Mueller to Testify Wednesday

Robert Mueller will testify Wednesday. The New York Times has these questions for him.

But, it recommends, don't get your hopes up:

There is virtually no chance that will happen when he testifies for about five hours before two congressional committees this week. It took weeks of negotiations just to persuade him to show up. He has already said that his testimony won’t go beyond what is in the 448-page report he delivered, and he urged people to read it.

< Miguel Caro-Quintero Released From Prison | Trump Administration to Resume Executions of Federal Inmates >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The key answer from (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ragebot on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    Mueller is about how much the DOJ rule/suggestion that a sitting president can not be indicted affected what he did.

    DOJ claims in six meetings he said it carried no weight; and the AG publicly said the same thing.  Key blurb from this link.

    Mueller did not say explicitly that he would have accused Trump of a crime had it not been for the standing policy, but he reiterated that his investigation did not exonerate Trump.

    A second blurb from the same source.

    Barr said repeatedly in April that Mueller told him that it was not the case that he would have charged Trump with a crime had it not been for the policy.
    "He reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction," Barr told senators during public testimony in April.

    To some extent the legalese wording from Mueller leaves room for misunderstanding of his position; while Barr's position is clear.

    Not saying Mueller was not influenced by the DOJ policy; just that it is something that needs to be cleared up.

    Barr as (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 07:36:29 PM EST
    a source is less than worthless since he lied about the report in the first place and apparently lied about what Mueller told him. Hopefully Mueller can answer that question. Also helpful would be to have the lawyers that worked on the investigation under Mueller testify. Of course, Barr and Trump do not want them to testify.

    I think that question (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    falls within the prohibited questions that Barr and the DOJ wrote yesterday fell within one privilege or another....

    Scaredy cats.


    Conservatives (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 02:46:00 PM EST
    are completely terrified of Mueller testifying it seems. It's like once Mueller has his say the jig is up for them.

    Just so we're clear here, ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 07:41:54 PM EST
    ... that would be the same AG William Barr who willfully misled the American public for the better part of a month about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's actual findings, and who has since been found in contempt of Congress.

    Just so we're clear here (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    "he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction" is perfectly consistent with, "We did not even consider charging Tr*mp with obstruction, because we knew that DoJ policy prevented us from doing that. Had we been free to consider charging him, we very well might have."

    Please, Dems on committee, do not (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    ask a question giving Mueller an opening to respond that even absent the DOJ policy, he would not have supported grand jury indictment of Trump for obstruction.

    Low tolerance for risk (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 01:54:29 PM EST
    Could happen....But even assuming Mueller would answer such a question, the risk imo would be worth it.  

    The report's detailing the instances of obstruction, and Mueller stating he could not clear Trump of criminal conduct, suggests Mueller would give an answer not supportive of Trump.    


    Thought this might be cleared up (none / 0) (#38)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    but it is still clear as mud.

    First Mueller says one thing, then he corrects it.

    At hearing, Mueller corrects earlier statement to Ted Lieu, clarifying the OLC memo was NOT the reason he did not recommend indicting Trump for obstruction of justice: "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.

    I was under the impression the whole point of the Mueller investigation was to determine if the president committed a crime.

    Just as an aside Mueller was not impressive in the least as a witness.  Wish I had a nickel for every time he said 'can you repeat the question'.


    If that's true, you ... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 05:25:04 PM EST
    I was under the impression the whole point of the Mueller investigation was to determine if the president committed a crime.

    ... were under the wrong impression.  In fact, Mueller was appointed to investigate:

    (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

    (ii)  any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

    If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.


    Really (none / 0) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:08:58 AM EST
    that whole walk back was strange, he doesn't say the answer was wrong or that he misunderstood the question, only that "That's not the correct way to say it," (please rephrase the question counselor?).

    Especially when he phrased it like that himself

    .@RepKenBuck: Was there sufficient evidence to convict president of Trump or anyone else of obstruction of justice?

    MUELLER: We did not make that calculation.

    BUCK: Why not?

    M: Because of the OLC opinion that states the president can't be charged with a crime.

    Lieu asked him  

    I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"
    I think Mueller's quibble is with the "did not indict" I think Mueller's argument is that he "could not indict", but that is a distinction without much difference, especially when he did not clarify that during is clarification.

    Link Link


    That would be the same New York Times ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 07:35:17 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "Robert Mueller will testify Wednesday. The New York Times has these questions for him. But, it recommends, don't get your hopes up[.]"

    ... whose mantra for the better part of 2015-16 was "But Her Emails!" That paper's clearly biased coverage during the campaign was little more than an extended hit job on Hillary and Bill Clinton. Remember the exclusive agreement they cut with right-wing author Peter Schweizer to develop stories based upon his since-debunked book "Clinton Cash"? Their first article had so many factual problems with it that they never developed another one.

