Patterico's Pontifications

7/24/2019

Mueller Subpoenaed to Testify Today; UPDATE By Patterico

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 6:53 am



[Headline from DRJ]

The Hill: Live coverage: Mueller testifies before Congress

Former special counsel Robert Mueller will testify Wednesday in what is expected to be one of the more dramatic days on Capitol Hill in recent memory.

Democrats have been preparing for several days to grill Mueller on his findings about Russian interference, the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia and President Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation.
***
Republicans, meanwhile, are expected to train their inquiries on the origins of the Russia investigation, casting it as a probe that was biased against Trump from the start.

As Beldar has always said, Mueller will disappoint most participants and listeners because he is not expected to say anything outside of his Report. On the plus side, some might be surprised. How many have actually read the entire Report?

The discussion started before I posted this so you can comment on this post or here.

— DRJ

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Here is the live stream.

Having watched it for about seven minutes, my conclusion is that my predictions were spot on:

UPDATE by DRJ:

The House Intelligence Committee hearing is here.

219 Responses to “Mueller Subpoenaed to Testify Today; UPDATE By Patterico”

  1. I take your question.

    Dave (1bb933)

  2. Ding!

    nk (dbc370)

  3. Shamble on, Mr. Mueller…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  4. GD it, Cohen. It’s too early for fried chicken!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. Correct again, Patterico!

    DRJ (15874d)

  6. This is every bit as riveting as I expected.

    LOL he won’t even read from the report. “I’m happy to have you read it.”

    He won’t be your dancing monkey, Democrats.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  7. “Undramatic”?

    This is a comedy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. Like I said in the other thread, I was hoping for Loquacious Bob, not wasn’t predicting. He’s 74, but he could pass for 94 with his halting testimony.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  9. There is no (redacted) accountability but that has been true of his entire career.

    Narciso (5d1b28)

  10. Congressman, if you had read my report, you would have known this was going to be boring.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  11. The democrats can forget about using any of this testimony in the 20/20 campaign.

    mg (8cbc69)

  12. It just got interesting.

    DRJ (15874d)

  13. When is someone going to ask about the cannibalistic child-eating pedophiles?

    Munroe (0b2761)

  14. Over on CSPAN2 the House Committee on Mulch & Paint Drying is equally riveting TeeVee.

    If the plan was to wade deep into the weeds and televise images to the American people of overly prepared Congress critters badgering a stuttering old man with hours of tedious quotes and footnotes then they’ve succeeded. Apparently they failed to review videotapes of the Watergate hearings– or The Apprentice– for basic television production pointers on how to communicate, hold and entertain and audience.

    Every tick of every boring second is a Trump victory. The Donald has nothing to worry about.

    Don’t tweet, Captain, sir—you’re beating the rap.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  15. he hired a bunch of wannabe Hillary staffers, including at least one of her attorneys rhee, and an attorney for one of her conspirators, Justin cooper, remember that,

    narciso (d1f714)

  16. Wow. Rep Correa is incompetent. He’s trying to rehash Flynn and Comey’s remarks? Feel bad for those in California that have this fool as their Representative.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  17. It’s not every day that NeverTrump gets to hear God speak.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  18. And it only two minutes for narciso to demonstrate that Trump supporters also want a Game of Thrones episode, DCSCA. Or, as you have pointed out in the past, they like Trump for the entertainment value.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. what swalwell isn’t in this peanut gallery, how about ‘favorite niece’

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. “QUESTION: “You found evidence that the President engaged in efforts, and I quote, to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Is that right?”

    MUELLER: “That is correct.”

    JRH (67a23d)

  21. Trump would be nowhere without the conflicts that he most of all creates. Nowhere!

    nk (dbc370)

  22. My link is related to what JRH posted.

    DRJ (15874d)

  23. no I’m pointing out inconvenient facts, about who’s running this kangaroo circus,

    the Russians are toasting with Stolichnaya how easy they can clog up the works, like old borscht,

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. @ Munroe, #19:

    It’s not every day that NeverTrump gets to hear God speak.

    Actually, I do get to hear Him speak every day. When I read the Bible.

    Would you be so kind as to refrain from blasphemy?

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  25. what was the underlying offense, or this clapped out wizard behind the curtain not allowed to say, if you have garbage like the steele dossier and the kavalec memo, (which seemed to lean on episodes of burn notice as evidence)

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. more like an inscrutable oracle, you know the ones who swooned on bizarre vapours,

    so a Clinton atty like rhee, is acceptable as one of the investigators, along with that of her co conspirators Justin cooper, that is considered legitimate,

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. the hill, surprisingly ignores what it’s vice president of news, john Solomon has turned up, like the Weissman offer to firtash that blew the extradition,

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. CNN :

    Here are some other takeaways from his testimony:

    Mueller’s performance: He was resolute in staying with his strategy of remaining within the bounds of the report even when his investigation was being criticized by some Republicans.

    His most frequent answers: As of 11:12 a.m. ET, Robert Mueller deferred, declined to answer or pointed members of congress to his report at least 75 times throughout his testimony.

    One of Mueller’s key responses: His most significant answer so far was his answer to Rep. Ted Lieu about whether he would indict the President if not for the Office of Legal Counsel memo. But Mueller cautioned not to overread his answer, telling Lieu, “The only thing I want to add is I’m going through the elements with you. That does not mean I subscribe to what you’re trying to prove through those elements.” He also said clearly that the President was not exonerated.

    Rep. Lesko tried to pin Mueller down after his exchange with Lieu:

    Rep. Debbie Lesko, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee, asked former Special Counsel Robert Mueller about his decision not to indict President Trump.

    Lesko said Mueller recently said he didn’t “indict the President is because of the OLC opinion.” (Note: OLC stands for “Office of Legal Counsel.” More on that opinion in a second.)

    But, she said, Mueller made different comments earlier this year:

    “That is not what you said in the report, and it’s not what you told Attorney General Barr. And in fact, in a joint statement that you released with DOJ on May 29 after your press conference, your office issued a joint statement with the Department of Justice that said: The Attorney General has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying, that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice,” she said.

    Lesko asked Mueller if he stands by his earlier May 29 statement.

    “I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree,” Mueller said.

    Interesting.

    DRJ (15874d)

  29. I expect someone, maybe many, on the Senate committee will ask about this in the afternoon.

    DRJ (15874d)

  30. @ 31. It is interesting. Mueller earlier stated that the OSC decided not to make a decision — something to that effect –about whether to indict the President. So I do believe it’s not true that he would have found for obstruction but for the OLC opinion. I believe Mueller thought not only that it wasn’t his job to indict the President, but that it wasn’t his job to come to a conclusion about whether the President should be indicted. I think he saw his job only as gathering and presenting evidence.

