Mueller Investigation Part 2: Release The Report

[laPapessaGiovanna]

6 hours ago, Howl said:

I guess he didn't bother to mention that no one in Congress has read the unre*fucking*dacted Report, all of the supporting materials, or read the grand jury testimony.  Maybe if Congress had access to that, they could do their job better. 

Upstanding Bob Mueller is doing us no favors. 

He said this:

"In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office."

I think there were four fundamental points he made with his speech.

First: the report doesn't exonerate the president at all, especially on the obstruction part. 

Quote: "...if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Second: obstruction of justice is a damn serious crime, even more so in this case because it contributes to the efforts to interfere in the political system. Quote:

"The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood, and that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance, and it was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."

Third: he clearly contradicts Barr's declaration that the DoJ policy of not indicting the President wasn't a factor. He says the exact contrary. He affirms that it actually was a premise of the investigation. Quote:

"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. [...] So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would — would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime."

Fourth: there is overwhelming evidence that a foreign power meddled in American politics. Message between the lines: wtf? Do you all understand how serious this actually is? Quote:

"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American."

Personally I think that the Mueller speech was perfect. It addressed everything he could say without overstepping.

Of course, if Congress doesn't want to act on the report it's not Mueller's job to compel them, nor is his job to take a decision that is their own exclusive prerogative.

Edited May 30, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna

[fraurosena]

@laPapessaGiovanna, I'm not saying Mueller isn't doing his job. I'm just saying that it would have been better if the way he says things were more comprehensible to the average American (BT's aren't that -- they will never be convinced, so I'm not talking about them). How much better would it have been if he had simply said: 'The report does not exonerate the president', instead of "If we had confidence that the president did not commit any crimes we would have said so." That is what I mean about using clear and unambiguous language.

As to him testifying, I stand by my opinion. That's not up to him. It's up to Congress. And I completely agree with you that they should be doing their jobs. As I said in an earlier post upthread, they should start impeachment proceedings. They have enough evidence to do so.

 

[Howl]

Injecting a moment of levity: 

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

How much better would it have been if he had simply said: 'The report does not exonerate the president', instead of "If we had confidence that the president did not commit any crimes we would have said so." That is what I mean about using clear and unambiguous language.

His English is plain enough for ESL me, so it must be for most Americans too.

He was being diplomatic, in choosing that wording he didn't pick on the President in what would have been perceived as a direct dig against him (and could have been interpreted as a partisan move, something Mueller will go any length to avoid), but he did contradict him in substance.

Edited May 30, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna
Clarity

[front hugs > duggs]

Honestly, I think the biggest issue is both Dem politicians and anti-Trump Americans were looking at Mueller to be their savior, and that is just unrealistic. I of course would have LOVED for that to be true! But I think ultimately the person/people that will be responsible for removing Trump from office are the American people in 2020. Not Mueller and not Congress.

[Howl]

It's easy to forget that no one in Congress (that we know of) has read the full, unredacted Mueller report, with supporting materials and access (for specific committees) to the grand jury testimony.  

I suspect that at least some people in the WH know exactly what is in the redacted portions of the IC material, material that Barr decided was so sensitive that he should be in charge of redacting it and not the Mueller "team."  I still think that is where the bombshells are. 

[AmericanRose]

I'm not quite sure where this should go, but an old classmate shared this on FB a few weeks ago from Matt Gaetz:
"This hearing is not about the AG. This hearing is not about the Mueller Report. This is all about impeaching the President. Why won't Dems just jump to impeachment like their liberal media overlords are telling them to?

The reason is THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT"

Comment: "Imagine a world where everyone practices what they preach.. they accept the outcome from 2016 and work towards improving the USA instead of literally wasting millions on nothing.."
Response: "The ones who are the loudest have the most to hide"

Bolding mine. Is Trump not the loudest...?????????????

Good lord. The cognitive dissonance is amazing. I can't believe I grew up with these people.

[fraurosena]

Good thread with Seth Abramson’s take on the three investigations mentioned in the linked NYT article. He also reveals more about a plot by six countries to elect Trump that he and a number of other (foreign) journalists are (independently) investigating.

