Mueller Investigation Part 2: Release The Report

[GreyhoundFan]

2 minutes ago, Flossie said:

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.

CNN is also providing live updates.

 

3 minutes ago, Smash! said:

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.

The one thing I will give Repugs is that they are very good with message discipline. They decide what they are going to say and keep saying it over and over and over and over. For example: Ratcliffe's little snotty aside that the dems are socialists. That's right out of Dumpy's playbook.

[Smash!]

From WaPo:

9:15 a.m. Mueller says Russians believed a Trump victory would benefit them

Under questioning from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Mueller said that the Russians did perceive that the victory of one presidential candidate would benefit them: “It would be Trump,” Mueller said.

The former special counsel also confirmed findings from his report that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort gave internal campaign information and polling data to an associate whom the FBI has assessed has ties to Russian intelligence.

But Mueller declined to discuss how that information might have assisted the Russians in their efforts to disrupt the campaign. “That’s a little bit out of our path,” Mueller said.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Smash!

[Smash!]

WaPo live update:

9:20 a.m.: Ratcliffe: Mueller applied an “inverted burden of proof”

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) made a lengthy speech, accusing Mueller of inverting the American legal system’s traditional presumption of innocence by declaring in Volume II of his report that he was not recommending charging Trump with obstruction of justice but also could not exonerate him.

Ratcliffe questioned Mueller about whether a prosecutor had ever before found it be his role to conclusively determine a person’s innocence—as opposed to determining whether evidence existed that he committed a crime. Mueller said he could not think of another case and then quietly interjected, “This is a unique situation.”

Ratcliffe then jumped in to say that nowhere in Department of Justice policies and standards or in the order appointing Mueller as special counsel could such a mission be found. The presumption of innocence, Ratcliffe said, “exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it—including the president.”

The congressman said Mueller had “applied this inverted burden of proof” and then wrote a report about it.

He noted that Democrats have said Trump is not above the law.

“He’s not,” Ratcliffe said. “But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where Volume II of this report puts him.”

Mueller sat quietly and did not respond.

[GreyhoundFan]

Gohmert is being such an asshole. He's parroting Dumpy's assertion that Mueller and Comey are BFFs. Then his snotty remark to Mueller, "perhaps it's been a long time since you've been in a court room."

 

I wish the people of Texas would stop foisting Gohmert on us.

[Smash!]

@GreyhoundFan I just came in to say the same. ?

[GreyhoundFan]

Gohmert's painting of the mango moron as a sweet, innocent little guy was nauseating.

[Smash!]

WaPo liveupdate

9:34 a.m.: Another Republican accuses Mueller of ‘fishing’ without charging Trump

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who once chaired the Judiciary panel, used his time to criticize Mueller for laying out hundreds of pages worth of investigative material on Trump without charging him with any crime.

Citing the second volume of Mueller’s report, where Mueller said he decided not to make a traditionally prosecutorial judgement about whether Trump obstructed justice, Sensenbrenner asked why Mueller did the entire investigation when he knew he wasn’t ever going to prosecute Trump.

“The OLC opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation… even if you don’t indict the president,” Mueller responded, referring to Justice Department rules baring the prosecution of a sitting president.

“If you’re not going to indict the president, then you’re just going to continue fishing, that’s my opinion,” Sensenbrenner said.

Sensenbrenner grew visibly frustrated with Mueller when he had to repeat his questions several times. Sensenbrenner also probed why Mueller didn’t use the phrase “impeachable conduct” to describe any actions by Trump laid out in his report, particularly since he appeared to kick to Congress the determination of whether Trump obstructed justice. Mueller merely answered that wasn’t in his mandate.

9:25 a.m.: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee launches questions on obstruction

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) pushed Mueller on obstruction of justice, walking the former special counsel, through a series of rapid-fire questions about Volume II’s discussion of potential obstruction of justice, expected to be a recurrent theme of inquiry for Democrats.

In that second volume, Mueller’s team described 10 episodes in which Trump’s actions raised concern about potential obstruction of justice. In some of those cases, the special counsel indicated there was evidence to support key elements of an obstruction charge. But the report stopped short of making an assessment that Trump committed a crime. Democrats repeatedly said before the hearing that they planned to focus on those episodes.

While Jackson Lee’s questions were predictable, Mueller responded in a halting manner, repeatedly asking the Texas lawmaker to repeat her questions.

Her final query was whether conviction on an obstruction of justice charge warranted a significant amount of time in jail. “Yes,” Mueller responded.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Smash!

[Smash!]