    JRH (67a23d)

  31. Funny how history repeats. I actually heard a Republican use a line from 1998: “I agree with the chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. He’s not. But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law!”
    It actually makes sense. There’s not a whit of difference between the smear campaign that Clinton and his minions used on Starr and the smear campaign that Trump and his minions are using on Mueller. After all, it’s being spearheaded by an ex-Democrat.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  32. ‘As Beldar has always said…’

    Actually, what ‘Beldar’ should take note of is the heated passion of these young, pro-Trumpster Congress critters loyally defending their Captain from every angle on national TeeVee; then he’d comprehend why it’s Trump’s party now. What’s the GOP number now– 91% or more back Trump.

    Welcome to 1964, kids.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  33. no, Kenneth starr was treating worse than Jeffrey Epstein, to a woman and not a few men, want to have Mueller’s baby, the former never behaved as unethically,

    narciso (d1f714)

  34. https://twitter.com/TamSlick/status/965713809141911556

    (That tweet was originally posted in reference to David Hogg and company)

    kishnevi (496414)

  35. well he served as a good human shield, for scott Israel and Petersen to hide behind,

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. Kenneth starr was treating worse than Jeffrey Epstein,

    You just made Starr’s investigation into the equivalent of sexual predation of minors.

    You really need to stop reflexively using Democratic corruption to excuse Trump’s corruption.

    kishnevi (496414)

  37. You may be right, JRH, but I don’t think so. Mueller’s role is prosecutor and he indicted many people in this investigation. IMO he did not indict Trump because the OLC Guidelines said he cannot. Prosecutors cannot indict a leader who cannot be tried because it might unfairly prejudice his/her case and their leadership.

    DRJ (15874d)

  38. it’s a metaphor, for investigating bill Clinton’s civil and criminal offenses,

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. This Hamburger Helper should keep the cabler talking heads fed for at least a week.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  40. it’s a late summer rerun, but Lawrence walsh was the designated tool to further the soviets designs, and pat fitzgerald was similarly unscrutable (his last client was Michigan state, to insulate themselves from larry nassar)

    narciso (d1f714)

  41. Personality cults fear their leader’s wrath, DCSCA.

    DRJ (15874d)

  42. @ 40. Gotcha. That makes sense.

    JRH (67a23d)

  43. I pointed exactly how walsh indicted Reagan administration official, on the eve of an election, we can go chapter and verse, on how pat fitzgerald played favorites, inconvenient facts are what constitutes ‘personality cults’ now

    http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-flynn-intel-group-conviction.html#comment-form

    narciso (d1f714)

  44. @44. 91-plus percent isn’t a cult, DRJ. It’s a sea change. WElcome t1964.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. The Republicans pointed out Mueller’s refusal to explain his decisions, especially about indictments. This probably will resonate with Republicsns, and perhaps it should. However, my impression us that Mueller won’t comment on pending investigations or charges, nor will he tell us that is why he won’t comment.

    DRJ (15874d)

  46. The reviews are trickling in from various media…

    The “D” in Dems is for…

    “D”isaster.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. Goldwater was perhaps too earnest, and cursed by fate, but lbj a corrupt west texas poll, delivered perhaps three rounds of ragnarok, with an unsustainable social safety with the 1965 immigration act, and a pitiful stewardship of Vietnam, hence the 800% inflation since 1965,

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. Texas had personality cult leaders with Pa and Ma Ferguson, who are very similar to Trump. Leaders who rely on charisma can be very powerful when they are running or in office, but that soon evaporates. Obama is a more recent example.

    DRJ (15874d)

  49. QUESTION: “Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?”

    MUELLER: “I’m not going talk about recommendations.”

    QUESTION: “It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?”

    MUELLER: “I’m not going to talk about that issue.”

    inscrutable feller, that one.

    JRH (67a23d)

  50. My impression is that he feels he put all the evidence in the report, and if the Democrats want to impeach, it’s their job to take it from there.

    kishnevi (496414)

  51. which one can’t actually challenge the validity of, meanwhile weiner slithers back home, having avoided any serious charges for mishandling of classified info, on his laptop,

    narciso (d1f714)

  52. Not answering about fusion made him look as if he was in on the hoax.

    mg (8cbc69)

  53. His non response to Mifsud was also quite telling.

    mg (8cbc69)

  54. yes, he should have indicted mifsud for lying, but that wouldn’t have been awkward at Vauxhall, Italian and general intelligence,

    narciso (d1f714)

  55. Mueller “can’t get into that” because there is an ongoing investigation. You may even know about it. It’s led by a man named Horowitz….

    kishnevi (496414)

  56. This thread’s more interesting than the show.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. 32. DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2019 @ 8:52 am

    I expect someone, maybe many, on the Senate committee will ask about this in the afternoon.

    the second committee is not a senate committee – it’s another House committee – the House Intelligence committee (and afew membes ae on both committees and get two chances to ask questions without anyone having to yield time to them.

    Remember, the House is controlled by Democrats and the senate by epublicans and it is on;y Democrats who wanted Mueller to testify.

    The House Intelligence committee (it’s got a longer formal name) has got fewer members than the House Judiciary Committee – only 22, so the hearing won’t last as long.

    It’s surprising how shaky Mueller was.

    The second committee hearing has begun. Schiff wants to talk about things besides violations of law.

    Hundreds of millions of dollars and lifelong ambition for Trump Tower in Moscow?

    Sammy Finkelman (dfa011)

  58. This hearing is maybe going to be less boring.

    Sammy Finkelman (dfa011)

  59. @51. Talking cults?? Reagan highways, Reagan bridges, Reagan tunnels, Reagan airports, Reagan schools, the quests for the Reagan dime and Reagan on Mt. Rushmore. Now that’s a cult.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. Mueller: So, I have to go to the House Intelligence Committee now?

    Aide: Yes sir.

    Mueller: So this why all the questions were so dumb this mnorning! The intelligence was somewhere else.

    Aide: Well….

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  61. This day is a complete disaster for the Dems and NeverTrumpers.

    Trump Luck is in the air, kids; buy that lottery ticket.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  62. “The Last Gasp Russian Conspiracy Theory”
    Nunes description of these hearings. lol

    mg (8cbc69)

  63. I’d support legislation to mint the ‘Trump Slug’ for use in casinos.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. 66 —

    Last thing any casino owner wants is to replicate Trump’s “success”.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  65. @65. Nunes should do Trump a favor and just shut up.