 

[fraurosena]

Here’s the unrolled version (if I’m doing it correctly on my phone that is) of the thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1135202383800262656.html

[fraurosena]

Dun-Dun-Duuuuuuunnnn!

 

[fraurosena]

I'm not sure where to put this, but as it's pretty big news and it touches on what Mueller investigated, I'm adding it to this thread. 

Nader wants to make me vomit. 

 

 

[fraurosena]

More on George Nader (thread):

 

[fraurosena]

Nader should be hung by the balls and left to rot.

Do not be stupid like me and read the affadavit.  It’s horrible and disgusting and distressing, and could be triggering. 

 

[fraurosena]

Short, sharp and shocking, here's a handy overview of all the collusion to show everyone not willing or able to read the [redacted] Mueller report.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Clear your calendar for July 17th: "Mueller to testify to Congress in open session about his investigation"

Spoiler

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will testify to Congress in a public session next month about his investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump, a reluctant witness long sought by House Democrats.

The House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, in an announcement late Tuesday, said that “pursuant to a subpoena,” Mueller has agreed to appear before both panels on July 17. Mueller, who oversaw the 22-month inquiry, is perhaps the one person lawmakers and the nation have been wanting to hear from the most.

“We are pleased that the American people will hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller. Our national security is being threatened and the American people deserve answers,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has pushed back against calls to impeach Trump, said in a statement.

Mueller will testify in back-to-back hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and the House Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).

The long-awaited testimony comes as nearly 80 House Democrats have called for opening impeachment proceedings against Trump, arguing that he has ignored the Constitution that he took an oath to defend while repeatedly refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations.

Impeachment proponents hope Mueller’s testimony will increase public support for ousting the president. At the very least, his testimony is certain to provide the headline-grabbing, made-for-cable-television testimony that Democrats have been seeking since the 448-page redacted report was released April 18.

Still, some Democrats are already trying to temper expectations. Privately, some fear that Mueller’s much anticipated testimony won’t live up to the hype that has been built around him for months. 

“I don’t want to set unrealistic expectations,” Schiff said in an interview after the announcement. “We want to hear what he has to say, and I think it’s very important for the American people to hear from him as well. But there are a great many other witnesses that the American people need to hear from in addition to Bob Mueller.”

Mueller spoke briefly in May, saying that he could neither clear nor accuse Trump of obstructing justice, leaving room for Congress to make that call and fueling impeachment demands among some Democrats. The remarks were his first public comments on the case since he concluded his investigation. Mueller said that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and he noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

Over the nearly two-year investigation, the special counsel charged 34 people, including 26 Russian nationals, and secured guilty pleas from seven, including several high-level Trump campaign and administration officials. The investigation concluded in March, and the following month the Justice Department released the office’s report documenting its work.

The report said investigators found insufficient evidence to show a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election and reached no conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice — despite laying out episodes of the president apparently seeking to stymie the investigation. Mueller’s team wrote that it was bound by Justice Department policy that forbids the indictment of a sitting president from deciding or alleging — even privately — that Trump had committed a crime. 

The lawyer listed on the subpoena for Mueller, along with Mueller’s top assistants in the now-defunct special counsel’s office, did not immediately respond to phone and email messages. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Mueller is no longer a Justice Department employee, and after the special counsel’s office formally closed last month, he and his personal representatives had been negotiating directly with the committee, people familiar with the matter said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss private deliberations.

Mueller, a former FBI director, had preferred not to testify publicly, hoping his report would speak for itself, the people said.

But those who know him well said that it was virtually impossible that he would ignore or reject a subpoena. 

Still, Mueller is unlikely to answer Democrats’ biggest question: whether he or his team thought there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, were he not president. The special counsel’s report said that making such a determination, even privately, would be inappropriate because of Justice Department policy that prevents the indictment of a sitting president, combined with concerns about alleging wrongdoing that would not be tested in court. 

