Questions to ask Robert Mueller?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Why didn’t you follow the money? Were you prohibited from looking into the president’s finances?

Why didn’t you question or subpoena Don Jr?

Why didn’t you subpoena the President?

Did Rod Rosenstein limit the scope in any way?

Please describe you’re working relationship with Rod Rosenstein throughout the investigation, was it contentious at times? If so, why? 

Same questions with regards to Whitaker and Barr.

Regarding the changing of the GOP platform, do you believe JD Gordon acted unilaterally on his own to take a pro Russia stance?

When your office released the unusual response to a Buzzfeed news report regarding the president’s possible suborning of perjury, was that under the direction of someone outside the investigation or was that your decision alone without outside influence? 

Why wasn’t the Russian infiltration of the NRA and their influence on the 2016 election part of your investigation?

Regarding the digital active measures on social media, was their any connection between the micro targeting of Cambridge Analytica and the Russian troll farms, bots, and ad buys?

What should the American people make of all this?  Why is this important?  What can the American citizens do to protect themselves from future foreign interference on our elections?

What were the oranges of the investigation? 

 

What else?

Edited July 22, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[henrygandorf 29,174]

a lot of those will be non-starters, as i don't think he'll editorialize much outside the realm of what's already in the report.  of course much of what he says will seem like news because few on the right (including the president) have read the report.  i would think the dems will avoid wasting too much time on things they know he won't answer.  this isn't about getting questions on the record.

as for the financial questions - on several occasions, trump has specifically said that mueller had access to and went through his taxes/financials.  i'm almost sure that's completely false, so i think that's a good line of questioning.  what did he have access to, and what did he attempt to gain access to - but was blocked.  if there was russian interference that might constitute "something of value" in regards to campaign violation, you would think access to financials would be crucial in proving or disproving that accusation.

the dems are going into this one a little more organized, and trying to build on each other's questions, which will be a nice change of pace from earlier hearings when everyone seemed to come in on their own, and there was a ton of repetition and time wasted.

as for adding to your list, i'm very curious about his motivation to call barr, and the content of those conversations.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[David Dennison 18,655]

He's going to not answer sooooooooooo many questions.

 

[SimonBolivar 10,915]

[Hank Kingsley 20,681]

Venti or grande pumpkin spiced lattes? 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

lot of those will be non-starters, as i don't think he'll editorialize much outside the realm of what's already in the report.  of course much of what he says will seem like news because few on the right (including the president) have read the report.  i would think the dems will avoid wasting too much time on things they know he won't answer.  this isn't about getting questions on the record.

Mueller does not get to work the refs.  They should ask him every question they want an answer to.  Mueller can give a non-answer if he wants but that shouldn’t influence the questioning.

However, we have no idea what the goal is for democrats here.  Are they trying to move towards impeachment or are they “just asking questions?”  I would hope they have some big strategy with this since this is the biggest moment in the Russia Investigation. 

[Jiggy-Z 3,432]

How is Elvis and have you seen him lately?

[tantric superman 4,667]

[retread 2,951]

We're going to learn a lot from R questions about Peter Strzok and his lover and Mueller's best friend, Comey.

[David Dennison 18,655]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller does not get to work the refs.  They should ask him every question they want an answer to.  Mueller can give a non-answer if he wants but that shouldn’t influence the questioning.

However, we have no idea what the goal is for democrats here.  Are they trying to move towards impeachment or are they “just asking questions?”  I would hope they have some big strategy with this since this is the biggest moment in the Russia Investigation. 

If Democrats turn Mueller into a hostile witness, Donald Trump wins the day.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Trump has already won by making it this far, given what’s in the report.

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump has already won by making it this far, given what’s in the report.

Until he loses.

[RomaVicta 29,783]

[henrygandorf 29,174]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller does not get to work the refs.  They should ask him every question they want an answer to.  Mueller can give a non-answer if he wants but that shouldn’t influence the questioning.

if mueller gets asked things outside the realm early on, and says he's not answering those questions, then it could (a) waste time and (b) piss him off to be repeatedly asked similar questions, especially if he starts mini-filibustering while explaining why he's not going to engage.

right now, my money is on republican questions pissing him off (trump has already started in today on it) and i'd like to keep it that way.  if he answers questions from the dems, and the pubs try to attack, then it's a win for the left (even though there is no "winning" at this point).  if he stalemates the dems with a repeated, "i'm not going to answer that" then it looks bad for the dems.  nobody thinks mueller is a trump stooge or hiding things (like barr) so stonewalling will not be seen as bad for trump.

someone, at some point, is going to start a question with, "if the olc policy was not in place..." and i don't think he will acknowledge hypotheticals.  doesn't seem like his personality.  he viewed his entire investigation thru that lens.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

 

[DDD Dad 14,251]

I imagine there is a fair amount of room for questioning regarding Barr's involvement and testimony around the time of the report's release.  I really don't see Mueller going beyond what he's already said regarding the report itself or any of the investigation leading up the report, given his prior comments.

