The NYT alerts us. (Nice photo at the link.)
I was just noticing James Comey's new column in the Washington Post, "No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that."
I had passed over it earlier today, because I have low tolerance for that sort of thing these days, but I got interested in it when I read this enticing interpretation from wildswan in the comments in last night's café.
We weren't plotting against Trump, we were also plotting against Hillary and everyone else. Our goal was power over them all. But our plots seemed about to fail. We had to cut Hillary down to size; but then, while we maneuvered against her, unexpectedly Trump won. Of course, we had an insurance policy against him, so that swung into action. We formatted it as usual as an "investigation." But unexpectedly there was trouble getting his people to accept our lies. And he wouldn't give in. It was His fault that we had to ratchet up our attack so much. And if He wants to call our investigations and jailings and leakings a coup, it was a self-inflicted coup and also it didn't happen. Due to Him. We aren't to blame. We tried to "investigate", as we call it, Him into impotence. God knows how we tried; and so do Melania, Barron, Kelley Ann Conway, George Conway, General Flynn, his wife, his son, Papadopoulos, his fiance, Manafort, the members of his firm, Roger Stone, Sarah Sanders and assorted individuals fired for no reason except supporting Him against the "investigation". Nothing is my fault; they should have given in. They should give in now. Last chance. I am FBI.Don't know if that's accurate. Don't know if that's remotely related to what Mueller wants to say to us.
There's also this, which came out in the NYT yesterday: "White House Insider Account Has Feel of an Outside View, and Prompts a Mueller Denial":
Two years ago, the author Michael Wolff parlayed his access to one of President Trump’s most powerful advisers, Stephen K. Bannon, into “Fire and Fury”... Now, Mr. Wolff is back with a sequel, “Siege: Trump Under Fire,” which appears to rely just as heavily on Mr. Bannon. But the author’s source left the White House in August 2017 and has watched Mr. Trump’s circuslike presidency from afar since. That gives the disclosures in Mr. Wolff’s latest book a secondhand feeling — and one of his most sensational claims drew a quick, emphatic rebuttal.I'm guessing that's what Mueller wants to talk about.
A spokesman for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia investigation, denied Mr. Wolff’s claim that in March 2018, Mr. Mueller was preparing to indict the president for obstruction of justice on three counts, including witness tampering. Andrew Weissmann, one of Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors, whom Mr. Wolff says led that effort, did not even work on the part of the investigation that focused on obstruction....
UPDATE: Why did Mueller make an occasion out of his closing of the office and resigning? He took no questions and he mainly said the written report is the thing and we should read that and that alone. "The report is my testimony," etc. etc. I know there's a lot of chatter on the TV news channels, but they have to do that.
Posts
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219When you have a big ridge off the Atlantic coast- you get hot in the Southeast, and cool in the West. It has been hot here in Oak Ridge, TN for the last week. Not record setting hot- more like we would get starting in late June. However, there has only been one hot Summer here in the last decade, and that was 2012. The last few Summers here have been unusually temperate.
The consistent pattern with Mueller since the end of the investigation is an utter refusal to defend Volume II's obstruction theories against any questions. When speaking to Barr and Rosenstein, Mueller evaded defending the theories by refusing to make a recommendation or offering an opinion on the matter, and then forecloses Barr even asking for a recommendation for after Trump leaves office by denying that the previous refusal had anything to do with the OLC legal analysis (three times according to Barr's sworn testimony). And that last is important to understand- Barr was making sure that Mueller wasn't declining a prosecution just based on OLC because, if that were the case, Barr could have directly asked Mueller to make a post-Trump presidency decision/opinion, but then Mueller would have had to defend Volume II's theories right there in the March 5th meeting. By denying it had anything to do with the OLC, Mueller could just fall back on the non-decision to shut down questioning of the obstruction theories. Basically, Mueller didn't want defend Volume II to Barr and Rosenstein.
Now we move to the post-report release period, and Mueller doesn't want to have to testify in public before the House Judiciary committee. Why? Because, given the Democratic Party's need for a justification of impeachment, Mueller would have to defend Volume II's legal theories of obstruction, and would have to do so under Republican interrogation, too. This is why Mueller refused to testify, and it is why Nadler hasn't subpoenaed him- Mueller really can't defend the theories of obstruction.
Today's statement was Mueller's Hail Mary- he makes his statement, unsworn, and still refusing to take any questions at all. I think Barr, if he has the March 5th meeting transcribed, would do well to release it- it is all but certain that Mueller was lying this morning or on March 5th.