But even Mueller repeating aspects of his report in a public setting could be politically damaging for Trump — exposing the findings to sections of the country that may not be aware of them, and creating a televised spectacle.

Republicans made clear that the hearing will be a test for Mueller — although some of their GOP colleagues had also called for him to appear.

“I just think it’s more political theater,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), a Trump ally who offered a warning: “Mr. Mueller better be prepared. I mean, there’s a lot more questions that Republicans have than Democrats.”

He added: “This is the Democrats trying to resurrect a Russia collusion narrative that the American people are tired of. And yet, Mr. Mueller has not been subject to cross examination. He will be now.”

Trump’s attorneys, meanwhile, began to call Mueller’s credibility into question and suggest that Mueller should be prepared to answer questions about anti-Trump text messages exchanged between two former FBI agents.

“The first thing he needs to answer is his own conflicts of interest,” Jay Sekulow, a Trump lawyer, said of Mueller on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Tuesday night. He later added: “The whole report is incoherent.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) likewise argued that “I think it’ll blow up in their face.”

Democrats, meanwhile, welcomed the news. Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.) thanked both chairmen on Twitter “for securing Mueller’s testimony.” 

“To the naysayers who have doubted the effectiveness of our committee chairs, this shows measurable and real progress in our methodical and assertive approach in holding the President accountable,” he said. 

The Repugs are going to make sure it's a total shitshow.

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Clear your calendar for July 17th: "Mueller to testify to Congress in open session about his investigation"

  Hide contents

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will testify to Congress in a public session next month about his investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump, a reluctant witness long sought by House Democrats.

The House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, in an announcement late Tuesday, said that “pursuant to a subpoena,” Mueller has agreed to appear before both panels on July 17. Mueller, who oversaw the 22-month inquiry, is perhaps the one person lawmakers and the nation have been wanting to hear from the most.

“We are pleased that the American people will hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller. Our national security is being threatened and the American people deserve answers,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has pushed back against calls to impeach Trump, said in a statement.

Mueller will testify in back-to-back hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and the House Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).

The long-awaited testimony comes as nearly 80 House Democrats have called for opening impeachment proceedings against Trump, arguing that he has ignored the Constitution that he took an oath to defend while repeatedly refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations.

Impeachment proponents hope Mueller’s testimony will increase public support for ousting the president. At the very least, his testimony is certain to provide the headline-grabbing, made-for-cable-television testimony that Democrats have been seeking since the 448-page redacted report was released April 18.

Still, some Democrats are already trying to temper expectations. Privately, some fear that Mueller’s much anticipated testimony won’t live up to the hype that has been built around him for months. 

“I don’t want to set unrealistic expectations,” Schiff said in an interview after the announcement. “We want to hear what he has to say, and I think it’s very important for the American people to hear from him as well. But there are a great many other witnesses that the American people need to hear from in addition to Bob Mueller.”

Mueller spoke briefly in May, saying that he could neither clear nor accuse Trump of obstructing justice, leaving room for Congress to make that call and fueling impeachment demands among some Democrats. The remarks were his first public comments on the case since he concluded his investigation. Mueller said that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and he noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

Over the nearly two-year investigation, the special counsel charged 34 people, including 26 Russian nationals, and secured guilty pleas from seven, including several high-level Trump campaign and administration officials. The investigation concluded in March, and the following month the Justice Department released the office’s report documenting its work.

The report said investigators found insufficient evidence to show a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election and reached no conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice — despite laying out episodes of the president apparently seeking to stymie the investigation. Mueller’s team wrote that it was bound by Justice Department policy that forbids the indictment of a sitting president from deciding or alleging — even privately — that Trump had committed a crime. 

The lawyer listed on the subpoena for Mueller, along with Mueller’s top assistants in the now-defunct special counsel’s office, did not immediately respond to phone and email messages. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Mueller is no longer a Justice Department employee, and after the special counsel’s office formally closed last month, he and his personal representatives had been negotiating directly with the committee, people familiar with the matter said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss private deliberations.

Mueller, a former FBI director, had preferred not to testify publicly, hoping his report would speak for itself, the people said.