    The New York Times' political reporting over the last 27 years was mostly propelled by an anti-Clinton agenda and constitutes a disgrace to journalism. They devoted more lines and space to the Clinton email pseudo-scandal in 2016 than to all of Trump's scandals combined, which includes their appalling decision to devote the newspaper's front page to former FBI Director James Comey's abortive decision to re-open the email investigation only 10 days out from Election Day. Per the Columbia Journalism Review:

    "Ten articles [appeared] on the front page of The New York Times in a six-day period (October 29 to November 3, 2016), discussing the FBI investigation into Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. In the same time-period there were six front-page articles on the dynamics of the campaign, one piece on Trump's business, and zero on public policy of candidates."

    Sorry for the rant, but that sort of over-the-top sensationalism inflicted wounds to the American body politic from which we've yet to recover. Absent such irresponsibility on the part of the New York Times, there likely would have never been any need for a Mueller Report in the first place. And so, they've lost me for good. I cancelled my subscription in late Nov. 2016 and never looked back, and I don't miss those fools for scandal in the slightest. Now, I read the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.


    NY Times failed again today (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 09:21:34 PM EST
    in providing not reportsge on the substance of the hearing, but, instead, a theater review.

    Like some posting here, the NYT panned the casting of the special counsel. It wanted a more exciting actor in the role.

    The NYT does not understand that, as an NBC commentator -- an experienced prosecutor, as I recall -- said, there is a difference between what is exciting and what is important.

    The NYT, and some here, wanted the excitement -- or as the execrable Chuck Todd put it, the "optics" -- and ignored the importance of the hearing, the substance of what Mueller said.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 05:20:22 PM EST
    Soledad O'Brien has it right: "When you've lost Chuck Todd, it literally means nothing.

    Chuck was looking to something like the Fourth of July Trumpapalooza--tanks, fireworks, and celebration of George Washington's capture of the airports at Yorktown. And, he is concerned with the Special Counsel's presentation. Maybe Chuck has missed all of Trump's helicopter-WH driveway talks, or his rallies.

    Bad optics, not to mention human rights abuses, if not crimes, can be seen at the southern border's kids concentration camps.  Drinking water from the toilets, no space to lie down to sleep, no showers,six-year olds caring for one-year olds,  no medicines on and on.


    The (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 05:52:01 PM EST
    media obviously over-hyped this event, expecting a ratings bonanza. They did not get the riveting reality TV the had hoped for so they declared it was a disaster.

    Pathetic failure.


    The substance seems clear (1.50 / 8) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:40:48 AM EST
    The politically expedient Russian Collusion Hoax has a wooden stake driven through its heart  ❤️  

    Troll (5.00 / 11) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 09:19:52 AM EST
    No, it is not a hoax.  Why you post this idiotic trash here is beyond me.

    Mueller testified that Trump willingly accepted Russian help.


    I have found (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 10:04:54 AM EST
    this to be a common tactic of conservatives--the big lie. they will repeat a lie over and over hoping people will believe them. Obviously it works on conservatives since they still believe there actually was WMDs in Iraq.

    WMDs (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 02:05:48 PM EST
    Trump supporters, and that includes almost all Republicans, no longer care about the Iraq War....They mostly agree the Iraq War was a mistake (because Trump says so.)

    It shows that conservatives do not really care about policy, such as whether the Iraq War was justified.  It is all about their side winning--whatever that means.

    It is all about "owning the libs," regardless of the policies involved.  Why do they want to "own the libs?"   It is about the culture.  They do not like the culture of modern America.

    Much of this cultural resentment is racial.  But I think the most dominant component of this cultural resentment is the role of women in modern America.  Things have changed dramatically, even if gradually and at times imperceptibly, over the years.

    The key thread underpinning all GOP cultural reaction is being uncomfortable with women's roles in modern America. They probably lack the self-awareness to acknowledge this.  But  They pine for a yesteryear, when, guess what, women could only be secretaries and nurses and stayed at home.


    You (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    obviously are carrying water for the Kremlin because that is not in the least what testimony by Mueller revealed yesterday. And the whole hoax narrative has been pushed continuously by the Kremlin.

    I used to think ... (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    ... that everyone should be allowed to vote, but after reading posts like this, I'm leaning toward mandatory intelligence tests.

    If not voters, (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    perhaps a test to be taken by the candidates. I would wager a months salary trumpenfuhrer cannot pass the test given to immigrants applying for citizenship.