[Anastasis 23,394]

Text of opening statement released.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/mueller-opening-statement_1424608

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

If Mueller ends up being a dick I would totally try to guilt trip him into being more forthcoming.  I would acknowledge that he’s a man of duty with a reputation of service to a cause greater than himself.  I’d press him on if he really thinks he’s serving the American people, democracy, and the constitution by withholding information and protecting the bad actors that wish to do us harm.  I’d let him know the world is watching and he can either stand up now, do the right thing, or define his legacy as the man who remained silent in the face of tyranny.  

This of course will not work but I’d still make him sleep with that shit. 

[DDD Dad 14,251]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Text of opening statement released.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/mueller-opening-statement_1424608

 

I hate you.

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

34 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If Mueller ends up being a dick I would totally try to guilt trip him into being more forthcoming.  I would acknowledge that he’s a man of duty with a reputation of service to a cause greater than himself.  I’d press him on if he really thinks he’s serving the American people, democracy, and the constitution by withholding information and protecting the bad actors that wish to do us harm.  I’d let him know the world is watching and he can either stand up now, do the right thing, or define his legacy as the man who remained silent in the face of tyranny.  

This of course will not work but I’d still make him sleep with that shit. 

I don't think he's going to be a dick, but if they ask him something answered in the report, I think he's going to refer them to the report and state that he worded it the most precise way he could in the report and he would prefer not to paraphrase himself.

Kamala better not try any of her cheap-ass prosecutor tricks on him.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Kamala better not try any of her cheap-ass prosecutor tricks on him.

Oh, the Republicans aren’t letting Mama Kamala anywhere near Mueller in the Senate.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

46 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If Mueller ends up being a dick I would totally try to guilt trip him into being more forthcoming.  I would acknowledge that he’s a man of duty with a reputation of service to a cause greater than himself.  I’d press him on if he really thinks he’s serving the American people, democracy, and the constitution by withholding information and protecting the bad actors that wish to do us harm.  I’d let him know the world is watching and he can either stand up now, do the right thing, or define his legacy as the man who remained silent in the face of tyranny.  

This of course will not work but I’d still make him sleep with that shit. 

from everything we've learned about mueller, this proposed scenario seems extremely unlikely on multiple fronts.

i don't think you need to hammer home words like "duty" and "reputation" to him.

[SquishMitten 10,400]

I got five on it that he says something along the lines of “I stated in my report and subsequent commentary that I could not indict a sitting President. I presented as much evidence as I was permitted to gather. There are permissible avenues for taking the investigation further than I could have.”

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

There’s too much on the line here for Mueller to hold anything back.  Whatever it takes to get him to tell as much as possible is warranted IMO.

I mean, take a step back and look at how crazy this situation is.  It feels like another day at the office but this is a report about our president and his campaign working alongside the Russian government to orchestrate a digital Pearl Harbor on American democracy to elect him president and his subsequent multiple efforts abusing his power to cover up that attack.  

It makes Watergate look like a parking violation. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There’s too much on the line here for Mueller to hold anything back.  Whatever it takes to get him to tell as much as possible is warranted IMO.

I mean, take a step back and look at how crazy this situation is.  It feels like another day at the office but this is a report about our president and  his campaign working alongside the Russian government to orchestrate a digital Pearl Harbor on American democracy to elect him president and his multiple subsequent efforts abusing his power to cover up that attack.  

It makes Watergate look like a parking violation. 

It does. But nothing is going to move Republicans.

Nothing.

 

[retread 2,951]

5 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I got five on it that he says something along the lines of “I stated in my report and subsequent commentary that I could not indict a sitting President. I presented as much evidence as I was permitted to gather. There are permissible avenues for taking the investigation further than I could have.”

This is about the best the Ds can hope for. Aunt Nancy has squandered at least one opportunity to start impeachment, maybe more. This will probably be one of the last jumping off points where the public can be brought along as to why impeachment was started. At least some of the public will understand why you're starting the process if it's fresh on their minds.

[Anastasis 23,394]

3 minutes ago, retread said:

This is about the best the Ds can hope for. Aunt Nancy has squandered at least one opportunity to start impeachment, maybe more. This will probably be one of the last jumping off points where the public can be brought along as to why impeachment was started. At least some of the public will understand why you're starting the process if it's fresh on their minds.

Six week recess after testimony kinda undermines this. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It does. But nothing is going to move Republicans.

Nothing.