But those who know him well said that it was virtually impossible that he would ignore or reject a subpoena. 

Still, Mueller is unlikely to answer Democrats’ biggest question: whether he or his team thought there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, were he not president. The special counsel’s report said that making such a determination, even privately, would be inappropriate because of Justice Department policy that prevents the indictment of a sitting president, combined with concerns about alleging wrongdoing that would not be tested in court. 

But even Mueller repeating aspects of his report in a public setting could be politically damaging for Trump — exposing the findings to sections of the country that may not be aware of them, and creating a televised spectacle.

Republicans made clear that the hearing will be a test for Mueller — although some of their GOP colleagues had also called for him to appear.

“I just think it’s more political theater,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), a Trump ally who offered a warning: “Mr. Mueller better be prepared. I mean, there’s a lot more questions that Republicans have than Democrats.”

He added: “This is the Democrats trying to resurrect a Russia collusion narrative that the American people are tired of. And yet, Mr. Mueller has not been subject to cross examination. He will be now.”

Trump’s attorneys, meanwhile, began to call Mueller’s credibility into question and suggest that Mueller should be prepared to answer questions about anti-Trump text messages exchanged between two former FBI agents.

“The first thing he needs to answer is his own conflicts of interest,” Jay Sekulow, a Trump lawyer, said of Mueller on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Tuesday night. He later added: “The whole report is incoherent.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) likewise argued that “I think it’ll blow up in their face.”

Democrats, meanwhile, welcomed the news. Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.) thanked both chairmen on Twitter “for securing Mueller’s testimony.” 

“To the naysayers who have doubted the effectiveness of our committee chairs, this shows measurable and real progress in our methodical and assertive approach in holding the President accountable,” he said. 

The Repugs are going to make sure it's a total shitshow.

The biggest question I would have for Mueller is if he voluntarily ended the investigation or was coerced to by Bill Barr/DOJ/the administration. Adding to that question I would further want to know if Mueller knew how Barr would handle the publication of the [redacted] report and its findings, and if he agreed.

Of course I'm going to watch, but I'm not that impressed with Mueller testifying as a result of a subpoena, and I'm not holding my breath for some hitherto unknown revelations that will suddenly make repugs sit up and pay attention. I'm also confident the repugs will do their utmost to undermine Mueller's testimony in whichever way they can. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Mueller’s Teflon to be tested in Congress. His past testimony holds clues."

Spoiler

“May I finish?” the witness asked. “May I please finish?”

The appeal was made in June 2013 by Robert S. Mueller III, then in the twilight of his term as the FBI director. Bent over the witness table in a House Judiciary Committee hearing room, he put up his left hand in protest.

The top law enforcement official asked Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican of Ohio, to stop interrupting him. The lawmaker fired back: “I’m asking basic questions about the investigation.”

At issue six years ago in the oversight hearing were allegations that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny.

The topic when Mueller appears before Congress next month will be an even more explosive one. The former special counsel is scheduled to testify on July 17, before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.

The president offered only an abbreviated response to the announcement Tuesday evening from the committee’s two Democratic chairmen. “Presidential Harassment!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

But the president’s loyalists in Congress — Jordan among them — will probably have much more to say to Mueller, whose 22-month investigation concluded with a report indicating that prosecutors did not decide whether Trump had engaged in criminal behavior because of Justice Department policy preventing the indictment of a sitting president.

Stepping down from his role in May, Mueller spoke briefly about his team’s findings, saying that if prosecutors “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” The Constitution, he said, “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

“Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report,” he said at the time.

That vow is unlikely to stop lawmakers —— Republicans and Democrats alike — from trying to draw out the flinty former special counsel.

Rep. Douglas A. Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that he hoped Mueller’s testimony would “bring to House Democrats the closure that the rest of America has enjoyed for months.”

Asked on Fox News Tuesday night what questions he would put to Mueller, Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee, did not list any specific questions but likened Mueller’s team to Chernobyl, the 1986 nuclear disaster in Soviet Ukraine.