WaPo liveupdate

9:45 a.m.: Mueller declines to answer questions on Steele dossier’s origins

Mueller declined to answer a series of questions from Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) about the origins of the Steele dossier, the memos alleging various connections between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Mueller repeatedly said that the dossier and Fusion GPS, the U.S.-based investigation company that hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, were “outside my purview,” and that the Justice Department was already investigating the dossier.

Republicans have seized on Steele’s research to argue that the FBI probe of the Trump campaign was begun improperly, saying that federal agents leaned too heavily on it when they sought a warrant to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page because of his contacts with Russians.

Republicans have also argued the Steele dossier was opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Clinton’s campaign did hire a law firm that hired Fusion GPS. Steele had begun his research earlier at the behest of conservative funders who wanted to compile opposition research about Trump.

9:40 a.m.: Democrats read portions of report themselves, as Mueller responds with short affirmations

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) sought to guide Mueller through one of the most explosive chapters of his report’s presentation of potential obstruction of justice -- Trump’s appeals to former attorney general Jeff Sessions to steer investigative scrutiny away from him – and was met with mostly one-word answers from Mueller.

Sessions recused himself from the government’s investigations of Russia and Trump before Mueller was appointed as special counsel, a decision that Trump tried to get him to undo, as documented in the report. Cohen attempted to sweep Mueller up in a dramatic retelling of the episodes, but the former special counsel’s preferred response was to simply tell him: “that’s in the report,” “I’ll refer you to the report for that,” or some variation.

The exchange illustrated what has been on display throughout the hearing: that for the most part, Mueller is offering sparse responses, and mostly leaving it to Democratic lawmakers to bring the words of his report to life in their own voices.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit to say I'm back at the livestream and wholeheartedly hate all the GOP members who asked questions in this hearing. What a smug bunch of assholes it's disgusting. I'm looking at you Jordan ?

Edited July 24, 2019 by Smash!

[Smash!]

10 a.m.: Why did Trump want Mueller gone?

Democrats’ efforts to get Mueller to explain the motivations of the president fell flat Wednesday, even when it came to getting Mueller to repeat assertions his report made about precisely those questions.

“The most important question I have for you today is why: why did the president of the United States want you fired?” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) asked Mueller, who said he couldn’t answer the question. So Deutch answered it for him, by citing a passage from the report in which Mueller wrote “substantial evidence indicates that the president’s attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to the special counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the president’s conduct, and most immediately to reports that the president was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.”

Deutch focused most closely on Trump’s contacts with former White House counsel Don McGahn, a key witness in Mueller’s probe, who told investigators about how Trump appeared to order him to carry out Mueller’s termination, and later lie about it.

Deutch asked Mueller if McGahn understood what the president’s motivations were. Mueller referred him “toward what was written in the report, in terms of characterizing his feelings.”

9:57 a.m.: Mueller and Gohmert spar

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Tex.), an old nemesis of Mueller’s, spent his five minutes on the attack. First, he got Mueller to concede that he and fired former FBI director James B. Comey “were friends.” Then, he tried to suggest that the FBI investigation of the president was politically biased from the beginning.

As Gohmert’s tempo quickened and frequently cut off Mueller’s attempted answers, the former special counsel asked in frustration, “May I finish?”

Gohmert barreled forward, arguing that, rather than obstruct justice, Trump set out to defend himself from Trump-hating prosecutors and agents.

“What he’s doing is not obstructing justice. He is pursing justice and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice,” Gohmert said.

Gohmert and Mueller have a history of antagonism. At a congressional hearing in 2013 when Mueller was FBI director, the congressman angrily accused the FBI of missing a key investigative step before the Boston Marathon bombing. Mueller, who generally takes a low key approach to congressional hearings, got angry and denied the accusation.

9:55 a.m.: Johnson: Diving into an obstruction episode

Rep. Hank C. Johnson (D-Ga.) has begun the Democrats’ strategy of asking sharp, tight questions to explore specific episodes of possible obstruction of justice described in Mueller’s report.

Johnson asked a series of “yes” and “no” questions about an episode described in the report in which Trump called McGahn, the White House counsel, twice at home over a weekend in June 2017 and directed him to get Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

“Mueller has to go,” McGahn recounted Trump told him, according to the report. “Call me back when you do it.”

Rather than following the order, McGahn drove to the White House to pack up his belongings and informed three other White House staffers he intended to resign. Ultimately, McGahn remained in his post, and Trump let the matter drop.

Mueller wrote in his report that “substantial evidence” existed that Trump’s efforts to remove Mueller were linked to the special counsel’s investigation of Trump’s conduct.

Parceling out those details, Mueller continually said Johnson had his facts “correct” or that he had “generally” followed the account of the report. But Mueller declined to be pushed even a bit beyond the exact words of the report. At one point, Johnson asked Mueller if he could explain the “significance” of the phone call Trump made to McGahn at home on a Saturday to discuss Mueller. “I’m going to ask you to rely on what we wrote in our report about that,” Mueller responded.

