June 28, 2019

"20 questions for Robert Mueller."

You should read this, from Jonathan Turley.

97 comments:

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I expect Republicans to ask several questions among Turley’s 20, especially like numbers 1 and 2 to start.

Bay Area Guy said...

Spectacular. Prof Turley is fast approaching the esteemed status of Dershowitz and McCarthy.

rcocean said...

Mueller sure is stringing this out, given he produced his report in March. First it was the report, then it was his upset at Barr. Then it was a letter. Then it was TV press briefing with no questions. Now this. 4 months. He could have testified in April.

As usual the IG report is delayed. It was supposed to be out in June and now is scheduled for July. which means we'll see it in September.

rcocean said...

Its a good 20 questions. Mueller will answer none of them.

Dave Begley said...

This is going to be a blood bath. Mueller will be crucified. He might start crying.

WisRich said...

All good but especially questions 18 and 19 please.

Goes right to the phony outrage of the Dem's.

Nonapod said...

I would love it if a competent congress critter actually asked these questions rather that spending their allotted time pointlessly grandstanding, as is their wont. Watching most congressional hearings is often very trying and often infuriating as these jackassestend blather on without addressing the real purpose.

StephenFearby said...

According to NBC News, there are some qualifications. (The qualifications were probably demanded by Mueller):

JUNE 27, 2019

"...After months of negotiations, former special counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees on July 17, but his willingness still comes with some parameters, according to a congressional aide with knowledge of the arrangement with Mueller’s office.

There will be two open sessions with Mueller and two closed sessions with his staff.

The House Judiciary Committee will have to choose which of its members are able to ask Mueller questions during its open session. Unlike the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Judiciary Committee is quite large, almost double in size, so only 22 of its 41 members will be able to ask questions during the open session, the aide said.

The details of the agreement between the committees and Mueller’s office are still being worked out, a second congressional aide said, and could still change.

Judiciary Committee members who do not get to ask questions of Mueller will still be able to attend a closed session with Mueller’s staff following the open testimony, where they will be able to ask about material that was redacted from the public eye.

Each member of the Intelligence Committee will be able to ask Mueller questions for five minutes in the open session before following up in a similar closed session.

In the closed sessions, the Intelligence Committee will have access to the unredacted version of volume I of the Mueller report, which focuses on the question of collusion and conspiracy with the Russian government, while the Judiciary Committee will have access to the unredacted version of volume II, which focuses on obstruction of justice.

Neither committee will have access to any information that is redacted for purposes of protecting information provided to the grand jury.

Although there will be no transcript of the closed sessions, they are not considered classified, so members may discuss what they heard.

The first congressional aide said members of both committees will not be restricted in what they can ask Mueller, but they do expect he will largely stick to the information he provided in the report."

https://outline.com/faZdUV

It may be difficult for the minority to both ask Mueller Turley's 20 questions and get a full response in the 5 minutes allotted each member in the open session. Plus, they will have their own.

So the minority members will have to strategize to use their time most effectively.


Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Excellent. Also known as - questions the hacks and gotcha democrats will not ask.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I expect Mueller to respond with the Clinton defense.
"I do not recall."

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I bet the thing falls apart when Muller realizes it might not simply be a stage for the crack pot Schit-Maddow-Nadler brigade of grandstanding and lies.

Big Mike said...

Yawn. Mueller is an old Washington hand. He will lie and stonewall.

Marcus Bressler said...

Why no transcript on the closed session if members are not prohibited from discussing it afterwards? So those lie and misrepresent can spin the way they choose?

THEOLDMAN

gerry said...

This is boring the majority of Americans.

Arashi said...

I think they will most likely ask leading questions of the nature of "Orange Man Bad and a Russian Agent, correct Mr. Mueller?" for several hours, which the Lame Stream Media will report as "bad for Donald Trump's re-election chances - oh, and Orange Man Bad"

It will all be Sturm und Drang, but hopefully not Nacht und Nebel. But the low information voters will eat it up.

Meanwhile, my tomato plants are doing really well in the Earthbox's on my deck.

Mike Sylwester said...

