The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Anastasis 23393]

40 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 

mostly agree with gandorf. 

sheila jackson lee will grandstand. but then the republicans have louie gohmert on the judiciary, so....

it's basically going to be a double shitshow, first at the judiciary, then at the intelligence. at least ted lieu is on the judiciary. i will wait for his questioning with bated breath. 

i'm also eager to see how jim jordan and matt gaetz smear the wall with feces.

 

There is a reason that Mueller wants nothing to do with testimony.  

With few exceptions these guys are clowns. 

[jimmyjazz 45554]

40 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm also eager to see how jim jordan and matt gaetz smear the wall with feces.

Well, we know Gym Jordan won't wear his sportcoat, at least for long, and he'll probably roll up his sleeves, and he'll definitely act shocked and outraged at the injustice playing out in front of him.  And then he'll ignore over a hundred young men being sexually abused by an associate.

[Anastasis 23393]

Yes, agree with HH.  The vast majority of his responses will be yes, no, quote from report, paraphrase closely report. 

[David Dennison 18655]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There is a reason that Mueller wants nothing to do with testimony.  

With few exceptions these guys are clowns. 

Which is why Democrats should have counsel ask the questions.

[henrygandorf 29174]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

the problem here is that mueller is a hyper-intelligent, fairly reluctant witness. he will answer the questions asked, and offer no elaboration.  i'm not expecting any kind of blockbuster revelation. as a matter of fact, i expect him to repeat, verbatim, from the report in many answers. he's just not the type of person to go out colonel jessup style.

there will not be a

"did you want to indict the president?"

"i did the job i..."

"DID YOU WANT TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT?!"

"YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!"

moment.

it will be boring, and full of carefully crafted legal jargon. 

just my opinion.

agree 100%.

once again, people have been saying this is the sheet music, we need to hear the song.  this is the long and boring book, we need to watch the movie.

the way this works and actually makes for compelling tv (meaning clips worthy of replaying) is like this:

dem - mr mueller, can you please go to page 268, paragraph 2, and read the first four sentences.

mueller - reads 4 damning sentences.

dem - was it your feeling that this showed a total disregard for proper procedure/rule of law?

mueller - yes.

dem - did you feel that this was one of the many instances where the president obstructed justice in order to cover up his actions with the russians?

mueller - yes, i did.

 

he's not going to editorialize.  there won't be a "gotcha" moment.  i've been saying this since the beginning.  i've also said that no matter what gets said, nothing will move the needle or affect the numbers.  trump is where he is for a reason.  he can do whatever he wants, say whatever he wants, and the numbers don't change.

big, fat, disgusting slobs with no girlfriends don't have to improve their actions.  you can't have negative girlfriends.

[wildcat09 29233]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Which is why Democrats should have counsel ask the questions.

Yep.  But they're not, because they're worthless fuckups.

[GopherRock 1765]

Is 730 AM CDT the real start time for this tomorrow?

[suddenly shaggy 929]

38 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

agree 100%.

once again, people have been saying this is the sheet music, we need to hear the song.  this is the long and boring book, we need to watch the movie.

the way this works and actually makes for compelling tv (meaning clips worthy of replaying) is like this:

dem - mr mueller, can you please go to page 268, paragraph 2, and read the first four sentences.

mueller - reads 4 damning sentences.

dem - was it your feeling that this showed a total disregard for proper procedure/rule of law?

mueller - yes.

dem - did you feel that this was one of the many instances where the president obstructed justice in order to cover up his actions with the russians?

mueller - yes, i did.

 

he's not going to editorialize.  there won't be a "gotcha" moment.  i've been saying this since the beginning.  i've also said that no matter what gets said, nothing will move the needle or affect the numbers.  trump is where he is for a reason.  he can do whatever he wants, say whatever he wants, and the numbers don't change.

big, fat, disgusting slobs with no girlfriends don't have to improve their actions.  you can't have negative girlfriends.

This is exactly how Dems should question him and it should be done by counsel, rather than each committee member, but the Dems are going to fuck up both parts. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

6 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

This is exactly how Dems should question him and it should be done by counsel, rather than each committee member, but the Dems are going to fuck up both parts. 

it should absolutely be done by counsel.

my only hope is that they're actually prepared for this and will build off each other's lines of questioning (which is the reported story).  and hopefully/presumably they're being coached by experienced litigators - why have them around otherwise?

mueller is the heavyweight in the room.  he's not going to be led anywhere he doesn't want to go.  