For his part, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, suggested on CNN that Democrats would aim to find out where Mueller disagreed with the framing of his report following its summary by Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr.

Insight into their possible tactics in questioning Mueller, and into the way he might respond, lies in his previous appearances before Congress. They show that adversarial committee members have been ready to go after the top law enforcement official, pressing him for details about investigations and faulting him for being unable or unwilling to answer. So, too, the encounters show that Mueller has been an assertive witness, unafraid to return fire and accuse lawmakers of making erroneous claims.

“Your facts are not altogether—” Mueller told Rep. Louie Gohmert, the Texas Republican, during the same 2013 oversight hearing in which he clashed with Jordan over the IRS. Both men still sit on the Judiciary Committee.

As his microphone was cut off, the witness appeared to say that Gohmert’s facts were not “well-founded.”

The lawmaker was asking why the FBI had not canvassed Boston mosques before the detonation of two homemade pressure cooker bombs, which killed three people and injured hundreds more near the finish line of the Boston Marathon in April 2013.

“May I finish my—” Mueller continued.

But Gohmert interjected: “Sir, if you’re going to call me a liar, you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong.”

The exchange ended in an impasse, as Mueller insisted he had already answered the lawmaker’s question, and Gohmert insisted he had not.

Mueller is well-practiced at answering questions before Congress and not answering others.

Since President George W. Bush nominated him to head the FBI in the summer of 2001, Mueller has made dozens of appearances before Congress. The man whose voice Americans hardly know has spent hours speaking into microphones at congressional hearings, preserved by C-SPAN.

Mueller has answered questions on a range of hot-button topics, in front of both friendly and hostile audiences. Beginning his tenure at the FBI just days before the 9/11 attacks, Mueller was called to testify before a joint House-Senate panel on intelligence gathering. In the years since, he has regularly appeared to defend budget requests and to comply with congressional oversight. He has been asked to weigh in on momentous questions, from the Patriot Act to Russian espionage.

Perhaps most pertinent to the topic of the July hearings is a line of questioning pursued at Mueller’s confirmation hearing in 2001.

The questioner was none other than Jeff Sessions, the former senator from Alabama who was forced out as Trump’s attorney general in November. His resignation followed months of escalating attacks from the president, who resented the Cabinet official for recusing himself from handling the Russia investigation.

The confirmation hearing unfolded in the wake of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, who was acquitted by the Senate in February 1999. The legal saga, fresh in the memory of Republican senators, prompted them to ask Mueller how he would manage an inquiry implicating the president.

The concern emphasized by the GOP lawmakers was that an FBI director — and law enforcement more generally — might be swayed by political pressure exerted by an attorney general. The worry finds a parallel today in criticism of Barr’s handling of Mueller’s conclusions.

“Under those circumstances, I hope that you will keep your options open, because you have a 10-year appointment,” Sessions told the nominee. “That is for a reason, so that if something serious occurs, and there has been a threat to the orderly operation of justice, that you would use that independence for a good reason.”

It wasn’t a question. But Mueller asked: “May I respond to that, Senator?”

"Please,” Sessions told him.

Mueller allowed that there could be circumstances in which he would “feel it necessary to circumvent the ordinary course of proceedings,” sidestepping the authority of the attorney general. He pointed to a situation “where one believes that political pressure is being brought to bear on the investigative process.” He said he might look “somewhere else in the executive, beyond the attorney general,” or else possibly disclose his misgivings to Congress.

“But I would look and explore every option if I believed that the FBI was being pressured for political reasons,” he said. “And if that were the situation as described here, I would explore other alternatives or a variety of alternatives in order to make certain that justice was done.”

 

[fraurosena]

18 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

“But I would look and explore every option if I believed that the FBI was being pressured for political reasons,” he said. “And if that were the situation as described here, I would explore other alternatives or a variety of alternatives in order to make certain that justice was done.”

I fervently hope that he has done exactly that with this investigation. I'm afraid though, that he has not. Or that what he has done, or attempted to do, was not enough. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

There's been a delay: "Mueller, House panels strike deal to delay hearing until July 24, giving lawmakers more time to question him"

Spoiler

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and two House panels struck a deal Friday to reschedule his congressional testimony for July 24 and agreed to give lawmakers more time to question him about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump. 

