuring that the investigation be correctly disseminated to the American people from his own mouth if necessary (and it’s fucking necessary).
I believe Mueller is shirking his responsibility to this country. Should my prediction of him saying nothing in his testimony be true, I hope that history will judge him as a coward.
I’m honestly interested in what legal weight the DOJ letter to Mueller carries. I can see where they might have some authority over questions about internal deliberations in the Special Counsel’s Office, or other process kinds of things that occurred within an arm of the Justice Department. However, the DOJ letter seems to be asserting some pretty broad authority over Mueller’s testimony.
If Mueller, as I believe he will, only answers questions within the relatively narrow bounds DOJ appears to be setting, I’d like for one of the committee members to ask Mueller to explain under what legal authority he is refusing to answer certain questions. I think it would be a mistake to appear to be browbeating Mueller, but I also think he should have to explain his basis for refusal to answer. On some questions, he could be on solid ground; perhaps he thinks a particular answer might jeopardize an ongoing investigation, But if he’s refusing to answer something because, “DOJ told me not to,” then I think that needs to be in the open.
On the other hand, if Mueller decides to keep his own counsel on what he can and can’t say, and decides to speak outside the strictures of the DOJ letter (while still keeping mum on things that might impact ongoing investigations or prosecutions, for instance), I’d like to know what kind of penalties he might open himself up to. What hammer does DOJ have to swing at him, particularly since he is no longer a DOJ employee? I think it would be a big PR mistake for DOJ to go after Mueller if he says something they don’t like, but the Trump administration does not seem to be overly good at self-restraint in the interest of maintaining a positive image.
It seems pretty straightforward, at least to me -
So, he can’t reveal parts that are redacted, and he shouldn’t discuss uncharged third parties or their conduct. But he can discuss the public report, which is what he has been saying he will do, all along.
The hearings are going to be hours of Democrats asking questions like “On page 800 it is clear that President Trump obstructed justice. What then was your basis for not charging him with obstruction of justice?” To which he will respond “that’s covered in the report - we did not conclude there was sufficient evidence of any obstruction of justice.” To which the response will be, “But he’s clearly guilty! Why won’t you say so? But, moving on - which parts of the evidence proving obstruction of justice do you believe are covered by executive privilege?”
Etc., etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Ha! Still with this nonsense. The Mueller report makes it clear that the President wasn’t charged with obstruction due to DOJ policy, not due to a lack of evidence. Nowhere in the report does it say that there was insufficient evidence of obsruction.
Technically there was no obstruction. There were multiple (11?) attempts to obstruct justice by the President, which is itself illegal, but the obstruction didn’t happen because the people he asked to carry it out didn’t.
This is a useful distinction for those who wish to smugly repeat the “No obstruction!” talking point despite the fact that evidence of criminal acts relating to obstruction was found.
Because IOKIARDI.
This perfectly encapsulates the ignorance of Trump supporters regarding the contents of the Mueller report.