    Our Captain is winning the day and doesn’t need to be torpedoed by friendly fire.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  66. Armstrong: Did you know Andrew Weissmann praised Sally Yates for directly disobeying a presidential order?
    Mueller: Not going to talk about it.
    Armstrong: Did you know Jeanie Rhee worked for the Clinton Foundation?
    Mueller: Not going to talk about it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  67. You people don’t understand what it means to be NeverTrump I think. We want to beat the Democrats, not provide them with an orange ringer who is doing more to keep them in power than they are doing for themselves.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. This day is a complete disaster for the Dems and NeverTrumpers.

    It doesn’t matter what Mueller says today and it never did. The pro-Trump folks are going to declare that Mueller was hammered by pointed questions that he refused to answer and the anti-Trump folks are going to declare that none of the damning information in his report was refuted today. This was just a little show to give the media something to talk about this week.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  69. Wait ’til the schiff hits the fan…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  70. The NeverTrump catchfarts are transparent…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  71. If you doubt my analysis, compare the Fox News homepage at this moment with the CNN homepage.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  72. @70. That group who quilled the ‘Never Trump’ essays for the primaries in National Review know exactly what it means to be NeverTrumpers: on the outs, or as our Captain would tweet: ‘losers.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  73. wasn’t it Schiff who met with dossier proprietor glen simpson in aspen last year, just nuke the place from orbit, only way to make sure,

    narciso (d1f714)

  74. In summary… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUXpYMV17fw

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  75. As opposed to shep smith’s fainting spells, those they chose to represent the story, brit hume has a little more perspective, chris Wallace, still sharing andrea Mitchell’s cerebellum,

    narciso (d1f714)

  76. ‘This is great material for a course on trial advocacy. Dems on direct are being allowed to lead and Lap Dog says yes. Repubs on cross impeach him, befuddle him and generally demonstrate he had no interest in pursuing truth…”not in my purview.” ‘

    — Rudy Giuliani

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  77. Armstrong: “When did you learn one of your top attorneys, Andrew Weissmann, attended Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election night party?”

    Mueller: “I’m not sure.”

    Armstrong: “Isn’t that a conflict of interest?”

    Mueller: “I’m not going to answer that.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. maddow’s going to be a sad panda, tonight

    https://grabien.com/story.php?id=244767

    the Spanish station, taking a break from Ricky’s rigamarole, used the olc figleaf, and the spectral Russian evidence talking points,

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. I missed this earlier exchange:

    In an especially significant moment, the former special counsel answered one of the key outstanding questions about his report during questioning by a Republican.
    “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked.
    “Yes,” Mueller said.
    “You believe that he committed — you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” Buck asked again.
    “Yes,” Mueller answered.

    I thought this was one of those hypotheticals that Mueller would refuse to answer.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  80. DCSCA:

    You really puzzle me. I think you dislike Trump, but I guess you dislike Reagan more? And since Trump puts paid on the Reagan legacy, you break out the pom poms and remember every insult offered up to Nelson Rockefeller in 1964?

    Seems like you want the GOP to be a bunch of racist pigs in thrall to a boorish demagogue. For some inscrutable reason that feels revenge based.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  81. I updated the post to add a link to the House Intelligence Committee hearing here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  82. but enough about Obama, appalled, who actually did do lasting damage to this country,

    narciso (d1f714)

  83. Mueller is so bad the Dems have asked leading and yes/no questions. “It’s not in my purview” is an awful answer. This could be as bad as a drunk Senator McCarthy losing it, or ficitonal Frank Pentageli losing his memory. Either Jordan and Gholmert would have TKOed him if this was a fight. What bothers nme a great deal is this “exoneration” nonsense; it’s not any standard of proof in our jurisprudence, ever. Mueller and this whole proceeding do us a disservice by propogating nonsense about our legal system. Either he found evidence he believed could show each element of specific crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, or he did not. If Mueller and his team are willing to run roughshod over our system of justice’s most basic principles in pursuit of a president they don’t like, they will stop at nothing.

    Bugg (47841b)

  84. A correction from Mueller at Paul Montagu’s link:

    1:09 p.m. Mueller corrects earlier statement to Democratic lawmaker at first hearing

    “Now before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion,” Mueller said, referring to the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion that it was against department policy to indict a sitting president. “That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller explained.

    Mueller’s answers are accurate but, for instance, he might answer that a President could be charged but that doesn’t mean he is saying this President will be charged or should be charged.

    DRJ (15874d)

  85. I disagree with Bugg’s comment.

    DRJ (15874d)

  86. “Operation Rolling ‘Blunder'”– Mueller may be having flashbacks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  87. Bugg, you are much, much too kind.

    Matador (39e0cd)

  88. @80. You really don’t understand what’s going on here.

    It’s magnificent; best times since Nixon resigned.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  89. DRJ-if Mueller so found that specific elements of specific criminal statutes had bean violated, and had evidence, be it witnesses or documents, he believed proved beyond a reasonble doubt each and every element of such offenses, he could have so stated it. Nothing precluded him form saying so in his report. In fact his report was strictly for the Attorney General and id dnot ahve to be released. This exoneration thing is nonsense on stilts. It does happen that a prosecutor may find material that exonerates someone of crime, but that is not the standard of proof. President Donald Trump or a shoplifter or El Chapo or anyone so investigated is entitled to that standard. Mueller is essentially turning the standard on it’s head. Or those who hired him to be the frontman for this debacle did so.

    Bugg (47841b)

  90. President Donald Trump or a shoplifter or El Chapo or anyone so investigated is entitled to that standard.

    This is true. Since Mueller has no power to indict, the place to uphold that standard for a sitting president is Congress.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  91. DCSCA —

    As the country burns, you toast marshmellows?

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  92. Nothing precluded him from saying so in his report.

    Mueller believes the OLC Guidelines precluded him from saying that about a sitting President and from indicting a sitting President. This isn’t something invented for this case. It was written in 2000, and the DOJ interprets it the same way Mueller does.

    DRJ (15874d)

  93. A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

    Date of Issuance: Monday, October 16, 2000

    Headnotes: The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

    Attachment:
    op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

    DRJ (15874d)

  94. As the country burns, you toast marshmallows?

    He toasted marshmallows as a kid! Whatever the cost to the country, reliving his childhood makes it all worthwhile, you see.