18. You describe the testimony of former White House Counsel Don McGahn that he believed Trump ordered him to fire you. However, you do not quote what McGahn precisely said were Trump’s words. Did he testify that Trump directly told him to fire you, or did he say Trump wanted him to raise your alleged conflicts with Rosenstein? Is it a crime for a president to raise a conflict of interest of a special counsel with the attorney general or his designate?

President Trump was right to raise conflict-of-interest concerns about Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller and about Rod Rosenstein. Both those men had conflicts of interest that should have caused them to recuse themselves from this "investigation".

Rosenstein appointed Mueller -- and Mueller accepted the appointment -- because both of them knew that that Mueller was the one person in the entire world who was most motivated and able to whitewash the FBI in this matter.

Neither Rosenstein nor Meuller gave a rat's ass that the purpose of appointing a Special Counsel is to assure the public that the investigation would be broadly perceived as nonpartisan and fair.

Francisco D said...

Turley asks some good questions, as usual. However, only a few of them have "aha moment" quality.

I want to know more about Mueller meeting with Trump before he was named Special Counsel.

I would also like to know when his office concluded that there was no Trump-Russia collusion. If it was early, what were they waiting for?

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller has disgraced ...

* himself

* the institution of Special Counsel

* the FBI

* the Justice Department

* the United States of America.

The USA will be disgraced when the case against Russia's food-catering company Concord Management is thrown out.

Mueller is a glutton for disgracing himself and others. He seems to be oblivious about the questions he will be asked if he goes through with this hearing.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

I would like to know if the phone Mueller "accidently" left behind in the Oval Office meeting with Trump & Rosenstein was Muellers own phone or an FBI issue phone.

narayanan said...

How can there be subpoena and also negotiating with witness for agreement for scope of questioning

iowan2 said...

Republicans have a lot more questions than Democrats.
Democrats questions will be trying to get Mueller to expand on his report. 400+ page report that found zero grounds to recommend any action.

Facts that have since come forward, were know to Mueller, and NOT INCLUDED, as exculpatory evidence. 14 pages about the Trump Tower Meeting...Not a single criminal act identified. Why include some of the investigative findings...that led to no charges.

Mueller should have to defend why he wrote a political, and not legal document.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Mueller was set to get his rice bowl job under queen Hillary.

Bay Area Guy said...

Yeah, that Prof. Turley has formulated some excellent questions, doesn't mean Mueller's gonna answer them or this kangaroo committee is gonna produce anything of value. Likely, it won't.

But fat Jerry Nadler needs to keep hope alive!

narciso said...

remember the scene in heat between deniro and pacino, or conversely, Robert downey jr and jared harris, in the second sherlock holmes, it's that type of encounter,

Yancey Ward said...

The hearing with Mueller, if it actually happens, will be run so that none of these questions get to be asked- they will all be ruled out as improper by the chairman of the hearing.

The interesting thing to me is the closed hearing- the one that actually should be open- it won't even have a transcript provided. What possible reason could the committee chairman offer for that lack of a transcript? I mean, there isn't an honest one. If I were the Republicans, I would bring 2 or 3 stenographers adept at shorthand as my aides, and make a transcript from those notes.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Sorry.

I thought you said Bueller. My mistake.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

An action committee must be created to demand an answer for every one of those questions.

Americans deserve the truth - not the crazy Leftwing Maddow-Schit-show.

Howard said...

so you people want mueler to testify, but none of the other trump admin persons of interest whom are hiding behind executive privileged.

Mike Sylwester said...

Sundance's questions

On May 16, 2017, were you applying to become FBI Director?

Why did you go to the White House?

When did Rod Rosenstein contact you about going to the White House?

When did Rod Rosenstein first contact you about becoming special counsel?

Did you speak to any members of the DOJ or FBI prior to going to the White House?

Were there conversations about a possible ‘special counsel position’ prior to May 16th, 2017?

Were you aware President Trump was under investigation prior to your conversation of May 16th, with President Trump?

Were you aware of the nature of the investigation, prior to May 16, 2017?

Were you aware of the possibility of being appointed ‘special counsel’?

Did you take any recording devices into the Oval Office meeting?

Did you own the cell phone you left in the Oval Office on May 16, 2017?

Between the afternoon Oval Office meeting and the next day announcement to the Gang-of-Eight by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, when exactly did you agree to become special counsel?