    And more (none / 0) (#91)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jul 29, 2019 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    You should see what is coming down the pipeline, strap yourself in

    Welcome (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 29, 2019 at 07:30:08 PM EST
    back comrade. I hope you got some better material, your presentation still sucks in any case.

    This is not a Upper West Side Restaurant (none / 0) (#93)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 05:14:02 AM EST
    It is all about the facts, presentation, not so much. Although I disagree with you on your opinion.

    Be prepared. The underlying basis for everything RUSSIA  TRUMP  is about to be eviscerated.    Barr, Durham and Huber have been busy.

    Hopefully the illegal liberties taken by high level personnel in the Justice department and Intelligence sections  will be revealed and properly punished, to deter any from attempting such actions in the future


    All (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 05:52:35 AM EST
    about the facts, of which you provide none.
    Same old sh!t sandwich you always served up.

    Heh (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 06:10:57 AM EST

    Be prepared. The underlying basis for everything RUSSIA  TRUMP  is about to be eviscerated.



    Actually (none / 0) (#101)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 07:35:12 PM EST
    I used to link (yes, using tiny.url) to actual open source documents, congressional testimony, court proceedings, FOIA released documents. All I ever provided was facts.

    Another FOIA release of documents, The Department of State just uploaded 1054 additional documents to its Foia reading room. They include Kavalec, Nuland and Winer related items (Russia, etc).

    These reveal that the FBI was told by Kavalec  that Chris Steele and the conspiracy theory he was peddling was not to be trusted, he was not a good source. Just 1 nugget among many. The intentional neglect of omitting exculpatory evidence in FISA applications is criminal. Strap yourself in, the ride will be bumpy.


    Strap yourself in (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 08:50:35 PM EST
    like the Q people, you've strapped yourself into the wish-fulfilment express and it's leaving planet earth behind.

    "Bumpy ride" (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 04, 2019 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    These winger, tinfoil conspiracy theories are always good for a chuckle, but it's sad to believe they're are people clueless enough to believe them.

    The offer to put your money where your mouth is still stands - any amount you want.

    Not holding my breath.


    Exculpatory evidence (none / 0) (#104)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 04, 2019 at 06:50:23 PM EST
    FISA Court ,   for starters

    Mifsud, Halper, Downer  All acting on the instructions of US Intelligence

    Somehow the Mueller Report left this out,

    Actually referred to Mifsud as Russian,

    They knew he always was a Western asset,

    So what does that do to the rest of the report?

    An obvious lie, kills any credibility whatsoever of the report


    Whatever trivial (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 04, 2019 at 07:02:18 PM EST
    minutia you may have garnered from right wing conspiracy nuts will not erase established facts.

    The Trump Tower meeting did occur where Don, Jr. and Manafort attended after receiving an email stating it was part of the Russian government's effort to elect Trump.  That is collusion.

    Manafort shared polling data with the Russian Government.  That is collusion.

    On obstruction, the evidence comes from Trump's own people including White House Counsel.

    Yet, you do a standard right wing tactic of just coming by with a bunch of bullet points that have been hatched and incubated in right wing circles that make no sense, and are basically incoherent.  Truncated sentences with no back up.   Just meaningless words really.

    This is classic trolling.  Lucky you, you have gotten away with it so far.  


    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 06:25:46 AM EST
    what he says is not going to make any sense. He was given his instructions in Russian and apparently they don't translate too well into English. Maybe he had to use Google translate.

    I happy to see (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 04, 2019 at 07:04:29 PM EST
    You have thrown off any inhibitions as far as letting you MAGA flag fly.

    Nice to see you are exactly what we thought you were behind all that rational sounding stuff.

    Unmasking the like of you may be the one good thing Trump does in his whole despicable life.


    More tinfoil wingnut LIES (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    Are you a Russian troll?  Or are you just another delusional winger who gets their kicks promoting these kind of tinfoil, conspiracy theories?

    Actually referred to Mifsud as Russian,

    They knew he always was a Western asset,

    So what does that do to the rest of the report?

    An obvious lie, kills any credibility whatsoever of the report

    No idea what wingnut conspiracy theory this is - frankly, I couldn't care less.  But the Mueller Report never refers to Mifsud as a Russian.  In the land of reality, it specifically identifies him as a Maltese national (page 91).

    The only one with no credibility is you.  But at least now I understand why you won't put any $ on your laughable conspiracy theories.


    He's a Russian (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    troll. I identified it 4 years ago. He's always carrying water for the Kremlin. We all should be flattered that Putin thinks Talk Left is influential enough to assign one of his Kremlin trolls to.

    Heh, that would (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 06:36:27 PM EST
    explain the mangled syntax.