    Dave (1bb933)

  95. The only thing that seems interesting is the GOP line about whether Mueller’s people ignored wrongdoing when it was done by persons outside Trump’s circle. If true, that would be a demonstration of bias.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  96. The Constitution has impeachment in it, high crimes and misdemeanors. Nothing in the 10/16/2000 doc precludes stating elements of offenses have been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. This report was not going public until Mueller’s team of Trump haters pushed their luck with this “exoneration” silliness. Saying so in the report is not a grand jury indictment nor a prosecution. His whole report (or Ken Starr’s which did exactly that!) is basically, if the elements are so found, a criminal complaint. In many jurisdictions a criminal complaint is nothing more than an allegation that for most felony offenses requires a prosecutor go before a grand jury with his witnesses and documents. Once again, Mueller(really though after today the cabal of losers who propped him up, because the guy is a washed up clueless old man on the back nine of DC establishment hackery) got cute; oh, we cannot exoneatre him , but we won’t state what crimes our evidence showed beyond a reasoable doubt. That is nonsense. Again, that is what Starr did, whether you agree or disagree as to the wisdom of th Clinton impeachment. I did not.

    Bugg (47841b)

  97. For example, they could’ve charged Mifsud with obstruction.

    https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/OOPS-600×433.jpeg

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  98. “Not Going To Get Into That”
    Lawyer 3 card montyspeak

    mg (8cbc69)

  99. Mueller didn’t write the report, any chance he read it?

    mg (8cbc69)

  100. @91. Please. This ain’t 1968.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. A tip from a politician led to the initiation of the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation.

    Nothing to see there, move along.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  102. Was watching on CNN. Wolf Blitzer looked like he swallowed a bee.

    “Former special counsel Robert Mueller has clarified that he did not consider bringing criminal charges against President Donald Trump as part of his Russia investigation.

    Mueller in his congressional testimony Wednesday morning seemed to agree that he did not charge Trump with obstruction of justice because of Justice Department guidance saying a sitting president can’t be indicted.

    Democrats seized on that answer, but when testimony resumed in the afternoon, Mueller clarified. He said “that is not the correct way to say it.”

    Mueller said his team “did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

    https://www.macon.com/news/nation-world/article233053702.html#storylink=cpy
    _

    harkin (0f62bd)

  103. Swallowswell for teh loss…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  104. 102… so Patterico was right?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  105. Nothing in the 10/16/2000 doc precludes stating elements of offenses have been shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Mueller’s Report provided evidence of obstruction, but he did not indict because “It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”

    What more do you expect? Mueller’s Report listed indictments and trials to date of various defendants; it summarized Trump’s specific conduct that constitutes evidence of obstruction; and it refused to exonerate Trump. What it did not do is indict Trump because since 2000 (and before) DOJ policy has prohibited that:

    In 1973, the Department concluded 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… We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.

    DRJ (15874d)

  106. Lacking strength of character is how I see Mueller today. No vigorous comebacks to the beating republicans are giving him. Spineless hack.

    mg (8cbc69)

  107. Watching Mueller not answer Stepanik’s questions and the look on his face… this is sad.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  108. 106-Rather obvious why he was so opposed to testifying. He is a frontman, a big name, a DC grandee, nothing more. Asking him questions is almost pointless. He barely knows the subject matter, and that was probably by design.

    Bugg (47841b)

  109. But then Castro begins his questions and it’s like a 5 Hour Energy drink for Mueller.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  110. #100 —

    Or 1974, for that matter. Trump isn’t quitting and Pelosi isn’t impeaching.

    I just don’t get your viewpoint, at all, and I was looking for a way to describe it. I almost had you toasting marshmellows at a famous fire in Germany, but I do believe in Godwins Law, so I dropped the thought.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  111. I think the most compelling part of the GOP questioning were questions about bias among Mueller’s team. My guess is that Mueller wasn’t worried about bias because he — a Republican — was in charge. He probably worried more about being charged with bias by Democrats, not Republicans.

    The Democrats’ most successful questioning was, to me and so far, by Schiff.

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. Mueller isn’t going to say anything. Beldar has been saying this for months and Patterico, too. Have you gotten so used to Trump that you all see this as a DCSCA reality show?

    DRJ (15874d)

  113. DCSCA, explain to Appalled that you are motivated by destroying conservatism and will use any vehicle that helps you do that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  114. RIP Rutger Hauer

    harkin (0f62bd)

  115. That was weak Schiff, DRJ.

    mg (8cbc69)

  116. @100. You’ll figure out the strategy at work– eventually. The s’mores, the merrier.

    As of now, it’s a win/win either way it goes.

    Glorious.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  117. Been dazed and confused for so long it’s not true
    Been called an R, but I bat for the Blue
    Lots of people talk, but few of them know
    Soul of the Weismann was created below, yeah

    They hurt and confuse askin’ ’bout all the lies
    They preen and then pounce, Lord how they hypnotize
    Sweet baby Jesus, I don’t know where I am
    But I can’t get into that, here they come again

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  118. a-ba-dee a-ba-dee a-ba-dee… I can’t g-g-get into that.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  119. I liked him in “The Hitcher”. A great role. “Got a cigarette?”

    nk (dbc370)

  120. @113. Inaccurate. He can figure it out on his own. Containment is the term; there’s a dusty trunk in Goldwater’s attic waiting. You can’t ‘destroy’ an ideology. There’s a lot of folks in Argentina- or Charlottesville, who’ll attest to that.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  121. “So he’s guilty.

    Yes, but we can’t prove it.

    So he’s innocent.

    I never said that.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  122. Can you get (I wanna know)
    I wanna know if you’ll get into that?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  123. This is a big fat dud for the democrats.
    Nadler like.

    mg (8cbc69)

  124. “At this point, all the mainstream media personalities attempting to distance themselves from Mueller look like the Three Stooges all trying to fit through the door at the same time.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  125. They brought Mueller in front of congress and they got Admiral Stockdale.

    mg (8cbc69)

  126. The person who learned the most about the Mueller Report at this hearing today?

    Robert Mueller.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  127. All those moments … lost in time, like tears in the rain.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  128. I’m not watching, but now I wish one of them had asked him, “Are you the primary author of any section of the report, or did you simply approve it as a general work product?” If he gets a yes, then ask for a sample section. If you get a no, well then.

    Of course, that wouldn’t be in his purview.

    Ingot9455 (82c9ce)

  129. Heh…

    https://babylonbee.com/news/i-am-still-sharp-as-a-tack-protests-mueller-moments-before-taking-phone-call-on-a-banana

    Any moment now Snopes will put up a helpful post rating this claim as “Not True.”