[Smash!]

Mayor eye-roll from Muller spotted when Gaetz agressively told his monologue! ?

[Smash!]

WaPo:

10:30 a.m.: “I’m just going to leave it as it appears in the report”

Back from a break, Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-La.) tried to press Mueller on an episode in his report alleging that Trump had directed former White House counsel Donald McGahn to have the special counsel fired, and then lie about it.

As he has throughout the hearing, Mueller merely confirmed that the lines that Richmond read were accurate.

“Correct,” he said repeatedly, as Richmond described the episode. “Generally true.”

Richmond tried to convince Mueller to elaborate, asking the open-ended question, “Can you explain what you meant there?” But Mueller balked.

“I’m just going to leave it as it appears in the report,” he said.

10:20 a.m.: Pence aides back Trump’s account of 2017 meeting with Mueller

Aides to Vice President Pence confirmed Trump’s account earlier Wednesday that Pence was present during a 2017 meeting in which Trump says Mueller sought to return to the job of FBI director.

Alyssa Farah, a spokeswoman for Pence, confirmed in an email that Pence was present for the meeting in the Oval Office “when Robert Mueller interviewed for the job of FBI Director in May of 2017.”

During his testimony Wednesday, Mueller confirmed that he met with Trump about the position of FBI director but “not as a candidate.”

Former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told investigators that the purpose of the meeting was not a job interview but to have Mueller “offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI,” according to the special counsel’s report.

Trump has previously cited the meeting as evidence for his contention that Mueller had conflicts of interest.

During a morning tweet, Trump suggested that Pence could back him up if Mueller did not tell the truth about the meeting

10:15 a.m.: The mysterious case of Joseph Mifsud

President Trump’s ally Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) grilled Mueller Wednesday about Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor who told former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton — but lied to federal investigators and was never charged.

Mifsud’s information — which Papadopoulos later related to Australia’s then-ambassador to the United Kingdom, who alerted the FBI — prompted the entire investigation that formed the foundation for Mueller’s probe. Republicans have questioned those origins — but Jordan and others in the GOP have also specifically questioned whether Mifsud was a potential Western intelligence asset, set up to trick Papadopoulos into passing on information that would prompt the probe of Trump’s Russia ties.

The Mifsud theory has failed to catch on outside the Republican base, but Jordan focused his questions for Mueller on one simple aspect of it: Why, if the special counsel had charged so many of Trump’s associates for lying to the FBI, had he never brought charges against Mifsud, who lied repeatedly to federal agents and whose words launched the entire Russia probe?

“You can charge all kinds of people around the president with false statements … but the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him,” Jordan challenged Mueller.

“I’m not sure I agree with your characterizations,” retorted Mueller, who also said it was “obvious we can’t get into charging decisions” during the public hearing.

10:10 a.m.: Mueller continues one- or two-word responses to confirm obstruction episodes

Democrats — appearing to realize that Mueller would not elaborate on his report — continued to read key episodes of the 448-page documents and ask him to confirm the accounts with simple “yes” and “no” answers.

Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) guided Mueller through an episode in his report in which Trump tried to convince his then-White House counsel Donald McGahn to deny reports that Trump requested he fire Mueller.

In late January 2018, the New York Times reported that McGahn had threatened to resign the previous year rather than follow through on an order from Trump to fire Mueller. Muelller’s report describes how Trump pressured McGahn to deny the story, including in an Oval Office meeting, in which Trump asked if McGahn would “do a correction.” McGahn said that he would not.

Trump also asked then-aide Rob Porter to tell McGahn to “create a record” making it clear that Trump had never directed McGahn to fire Mueller. He told Porter that if McGahn didn’t write a letter to file on the issue, he might have to “get rid of him.”

There is “substantial evidence,” Mueller wrote in his report, that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the special counsel fired, Trump was acting to try to influence McGahn’s account and prevent further scrutiny of Trump’s conduct with regards to the investigation.

Mueller, however, wouldn’t elaborate, confirming these details with simple answers, including “correct” or “yes.” Bass ended her five-minute session with her own statement: “If anyone else had ordered a witness to create a false record … that person would face criminal charges.”

10:05 a.m.: Roby pushes Mueller to explain interactions with the attorney general

Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) asked Mueller to explain his interactions with Attorney General William P. Barr, whom Democrats have said mischaracterized the special counsel’s work.

She asked Mueller whether he had “sought to change the narrative” about his report when he signed a March letter to Barr complaining about the way the attorney general originally characterized his findings.