    Let's not get too carried away... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Jack E Lope on Tue Aug 06, 2019 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    We all should be flattered that Putin thinks Talk Left is influential enough to assign one of his Kremlin trolls to.

    If Moscow thought the TalkLeft audience were of much value, I'd expect a more-skilled agent would have been assigned.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 06, 2019 at 02:18:44 PM EST
    There are plenty of useful idiots out there though. I know someone that continually passes around Russian propaganda on Facebook and when called out for doing it, she does nothing. But this one cannot communicate well in English it seems. His posts are like English is not his first language.

    "Be prepared!" (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 09:27:09 AM EST
    Hahahahahahaha ....

    So ominous!  (and by "ominous", I mean delusionally hilarious.).

    I will literally bet you ANY amount you want, in an escrow account, today.


    I see (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    you're still carrying water for the Kremlin. Nothing has changed on that account. It's Troitsk Trevor in league with Moscow Mitch these days I guess.

    Toto, we're not in Kansas (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 06:30:18 PM EST
    anymore. We're now in the land of QAnon.

    I had (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 07:11:41 PM EST
    forgotten about the whole Q nonsense but you're right. He is shopping Q Anon conspiracies.

    It's weird how nothing Q ever comes up with comes to be but he convinces them that whatever has happened is what is meant to happen.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    The shift from Schiff to Nunes makes me need an shot.

    Isn't one CA congressman fungible with another? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Erehwon on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    He asks innocently and runs away! :-(

    My take: (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 04:08:43 PM EST
    The set of hearings with Mr. Mueller was a success, based on reasonable objectives to (a) bring the wrongdoings and miscreants of the Trump campaign and Trump Administration back to the fore, (b)describe and illustrate for the American people the systematic intervention of the Russian government and its agents and the Trump Campaign officials acceptances and linkages to that intervention, (c) the Russian intervention was intended to help Trump and hurt Clinton, and (d) to explain that the Trump involvement was of such unpatriotic, unethical, greedy,and, potentially, criminal nature as to cause lies, lies and more lies, on top of  witness tampering and other obstruction by Trump, himself, along with aides-de-camp.

    Mueller's halting and reticent demeanor  ultimately served to fortify his credibility--not a firebrand or radical, but a reluctant witness doing his duty.

     Criticism of Mueller appears based on exuberant expectations--he would be the savior and do the work of Congress and the American electorate.

     All in spite of his prior statements, and with the recent memo from DOJ admonishing Mueller not to go beyond the publicly available redacted report.  Everything else was off limits as propped up by the thin reed of Barr's newly found privilege.

     Barr, no doubt inadvertently, disadvantaged the Republican members more than the Democratic members since it curtailed much of the Republican side show (e.g. dossier, Mueller as spurned job seeker) leaving them flailing in the verboten territory of the Report itself.

    The two hearings need to be considered as one piece; the morning session focused on obstruction.  The afternoon session on the wrongdoing so obstructed.

    Sound bites from the hearing---no hoax, not exonerated, no witch hunt.  Collusion was not a thing. For conspiracy, not sufficient evidence was found, but the gathering of the necessary evidence was impeded (lying, encryption, destruction of evidence, obstruction by Trump). Trump boosted Wikileaks, which is the equivalent of a foreign intel/conduit. Trump was not interviewed, because on balance and in consideration of the court fights, Mueller had enough evidence to charge Trump, if OLC permitted. That, will have to wait, until he leaves office. Or, until some other Constitutional remedy comes to bear (guess which one?)

    Sometimes we gleaned information from one of Mueller's "can't answer that"...particularly after a series of yes or no answers, he used the can't answer to the question of having Trump's tax returns.  And, of critical importance, the FBI is still investigating if Trump is Kompromat or a Russian agent or asset.  

    Clearly, Mueller was saying by not saying. I have lead you horses to water, it is up to you to drink it.  An impeachment inquiry is a must.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    Mueller was able to establish that basically Trump is a criminal and that he colluded with the Russians who wanted him to win.

    Was the Big Question Addressed? (none / 0) (#41)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 05:08:57 PM EST
    I only heard snatches during the day and as a result I think the answer to the Subject Line is probably no.

    "Why did Trump try to obstruct the Mueller investigation?

    I see only three conceivable possibilities:

    1. He actually did collude with the Russians during his election campaign.  So his obstruction was successful.

    2. He was afraid that the investigation into the campaign would turn up other wrong doing.  As I have written before, I think there was hanky-panky in purchasing various real estate after his bankruptcies.  

    3.  He wanted to protect the office of the presidency from unwarranted investigations.  (Just kidding.)

    So am I right that nothing close to answer came forth today?