    JVW (54fd0b)

  130. rip rutger hauer, aka morgan edge in batman begins,

    narciso (d1f714)

  131. 129, Ingot9455 (82c9ce) — 7/24/2019 @ 12:50 pm

    129.I’m not watching, but now I wish one of them had asked him, “Are you the primary author of any section of the report, or did you simply approve it as a general work product?”

    That is actually a very good question.

    Mueller was also clearly hard of hearing, and even mentioned his ehearing at one point.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  132. It was impossible to fllow what they said about Joseph Mifsud – at one point there were a few details, but you ned to be familair with many things i order to be able to follow it.

    Some things I was familiar with and the questions were misleading.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  133. well mifsud was the source for the Russian emails claim to papadapoulos, who recited it to downer, but mifsuds allegiances and even current whereabouts, are unclear,

    https://www.conservativereview.com/news/watch-former-prosecutor-scolds-mueller-violating-justice-systems-sacred-traditions-russia-probe/

    narciso (d1f714)

  134. Somehow sort od overlooked by the Demcrats is that when the Russians leaked what they hacked they didn’t offer it privately to Hillary;s political opponents.

    Also nobody is generalizing. If taking advantage of hacked information is so wrong then why aren’t they condemning the opposition (which is proactically everybody) in Puerto Rico?

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  135. DCSCA, explain to Appalled that you are motivated by destroying conservatism and will use any vehicle that helps you do that.

    Can’t you feel it, DRJ?

    The Golden Age of Rockefeller Republicanism is dawning!

    Dave (1bb933)

  136. yes, it was offered freely to everybody like Bradley mannings original tranche of cables, ed snowdens document dump and anonymous leak of stratfor files,

    narciso (d1f714)

  137. also panama, paradise, dubai and now Mauritius papers,

    narciso (d1f714)

  138. Rockefeller republicanism was détente, amnesty, affirmative action, pro abortion,

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/24/mueller-corrects-testimony-lieu/

    narciso (d1f714)

  139. apparently this little thread is verboten,

    https://twitter.com/seanmdav

    narciso (d1f714)

  140. Nothing in the 10/16/2000 doc precludes stating elements of offenses have been shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

    You understand that isn’t how this works right? That’s the job of the court, which Mueller isn’t, he would submit for indictment the facts of the element(s) of the crime, which he laid out, and an indictment would be handed down by a grand jury, and a trial would find whether a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. Since it’s a sitting president, he can’t, the grand jury can’t, and the jury can’t.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  141. Biden/Mueller/2020

    mg (8cbc69)

  142. How many times did Mueller effectively plead the 5th?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  143. “Wheres The Office of Exoneration”
    lmao

    mg (8cbc69)

  144. The hearing is ripe for a Talking Heads rip-off video…

    Once in a Lifetime

    You may find yourself sitting in a congressional hearing
    And you may wish yourself in another part of the world
    And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a skidding automobile
    You may wish yourself on a beautiful island, with a frosty margarita
    You may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”

    Letting the Qs go by, let my wetnurse hold me down
    Letting the Qs go by, open-mouthed, trying not to frown
    Serving the Blue again, when will this schiff be done?
    Once in a lifetime, lava flowing underground

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  145. If only his legs could reach that far, Rep. Jerry Nadler would be kicking himself right about now…

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/nadler

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  146. “Wheres The Office of Exoneration”
    lmao

    mg (8cbc69) — 7/24/2019 @ 2:10 pm

    That whole exchange is what destroyed the democrat’s hope.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  147. 144. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/24/2019 @ 2:07 pm

    How many times did Mueller effectively plead the 5th?

    It was dozens of times, and that doesn’t count the questions that members of Congress avoided asking. It wasn’t the 5th amendment but it was:

    I would direct you to the report.

    I can’t get into that; that’s internal deliberations.

    This is outside my purview.

    Generally, yes.

    I don’t agree with that characterization.

    I don’t want to speculate. (what somebody would have done if)

    I don’t want to read it. You read it out loud.

    Our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct (he refused to utter the word impeachment)

    He would, when it fit, utter the word Correct, or say “It’s true” or even “accurate” and would occasionally say no.

    Also:

    I’m not familiar with…

    I don’t remember.

    I’d have to look more closely at the statute.

    JORDAN: Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?

    MUELLER: Can’t get into that.

    Or:

    CORREA: If a hostile nation knows that a U.S. official has lied publicly that can be used to blackmail that government official, correct?

    MUELLER: I’m not going to speak to that. I don’t disagree with it necessarily, but I’m not going to speak to — anymore to that issue

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  148. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-of-robert-s-mueller-iiis-testimony-before-the-house-judiciary-committee/2019/07/24/7164abfe-ad96-11e9-a0c9-6d2d7818f3da_story.html

    LESKO: But then I don’t see how you could — that could be since A.G. Barr’s letter detailed the principle conclusions of your report and you have said before that — that there wasn’t anything inaccurate. In fact, you had this joint statement. But let me — let me go on to another question. Mr. Mueller, rather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents, I think you relied a lot on media. I’d like to know how many times you cited “The Washington Post” in your report.

    MUELLER: How many times I what?

    LESKO: Cited “The Washington Post” in your report.

    MUELLER: I did not have knowledge of that figure, but — I don’t have knowledge of that figure.

    LESKO: I counted about 60 times. How many times did you cite “The New York Times”? I counted…

    MUELLER: Again, I have no idea.

    LESKO: I counted about 75 times. How many times did you cite Fox News?

    MUELLER: As with the other two, I have no idea.

    LESKO: About 25 times. I’ve got to say it looks like Volume 2 is mostly regurgitated press stories. Honestly, there’s almost nothing in Volume 2 that I couldn’t already hear or know simply by having a $50 cable news subscription. However, your investigation cost American taxpayers $25 million. Mr. Mueller, you cited media reports nearly 200 times in your report then in a footnote, a small footnote, number 7, page 15 of Volume 2 of your report you wrote. I quote, “this section summarizes and cites various news stories not for the truth of the information contained in the stories but rather to place Candidate Trump’s response to those stories in context.” Since nobody but lawyers reads footnotes, are you concerned that the American public took the embedded news stories…

    NADLER: The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentlelady from Washington.

    LESKO: Can Mr. Mueller answer the question?

    NADLER: No. No. No, we’re running short on time. I said the gentlelady from Washington.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  149. Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler presser.

    Wow. With charts! Nancy, if you’re explainin’—- you’re losin’.