How did Rod Rosenstein contact you between May 16, 2017 and early morning May 17, 2017, about becoming special counsel?

Did you immediately agree to become special counsel when asked?

How much time transpired between Rosenstein asking you to become special counsel and your acceptance of the position?

Yancey Ward said...

Howard, privilege wasn't invoked during the investigation- at all. We now have Mueller's report and all of his recommendations for prosecution. I see no reason at all to bend to Nadler and Schiff's desire to relitigate this. You have Mueller and his team at these hearings, that is all you really need, and I must point out that Trump could have invoked privilege to stop the Mueller team from testifying, but hasn't.

Yancey Ward said...

Mike,

Here is going to be Mueller's answers if he does testify:

"I don't recall." To every one of those questions.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

He will dodge or refuse to directly answer all of these, but 1., 3., 5., 11., and 14. are all very good (I have been pushing 14 for a while, myself, as it proves that Mueller really didn't have anything). 16. does a great job of showing the lack of impartiality but I don't hear too many people (other than TrueConservative Bulwarky Remnant types) even arguing that the SC investigation was impartial anymore.

Howard said...

yancy thinking one can walk through the raindrops. I guess all the mental yoga is finally paying off.

Yancey Ward said...

Howrd,

It ain't mental gymnastics- the report is there for you and everyone else to read- even Chuck spent the money to buy it. This idea that going on about executive privilege now is some sort of trump card is just pure desperation at this point. So, yeah, go on beating that dead horse if you want, it just demonstrates what a moron you are- not that anyone reading here didn't already understand that about you.

Francisco D said...

so you people want mueler to testify, but none of the other trump admin persons of interest whom are hiding behind executive privileged

I doubt if you even believe that bullshit, Howard.

The Drill SGT said...

I'd like to ask something like:

"Given that your charter was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, did you examine the relationship between numerous Russian sources, the Steele dossier, and a Presidential Campaign (Clinton)?"

"Is the Dossier accurate? If not, didn't it create extraordinary disruption and interference by Russian and other foreign influences?" Who benefited?

Chuck said...

They are all mostly fine questions. It’s an odd assortment, in that they all seem to be questions aimed at establishing process problems with the investigation and Mueller’s assignment/office. Maybe Jonathan Turley views his role as being some kind of counterweight to an anti-Trump media. Which is okay. Turley has a right to defend Trump. And I have a right to attack Trump.

What is interesting is the number articles and columns generally titled “___ Questions for Robert Mueller When He Appears Before Congress.” 20 questions; 21 questions; 60 questions; 2 questions; 3 questions. Google it for yourself. Pick your favorite list of questions. Be sure to look at a list that runs counter to your own prejudices. For my part, I hope that testimony from Meuller will figuratively burn Donald Trump to the ground. And yet I found Turley’s 20 questions interesting and stimulating.

Why Althouse chose the Turley list, with the admonition that we all really should read it, is for her to say. I don’t know what motivated her specifically, but it seems inescapable that the Turley list is one that fits a self-selected cocoon of pro-Trump cultists.

Here’s another list of 20 questions for Mueller:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/20-questions-mueller-will-actually-be-able-to-answer/2019/05/24/0c8bd2ae-7e46-11e9-a5b3-34f3edf1351e_story.html

Chuck said...

I used the Althouse Amazon portal to buy the Mueller report. You should too. It’s all about supporting the blog.

bagoh20 said...

I don't see how he can avoid answering most of those. "I do not recall." is just not believable. I also do not see why we all would not be interested in knowing the answers outside of pure corrupt partisanship.

bagoh20 said...

Mueller's best product was a demonstration of what is wrong with the whole idea of a special prosecutor. Too powerful, too open to corrupt motives, too far from Constitutional.

narciso said...

Because he has side stepped boston, bcci, anthrax gate, Arthur abderson aipac gate among other contratemps, he may not be necessarily evil, just extraordinarily callous, like with the treatment of joseph farah, or any host of others,

Drago said...

LLR Chuck and all the other leftists spend lots and lots of time writing things that boil down to Please please dont look too closely at what our beloved dems did to weaponize the govt against domestic political opponents and try to set them up.