Mueller had been scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on July 17 in a much-anticipated public appearance since he gave a short statement following the conclusion of his nearly two-year investigation. The former FBI director is perhaps the one person lawmakers and the nation have been wanting to hear from most.

Instead, Mueller will testify beginning 8:30 a.m. on July 24, the two committees announced late Friday, for an “extended period of time.”

“This will allow the American public to gain further insight into the Special Counsel’s investigation and the evidence uncovered regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and President Trump’s possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) in a statement. 

Mueller will testify for three hours before the Judiciary panel and then give testimony to the Intelligence Committee.

House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had pressed their leaders for more time to question the former special counsel. Under the previous agreement, Mueller would appear for two hours each before the Judiciary and Intelligence committees.

Because of five-minute questioning rules, only the most senior dozen or so Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would get to ask questions, upsetting more junior members.

Those members asked the committee this week to try to get Mueller to commit to more time.

“Whenever the hearing takes place, it’s important that every single member of the House Democratic Caucus who serves on the Judiciary Committee participates in the Mueller hearing,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a member of the committee, told reporters.

The Mueller report said investigators found insufficient evidence to show a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election and reached no conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice — despite laying out episodes of the president apparently seeking to stymie the investigation. Mueller’s team wrote that it was bound by Justice Department policy that forbids the indictment of a sitting president from deciding or alleging — even privately — that Trump had committed a crime. 

Mueller spoke to the public briefly in May, saying that he could neither clear nor accuse Trump of obstructing justice, leaving room for Congress to make that call and fueling impeachment demands among some Democrats. The remarks were his first public comments on the case since he concluded his investigation. Mueller said that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” He noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

Many members of the Judiciary Committee were concerned that two hours is insufficient time to discuss even half of the 10 areas of potential obstruction of justice by Trump identified in the Mueller report.

Democrats want to highlight each of those 10 episodes in their hearing, well aware that most of the public has not read the report. The time crunch, however, has made their job difficult, forcing Democrats to prioritize episodes on which they would like to focus. 

Trump, speaking to reporters outside the White House on Friday, disparaged Congress’s push to get Mueller to testify. There’s nothing Mueller “can say,” Trump said. “He’s written a report. It said no collusion, and it said, effectively, no obstruction. They want to go it again and again and again because they want to hurt the president before the election.”

[As Mueller reluctantly agrees to testify, Trump goes on the attack and Democrats hope for the best]

Over the nearly two-year investigation, the special counsel charged 34 people, including 26 Russian nationals, and secured guilty pleas from seven, including several high-level Trump campaign and administration officials. The investigation concluded in March, and the following month, the Justice Department released the report documenting the work of the special counsel’s office.

Mueller’s long-awaited testimony will come as more than 80 House Democrats have called for opening impeachment proceedings against Trump, arguing that he has ignored the Constitution that he took an oath to defend while repeatedly refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations.

Impeachment proponents hope Mueller’s testimony will increase public support for ousting the president. At the very least, his testimony is certain to provide the headline-grabbing, made-for-cable-television testimony Democrats have been seeking since the 448-page redacted report was released April 18.

The negotiations come as a closed-door session with Mueller and his deputies was suddenly canceled. Under the original plan, after the open hearing with Mueller, House Democrats had proposed to question Mueller and his top lieutenants in private for an hour. On Wednesday, lawmakers were told that the session was off.

Republicans have argued that the closed-door questioning was never agreed upon; Democrats said that they believed it was agreed upon and that Mueller’s team may have backed out under pressure from the Justice Department not to participate. 

 

[fraurosena]

More on that disgusting piece of human shit, George Nader. Because the earlier charges were just the tip of the iceberg.

George Nader, Witness in Mueller Probe, Hit With New Charges of Sex Trafficking

Quote

George Nader, who was a key witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, was hit with new federal charges of sex trafficking for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old boy he transported from Europe. 