Original Mike said...He recused himself because he talked to the Russian ambassador a couple of times? Sessions is an idiot.
Sessions was played by the Dems. He recused himself, probably thinking that the "Russian issue" was quite minor (which it was). The Dems saw it as a golden opportunity and they could run wild with accusations and witch hunting precisely because the AG was not in a position to oversee it let alone curtail it. They could run circles around Trump so long as they kept the focus on precisely what was out of Jeff Sessions' purview. And it worked. It kept their base fired up and still does. But in the end it's all partisan wankery.
"Sessions was played by the Dems."
How long was he in Congress? He's a fool.
What makes Herr Mueller think he can skate without testifying and answering ALL the questions put forth to him by both sides?
Methinks he lied big time today about the OLC issue that Barr (with RR present) said he did not consider --THREE times asked and answered. And Barr was under oath when he said that.
THEOLDMAN
But they knew that he cared about his honor, like Ashcroft so they pulled the same play.
narciso said...
But they knew that he cared about his honor, like Ashcroft so they pulled the same play.
========
exactly, narc
Oh that puts a new spin on things:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446050-did-brits-warn-about-steeles-credibility-before-muellers-probe-congress?fbclid=IwAR21FlF6N_fYS0hVKX3fVm9G4LE6MoKGuVvFcCqIRpwHmamC4naMrLiLq5o#.XO8thhW8je0.facebook
"Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report...And the report is my testimony....And it is for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well."
What a pussy.
The democratics are corrupt. All of them.
Sessions was played by the Dems. He recused himself, probably thinking that the "Russian issue" was quite minor (which it was).
Another reason not to elect Senators. It is a club and they expect to be treated by other club members with courtesy. That ended decades ago.
By using language which seems to imply a desire for further investigations and possibly impeachment proceedings, "Macaroni" Mueller has handed libs the incentive they need to not necessarily drive Trump from office, but to hurt his chances of reelection substantially. They know they can't win a Senate trial, Barr-ing the unforeseen. But if they can hurt him politically, they will have increased the odds of his being voted out of office.
Like Khan to Kirk..."I've done far worse than [beat] you. I've hurt you, and I wish to go on hurting you."
My neighbor, across the street, says he has lived here 30 years and this is then nicest May he can remember.
The weather is terrific. Our backyard patio was finished in April. We now spend every evening outside looking at the mountains, greenery, birds, coyotes and deer.
My memories of Chicago are fading quickly.
The impeachment talk ignores the fact of the upcoming exposure of the illegality of Crossfire Hurricane.
The impeachment talk ignores the fact of the upcoming exposure of the illegality of Crossfire Hurricane.
Yes, that is the unknown. The impeachment case is very weak. This may be a plan for a "spoiling attack" as Napoleon was fond of.
Yeah, his final testimony, sure. He likes that Grand Jury approach where the prosecutor gets to present his case with no redirect. I don't think the Republicans are going to let him just walk away without answering some questions
- When did he know there was no collusion?
- Why didn't he wrap up shop then?
- Why did he only hire partisan Democrat hacks?
- Why didn't he pursue the actual Clinton backed Russian collusion?
- Isn't this just another instance where he subverts justice to his own ends like when he was in Boston?
Inga still hasn't explained how this is devastating to Trump.
Also, why is this even devastating for the country? Things have never been better. What this whole debacle has pointed out is that there's little need for the federal government. Tell congress to go home and don't come back until they actually have something useful for the country.
“Now we move to the post-report release period, and Mueller doesn't want to have to testify in public before the House Judiciary committee. Why? Because, given the Democratic Party's need for a justification of impeachment, Mueller would have to defend Volume II's legal theories of obstruction, and would have to do so under Republican interrogation, too. This is why Mueller refused to testify, and it is why Nadler hasn't subpoenaed him- Mueller really can't defend the theories of obstruction.”
I agree there. The only way to get to Obstruction given the fact patterns in Part 2 is using their out-of-context extremely aggressive interpretation of one Obstruction statute clause, that Barr obliterated in his memo to Rosenstein last June. We have Barr, Rosenstein, and it appears OLC, rejecting the Mueller/Weissman Obstruction theory, who together determined there to have been no basis for Obstruction charges in the various Part 2 fact patterns. If Mueller had decided that there had been Obstruction, putting the OLC opinion to the side about not indicting sitting Presidents, he would have had to explain why his team’s theory was right, and those of his two bosses, as well as OLC, were not. And why his team felt empowered and justified in making that determination, given that none of them, including Mueller, were Presidentially nominated, Senate confirmed Article II, Section 2, Principal Officers.
Post a Comment