    Number 1 (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 05:19:02 PM EST
    would be the answer since no one can indict a sitting president. Impeachment is the only solution at this point for Trump's obstruction of justice.

    As far as number 2, that was not Mueller's assignment though there has been a number of cases farmed out to other districts. So something may end coming up regarding his finances. Also congress is looking into his dealings with Deutsche Bank which much of the international money laundering went on.


    I'd say both No. 1 and No. 2. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 09:22:40 PM EST
    In regard to No. 1, given the couple hundred documented contacts between the Trump campaign personnel / family members and Russian operatives, many of which are included in the Mueller report itself, there is absolutely no question that the Trump campaign was in contact with the Kremlin during the campaign. It's beyond anything that can be explained away by mere coincidence. Further, the babbling Russian Foreign Office proudly admitted as much publicly only two days after the election.

    In regard to No. 2, the Trumps themselves admitted that the Trump Organization was inordinately dependent upon Russian money, since Trump's questionable practices left most American and European banks loathe to do any further business with them. On the other hand, Russian oligarchs were flush with cash and needed a source to launder their money, and the Trumps were only too happy to oblige.

    The Trump family's "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" tour is staring people right in the face. And let's face it, there are a lot of Republicans who are deathly afraid to look for fear that they won't be able to excuse what they see. And so they turn their heads as a means to ignore the obvious.



    Unless 1 and/or 2 is Proven BRD (none / 0) (#83)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 26, 2019 at 10:41:22 AM EST
    Trump will not be removed from office via the impeachment route.

    The smoking gun. (1.50 / 8) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    Gaetz: "Can you state with confidence the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign?"

    Mueller: "With regard to Steele...that's beyond my purview."

    So much for the notion that Mueller was charged with investigating the scope of Russian attempts to influence the election.


    You assume (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 09:14:18 AM EST
    as fact that the Steele Dossier was a Russian disinformation campaign.

    What nonsense.

    The dossier is irrelevant.  Period.

    This is trolling.  There is no evidence of such.....except in the minds of conservative conspiracy nuts.....


    So much for the notion ... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    ... that a steady diet of Faux News propoganda doesn't cause brain damage.

    Starting (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    7:30 central

    FOX (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    Will carry it live.  That's pretty interesting.

    FOX (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    WILL NOT carry it live.  I intended to say.

    Can't find that in print (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    But i just heard it from Nicole.

    I have (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 03:46:10 PM EST
    read that somewhere also. It makes sense though. Fox can't do a cut and paste if they are carrying it live.

    I think it tells you (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    All you need to know about the right wing confidence in the planned assault from the Jordan Brigade.

    They don't want their people to see this.  Interesting.  


    Well, that was short-lived. (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 12:02:57 PM EST
    Suggested question for Mueller (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 05:43:45 PM EST
    at hearing: If you were passing by a burning building with a child screaming for help from an upper floor, but you noticed a "a no trespassing" sign posted on the front lawn, would you determine that you were precluded from rushing to the child because of a commitment to going by the book regarding access  restriction, or would you feel you needed to set the restriction aside for the greater good of trying to help the child.?

    Excellent question. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    However, I think this will end up a dog and pony show with nothing new revealed. Mueller will merely point out stuff in the report. He will follow the DOJ guidelines he's been instructed to follow. He will not draw any new conclusions and in the end, it will look like trumpenfuhrer was right all along. Too many bites at the apple.

    I say just get on with. Democratics, grow a spine, vote to impeach. Now! To he11 with Pelosi.


    Barr is bold in instructing retired Mueller to (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    stick to the report in testifying tomorrow.

    Whatever happened (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    to Barr stating some time ago he had no objection to Mueller testifying?

    My response (none / 0) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    ...to any vague threat is to ask, "Or else...what? Are you going to threaten me even more vaguely?""

    Or he could say, (none / 0) (#22)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    Using an exaggerated French accent:  "No.  Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."

    The DOJ admonitions (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 23, 2019 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    are in response to a question asked, July 10,2019, by Mueller about any restrictions/privileges that apply to his testimony.

    It was now Barr's turn for a "snitty" response--- not just a repeat of what Mueller already said in his nervously presented, no questions allowed, nine-minute farewell to his two-year investigation, but also, a fatuous claim of privilege over everything not in the publicly available, redacted report.  

    This latest Mueller/Barr interaction is curious. Mueller may have wanted a get-out-of- dutch with Republicans card, and Barr gave it to him, to use as necessary.


    Mueller from the gate. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 07:39:08 AM EST
    The good soldier. He will say nothing new today

    Like (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 07:45:21 AM EST
    all Republicans he is a coward.