    Trump Luck is in the air, kids. Buy that lottery ticket.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  150. Visiting Hours for Bob Mueller at the old folks home are between 9:00 AM – 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM

    mg (8cbc69)

  151. to paraphrase don Henley, from ‘the end of the innocence’ this tired old man, was chosen as special counsel, yes that pointed reference to Reagan rankled, because he ended the cold war, when these self important jackalopes, like clark Clifford, said it was impossible, then he played the old codger in the bcci investigation, so Lynda carter’s husband Robert altman, got the lion share of the blame,

    narciso (d1f714)

  152. S&P, Nasdaq soar to record highs, unfazed by devastating Mueller Report…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  153. Takeaway:

    As several banned commenters here have continually noted, Mueller was a puppet who neither wrote, reviewed, nor read his own report. Much like Patterico and his comment section, we have a posturing ‘law and order conservative’ serving as the face while rabid liberals akin to Montagu, DCSCA, Dave, and Col Klink provide the rabidly partisan ‘analysis’ and ‘support’.

    “The night after Mueller testifies all these people are gonna be like “oh, man. Did he *go out of his way* to *purposefully* be undramatic??””

    Broke: LOL DRUMPHN 3-D CHESS
    Woke: 1-D MUELLER SHUFFLEBOARD

    ALWAYS TRUST CONTENT FROM PATTERICO (assuming he deletes it from his comment section in a fit of self-righteousness.)

    Andrew Weissman (0cabfa)

  154. Mueller didn’t want to use the word “collusion”, but then drew a blank when trying to recall the word he wanted to use: “conspiracy”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  155. What y’all don’t realize is that Mueller actually picked up the wrong report and ended up aging to death Indiana Jones style

    Andrew Weissman (13523f)

  156. All that prep… mock hearings, Jim Jordan impersonator, teeth gnashing… for what we witnessed. LOL!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  157. I don’t think the hearings were a disaster. They were anti-climatic. Mueller is an old man who was not up to testifying, but he said from the beginning that he would refer to the written report but not read from it, that he would follow DOJ guidelines on what he could discuss, that he would not answer questions on internal deliberations or ongoing investigations.

    What was disappointing was that representatives held mock hearings behind closed doors for several days to prepare their questions, yet several repeatedly asked questions they knew Mueller could not answer. The Republicans stuck mostly to Hannity’s recommended questions and Fox News conspiracy theories. As expected they were in attack mode and did not acquit themselves well. The Democrats focused more on specific findings in the report, but all Mueller could do was confirm what was in the report.

    There were few bombshells. One was that the FBI is conducting investigations into possible exposure to blackmail for individuals who had contact with Russian agents. Another was that Trump was “generally” incomplete, inadequate and untruthful in his responses to written questions, which were submitted under oath, but then we all know that lying comes as naturally as breathing to Trump.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  158. right keep those mueller votive candles lit,

    https://spectator.us/painful-pointless-testimony-robert-mueller/

    narciso (d1f714)

  159. This really did not go well for Democrats. The entire point of this excercise was to get Mueller to make damning statements that they could quote in shrill stump speeches and in hysterical newspaper headlines. He mostly refused to do that. The best they got is something to the affect of “We can still charge Trump after he leaves office!” which is not exactly an impeachment winner. Meanwhile the republicans actually nailed him pretty good. He didn’t write the report (in fact he didn’t write anything, not even his own public statements), he doesn’t know what’s in the report, he refused to expound on anything contained within the report, he doesn’t know anything about the central source of the entire investigation, and his investigators apparently refused to look into it.

    Far from being the apolitical legal warrior cutting through the partisanship to deliver some hero’s cry for justice, or even being a political hack motivated by pure deepstate animus, he seems to be a distant, detached, doddering old figurehead who lazily sat on his hands while Democratic operatives and Clinton associates constructed a complete fabrication that no one thought to even examine critically.

    What an apt metaphor for the Staid, Impartial, Honorable Old Republicans that the media told us he was supposed to represent: lazily sitting around on his hands while psychotically aggrieved and brazenly self-dealing Democratic apparatchiks construct a gallows, taking credit for it when its done, and then defending it as his patrimony against the people it means to hang.

    Fortunately, evil always makes itself visible in the end.

    LTC Mustard (00e23d)

  160. …while rabid liberals akin to Montagu, DCSCA, Dave, and Col Klink provide the rabidly partisan ‘analysis’ and ‘support’.

    And this is how you tell that a commenter is an unserious hack, when he calls other commenters “rabid liberals” because they won’t kiss Trump’s pasty, white ass.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  161. a commenter is an unserious hack,

    Nah, it’s that banned Soros-paid VPN hack that comes around with multiple monikers and IPs to evade the ban. Ignore him.

    nk (dbc370)

  162. “As several banned commenters here have continually noted”

    Which banned commenter are you?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  163. The reason for this farce is that the Dems wanted to get Mueller on record in Congressional testimony stating under oath that a whole bunch of unsourced BS from the media is in his report. Which it is, because his staff basically copypasta’d it without any sourcing or validation. They then were planning to use that as the basis for an impeachment hit or just general negative press during the election cycle. Congressional Republicans actually manned up and cut that off at the knees. And also invited Mumbly Bob to destroy his own credibility on TV, which he very helpfully did. Right out of the gate, they got Mueller to state unequivocally that Trump did nothing at all to interfere with or obstruct his investigation.

    The swamp method is:
    1) swamp creature leaks BS to press flunky
    2) press flunky prints it unsourced
    3) swamp creature uses story in press as basis for some BS investigation
    4) formal investigation cites press BS in findings document without investigating any of it
    5) Congressional asses get investigator to state on record that press BS is in his report
    6) Congressional asses then say “he testified under oath it was in his report. It must be true.”

    The Republicans in that hearing very cleverly short-circuited the process as Nadler was trying to go from Step 5 to Step 6. Seems like a pretty effective generic American party to join, given the options on the other side!

    Sankara (884f69)

  164. Bette Midler going for free verse, whatever happened to Hollywood squares, where these people would be sequestered so as not to endanger the community,

    narciso (d1f714)

  165. This failure was so complete it made me actually watch another Downfall parody:

    https://www.captiongenerator.com/1467792/Hitler-Discovers-Robert-Mueller-Knows-Nothing

    Andrew Weissman (38cd4d)

  166. Whenever some eent like this is broadcast on both television and radio, the radio broadcasy trails behind the tekevison broadcast.

    Today the broadcast on NPR – WNYC 820 AM in New York City trailed behind the CBS (Channel 2) broadcast by a very long length of time. I don’t knoow if it was even as short as 15 seconds.

    When you miss something on TV you can hear it on radio – also you can walk away.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  167. I didn’t catch what office Mueller was asked what president appointed him.