In that late March letter, Mueller expressed dissatisfaction to Barr about the attorney general’s initial four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation.

Mueller wrote that Barr’s memo “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of the work his staff had completed.

At a May hearing, Barr called Mueller’s letter “a bit snitty.”

Roby pushed Mueller to explain how his letter had leaked publicly and asked who wrote the document. “I can’t get into who wrote it,” Mueller said. “I will say the letter stands for itself.”

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

I can't listen to this, the GOP are just shouting at Mueller and not allowing him to talk,  His answers on the questions he has been allowed to answer speak for themselves, READ THE FUCKING REPORT, I stand by everything in there.  Sadly that would require the Gohmerts of this country to read and most of them don't even have a 5th grade education, much like Trump himself.  UGH!  

[Smash!]

WaPo Liveupdate

11:15 a.m.: Trump’s campaign fundraises off Mueller hearing

Trump’s 2020 campaign sent out a fundraising email as the Mueller hearing was underway, urging supporters to “send a HUGE message to all of the Trump Haters by raising $2,000,000 in the NEXT 24 HOURS.”

“Nothing about the report has changed, so WHY are they still pursuing this Nasty Witch Hunt?” the email reads. “Robert Mueller is testifying … right now, and the Democrats and Corrupt Media are going to pull out all the stops to try and TRICK the American People into believing their LIES.”

The email also repeats the false claim that there was “NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION!”

11:10 a.m.: “They have a different case,” Mueller says of prosecutors who assert evidence was sufficient to charge Trump

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence panels, asked about a letter signed by hundreds of former Justice Department prosecutors who wrote that the evidence they saw in Mueller’s report would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump, if not for the office he holds.

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

“Are they wrong?,” Swalwell asked.

Mueller responded by saying: “They have a different case.”

11:05 a.m.: Mueller won’t say when team determined evidence did not establish a conspiracy

So when did the special counsel team determine there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal charge alleging President Trump conspired with Russia? Mueller won’t say.

In response to questions from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Mueller mildly said that the investigation had “various aspects” and that prosecutors were developing evidence and interviewing witnesses during the course of their two years of work. But pushed to say when they came to the conclusion about the conspiracy case found in his report, Mueller said he would not answer.

11 a.m.: Democratic presidential candidates weigh in

Weighing in on Mueller’s testimony, a few of the Democratic presidential candidates said his investigation should push lawmakers toward impeachment.

Asked about Mueller saying Trump was not exonerated, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said: “That was clear in reading his report... the Constitution is clear: Nobody is above the law. And that means that Congress should bring impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States.”

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg said: “There is more than enough in that report to view it as an impeachment referral,” said Buttigieg, “But we know that the Senate won’t act. I’m focusing on what I can do, which is to defeat this president.”

10:56 a.m.: Democrats walk Mueller through more of his own findings

Mueller continued to confirm details laid out in his report, as Democrats took it upon themselves to try to bring his 448-document to life, particular key episodes of potential obstruction of justice.

Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) had Mueller confirm Trump’s effort to limit the scope of the investigation through Corey Lewandowski, expressing outrage that he would tap a private citizen who did not work in the White House to try to bury a probe he did not like.

Trump held a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager, two days after he failed to get then-White House counsel Donald McGahn to initiate Mueller’s removal. In that meeting, Lewandowski told prosecutors that Trump directed him to pass a message to then-attorney general Jeff Sessions. Trump wanted Lewandowski to get Sessions to limit Mueller’s investigation and declare Trump’s own activities off limits. At a later meeting, Trump told Lewandowksi if Sessions did not meet with him, the former campaign manager should tell the attorney general that he was fired.

10:52 a.m.: ‘The one case where the president cannot be charged with a crime’

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) suggested that Mueller had compromised mainstream ethical and legal principles, as well as his own reputation, by laying out the case for potential obstruction in his report when he had already determined he could never charge the sitting president with the crime.

“By listing the 10 factual situations and not reaching the conclusion about the merits of the case, you unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the president…forcing him to prove his innocence,” Buck said.

He stressed that Mueller had made a conclusion about Russian interference, “but when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick, which is fundamentally unfair.”

Mueller defended his actions, saying the report had laid out the investigators’ “fundamental understanding of the cases” and that the obstruction matter — because of Justice Department guidelines — “was the one case where the president cannot be charged with a crime.”

Mueller added that he had not looked into the ethical standards to see if it was fair to lay out evidence that could be used against Trump should he leave office. But according to department rules, the government “can continue the investigation to see if there are other persons that can be drawn into the conspiracy,” he said.