    At the risk of sounding ageist, in my opinion, (none / 0) (#27)
    by vml68 on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 08:58:27 AM EST
    Mueller is not coming across as very sharp.
    Though, in his defense listening to Collins, Ratcliffe, Gohmert, et al., would make anyone's brain shut down.

    Chairman Nadler's questioning ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    ... of Robert Mueller, in which Mueller stated forthrightly that Trump was never exonerated of obstruction and actively impeded with his investigation, thus far remains the most effective portion of this Judiciary Committee hearing. Close behind is Rep. Lieu getting Mueller to affirm that the three elements necessary to establish a charge of obstruction were present in Trump's conduct.

    In her attempt to establish that Mueller and AG William Barr were simpatico, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) just inadvertently gave Mueller the opportunity to state publicly that he took significant issue with Barr's initial public mischaracterization of the Special Counsel's findings last March 24, by noting that Lesko had ignored his Mar. 27 letter to Barr expressing his concerns about the AG's public statements.



    I would also note that ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    ... Mueller has further confirmed that Trump can be indicted and prosecuted for obstruction of justice once he's out of office, thus underscoring the evidence he presented in Volume 2 of the Special Counsel's report.

    I do not agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    It was a disaster for democrats

    From (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    what I saw The Dems avoided grandstanding for the most part.

    Mueller is not a great witness (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    One gets the feeling he was not that deeply involved in the whole thing.

    It was depresing to watch (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    Mueller.  NBC said he deflected 198 times when being questioned.

    Even when he answered many of his answers seemed to indicate he was out of it.  When asked about Fusion GPS he said he had never heard of it, then it was pointed out it was mentioned many times in the report.

    Asked if it was true collusion and conspiracy are viewed as the same by non legal public he said no; only to have it pointed out that was word for word from the report.

    I was in Vietnam a year earlier than Mueller an got the impression he has the same problem that I do; we both thought it would take much longer to get old.

    Bottom line take away for me was that Mueller was more of a figure head and the real work of the investigation was done by others.

    Interesting talking heads on MSNBC are now saying they want the underlings to now testify before congress.


    I think it's clear he didn't want to be there (none / 0) (#53)
    by McBain on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:29:05 AM EST
    I'm not sure forcing him to do so accomplished much?

    "Pointed out" by whom? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    Fusion GPS is never mentioned in the Mueller Report.  Not once.

    He was not tasked with chasing red herrings.


    I thought I just had to watch the movie (2.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ragebot on Sat Jul 27, 2019 at 12:40:31 AM EST
    "The firm that produced the Steele reporting" is mentioned on page 103 of the report; not to get too far in the weeds.

    There (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jul 27, 2019 at 07:09:36 AM EST
    you go again, digging deep to support the Goper's obsession with the Steele dossier being the root of all evil, even though that was debunked (even by Nunes!) months ago.

    Listening to the Republicans(aside from Hurd) at the hearing you would think the Russians were innocent bystanders, when they were mentioned at all.



    You should probably re-watch ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 28, 2019 at 06:53:07 PM EST
    When asked about Fusion GPS he said he had never heard of it, then it was pointed out it was mentioned many times in the report.

    ... that movie and Mueller's testimony, because Mueller was asked specifically about Fusion GPS, not "the firm that produced the Steele dossier".  To which he correctly pointed out it wasn't part of his investigation and isn't named in his report.


    While the Repubs' (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 03:26:43 PM EST
    ...grandstanding plays very well to their target audience.  

    I heard very little of the hearing during my morning drive.  Gohmert's apparent attempt to show that Mueller was biased and hired biased investigators and had a personal interest at stake (leading to even more bias) is going to get lots of attention on Faux.


    I don't think it was a disaster at all. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 09:36:47 PM EST
    Most public hearings are boring and devoid of fireworks and dancing girls. What was said needed to be said, and it may take a few days before it sinks in. But the media is running on-air repeats of the salient points, particularly Rep. Adam Schiff's opening riff as chair of the Intel Committee.

    Sen. Joe McCarthy wasn't initially blown up when Joseph Welch first asked him, "Have you no decency, sir?" on national television. In fact, when you watch Welch first say it, McCarthy proceeds to ignore him and talk right over him. It was only after the public saw saw and heard the exchange multiple times thanks to CBS News that it proved to be the fatal shiv in McCarthy's windbag.



    It was exactly (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    What Nancy wanted.  

    As I just heard, there is a difference between important and exciting.  This was important.

    But it won't change many minds.


    More and more (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    I think we need to say "minds" rather than just minds.

    Get (none / 0) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 07:04:48 AM EST
    with the program, Howdy, the media has declared it a disaster and thus it shall be, RIP Democracy.