    He said, after thinking for a second, Bush (meaning George Bush the Elder) The Congresman told him it was Reagan. He wanted him to say Reagan,

    There could be a number of reasons for making this mistake, and I didn’t catch it enough to evaluate it. Was he appointed after the middle of 1988? Was he re-appointed? Did the appointment itself not have too much significance to him? Was it a promotion?

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  168. There was one new fact to me.

    Mueller said that when he met with Predsident Trump the day before he was appointed special counsel by Rod Rosenstein, it was not to get the job of FBI Director himself, but to discuss who should fill that position. Mueller was pretty insistant on that. It could have happened that way even if the original reason for the meeting was the possibility that Mueller might be reappointed FBI Director. Some people say Trump lied about this. Who said what about this meeting?

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  169. 158. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/24/2019 @ 3:43 pm

    158.Mueller didn’t want to use the word “collusion”, but then drew a blank when trying to recall the word he wanted to use: “conspiracy”.

    A Congressman who was questioning him on whether they were synonymous (Mueller seemed to surise him by saying no) didn’t want to devoate from his script – even to use simpler, more colloquial words.

    It’s like this: All conspiracy is collusion, but not all collusion is a conspiracy to break the law.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  170. I guess it’s pretty much over for the Mueller votive candles and “We Wish You a Mueller Christmas” carols 😁

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  171. 175… thanks, Sammy.

    On p.180 of the report, I note the following:

    “Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  172. Serious question here for the people who practice law.
    What’s the difference between “hindering” and “obstruction”?

    Because Mueller seemed to say Trump never hindered his investigation, yet held that it was inconclusive as to whether Trump had obstructed? I suppose Mueller might be talking about something that happened before his investigation, but he had 2 years, limitless purview and he came up with nothing of consequence on that.

    steveg (354706)

  173. Did Andrew Weismann try to get Dmitry Firtash to commit perjury in exchange for reduced charges? “prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, made a bold but secret offer to the American attorneys for Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash. According to Solomon, the essence of the offer was: “Give us some dirt on Donald Trump in the Russia case, and Team Mueller might make his 2014 U.S. criminal charges go away.”

    steveg (354706)

  174. “but he had 2 years, limitless purview and he came up with nothing of consequence on that.”

    So what he should’ve responded with over 100 times today was “that’s not within my limitless purview”?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  175. In terms of optics, Mueller looked old, and he kept asking to have questions repeated, and he did not have a strong command of the facts. He did little to explain his reasoning or justify his approach. Instead of defending his actions, he let a lot of it just hang out there.
    However, several points were established in the hearing (h/t McQuade):

    ► Mueller’s investigation did not exonerate President Donald Trump
    ► Russian interference was not a hoax and the investigation was not a witch hunt
    ► Russia interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion
    ► Russia worked to benefit Trump as a candidate in the 2016 presidential election
    ► Trump developed messaging strategies around the release of stolen emails
    ► Trump lied and directed others to lie to hide those facts

    The questions on obstruction also established a fact pattern that led Mueller to not exonerate Trump or, in other words, conclude that this president was not not guilty of federal felonies.

    With regard to obstruction, Mueller acknowledged facts as committee members methodically walked through the five most egregious acts of obstruction of justice described in the report: asking White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller as special counsel, directing McGahn to falsely deny the request to fire Mueller and to create a false document to support that lie; directing former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, then a private citizen, to tell then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal decision and limit the investigation to future elections; and trying to influence the testimony of two witnesses, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.
    Mueller made it clear that although the efforts to fire him were not successful, even attempts to obstruct justice is prohibited by law. Moreover, his investigation suffered “identified gaps” in reaching its conclusions because members of the Trump campaign lied, provided incomplete information, deleted communications, used encrypted messaging applications and relied on legal privileges. In this way, the obstruction efforts appear to have been successful in part.
    It took more than six hours to pry these details out of Mueller, but the facts are devastating. And even though they cannot be charged as criminal offenses against a sitting president, Mueller stated in his report and his testimony that one reason he did not reach a conclusion about whether crimes were committed when he could not charge them was that he did not want to preempt the constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct. He would not say out loud what that word is because he believes that process is not within his purview, as he said many times. The word is within the purview of Congress.

    And it was a mild surprise that Mueller would agree with Schiff that knowingly accepting help from a foreign power while running for president was unpatriotic and perhaps illegal, but maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise since Mueller was a Marine who served his country in combat. It is just a fact that Trump tried to work a real estate deal with a hostile foreign power while running for this nation’s highest office, an act that, IMO, was unpatriotic because Trump prioritized his personal greed over the welfare of the country of his birth.
    I also maintain that Pelosi is a fool for not starting an impeachment inquiry months ago.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  176. Serious question here for the people who practice law.
    What’s the difference between “hindering” and “obstruction”?

    IANAL, but I interpret as meaning that Trump *tried* to hinder the investigation (which sufficient to meet the definition of the crime of obstruction) but did not succeed in doing so (i.e. actually hinder it).

    USC 18 Section 1512( c )(2) says:

    Whoever corruptly—
    […]
    (2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    Note: “…or attempts to do so…”

    This is largely what Volume 2 of the written report says, too. Trump did not succeed in hindering the investigation because the people he told to do so (wisely) did not follow his instructions.

    Dave (1bb933)

  177. Barbara McQuade, the woman appointed by Obama and fired by Trump writing an article that has nothing to do with today’s testimony, but heavy on OrangeManBad.

    Carry on.

    NJRob (e9f024)

  178. Actually many of those claims have not been born out, Mueller indicted Concord because he never expected they would contest, they sent a sdny and sdfl veteran, 100,000 in ads compared to 1.5 billion on the other side.

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  179. You can be an obstruction without being a hindrance. For example, if you stand in front of a police car, you are obstructing it. If the cop hits the gas and drives over you without losing a second, you have not hindered it.

    nk (dbc370)

  180. Mueller wasn’t familiar with Fusion GPS, even though it was used to secure surveillance warrants and multiple re-ups. He was oblivious, didn’t know facts and did not write the report.

    He said “we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  181. …the woman appointed by Obama and fired by Trump writing an article that has nothing to do with today’s testimony…
    One, she was on topic. Two, “fired by Trump” is misleading. McQuade was part of a mass dismissal, which is not uncommon when there’s a change of administrations. Clinton fired 93 in ’93, Bush 43 fired 8 in ’07 and Trump fired 46 in ’17. But ad hom noted.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  182. nk
    Thanks for the great example.
    I’ll remember that next time I try my hand at civil disobedience.