[shnsajax 3589]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

it should absolutely be done by counsel.

my only hope is that they're actually prepared for this and will build off each other's lines of questioning (which is the reported story).  and hopefully/presumably they're being coached by experienced litigators - why have them around otherwise?

mueller is the heavyweight in the room.  he's not going to be led anywhere he doesn't want to go.  

I forget who I was listening too, but they are preparing (mock hearings) and not wanting to give out any details. Both sides are going to claim victory and the US will lose. 

[shnsajax 3589]

Quote

 

(CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller made a last-minute request to have his deputy sworn in for Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing in case he needed to answer any questions the special counsel could not fully answer himself, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Republicans on the House Judiciary committee immediately raised concerns that Democrats may allow Mueller's deputy Aaron Zebley to testify alongside the special counsel at the hearing, one of two public hearings Mueller is testifying at Wednesday.

Democrats so far have not agreed to this request. A spokesman for House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said the only witness for the hearing, at the moment, is Mueller.

Democrats have pushed to hear from Zebley along with James Quarles behind closed doors after Mueller testified. But the Department of Justice resisted that request.

The committee's top Republican, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, released a statement about the potential addition to the panel, saying that allowing Zebley to testify would be a "unprecedented decision to allow a witness's counsel to both advise him privately and simultaneously testify alongside him."

"If Democrats believe it is the special counsel's responsibility to testify to his report, they have no ground for outsourcing that duty at the expense of our committee's integrity," Collins said in the statement.

 

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

can some of the surly attorneys weigh in on this?  ^^

what would be the purpose of having the deputy sworn in/testify?  are there things outside the scope or outside the privilege that he could speak to instead of mueller?  why would the dems be fighting this?

[retread 2951]

 

[TwiceHorn 31267]

On 7/21/2019 at 11:53 AM, David Dennison said:

I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations is tolled by Donald Trump being president. That shouldn't be a problem.

It’s not automatically at least that I could find find. I think there is a solid argument that it is equitably tolled. 

[Biff Tannen 45492]

11 minutes ago, retread said:

 

Seems like that might be a little important.

[Anastasis 23393]

14 minutes ago, retread said:

 

 

LOL.

[bolverk 29399]

16 minutes ago, retread said:

 

[jimmyjazz 45554]

How the hell has the Director of the FBI not read the Mueller report?  I'm a disgruntled 56 YO engineer who couldn't get elected as dogcatcher, and I've read the report.

 

[SimonBolivar 10911]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

can some of the surly attorneys weigh in on this?  ^^

what would be the purpose of having the deputy sworn in/testify?  are there things outside the scope or outside the privilege that he could speak to instead of mueller?  why would the dems be fighting this?

Politico article claims the R's are upset about it.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/23/nadler-doj-mueller-testimony-1426721

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Politico article claims the R's are upset about it.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/23/nadler-doj-mueller-testimony-1426721

right. but the cnn article posted also said the dems haven’t agreed to it yet. 

[SimonBolivar 10911]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

right. but the cnn article posted also said the dems haven’t agreed to it yet. 

I would guess it might actually be a breach of House rules and they don't want to give the R's anymore excuses than they already have before checking it out.

[TwiceHorn 31267]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

can some of the surly attorneys weigh in on this?  ^^

what would be the purpose of having the deputy sworn in/testify?  are there things outside the scope or outside the privilege that he could speak to instead of mueller?  why would the dems be fighting this?

The only thing I can think of is to answer questions that Mueller cannot.  That is, there is probably some level of detail about the investigation that Mueller simply doesn't have in-depth knowledge of and can't fully answer questions about.  I don't think it's a privilege issue because if the deputy was in on "deliberative" meetings with Rosenstein or Barr or anyone else at Justice, the privilege extends to the deputy as well.  If he wasn't, his information would be hearsay and possibly still subject to privilege.  Not that hearsay is that big an issue before Congress.

But a witness' favorite answer to anything should always be "I don't know."  The only downside to that answer for Mueller is maybe looking bad.  And having an alternate witness doesn't avoid that problem, even if it supplies an answer to the question.

The only other thing I can figure is that maybe if, between Mueller and the deputy, they can answer all questions, it cuts down the likelihood that Mueller  (or any of his team) gets recalled as a witness.  