    What About the Redactions? (none / 0) (#26)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 08:32:48 AM EST
    Especially the ones related to Trump's finances.  There were referrals to other divisions of the DOJ.  I would think that they would be the most important new information that could come out of the Mueller hearing.

    Mueller = Biden? (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 24, 2019 at 10:53:11 PM EST
    People have commented how halting and old Mueller seemed today.  I heard one guy say he was not the Mueller he used to know.

    Mueller just looked old.

    Is this what will happen with Biden?  Could he hold up, not just now, but in a year?

    It does not matter much what Biden says, but how he says it will be critical.  Will he look old and halting?  I fear he will.   And Kamala can't get her Medicare and other policy acts together and Elizabeth Warren will be too far left....

    I am not sure we are not stuck with Trump for another term.   And after Pelosi gives him a green light on his bad and unlawful behavior?

    Biden's age (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 04:08:04 AM EST
    is a problem as I see it. He's older than both Trump and Mueller.

    2020 is going to be a referendum on Trump. It's going to be about what kind of country do we want? Do we want another 4 years of Nuremberg rallies? Remember Trump's base is only about 40% of the country. We just have to show up.


    The Primay polls (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 09:47:02 AM EST
    show Biden going back up and Harris drifting back down after the first debate.  And General Election polls show Biden way ahead of Trump and the other Dems barely ahead by a point or two.   Not conclusive, but informative.

    According to Nate Silver, the true long term trend in the polls is the slow, steady rise of Elizabeth Warren and the same slow erosion of Bernie.

    Overall, it still looks like Biden has the edge....So, I can only imagine holding my breath next fall that Biden not have any senior moments....and the VP slot on a Biden ticket could be more valuable than usual with a greater change of becoming President.


    Senior moments (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 06:39:19 PM EST
    you can count on it if Biden is the nominee. I mean if he can't go on a morning political talk show and not say something stupid like he's going to drop to the floor and do pushups when challenged about his age by Trump, you know it is going to happen if he is the nominee. The best hope with Biden is that everybody just wants to get rid of Trump so bad they ignore his problems in the GE. Of course, you could say that about other candidates too.

    If Biden is the nominee I will find the GA senate race as something better to involve myself with. Whatever I donate will go to other candidates not Biden. Besides I'm sure Biden won't need whatever I can donate anyway. He will have plenty of money.


    I get that you really don't like M4A (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 04:25:05 PM EST
    But I can't fathom why you think the election is going to be decided by any Democraticplans one way or the other.

    Its going to come down to one thing - the culture war. Trump might win, he might not, but it won't be related to any plans.

    To clarify,  I think in some ways Bernie has a better shot at the general election than Harris. So it's not that the nominee doesn't make a difference.   It's that the difference will have nothing to do with policy.

    Also there's no way I'm voting for Bernie or Biden, but the polls are telling a story and it's not about policy.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    agree, expect for the Bernie / Kamala chances in the general. That "scary socialist" tag will be used to beat him up, with at least some success.

    Harris, on the other hand is much better positioned to pivot towards the middle (waffling helps) and also energizing the natural base of the party.

    My view of the state of the race right now:

    Biden: Still his race to lose but everyone can picture him doing it. He was never an "elite" pol in the first place and it sure looks like he has lost a step.

    Warren: She's the candidate Bernie wishes he was, smart as a whip, really knows how to talk with the populist base. I see her as a strong second place with some upside if Bernie continues to slide.

    Harris: Good natural political skills, waffly on policy, not necessarily a bad thing but she needs to learn how not to back herself into a corner with it. She currently is having trouble maintaining her polls numbers and raising money. Her best bet is for Biden to melt down and she would well positioned to get most of his share of the AA vote.

    Bernie: See Warren, I think he sinks further. He still has a very loyal base that gives him money but it is not growing. I think this next debate, where he is next to Warren, might be the beginning of the end.

    Mayor Pete: Interesting role player, might pick up some centrist support from a Joe-plosion, but he is currently a zero percent with AA voter.


    There's always (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    the chance that one of the 1 or 2% candidates could catch fire. Bulloch if you want a white male is 100x better than Biden and was a governor to boot.

    Most of the (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by CST on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 09:03:37 PM EST
    Also-rans are better than Biden and Bernie, IMO.  But here we are.

    I don't think Bernie can win the primary (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    And I do think Harris can, so in that sense she has a better shot at the presidency. But in terms of who would do better against Trump, I can think of a lot  of wwc voters that would be a lot more amenable to Bernie than Harris, socialist label be d@mned. There is another possible path through the suburbs. That's the route I'm banking on because I refuse to vote from a place of fear. The thing about that route is that it's anti-Trump at its core and so the candidate doesn't really matter as much.  I generally agree with your take on the primary.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 05:46:35 PM EST
    with you regarding it being about the culture wars. It is going to be about what kind of country do we want to be going forward.