10:50 a.m.: Mueller won’t say if Trump obstructed justice

Mueller was careful not to be drawn into a statement that Trump committed obstruction of justice. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), questioned Mueller about the elements of an obstructive act under criminal law, in an apparent effort to get Mueller to agree with the congressman’s own analysis that Trump had done so, particularly when he tried to get Mueller fired.

Mueller agreed that Trump understood he was being investigated, and that he viewed the special counsel’s inquiry as detrimental to his interests. But he wouldn’t sign onto Jeffries’s conclusions that Trump had engaged in all the conduct that one must to be charged with obstruction.

“I don’t subscribe to the way you analyzed that,” Mueller said at the end of Jeffries’s questioning. “I’m not saying it’s out of the ballpark,” he added. “But I’m not supportive of that analytical charge.”

10:45 a.m.: Trump tweets Fox News host’s remark that hearing has been ‘disaster for the Democrats’

Trump has held off on live-tweeting the hearing, but he took the opportunity during a brief break in the proceedings to tweet about a Fox News host’s take on how things have been doing so far.

“This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller,” Trump tweeted, citing the cable network’s Chris Wallace.

Trump has previously been critical of Wallace’s questioning style. The “Fox News Sunday” host has built a reputation as a sharp interviewer who grills Republicans and Democrats alike.

Minutes after Trump’s tweet, Wallace was asked about the president quoting him. Wallace laughed and responded, “Let me just say, I’ve gotten plenty of negative tweets from the president, so I think I’m still underwater.”

10:40 a.m.: Mueller reiterates that he will not answer questions about Steele dossier

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a key critic of the Mueller investigation, used his time to hammer Mueller for his refusal to address — in his report or publicly in testimony — findings regarding the dossier put together by former British spy Christopher Steele on behalf of Democrats during the campaign.

Asked repeated questions about Steele — did Mueller believe Steele made up his research, did Mueller believe Steele’s report was the product of Russian disinformation, did Mueller believe Steele had lied to the FBI — Mueller quietly and repeatedly said the topic was outside his “purview.”

Mueller indicated that other elements of the Justice Department and the FBI are exploring those questions, an apparent reference to an inspector general’s investigation and a review of the Russia investigation being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Still, Mueller offered no explanation for how his team decided what was their purview and what to leave to others. For instance, as Gaetz noted, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Glenn Simpson, whose political research firm commissioned the Steele dossier, in the same week that she met with members of the Trump campaign. Mueller’s investigation explored the Trump meeting but not her contacts with Simpson.

(Left unsaid by either Mueller or Gaetz: The Trump campaign accepted that meeting only after Donald Trump Jr. was told Veselnitskaya was bringing damaging information about Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to help elect Trump. No evidence exists that Simpson was told anything similar.)

_________________________________________________________

Y'all I'm off work and won't be posting more WaPo Updates.

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh FFS, Armstrong had to bring up Hillary's goddamned emails.

[GreyhoundFan]

One thing that is ticking me off is Nadler calling the female congress members "young lady". He isn't calling the guys, "young man".

[GreyhoundFan]

 

 

I don't look at the tangerine toddler's twitter feed, but supposedly he's been melting down much of the morning. No big surprise.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"5 takeaways from Robert Mueller’s testimony"

Spoiler

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, at long last, is testifying in front of Congress on Wednesday about his investigation into Russian interference and President Trump’s conduct related to it.

He appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in the morning and the House Intelligence Committee in the afternoon.

Below is what we learned in the first hearing. We’ll continue to update this post during the second hearing.

1. Mueller is struggling

Mueller made clear at the start that he wouldn’t talk about how the Russia investigation was launched or the Steele dossier -- despite the GOP’s desire to grill him on the allegedly nefarious origins of the probe. Given that, Republicans set out to undermine Mueller’s report in another way: by tripping him up.

They made plenty of progress.

Mueller emphasized in his opening statement that “collusion” is not a legal term, and that his report thus didn’t address it. House Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Rep. Douglas A. Collins (Ga.) asked him whether “collusion” was colloquially the same as “conspiracy.”

“No,” Mueller said flatly.

Collins then pointed to the report, which states that certain legal dictionaries do regard the terms as “largely synonymous.” Mueller didn’t seem to have much of an answer, eventually stating that the report spoke for itself.

Later, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) pressed Mueller on why he said he couldn’t exonerate Trump. Republicans have argued that Mueller stepped outside his mandate, when generally people who aren’t accused of crimes are presumed innocent. Mueller responded that this was an unusual situation (presumably because Justice Department policy is that a president can’t be indicted), but he didn’t elaborate.

At another point, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) grilled Mueller on whether he knew that former FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages got him removed from the investigation, “hated” Trump. “I did not know that,” Mueller said, adding that “when I did find out, I acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere in the FBI.” He notably didn’t disagree with Gohmert’s premise that Strzok hated Trump.