I think for anyone, and especially a lawyer, being a witness is an uncomfortable proposition.  It doesn't matter how little you have to hide or how truthful you intend to be, you know that you are subject to being tricked and nitpicked to death and possibly made to look foolish.

Edited July 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Seems like that might be a little important.

If I was in Wray’s position, I’d probably stay as far as possible away from the Mueller report and anything to do with 2016 Trump/Russia. 

Wray should have been automatically recused from anything Mueller related due to the circumstances under which he was hired.  By distancing himself, he protects himself from Trump or Barr trying to get him to interfere in the investigations.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 45554]

None of that in any way justifies a failure to read the Mueller report.  There is no excuse.  None.  It's just more bullshit at the top, regardless of stripe.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

None of that in any way justifies a failure to read the Mueller report.  There is no excuse.  None.  It's just more bullshit at the top, regardless of stripe.

Wray doesn’t need to read the Mueller Report. He’s briefed daily on all matters national security.  He knows well beyond whatever is in the Mueller Report. 

[Anastasis 23393]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

mueller is the heavyweight in the room. 

Apparently the heavyweight needs a sidekick. Looks like his deputy will be present but not sworn in, and Mueller will be only one testifying. 

I think Mueller was trying to scuttle the deal with the last minute request. 

[Gil Bang 25897]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The only thing I can think of is to answer questions that Mueller cannot.  That is, there is probably some level of detail about the investigation that Mueller simply doesn't have in-depth knowledge of and can't fully answer questions about.  I don't think it's a privilege issue because if the deputy was in on "deliberative" meetings with Rosenstein or Barr or anyone else at Justice, the privilege extends to the deputy as well.  If he wasn't, his information would be hearsay and possibly still subject to privilege.  Not that hearsay is that big an issue before Congress.

But a witness' favorite answer to anything should always be "I don't know."  The only downside to that answer for Mueller is maybe looking bad.  And having an alternate witness doesn't avoid that problem, even if it supplies an answer to the question.

The only other thing I can figure is that maybe if, between Mueller and the deputy, they can answer all questions, it cuts down the likelihood that Mueller  (or any of his team) gets recalled as a witness.  

I think for anyone, and especially a lawyer, being a witness is an uncomfortable proposition.  It doesn't matter how little you have to hide or how truthful you intend to be, you know that you are subject to being tricked and nitpicked to death and possibly made to look foolish.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Mueller was the boss, and wasn't involved with every detail.  Imagine questioning a big city police chief about a murder investigation.  It's quite  likely that there is a detective somewhere that knows details about the investigation that the chief does not know.

 

Also, somebody on twitter says Adam Schiff was wearing a "Dude Lebowski" T shirt on a plane today. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It seems pretty obvious to me that Mueller was the boss, and wasn't involved with every detail.  Imagine questioning a big city police chief about a murder investigation.  It's quite  likely that there is a detective somewhere that knows details about the investigation that the chief does not know.

 

Also, somebody on twitter says Adam Schiff was wearing a "Dude Lebowski" T shirt on a plane today. 

They got him working in Schiffs. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

This is going to be huge!

[Horn Dog 9671]

5 hours ago, retread said:

[Anastasis 23393]

I like "impeach" and "Clinton". Overall, I think that these are fairly well priced. May YES on Kushner if you want to take a flier.  I am sure there will be direct question regarding him.  

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

trump has been circulating "talking points" for the gop for tomorrow because of course he has.

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

trump has been circulating "talking points" for the gop for tomorrow because of course he has.

Wait wait wait, let me guess.

NO OBSTRUCTION! TOTAL EXONERATION! handwritten in big black sharpie.

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Wait wait wait, let me guess.

NO OBSTRUCTION! TOTAL EXONERATION! handwritten in big black sharpie.

the stuff in the actual report (and repeated in hope hicks hearing) is hilarious.  trump needs to hire a ghost writer for when he wants someone else to speak "honestly" about him. 

"no no no, if they ask you what i did, just say donald j trump, who i call sir, i always call him sir, he's the most respectable president ever, just say the only thing he was guilty of, is running the best campaign of all-time, to win the greatest election of all-time, to become the most tremendous president since george washington, or you know, just something along those lines, but you know, make sure to use your own words and make it sound realistic, don't brag on me too much, i'm way too humble, the most humble...you know what, i'll just write it down, where is my posterboard and sharpie?"