 

It would be refreshing to at least see some courage from someone in the name of informing the American people.  Comey going in two years ago to call Trump a liar under oath and tell us about the Russian active measures was pretty good.  We need some of that action from Mueller.

[retread 2,951]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Six week recess after testimony kinda undermines this. 

Yes. Trump wins this round of running out the clock.

Given the gravity of the situation, canceling the August recess would seem to be the right thing to do. But Nancy has to get to her summer reading list.

Edited July 22, 2019 by retread

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, retread said:

Yes. Trump wins this round of running out the clock.

Maybe.

 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

5 minutes ago, retread said:

Yes. Trump wins this round of running out the clock.

eh, unless the electoral math falls perfectly for him, he won't win any round of anything.

that's the reason impeachment isn't moving forward.  it's not about narrative or evidence or anybody's report.  pelosi is the one running out the clock.

that said, everyone should be trying to push his buttons as much as possible to agitate him, including this one.  you never know what he'll say or do that will continue to piss people off.  the fact that this keeps dragging on is probably the reason he's become so unhinged.  every time he thinks it's behind him, it isn't.  hopefully it continues well into next year.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

More obstruction 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

Pelosi is the one running out the clock.

Correct.  She’s been doing all year.  This Mueller testimony feels perfunctory for a reason. 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

More obstruction 

 

how can you claim executive privilege when the executive is the target of the investigation?

is doj going to send someone in to object every other sentence?

 

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

18 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

how can you claim executive privilege when the executive is the target of the investigation?

is doj going to send someone in to object every other sentence?

 

Same way a defendant invokes attorney-client privilege in a criminal case.

That said, executive privilege only covers "deliberations" of the executive branch, which usually encompasses only the President and advisors.  There is a lower form of it known as "departmental" privilege that might apply to lower officials, like the AG, DAG, etc.  The scope of these privileges isn't well fleshed out.

Also, technically, Congress doesn't have to respect assertion of privileges, even attorney-client.  But because they are reliant on the courts to enforce any type of contempt, they generally respect privilege.  Or, at least, they tend not to go to the mat on privilege issues because they might be told they do have to respect them.

That's one thing the nattering nabobs mostly seem not to get about congressional subpoenas and contempt.  The rules are very loosey-goosey at least until they take them to court.  If they go to court on an issue, there's a chance they could get a ruling that is long-term very unfavorable.

 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Same way a defendant invokes attorney-client privilege in a criminal case.

That said, executive privilege only covers "deliberations" of the executive branch, which usually encompasses only the President and advisors.  There is a lower form of it known as "departmental" privilege that might apply to lower officials, like the AG, DAG, etc.  The scope of these privileges isn't well fleshed out.

Also, technically, Congress doesn't have to respect assertion of privileges, even attorney-client.  But because they are reliant on the courts to enforce any type of contempt, they generally respect privilege.  Or, at least, they tend not to go to the mat on privilege issues because they might be told they do have to respect them.

That's one thing the nattering nabobs mostly seem not to get about congressional subpoenas and contempt.  The rules are very loosey-goosey at least until they take them to court.  If they go to court on an issue, there's a chance they could get a ruling that is long-term very unfavorable.

 

right, but isn't that something that the defendant wants to do?  something he relies on to help save his ass?

seems like this would be more like a gag order (which made me think of the insider clip).  "that means you don't talk."

if mueller wants to answer questions outside the scope of his report, then is there anything legally the doj can do to actually stop him?

the way that is worded makes it sound like they're threatening him, not protecting him.  in your comp, the defendant is the accused.  that's not the case here.

[scottsins 1,953]

right, but isn't that something that the defendant wants to do?  something he relies on to help save his ass?
seems like this would be more like a gag order (which made me think of the insider clip).  "that means you don't talk."
if mueller wants to answer questions outside the scope of his report, then is there anything legally the doj can do to actually stop him?
the way that is worded makes it sound like they're threatening him, not protecting him.  in your comp, the defendant is the accused.  that's not the case here.

“Want” is the wrong verb completely. The man has zero feels about any of this. He will, much to the chagrin of lots of people, rely on the DOJ memo and refuse to answer questions outside of that scope. He will tell Congress that until they go get a controverting judicial opinion, he will take his guidance from the DOJ opinion/assertion.

Then, like with everything else, the house/Pelosi will say “aw shucks...contempt of Congress and stuff”...and then go away to see what their next “big play” is.

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

8 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

right, but isn't that something that the defendant wants to do?  something he relies on to help save his ass?

seems like this would be more like a gag order (which made me think of the insider clip).  "that means you don't talk."

if mueller wants to answer questions outside the scope of his report, then is there anything legally the doj can do to actually stop him?

the way that is worded makes it sound like they're threatening him, not protecting him.  in your comp, the defendant is the accused.  that's not the case here.