I cant wait to see how LLR Chuck contorts himself to attack Barr while simultaneously continuing his "true conservative" ploy.

Its going to be fantastic!

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 1:51 PM
... Be sure to look at a list that runs counter to your own prejudices.

Chuck, I enjoyed reading the questions at your link. I will make a comment about #17.

17. The attorney general has talked of the FBI “spying” on the Trump campaign. Was any person who was then a member of the Trump campaign the target of any wiretapping? Are you aware of any efforts by the FBI to inquire into the Trump campaign’s political strategy?

I have highlighted a key phrase.

The FISA warrant on Carter Page was established after he left Trump's campaign staff. That key phrase is in the question in order to obtain a "NO" response from Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller.

Of course, even though the FISA warrant is dated after Page left the campaign, the warrant permitted the FBI to target Page's previous communications when he still was in the campaign.

The question is worded cleverly in order to enable Mueller to ignore the retrospective targeting.

Drago said...

Remember, George Will passionately supports every single full blown open borders, pro-infanticide socialist dem candidate for office.

And LLR Chuck adores George Will....

....cuz "conservative".

LOL

narciso said...

you can start in any part of this list:


https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/05/08/who_were_the_mueller_reports_hired_guns.html

Drago said...

"The question is worded cleverly in order to enable Mueller to ignore the retrospective targeting."

That what the LLR-leftists like best about it.

Its particularly helpful if you happen to be an admitted racist smear merchant.

Like LLR Chuck.

Mike Sylwester said...

Following up my comment at 2:17 PM

Chuck, I suggest that question #17 be improved as follows:

17. The attorney general has talked of the FBI “spying” on the Trump campaign. Was any person who ever was a member of the Trump campaign the target of any wiretapping? Are you aware of any efforts by the FBI to inquire into the Trump campaign’s political strategy?

Rusty said...

Blogger Howard said...
"so you people want mueler to testify, but none of the other trump admin persons of interest whom are hiding behind executive privileged."
Mueller by his own admission had unfettered access to all trump admin. personnel. Other than grandstanding what purpose would it serve to have them testify?
Except for one thing, Chuck. Turley's questions are his own and are based on reason and understanding the subject. You're just batshit crazy.

Drago said...

Here's one: Is Joseph Mifsud a western asset or a russian agent?

Spoiler: a western asset and pal of Halper and Brennan.

So isnt it strange that the Mueller/Weisman crew label him a Russian agent?

Strange and interesting.

PS Bobby Mueller, any particular reason you did not include the exculpatory tape recording of Pappadopolous denying he had info about Hillarys email?

Forgetful much?

Bruce Hayden said...

@Howard - Administrations rarely allow Congress to look at the running of the White House. Normally, the stopping point is essentially there. In the departments and agencies, Congress can do oversight. Except under Obama, who tried to assert it at a much lower level. Think Benghazi and Fast and Furious. The White House is not typically subject to oversight, since it is the seat of the Executive, a coequal branch of government. Now, if High Crimes and Misdemeanors are credibly alleged, Congress might be able to subpoena some White House personnel and force them to testify. But, that isn’t the case here, so Congress has no legal, moral, or Constitutional right to force those current and former WH people to testify, in the face of a Presidential assertion of Executive Privilege, esp, as here, when Congress is engaged in a fishing expedition.

I have pointed this out before, but just to reiterate, the big reason that Trump didn’t assert Executive Privilege with Mueller was that his lawyers didn’t want him testifying, because everyone knew that the reason that Weissman and the other Mueller prosecutors so desperately wanted to get Trump to testify personally was to spring their usual perjury trap on him, and they knew that they couldn’t ever find the required Mens Rea for Obstruction of Justice (under a OLC approved interpretation of the Obstruction statutes) without such a personal interview. And everyone knew that Trump was a disaster as a witness. And they couldn’t force the President into a personal interview until they could show that that was the only way to get necessary information. And anytime they came close, his attorneys just shoveled another 100k or so pages of documents at them. Plus a couple dozen more interviews of lower level people etc. And, of course, they couldn’t tell a court that they weren’t really investigating Russian collusion any more, and really hadn’t been for better than a year, but were, rather, trying to entrap Trump with some sort of process crime, because that wasn’t what they were supposed to be doing.