An indictment unsealed Friday morning in Eastern District of Virginia also charges Nader with counts of child pornography and obscenity. The charges come on top of separate child-porn charges leveled by the same prosecutors last month. 

Nader pleaded not guilty to all charges during a court appearance Friday.

Nader, a 60-year-old Lebanese-American businessman with deep political and financial ties to the United Arab Emirates, was a key cooperator in Mueller’s probe of foreign influence in the 2016 election. Nader met several times with individuals associated with the Trump campaign throughout the election and into the early days of the administration. He spoke with officials and advisers on matters ranging from a pitch by a foreign firm for the campaign to use social-media manipulation to regime-change in Iran. (He met with Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign advisors about the plan, which included a proposal to use fake avatars to garner support for Trump, but Trump officials deny they ever considered it.)

He also helped broker a key meeting between Erik Prince, the former Blackwater CEO, and Kirill Dmitriev, the head of one of Russia’s sovereign wealth funds, in the Seychelles in January 2017. That meeting came under intense scrutiny by Mueller’s team and was described in its report as one of the ways the Russians tried to influence the incoming Trump administration.

Federal prosecutors in Virginia argued last month in court that Nader should be held in jail before trial, based in part on his prior criminal history. That history includes a 2003 conviction in the Czech Republic on charges of abusing minors, including a charge of transporting of a minor boy to the U.S. for sexual purposes. Federal prosecutors said Nader has had “hands-on contact with more than a dozen minor boys.” Nader’s lawyers called the U.S. government’s argument weak because he was later acquitted of the Czech sex-trafficking charge. 

Nader is also charged with transporting child pornography—a charge he’s faced in the past. In 1984, Nader was indicted for possessing child pornography in D.C. The charge was later dismissed after his attorneys argued that the material was found through an illegal search conducted on Nader’s possessions at Dulles. In 1990, again at Dulles, law enforcement caught Nader with films featuring minor boys. Nader pleaded guilty the following year.

Nader most recently faced allegations of possessing and transporting child pornography in 2018. Authorities stopped him at Dulles in January of that year and questioned him about his time working with the Trump team. Soon after, Nader began cooperating with Mueller, and in the spring of 2018 he departed for Dubai, where he lived until he attempted to re-enter the U.S. last month. 

When stopped at Dulles, the FBI executed a search warrant on Nader’s electronic devices, including three iPhones. After analyzing the phones, the FBI found 12 videos that appeared “to be visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct,” according to a criminal complaint filed in 2018 that remained under seal until last month.

Nader is also charged with violating federal obscenity law.

On June 3, he was arrested at JFK International Airport in New York and transferred to a Virginia jail, where he remains locked up.

Last month, prosecutors told a court that FBI agents found dozens of child-porn videos on one of Nader’s phones, with some depicting children as young as 3 years old. 

The FBI witness for the government said several of those videos were transmitted from Nader’s phone to other individuals. Prosecutors said authorities also found communications between Nader and UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, also known as MBZ.  

Nader’s attorneys said he returned to the U.S. for an urgent doctor’s appointment after undergoing major heart surgery in the UAE weeks earlier.

 

[Smash!]

Listening to the livestream of the Muller hearing at work. I'm wondering why he's sometimes stuttering when answering the questions?

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo has live updates here.

The thing that is jumping out at me is that the repugs are speaking as fast as possible to try and confuse Mueller.  I was shouting at the TV when Collins was yammering.

Ratcliffe frequently shouting "respectfully" made me want to scream. He wouldn't know respect if it bit him in the ass.

[Flossie]

I'm out of free stories on WaPo.  They want me to sign up and pay to read the updates.  Can't believe they put this behind a paywall.

Can anyone here provide the updates?  I'm currently watching on PBS, but will have to leave soon and won't be able to watch in real time.

[Smash!]

Thank you @GreyhoundFan for sharing this link. That's more comfortable than the live stream. I had to stop listening after Ratcliffe's question. I said WTF aloud which is very noticable in a silent environment ? Your explanation re confusing Muller makes a lot of sense.