    Dave. Thanks as well.

    steveg (354706)

  183. More like pertinent facts that would be relevant if used the other way Paul. But you are consistent in looking for any news that would portray the President in a negative light, no matter how politicized the information.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  184. I hope the Democrats do pursue impeachment, as fvcking things up is really all they are good at. So let them try it and then let them pay the price.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  185. Nevertheless, I get your points but
    If a referee in a soccer game says to me that I did not hinder, but I still obstructed, I’d be confused. Probably because in a game that is a judgment call and I’d see it as hindrance is a necessary precursor to obstruction and without hindrance, no obstruction. That is where my laymans view disconnects with the law?

    steveg (354706)

  186. Steve, if you try to bribe a sports official, or a cop, or a judge, would you say you’re innocent of any wrong-doing as long as bribe is refused?

    Dave (1bb933)

  187. *the bribe

    Dave (1bb933)

  188. Gotta love the Dog Trainer (or then again, maybe you don’t). Thier takeaway from the show in Washington today? Mueller’s testimony probably doesn’t bring us any closer to impeachment, but the real winner here is Nancy Pelosi, presumably because she had not pushed impeachment to the top of the House agenda. No word on how that Trump guy fared.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  189. More like pertinent facts that would be relevant if used the other way Paul.

    How do you use the facts of the Mueller report the “other way”?

    But you are consistent in looking for any news that would portray the President in a negative light, no matter how politicized the information.

    That’s a lie.

    Paul Montagu (f337f1)

  190. Neither was Vincent the chin. Coronello but he knows how to deprive people of liberty.

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  191. Like Doug Jones from hellboy who occassionally let’s the actual criminal go free to murder more.

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  192. Steve @ 191

    IANAL but my understanding is that if I persuade a witness to lie to investigators in an effort to hinder the investigation I’ve committed obstruction.

    If the investigators determine the witness wasn’t truthful and get the information another way they were not hindered.

    But if one of the lawyers here could parse that it would be greatly appreciated.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  193. Your example is correct, Time123, and furthermore, under federal law, even if you did not persuade the witness the lie and he went on ahead and told the truth to the investigators [that dirty rat-fink!] your attempt to get him to lie is obstruction in and of itself.

    nk (dbc370)

  194. “Mr. Mueller, I want to focus on one word in your report. It’s the second to the last word. It’s “exonerate.”… What I’m putting up here is the United States code. This is where the attorney general gets his power, and the Constitution, and the annotated cases of these, which we’ve searched. We even went to your law school.… I thought maybe your law school teaches it differently. Mr. Mueller, nowhere in these is there a process or description on “exonerate.”… You don’t have the power or authority to exonerate Trump. You have no more power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him Anderson Cooper.” Congressman Michael Turner, R-Ohio

    Jim Jordan’s big point; Mueller (Weissman?) destroys Mike Flynn with a perjury trap, ruins Papadapoulos and Page’s lives, indicts a hockey team of Russians he figured would never show up (2 did!). But when his main witness lies at least 3 times, hey, no biggie.

    Col. Haiku, very strong with the “Dazed and Confused” Mueller.

    Bugg (024e40)

  195. Thx, Bugg.

    Does anyone think Robert Mueller ran that investigation? They need to look at and compare the calendars of this team. Perhaps the Democrats thought that they’d use the Mueller brand as some sort of seal of approval on this thing that Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) described so well.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  196. You don’t have the power or authority to exonerate Trump.

    Cool, so Trump doesn’t skate on the conspiracy with the Russians after all?

    Dave (1bb933)

  197. “Cool, so Trump doesn’t skate on the conspiracy with the Russians after all?”
    Dave (1bb933) — 7/25/2019 @ 7:12 am

    Guilty until proven exonerated is the bedrock of our legal system.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  198. Incoherence is the Mark of Trump. “Mueller has no authority to exonerate Trump but the Mueller investigation exonerated Trump.”

    It’s like the Office of the President is not an Office of Profit or Trust under the United States. It’s under Covfefe or something.

    nk (dbc370)

  199. 203… keep digging, you’ve just gotta believe there’s a pony in there!

    Bless your heart.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  200. “Mr. Mueller, I want to focus on one word in your report. It’s the second to the last word. It’s “exonerate.”… What I’m putting up here is the United States code. This is where the attorney general gets his power, and the Constitution, and the annotated cases of these, which we’ve searched. We even went to your law school.… I thought maybe your law school teaches it differently. Mr. Mueller, nowhere in these is there a process or description on “exonerate.”… You don’t have the power or authority to exonerate Trump. You have no more power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him Anderson Cooper.” Congressman Michael Turner, R-Ohio

    “Let’s pretend different rules don’t apply to the President and then feign indignation” Congressyapping is my favorite Congressyapping.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  201. Cool, so Trump doesn’t skate on the conspiracy with the Russians after all?

    There was no conspiracy. There is not proof of a conspiracy. The very idea of a conspiracy is incredibly absurd from a risk/reward basis. And yet you people will hang on to this pipe dream tooth and nail. Someone has been exonerated here, however. That someone being Joe McCarthy. That is in regards to being the gold standard for paranoia about Russians. At least old Joe flushed out a real commie or two.

    PTw (e093e4)

  202. Congressyapping vs. Muellernapping…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  203. There was no conspiracy. There is not proof of a conspiracy. The very idea of a conspiracy is incredibly absurd from a risk/reward basis. And yet you people will hang on to this pipe dream tooth and nail. Someone has been exonerated here, however. That someone being Joe McCarthy. That is in regards to being the gold standard for paranoia about Russians. At least old Joe flushed out a real commie or two.

    yet another comment that completely ignores the reality that a crime was committed and that it was committed by the Russian government.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  204. yet another comment that completely ignores the reality that a crime was committed and that it was committed by the Russian government.

    Yet another comment that completely ignores reality. End of sentence.

    PTw (e093e4)

  205. Thank you NK, I appreciate the information.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  206. 210. Time123 (b0628d) — 7/25/2019 @ 8:34 am

    yet another comment that completely ignores the reality that a crime was committed and that it was committed by the Russian government.

    I have not read or heard one comment anywhere, in the newspaper, on radio ir TV that notes acrime was committed in Puerto Rico to try to force the Governor to resign (and it still was a crime even though the cellphones of 11 people have since been subpoenaed.

    And the hack could very well have been done by Russian spies (although I don’t know enough to propose a motive)

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/53da7k/this-is-how-russian-spies-could-crack-telegram

    It may be untrue that they cracked Telegram y=by the beginning of 2017.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5940 secs.