The other part of this was that Weissman and the other Mueller prosecutors, along with the Lawfare people, had invented a novel definition of Obstruction by apparently combining several different statutes together, and essentially changed the specific intent Obstruction requirement into a general intent requirement (see Question #12). Their definition (that they knew wouldn’t survive OLC review) essentially treated anything that interfered with an investigation (esp their own) as Obstruction of Justice even if there were other legitimate reasons for such actions (such as firing Comey for lying to his boss, the President). ASSERTING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE COULD THUS BE TREATED AS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The reason that the Mueller investigation was shut down the way that it was, via a non conflicted AG, asking about Russia collusion, was that anything else would be treated by these highly partisan prosecutors as Obstruction of Justice.

iowan2 said...

How about:
The FBI had been running operation Crossfire Hurricane for 11 months. What information did you uncover that the FBI did not already give you?

Drago said...

Bruce Hayden: "Except under Obama, who tried to assert it at a much lower level."

Careful Bruce.

Even subtle criticism of obama can evoke a violent defensive reaction from LLR Chuck.

Tread carefully.

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 1:51 PM
Be sure to look at a list that runs counter to your own prejudices. For my part, I hope that testimony from Meuller will figuratively burn Donald Trump to the ground.

I will make a general comment about the questions -- written by Robert S. Litt and Benjamin Wittes -- at your link.

The general thrust of the questions seems to be that Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller did find evidence that bad actions were done, but he lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute Donald Trump or, generally, Trump's relatives, friends, supporters or associates.

In other words, those people indeed did do bad actions, but Mueller was not able "to burn any of them to the ground".

I recognize that such reasoning will excite many people who will watch the hearing, but it will not affect a significant number of people who are inclined to vote for Trump. The latter people simply will shrug their shoulders and reflect that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Drago said...

Bruce why do you answer Chuck as though he isnt a leftist Smear Merchant?

bagoh20 said...

I have one: How much taxpayer money did you spend on yourself and your assistants, after you realized there was no collusion?

bagoh20 said...

I have another one: When does your book come out?

Drago said...

Mike: "The latter people simply will shrug their shoulders and reflect that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty."

The leftists like Chuck have labored long and hard to destroy our system of justice so they could more easily implement their vision of a leftist utopia where there are no "disastrous" republican victories occur because the left has de-platformed all non-"brilliant"-Non-Maddowites leading to the election of one "magnificent" obama after another.

Chuck said...

Mike Sylvester:

What if the answer is not, “We didn’t have enough evidence to charge,” but rather is, “The only reason we did not charge is because the Department dictates that we will not indict a sitting President”? And, “If he weren’t for he President, we would have indicted him with the expectation of winning a conviction at trial.”

traditionalguy said...

Mueller is in very deep trouble, deeper than than any of the other Treason Cabal not named Clinton, Bush or Obama.I doubt he will say a damn thing at this stage.

Drago said...

Adam Schiff "republican" Chuck: “What if the answer is not, “We didn’t have enough evidence to charge,” but rather is, only reason we did not charge is because the Department dictates that we will not indict a sitting President”?"

LOL

Then Mueller would be guilty of perjury since he answered that question to the contrary multiple times in front of multiple witnesses.

I wouldnt be surprised to learn Barr has a tape of it.

One has to be careful around lying smear merchants.

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 2:41 PM
What if the answer is ... “The only reason we did not charge is ... “If he weren’t for he President, we would have indicted him with the expectation of winning a conviction at trial.”

It's likely that Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller will answer along those lines.

I suppose that is why he has agreed to be questioned in a public hearing, even though he will subject himself to other, hostile questions.

Mueller hates Trump and intends to dirty him as much as he possibly can.

Drago said...

Personally I get tremendous enjoyment out of watching the lefty powers that be pull the strings on their LLR Chuck/Inga foot soldiers.

Over and over again the lefty leadership sets LLR Chuck up with their transparently false allegations which Chuck swallows whole and then, when it all comes crashing down, Chuck lashes out uncontrollably.

To Chucks credit, it doesnt take him more than a day or two to crawl back to the lefty vomit whereas for Inga it can take a week or two.

In that sense Chuck is stronger than most other leftists.