At another point, Mueller said he was “not familiar” with Fusion GPS — the opposition research firm that funded the Steele dossier.

The tactic from Republicans suggests they weren’t satisfied to point out the portions of Mueller’s report that were good for Trump — including the lack of a conspiracy with Russia — despite Trump’s claims that it exonerated him. They seemed to be aiming to argue that Mueller’s deputies, some of whom have donated to Democrats, were actually in charge of the probe.

Mueller was even tripped up over more sympathetic questioning by Democrats. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) asked Mueller about a much-discussed quote from the report in which Trump says, upon learning of Mueller’s appointment, “I’m f-----.” Mueller said he couldn’t recall who originally relayed that quote. At another point, Mueller couldn’t recall which president appointed him as a federal prosecutor in the 1980s. (He guessed “Bush”; it was Ronald Reagan.)

2. A disputed exchange

This exchange with Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) intrigued plenty of watchers:

LIEU: The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.

Some felt Mueller had made big news, arguing Mueller was saying Trump would have been indicted if not for that policy.

“Robert Mueller just reaffirmed in response to questioning from Rep. Ted Lieu that the only reason he declined to indict Donald Trump was because of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” the Democratic super PAC American Bridge declared in a news release.

But it wasn’t to be. At the start of the second hearing, Mueller offered a correction: He was simply saying they made no conclusion because of the OLC opinion -- not that he would have charged Trump otherwise.

3. A key line for Democrats

Mueller’s report said he couldn’t exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, but under questioning from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), he gave Democrats a slightly new sound bite.

“The president was not exculpated for the acts he allegedly committed,” Mueller said.

“Exculpated” is similar to “exonerated.” Its strict definition is “to clear from alleged fault or guilt.” So Mueller wasn’t exactly breaking new ground here. But it does reinforce a key portion of his report and contradicts Trump’s claim of exoneration.

Mueller also later reiterated his report’s finding that a president is not immune from being charged after leaving office, which again got Trump’s critics excited, even if he wasn’t saying anything new.

4. Mueller directly contradicts Trump on the FBI job

Trump has argued that Mueller was conflicted, in part, because he interviewed at the White House for the job of FBI director shortly before becoming special counsel. Before the hearing, reports indicated that Mueller disputed this claim, and Trump took to Twitter to challenge Mueller to testify under oath on it.

“Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the . . . interview, including the Vice President of the United States!” Trump said.

Mueller did just that, twice. He stated that he visited the White House about the job search, but “not as a candidate.” He later reiterated the meeting “was about the job but not about me applying for the job.”

This contradicts months of Trump’s claims, and Mueller said so under penalty of perjury.

5. The investigation wasn’t shut down

There have been conspiracy theories that Attorney General William P. Barr might have shut down Mueller’s probe in some way, but Mueller dispatched with them.

“At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?” Collins asked.

“No,” Mueller responded.

Collins’s question covered pretty much anything that could be understood as Barr reining in the investigation, so that should put this one to bed.

 

[fraurosena]

Quick observation on the Judiciary testimony: Mueller seemed to me incredibly intent on having the exact page numbers and paragraphs of the quotes noted. 'Where are you reading that, where are you looking now, on which page is that again?' Were questions he kept asking. I don't believe he did that because he wanted to read along (a lot of the quotes were projected on slides for him to read). I think he did that so it would be transcribed.

I'm now following along with the Intelligence committee testimony. I wonder if Zebley will be allowed to speak at all, even though he's been sworn in. Up till now, nobody has asked questions of him, and when Mueller attempted to defer an R question to him, the Repug demanded Mueller answer himself. None of the Dems have asked Zebley a question either.

And the break is now nearly over, so going back to following the testimony. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I swear, if Nunes brings up Hillary's emails one more time, I think @fraurosena will hear me screaming from across the pond.

[GreyhoundFan]

Updates from the WaPo:

Spoiler

2:10 p.m.: Mueller asserts Trump’s statements about WikiLeaks are “problematic” and give “hope or some boost” to illegal activity

Mueller said he found repeated statements by Trump during the campaign praising WikiLeaks to be “problematic” -- his most pointed criticism of Trump’s behavior since beginning congressional testimony.

Asked by Rep Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) if he agreed with a comment from then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo that WikiLeaks functions as a “hostile intelligence service,” Mueller said that he did. Mueller noted that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been indicted.

Quigley then read aloud from comments Trump made during the campaign after WikiLeaks had published documents stolen from Democrats. Mueller’s prosecutors have alleged that the emails were hacked by Russian military intelligence officers and then published by the group. Trump at one point said, “I love WikiLeaks,” making praise for the group a staple of his campaign rallies before the election. Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a link to stolen documents that, according to Mueller’s report, had been provided to him by WikiLeaks in a Twitter direct message.