    That being said I think Bernie has the worst chance of winning outside of a couple of fringe candidates simply due to the fact that the GOP wants it to be about socialism and Bernie is the perfect foil for that plan.


    It's not about "plans" per se (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 05:09:41 PM EST
    For Harris, it is about appearing weak, indecisive and uncertain when talking about Medicare for all.....

    And, for Pete's sake, health care is the best issue for the Democrats. If Kamala gets all bollixed up on the Dems' best issue....But I would support her wholeheartedly if she is the nominee.

    For Elizabeth Warren, it is about appearing too "left."   I do think that can make a difference.

    As to Bernie, there is polling that asks about a Trump v. "Socialist" candidate, and, no surprise, Trump wins that easily.

    BUT I would vote for Bernie in a General Elections in spite of some his really obnoxious supporters like Nina "take-it-to-the-convention" Turner.


    And, I do think (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    you are right about Bernie having a better shot at Trump than Kamala....and it's not much of a mystery why--which supports your theory that it is all about cultural resentment.

    Bernie, has at times, sounded not too thrilled with immigration....


    The only (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 06:31:38 PM EST
    reason Bernie would have a better chance is simply being a white male. He is centering his campaign on working class white men much the same as Biden. However these same men will vote for Trump over Bernie because "socialism" and besides Trump gives them 100% of what they want. Biden you could argue at least according to polling seems to at least be getting some of these voters.

    I'm interested to see which candidate is going to be able to pull in the suburbs where the race is going to be won.


    Seems like the (none / 0) (#52)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:11:15 AM EST
    dems want to double down after the Mueller hearings.  Rachel and Lawrence want the Mueller's staff to testify.  Nadler has started issuing more subpoenas for multiple records and indicates there will be more hearings.

    I have seen talking heads on MSNBC say Nancy should make phone calls to the house members canceling the summer vacation and start impeachment right away.

    While I am not sure if there is a consensus on this there does seem to be a significant number of dems who's position is despite the disappointing Mueller Report and Mueller testimony want more of the same.

    No, it is about (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 09:18:06 AM EST
    the substance of the report and testimony.  I guess in this age of Trump, substance, facts and truth have been often disregarded.

    Trump obstructed justice and welcomed support from the Russian government to help get him elected. Witness tampering, fabrication of false documents, and on and on....


    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 09:29:07 AM EST
    let's ignore the fact that Mueller testified under oath that tRump and his minions repeatedly lied
    Robert Mueller: I think there are a probably a spectrum of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth and those who are outright liars.

    Val Demings: Thank you very much. Outright liars. It is fair to say then that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both Russia election interference and obstruction of justice?

    Robert Mueller: That's true and it's usually the case. There is plenty more, but we all know you and the rest of the enablers are cool with that.

    Val Demings: And that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation?

    Robert Mueller: I would generally agree with that.

    Adam Schiff: The Trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy, around those stolen documents.

    Robert Mueller: Generally, that's true.

    Adam Schiff:  And then they lied to cover it up.

    Robert Mueller: Generally, that's true.

    including   tRump himself in sworn statements  
    Demings:                            Director Mueller, isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful?

    Robert Muller: I would say, generally.

    There is plenty more Of course we all know you and the rest the enablers are cool with that and the media of course are much more interested in optics, not substance.

    this has (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 09:33:28 AM EST
    turned really bad for the GOP. So bad that the Russian trolls are pushing Clinton Body Count on social media and my rep in a 70/30 GOP district has turned his phones off. I tried to call him to get him to make a statement and apparently he is quaking in fear.

    Looks like (none / 0) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 25, 2019 at 08:26:30 PM EST
    the Mueller hearings will not be unlike some of the pundit's initial pontifications on 2018 midterms---a disaster for the Democrats. Only to have to back-track.  

    As the superficial critiques inevitably fade, the devastating substance will endure likely giving rise to both impeachment hearings and Democratic electoral impetus.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 26, 2019 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    disagree, the testimony is already been tossed down the rabbit hole and is being rapidly buried as we speak.

    The entire Mueller report itself is being relegated to ancient history.

    The fascists won.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 26, 2019 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 26, 2019 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    is way to close for comfort.

    Mmmm (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 26, 2019 at 11:27:38 AM EST

    I'm finding (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 26, 2019 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    that read the report is a very effective counter to whatever the GOP is shopping.

    "Disappointing Mueller Report" (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 28, 2019 at 06:56:26 PM EST
    Heh.  Crocodile "disappointment".