So, congrats on that!

Bruce Hayden said...

@Chuck - in case you hadn’t noticed, those two authors are some of the same Lawfare people who appeared to have worked with Weissman and the other rabidly partisan Mueller Prosecutors to develop that highly aggressive Obstruction of Justice interpretation that was being used to prevent shutting down their investigation, as well as preventing FBI people to testify before Congress about anything related to Russian collusion, including Crossfire Hurricane, the FISA warrants, etc. For that reason alone, the Republicans are pretty much guaranteed not to ask the questions they posed in the WaPo. They are the enemy. If Pencil Neck and Wadler want to spend their time asking these questions, then fine. But don’t pretend that these are well intentioned questions asked objectively by nonpartisans. They are the furthest thing from nonpartisan. And if you read the questions closely, I think that it is fairly clear that they are trying to get out information that is forbidden to be disclosed under DoJ rules and regulations.

Michael K said...

What if the answer is not, “We didn’t have enough evidence to charge,” but rather is, “The only reason we did not charge is because the Department dictates that we will not indict a sitting President”? And, “If he weren’t for he President, we would have indicted him with the expectation of winning a conviction at trial.”

Chuck needs to get out more. Mueller denied that. Was he lying ? Or are you? Guess who I believe.

Mark said...

Any "why?" question is problematic and is unlikely to result in any objective answer since it inherently allows the witness to give a subjective answer (e.g. "because I thought . . ." "because I believed . . .") that cannot be put to the test of being true or false, and/or it allows the witness to turn the tables and take charge, rather than the interrogator being in charge.

Mark said...

I expect Republicans to ask several questions

I expect Republicans to spend 90 percent of their time making speeches rather than asking pointed questions, much less laying a perjury trap for him.

Drago said...

MK: "Chuck needs to get out more."

Just reading a non-far left source would do, but lets face it, thats out of the question.

Mark said...

Republicans didn't bother to ask Hillary any substantive questions. Instead, they made her sit there while they gave speeches at her.

Amadeus 48 said...

Mark at 3:02.

We have seen this movie before, and it is always the same.

Bruce Hayden said...

“What if the answer is not, “We didn’t have enough evidence to charge,” but rather is, “The only reason we did not charge is because the Department dictates that we will not indict a sitting President”? And, “If he weren’t for he President, we would have indicted him with the expectation of winning a conviction at trial.””

But that wasn’t what happened. The only way that they could pretend to come close to proving Obstruction by Trump or his WH staff was using their highly aggressive Obstruction interpretation, that had never before been litigated, wasn’t going to survive litigation, and was rejected by AG Barr, DAG Rosenstein, and OLC.

Yes, I see that you posed this as a hypothetical. My response was to essentially reject your hypothetical as implausible.

Mark said...

The rule of thumb is to not ask any question that you don't already know the answer to.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beasts of England said...

'And I have a right to attack Trump.'

Really? I hadn't noticed...

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 2:41 PM
What if the answer is ... “If he weren’t for he President, we would have indicted him with the expectation of winning a conviction at trial.”

That concept already has been communicated clearly enough -- to anyone who has been watching this drama -- by Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller.

I myself despise Mueller, but I do pay enough attention to him that I have received that message of his that he has been broadcasting subtly.

We all get it. Mueller surely would have prosecuted and convicted Trump if only Trump were not the US President.

Since we all get that already, I think that Mueller is foolish to participate in this hearing, where he will be asked many questions about his conflicts of interest and thuggish legal tactics.

I think that Mueller is oblivious. He imagines that he is revered as a wise old man whose non-partisanship and fairness are above question. He does not realize that he is viewed critically and contemptuously by much of the politically engaged population.

During the past two years, he has surrounded himself with yes-men. I imagine that his favorite news program has been Rachel Maddow's nightly reports about Mueller's progress in "burning Trump to the ground".

However, during the hearing, however, Mueller will be confronted by many nay-sayers. He might be surprised by the questioning.

Chuck said...

Mueller hates Trump and intends to dirty him as much as he possibly can.