[Anastasis 23393]

so this circus does actually begin @ 7:30 Central Time.  I guess nobody gives a fuck for people on the west coast to get the opening statement message straight from Mueller.  Soundbites via twitter will suffice for the first couple hours of the testimony I suppose.  

[henrygandorf 29174]

i'm gonna tape it and then watch on delay i guess.

if i tell the wife i'm waking up at 5am to watch it live, i feel like that will lead to other conversations i will not enjoy.

[sachick 1189]

I haven’t re-upped my Sirius XM subscription and don’t have CNN in the car. What’s the local (austin) news radio station that will will be airing the hearing?

[Anastasis 23393]

A couple items that I would like to see addressed. These are largely secondary items related to Barr's interactions with Mueller, and veracity of Barr's testimony on a few matters related to some of the narratives that have been spun up wrt to the findings of the report, it's release to the public, and the lead up to the testimony?

1. Did you meet with AG Barr on March 5 to discuss your report?  At that meeting is the exchange described by AG Barr as following accurate: “But I will say that when we met with him — Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed O’Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy on March 5th, we specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He — he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime; he made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.”  Do you care to correct the record if not, or provide additional clarification of what was communicated at that meeting?

2. At that meeting, did the AG also request that necessary redactions be marked by your team prior to submission of the full document, as he testified to congress?  He indicated that the failure of your team to execute on this request was responsible for a substantial portion of the delay in releasing the full report to the public. If that request was indeed communicated why did your team not honor that request?

3. Did you or your staff express an interest in limiting the scope of your testimony today to individuals at the DOJ, and specifically request that the AG write a letter limiting your scope in alignment with your expressed position?

 

These are all secondary issues, but get to some rightful concerns related to Barr's motives and handling of the report and testimony.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Anastasis

[Gil Bang 25897]

33 minutes ago, sachick said:

I haven’t re-upped my Sirius XM subscription and don’t have CNN in the car. What’s the local (austin) news radio station that will will be airing the hearing?

stream cnn.com on your phone

[Biff Tannen 45492]

34 minutes ago, sachick said:

I haven’t re-upped my Sirius XM subscription and don’t have CNN in the car. What’s the local (austin) news radio station that will will be airing the hearing?

Should be 90.5

[retread 2951]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

These are all secondary issues, but get to some rightful concerns related to Barr's motives and handling of the report and testimony.

Also
https://www.justsecurity.org/64972/house-should-prepare-criminal-referral-of-a-g-barr-for-lying-to-congress/

Quote

First, at a hearing in April, Rep. Charlie Crist asked Barr if he knew what was meant by news reports that “members of the Special Counsel’s team” felt that Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report was not adequate. Barr replied, “No, I don’t.”  Casting doubt on his veracity, we learned days later that Mueller had sent the attorney general a letter making explicit the special counsel’s concerns about Barr’s four-page summary....

This would be for Barr to answer in his impeachment hearing

Quote

Third, in the same Senate hearing, Sen. Kamala Harris posed a precisely worded question: “Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?” Barr tried to avoid answering but finally said: “I don’t know.” If he did know, he could be in serious legal trouble.

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by retread

[henrygandorf 29174]

there's not much that would move the trump needle tomorrow, but if it's a bad day for barr, then that's a good day.

[Anastasis 23393]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

there's not much that would move the trump needle tomorrow, but if it's a bad day for barr, then that's a good day.

This is true.  Unless Mueller parachutes in his old buddy OVD with some groundbreaking revelation on the coordination angle, the needle on removal doesn't move. Maybe impeachment, but not removal. Barr OTOH, could take a few body blows. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[retread 2951]

Taxi medallions! Michael Cohen holla.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

well now his one-man show is completely ruined.

fucking twitter with their spoilers.

[David Dennison 18655]

My hope is that after Mueller testifies, the Democrats hold a press conference and announce that instead of taking their summer recess, they'll be staying in Washington to hold hearings.

But I know that's not going to happen.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Tomorrow, funeral director Robert Mueller buries the United States of America in an open casket hearing. 

No scandal in US history even comes close to this one and half the country will never know it because the president and his allies spent two and a half years brainwashing the population. 

[retread 2951]

What DD posted is what should happen. We're running out of opportunities to hold Cheeto accountable.

RushFoxHannity should take a bow for the 30 years of brainwashing R voters. Trump wouldn't have happened without them.