Mueller replied that he did indeed find the elder Trump’s comments disturbing.

“Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal behavior,” Mueller said.

2 p.m.: Mueller warns U.S. needs to guard against Russian interference

Mueller has so far not offered much personal opinion about what he investigated. But he took an opportunity to call on U.S. leaders to move “swiftly” to address Russia’s interference in the nation’s democratic process.

“We have underplayed to a certain extent that aspect of our investigation,” Mueller said, adding that Russia’s multipronged effort to undermine the 2016 election could do “long-term damage to the United States that we need to move quickly to address.”

Mueller said his team wrote their report so “it would be our living message to those who came after us.” They intended it to serve as “a signal” to others who are responsible for protecting the integrity of the democratic process -- “don’t let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years,” he said.

1:50: “You have no more power to declare him exonerated than you have to declare him Anderson Cooper”

Republicans kept up their attacks on Mueller’s assertion that the president could not be exonerated, arguing that it was an unfair standard that goes against traditional prosecutorial practice.

Stacking law books in front of him, Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio) sarcastically asked Mueller to point him to any legal code about Justice Department exonerations.

Mueller defended that language in the report, saying Attorney General William P. Barr should know how his investigators came down on the question.

“You have no more power to declare him exonerated than you have to declare him Anderson Cooper,” Turner said, referring to the CNN anchor. “The statement about exoneration is misleading, it’s meaningless, and it colors this investigation.”

1 :45 p.m.: Mueller says campaign officials who are offered foreign assistance should report approaches to FBI

Mueller said he believes campaign officials given offers of assistance by foreign powers should report those approaches to the FBI.

“I would think that’s something they would and should do,” he said, in response to questions from Rep. Terri A. Sewell (D-Ala.) about the Trump campaign’s failure to report a meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016.

However, Mueller steadfastly refused to endorse Sewell’s description of that meeting as “illegal” or to sign on when she asked if he didn’t think the American people should be concerned that three senior Trump aides attended the meeting.

“I can’t accept that characterization,” he said.

Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after he was told by a music promoter that the lawyer would bring damaging information about Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to help elect Trump. The promoter, Rob Goldstone, has said his email was an exaggeration and that he was not aware of a Russian effort to elect Trump at the time.

After Mueller submitted his report, Trump was asked by ABC News whether he would report to the FBI any offers of assistance or dirt about his opponent in 2020, and he indicated he might not.

“I think you might want to listen; there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump continued. “If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ -- oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”

1:40 p.m.: Mueller confirms social media campaign meant to benefit Trump

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) pressed Mueller on the Russian social media influence campaign and got the former special counsel to say unequivocally who it was meant to help.

“Who did the Russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?” Himes asked.

“Donald Trump,” Mueller responded, though then added, “Donald Trump, but there were instances where Hillary Clinton was subject to much the same behavior.”

When Himes pressed him to say if the effort affected the election results, Mueller deflected.

“I’m not going to speculate,” he said.

1:35 p.m.: White House calls Mueller testimony “an epic embarrassment”

Shortly before Mueller took his seat before the House Intelligence Committee, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham weighed in on Mueller’s morning testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

“The last three hours have been an epic embarrassment for the Democrats,” Grisham said. “Expect more of the same in the second half.”

Trump later tweeted: “I would like to thank the Democrats for holding this morning’s hearing. Now, after 3 hours, Robert Mueller has to subject himself to #ShiftySchiff - an Embarrassment to our Country!”

1:32 p.m.: Nunes accuses officials of being dishonest about Russia probe origins

The intelligence panel’s top Republican accused federal officials, including Mueller, of being dishonest about when the FBI started investigating Trump’s alleged Russia ties – suggesting their work started much earlier than the July 31, 2016 start date that has been given.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) raised several questions as to why Mueller had not investigated the earlier role of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, who told former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had compromising information on Hillary Clinton, ultimately prompting the whole Russia probe. Nunes asked Mueller why he never named Mifsud as a Russian agent, why the FBI took several months to interview him and why Mueller never charged Mifsud with a crime, though he had lied to federal investigators.

Nunes also asked Mueller about several figures connected to Trump campaign officials who moved in British intelligence circles. But Mueller refused to comment about those matters beyond acknowledging that he had not indicted Mifsud.

“I stand by that which is in the report and not so to that which is not in the report,” he said.