If I were Mueller, that is how I’d feel. After Trump’s mendacious, laughable, baseless claims that Mueller and his staff committed crimes in the course of their investigation; I would hold a gigantic grudge and I would want to use the occasion of my truthful testimony to settle that score:

That is what I’d like to see happen. But it may not. At least not as I’d be motivated. Because I think that Robert Mueller is a better prosecutor and a better public servant and a better man than I am. His testimony may b grievously injurious to Trump. But I expect it will be ethical and free of personal bias.

narciso said...

I think I'll call you wile e:

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/06/26/newly-released-documents-obama-officials-changed-intelligence-sharing-rules-final-days-undermine-trump-administration/

narciso said...

Robert litt was knee deep in the unmaskings

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "His testimony may b grievously injurious to Trump."

Mueller and teams Hoax Dossier 7.0 is not going to work any better tham their first 6 hoax dossiers!!

Chuck said...

So this is entirely removed from (a) my personal loathing of Trump and (b) my ardent Republican partisanship apart from Trump...


Blogger Mark said...
...
I expect Republicans to spend 90 percent of their time making speeches rather than asking pointed questions, much less laying a perjury trap for him.


I have grown to hate the spectacle of members of Congress asking questions of witnesses in tiny segments of a few minutes each. First of all, they are mostly all terrible at direct- and cross-examination. But even for the small handful of Members who are skilled as trial lawyers and prosecutors, the disjointed format is almost useless. Across party lines. Both sides of the aisle. Both bodies on the hill.

The various committees have competent and very capable staff attorneys. Th Senate Watergate hearings in the summer of 1973 made stars out of two staff attorneys, Sam Dash and Fred Thompson.

I think that 80% of Congressional hearing questioning should be done by staff attorneys. And the balance should be assigned by the chairmen and ranking members.

Ken B said...

That is really, really good. It is *deeply* good.

narciso said...

the dems mounted a show to go after Nixon, who they never forgave for showing up their golden boy hiss, as a 15 year soviet spy, that's what Watergate was about,

doctrev said...

At the risk of an accusation of heresy: I see a lot to agree with Chuck on this post. Firstly, Congress is worthless, and it shocks me that so many lawyers on both sides of the aisle could be so incompetent at what they supposedly do. Secondly, the list of Questions For Mueller, This Is So Important You Guys is beyond tiresome. Personally, I think that if John Rambo Mueller had half the testicular fortitude of Ken Starr- which all LLR's allegedly supported- he would have flatly stated in his reports that the President was involved in conspiracy, obstruction of justice, the whole nine yards.

Actually, watching him try to puff his chest up after pussying out will be mildly entertaining. Not enough to watch it, unless I get a tip that William Barr will arrest him for lying to the Attorney General and generally breaking every law governing prosecutorial conduct, but hey! Can't have it all.

CWJ said...

I stopped at 10, because these are all good Blinding Glipse of the Obvious questions. Good for Jonathon Turley putting them out there. But truth is no defense against the narrative.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "...my ardent Republican partisanship apart from Trump..."

LOLOLOLOL

The Conservative Case For Supporting All Democrats To Advance Conservatism

Bill Kristol and George Will, declaring everyone should vote for Democrats at all levels, could not have faked it better.

CWJ said...

Glimpse.

narciso said...

well it's going to be closed hearing, with no transcript, what does that tell you, there are some good interrogators on our sidem but nader and Schiff aren't going to allow any of that,

Drago said...

Of all the dozens and dozens and dozens of hard left democrats LLR Chuck has passionately defended, I would have to say LLR Chuck's purposeful and obvious mischaracterization of Da Nang Dick Blumenthals truly despicable Stolen Valor lies in order to shield him from criticism has got to be right at the top.

If you can believe it, LLR Chuck actually tried to assert Blumenthals multi-year/multi-venue/multi-incident repeated and serial lies about combat service was a simple one time slip of the tongue.

LOL

And you would not believe how quickly LLR Chuck scurried away when confronted with this obvious lie.

Of course, that type of behavior is quite common on the left.

Drago said...

narciso: "well it's going to be closed hearing, with no transcript, what does that tell you,"

The smear merchants on the left, like Schiff and Nadler and LLR Chuck, need to be able to create the conditions for their smears and lies to be non-prosecutable and so LLR Chuck's fellow smear merchants have created the conditions to do just that.