Not usually, no.  Once a privilege is waived, as by revealing privileged material, you can't be sure where the waiver will stop.  You can't just waive it as to the self-serving stuff and preserve it as to the incriminating stuff.  So privileges often get invoked over really innocuous stuff so as not to waive it over the not-so-innocuous stuff.

Example:  attorney and client are consulting over a case; the attorney tells client "your opponent is the dirtiest bastard I have seen in 30 years of the practice of law;"  he then tells his client "and you are a close second."  If you talk about the first part, you waive or risk waiving as to the second part.

One of the problems with any privilege is that sometimes the parties to the privilege aren't aware that it exists or what is considered privileged or that the person to whom the privilege belongs wants to invoke it, so sometimes it gets waived inadvertently.  In an ordinary civil case, let's say a former executive was privy to privileged discussions and is testifying about various matters.  He will be warned by his former employer that they are asserting privilege, and a company lawyer would attend any hearing or deposition and invoke the privilege on behalf of the company in case the former executive fucks up.  This is similar.  Of course, that's not to say the executive or departmental privilege actually exists here, or that there would be a legitimate assertion of it here.

But on its face, this is pretty normal.

[Continental Op 3,934]

"Are you going to tell us anything we don't already know? No? OK bye." 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

5 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

"Are you going to tell us anything we don't already know? No? OK bye." 

they've said repeatedly that the mueller report was like sheet music, but nobody has yet heard the song.  his testimony will be like hearing the song.  (not my words).

judging by how many americans probably haven't read a word of the actual report, that clunky analogy might be accurate.  "anything we don't already know" could be a frighteningly large amount of information.

regardless of what gets said, it's not going to change many minds, any numbers, or lead to anything of consequence.  i'm just rooting for entertaining political theater, as always. 

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

54 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not usually, no.  Once a privilege is waived, as by revealing privileged material, you can't be sure where the waiver will stop.  You can't just waive it as to the self-serving stuff and preserve it as to the incriminating stuff.  So privileges often get invoked over really innocuous stuff so as not to waive it over the not-so-innocuous stuff.

Example:  attorney and client are consulting over a case; the attorney tells client "your opponent is the dirtiest bastard I have seen in 30 years of the practice of law;"  he then tells his client "and you are a close second."  If you talk about the first part, you waive or risk waiving as to the second part.

One of the problems with any privilege is that sometimes the parties to the privilege aren't aware that it exists or what is considered privileged or that the person to whom the privilege belongs wants to invoke it, so sometimes it gets waived inadvertently.  In an ordinary civil case, let's say a former executive was privy to privileged discussions and is testifying about various matters.  He will be warned by his former employer that they are asserting privilege, and a company lawyer would attend any hearing or deposition and invoke the privilege on behalf of the company in case the former executive fucks up.  This is similar.  Of course, that's not to say the executive or departmental privilege actually exists here, or that there would be a legitimate assertion of it here.

But on its face, this is pretty normal.

I should elaborate on this some.  The attorney client privilege exists between an attorney and his/her client, but can extend to others involved in a privileged communication. The privilege belongs to the client, meaning it's the client's absolute call whether to waive or preserve the privilege. The lawyer may lose his license if he waives privilege without permission.  Others (legal assistants, consultants, expert witnesses) could get sued and their actions may be imputed to the lawyer for civil suit or bar discipline purposes.

There's not any clear penalty for breaching/waiving an executive privilege that isn't "yours," but rather, the President's, or the AGs, or the DOJs.  As an attorney, there could be disciplinary proceedings.  There could be civil suits.  It's not really a good look for you professionally, as far as your discretion and trustworthiness, as a general rule.

The prevailing view among lawyers is that breaching or waiving a privilege is not something you want to happen, even if you don't believe in it or its assertion.  Nothing good can come of it.  I suppose this presents some different circumstances, but I imagine Mueller's first instinct is not to do anything that might result in a serious accusation.

[EuroHorn 3,204]

Is the table set?

[Jim Tom Pinch 120]

Why did you waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a perjury trap?

[David Dennison 18,655]

2 minutes ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

Why did you waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a perjury trap?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

[triplehorn 2,664]

37 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Is the table set?

Bill Barr goes to work:

swastikas are apt

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by triplehorn

[RomaVicta 29,783]

 

I want the truth!

It's right over there in that book.

 

Oh. I don't come from a country of readers.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,150]

What’s this shit about no one committed a crime because they did not understand their actions were illegal?  You really going to roll with that horseshit into history?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

What’s this shit about no one committed a crime because they did not understand their actions were illegal?  You really going to roll with that horseshit into history?

So many terrible precedents being set by Trump’s clown car of treacherous assholes.