1:30 p.m.: Republicans object to Mueller’s deputy being sworn in

Mueller was sworn in to the House Intelligence Committee with his deputy, Aaron Zebley. The move quickly drew a condemnation from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

“This is highly unusual for Mr. Zebley to be sworn in. We’re here to ask director Mueller questions. He’s here as counsel,” Nunes said. “Our side is not going to be directing any questions to Mr. Zebley. And we have concerns about his prior representation of the Hillary Clinton campaign aide.”

Schiff said lawmakers were free to question whomever they wanted.

In early questioning, no one has asked Zebley a question; nor has he interjected to weigh in. He gave no opening statement. Mueller’s opening statement largely repeated what he said in the previous, House Judiciary Committee hearing, though he also discussed how his team handled counterintelligence information their probe uncovered.

He said the special counsel reached no “counterintelligence conclusions,” but set up a process to pass counterintelligence information to the FBI. Questions about what was done with that information, he told lawmakers, should be addressed to the bureau.

1:25 p.m.: Mueller: “It is not a witch hunt”

Former special counsel Mueller opened his session with the House Intelligence Committee pushing back against President Trump’s criticisms of his prosecutors’ work.

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller said, flatly, after he was asked by Schiff if Trump’s repeated statements about the special counsel investigation were accurate.

Mueller agreed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and that the Trump campaign appeared to welcome that help. Trump, he agreed, had publicly called on the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. Trump also pursued a business deal in Moscow while running for president. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, had responded “I love it,” when asked if he was interested in dirt on Clinton provided as part of a Russian government effort to help his father.

And Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos all lied to the FBI.

“A number of persons that we interviewed in our investigation did lie,” Mueller said.

1:20 p.m.: Mueller opens with a correction

Mueller opened his House Intelligence Committee testimony with a notable correction to a statement he made earlier, suggesting his team would have charged Trump if not for Justice Department legal guidance that prohibits the indictment of sitting presidents.

The suggestion came during an exchange with Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) on the House Judiciary Committee. Mueller was asked if the reason he “did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president.”

“That is correct,” Mueller said.

That seemed to contradict what Mueller wrote in his report and what Mueller’s office had said previously, though Mueller passed an opportunity to clean it up at the earlier hearing. At the Intelligence Committee hearing, though, he returned to that moment.

“That is not the correct way to say it,” he said of Lieu’s description, adding later, “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

1:10 p.m.: Nunes compares Russia probe to the Loch Ness monster

“Welcome, everyone, to the last gasp of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.” With that, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, signaled the direction he and fellow Republicans are likely to take their questioning in this second hearing with Mueller.

Nunes, one of the most stalwart skeptics of the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign, unleashed a litany of well-known accusations against Mueller and his team, characterizing the probe as a misguided and politically motivated effort to stop Trump from becoming president that was hatched by an opposition research firm working with the Hillary Clinton campaign and an ex-British spy.

Nunes called the hearing a “spectacle” and “public theater” that was distracting the intelligence committee from its regular business. He also claimed Democrats had used Mueller’s appearance as another attempt to find “collusion” between Trump and Russia.

“Like the Loch Ness monster they insist it’s there even if no one can find it,” Nunes said.

1 p.m. Second hearing opens: Schiff accuses Trump of ‘disloyalty to country’

The House Intelligence Committee chairman opened the second half of Mueller’s testimony Wednesday by accusing Trump of “disloyalty to country,” which he defined as “something worse” than a crime: a violation of “the very obligation of citizenship.”

“Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign – including Trump himself – knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy, and used it,” Schiff said – an argument he has repeated in recent weeks, and one that attempts to reconcile Mueller’s determination that he could not charge the president with a conspiracy with Democrats’ ongoing concerns that Trump’s actions nonetheless could present a threat to the country.

The second half of Mueller’s testimony will closely focus on the actions of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign alleged response – matters addressed in the first volume of Mueller’s report. The House Judiciary Committee focused on obstruction of justice, which is featured in the second volume of the report.

Schiff accused Trump of “a scheme to cover up, obstruct and deceive every bit as systematic and pervasive as the Russian disinformation campaign itself, but far more pernicious since this rot came from within” the country.

“To most Americans, that is the very definition of collusion, whether it is a crime or not,” he concluded.

 

[front hugs > duggs]

Is it bad that I see Devin Nunes' name and just automatically put "Cow" at the end of it? 

[GreyhoundFan]

I wish Schiff would take off one of his socks and stuff it in Nunes' mouth. Nunes keeps pontificating.

[fraurosena]

Peter Welch is killing it with his questioning!

I swear he got Mueller speaking longer than he has in the whole of the day combined.

[front hugs > duggs]

Nooooo not the cow again!!! I like how he is actually being polite, unlike last time.

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo has published transcripts of the hearings. Part One. Part Two.