It wont work of course.

But the democrats have to feed the illusions of their lunatic lefty/LLR-lefty base.

narciso said...

Mueller is a swamp rat, or a creature of the mine field, his wife was connected to Charles cabell, another uncle was Richard Bissell, those names should ring a bell, they were the no 2 and 3 officials at the company, in 1961,

Drago said...

If you want the real reason all the fake conservative/pro-dem LLR's are angry, its because Trump has delivered the most conservative policies and governance in the last 60 years and the secretly-pro-dem faux "conservatives" like Chuck have been completely exposed.

But only completely.

Com--plete--ly.

narciso said...

Like a real life ludlum or Gayle lynd tale:

https://fullspectrumdominoes.wordpress.com/2019/06/27/mueller-a-man-for-all-seasons/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Bruce Hayden said...

“We all get it. Mueller surely would have prosecuted and convicted Trump if only Trump were not the US President”

Except that he wouldn’t, because he couldn’t. The only way to get to Obstruction of Justice is to use the extremely aggressive Weissman statutory interpretation that I mentioned above. It has never been litigated I court, and is almost assured to lose I court. And was rejected by Barr, Rosenstein, and OLC. This is very likely why Mueller refused to make a determination as to Trump’s guilt of Obstruction. There wasn’t any Obstruction under accepted statutory interpretations. And if Mueller had made a determination of whether or not had Obstructed Justice, either he would have either had to exonerate Trump or explain why he was using Weissman’s aggressive statutory interpretation, I violation of DoJ rules and OLC interpretations. Neither was acceptable to Mueller’s hyper partisan prosecutors so they took a third alternative of laying out a bunch of facts and their never litigated, very aggressive statutory interpretation in part 2 of the Mueller Report, and they gave a bogus excuse why they were failing to make the determination. It was all just a ruse to slime Trump.

“I think that Mueller is oblivious. He imagines that he is revered as a wise old man whose non-partisanship and fairness are above question. He does not realize that he is viewed critically and contemptuously by much of the politically engaged population.”

“During the past two years, he has surrounded himself with yes-men. I imagine that his favorite news program has been Rachel Maddow's nightly reports about Mueller's progress in "burning Trump to the ground"”

I think that you have it reversed. I think that Mueller is the yes man and his prosecutors were, from the first pulling his strings. He didn’t pick them - rather they, along with FBI people like Strzok and Page, picked him. His lead prosecutor, Andrew Weissman, was involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and talking with Steele and Simpson months before the 2016 election, long before the Mueller investigation was formally sanctioned and inaugurated.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Of all the dozens and dozens and dozens of hard left democrats LLR Chuck has passionately defended, I would have to say LLR Chuck's purposeful and obvious mischaracterization of Da Nang Dick Blumenthals truly despicable Stolen Valor lies in order to shield him from criticism has got to be right at the top.

If you can believe it, LLR Chuck actually tried to assert Blumenthals multi-year/multi-venue/multi-incident repeated and serial lies about combat service was a simple one time slip of the tongue.

LOL

And you would not believe how quickly LLR Chuck scurried away when confronted with this obvious lie.

Of course, that type of behavior is quite common on the left.


You're not just a liar; you are out of your fucking mind. You aren't just obsessing over me; you are delusional.

Show these readers where I ever wrote anything like what you are alleging. You won't do it. Because you can't do it. I never wrote anything like what you've suggested. Never not once, not ever. You liar. You weird, crazed fabricator.

The Godfather said...

1. As a now-retired lawyer who practiced for almost 50 years, when I read that a witness is going to be questioned, not by lawyers but by Congresscritters, each of whom is limited to 5 minutes, I can only laugh. You can come up with the best questions in the world (and those are good questions), but you will never get them answered. Some of the questions could take a good minute or two to frame, and after throat-clearing by Mueller, he can easily fill the remaining minutes with a non-responsive response. And he will.

2. Thank goodness that Bruce Hayden comments on this blog. He says useful and sensible things almost as often as [names deleted] say the opposite.

narciso said...

The story we've been told is about 180 degrees out of sync, mifsud was a Maltese spy operating for various western agencies, Kushner never received any Russian money from bankers page was cop cooperating witness against two Russian spies