Robert Mueller publicly Testify Capital Hill July 17

[Tennesseer]

Robert Mueller to testify before House panels on July 17

Special counsel Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on July 17, Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced late Tuesday. In a joint statement, the congressmen said Mueller had agreed to testify in open session in accordance with subpoenas issued Tuesday night.

link

[Tennesseer]

Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena

(CNN)Robert Mueller will testify before Congress on July 17 after House Democrats issued a subpoena for his appearance, a move that paves the way for a reluctant special counsel to answer questions publicly for the first time about his 22-month investigation into President Donald Trump.

The House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees announced Tuesday that Mueller had agreed to testify after they issued subpoenas for his testimony, and Mueller would appear in public before the two panels next month.

"Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia's attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign's acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates' obstruction of the investigation into that attack," House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

The subpoenas to Mueller come after weeks of negotiations between Democrats, the special counsel's team and the Justice Department. Democrats are proceeding with subpoenas to Mueller after he spoke publicly last month and said he did not wish to testify publicly about the investigation, and that his testimony would not go beyond what was written in the special counsel's 448-page report.

Complete article here: Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena

[OldCoyote]

What are the Democrats going to do if he does not reveal anything?

[dondub]

He already has.

[oped]

If he just read the report that would be enough...

[OldCoyote]

Jun 25, 2019 22:14:19 GMT -5 oped said:

If he just read the report that would be enough...

What is the big got ya, on Trump?

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Mueller has the honor and integrity to actually appear as summoned AND not stonewall once he is before the committees.

Unlike other individuals subpoenaed by congress.

[oped]

Jun 25, 2019 23:06:45 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jun 25, 2019 22:14:19 GMT -5 oped said:

If he just read the report that would be enough...

What is the big got ya, on Trump?

www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

[oped]

Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.

First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations—violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws, the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged. See United States v. Netyksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 (D.D.C.). [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter, Personal Privacy]

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project. [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter] And in February 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.

***

The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly reported to involve potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interaction between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate's April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive. And the investigation did not establish that one Campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September 2016 at Sessions's Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

[happyhoix]

Jun 25, 2019 23:06:45 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jun 25, 2019 22:14:19 GMT -5 oped said:

If he just read the report that would be enough...

What is the big got ya, on Trump?

The Mueller report lists 10 instances where Trump obstructed justice.

[oped]

On obstruction: 

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

[oped]

Jun 26, 2019 6:43:53 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 25, 2019 23:06:45 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

What is the big got ya, on Trump?

The Mueller report lists 10 instances where Trump obstructed justice.

And the conclusions on conspiracy specifically state that obstruction made it difficult to obtain all the relevant information of the many, many contacts outlined in the summary (and report) between Russia and the Trump campaign.  

[happyhoix]

Jun 25, 2019 22:14:19 GMT -5 oped said:

If he just read the report that would be enough...

I know the Dems think that if they could just get Mueller to testify publically Americans would watch the testimony and understand all the obstruction charges, and something would finally stick to the Teflon POTUS. That Americans would watch televised testimony when they won't bother to read the Mueller report.

I don't think this will matter, because the hardcore 40% of the population who sticks with Trump never watches anything other than Trump TV, and will disregard any thing from any other source, no matter how solid a journalistic source, as 'fake.'

Fox, if it shows any of it at all, will show the highlights reel with Mueller making innocuous or faintly positive comments. After all, Fox has successfully avoided reporting anything of substance on the written Mueller report, so it will have no problem ignoring the oral testimony.

What's Fox's 'accurate' reporting rate right now?  22% true or mostly true? And the thing is - Fox viewers don't care. As long as Fox continues as Trump's cheerleaders, they don't care if the reporting is accurate or not.

Truth doesn't matter anymore. Mueller's oral testimony won't matter anymore than his written report did. 

[oped]

Will it convince everyone? No. But... 

“Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.

“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before," she said. "I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."

Cheryl Wanless, a Republican who has supported Amash, said she was confused by his position but after hearing him speak, doesn't “have a problem proceeding with" impeachment.

“Though in the back of my mind, I know it is not going to pass the Senate most likely," she said. "But if the process has to go this far, I think that’s fine — go ahead."

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-justin-amash-stands-position-start-impeachment-proceedings-despite-criticism-n1011176

[OldCoyote]

 This appears to be like almost every thing posted on this board,   The same sentence is interpreted by the leaning of the reader.

Two things, in the conclusion.

1. Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct.

2. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

I, of course read this as,,, We under Traditional law interpretation, did not break the law!!

If you are Left leaning read this as,,, He is Guilt as all hell!!

[happyhoix]

Jun 26, 2019 9:08:19 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

 This appears to be like almost every thing posted on this board,   The same sentence is interpreted by the leaning of the reader.

Two things, in the conclusion.

1. Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct.

2. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

I, of course read this as,,, We under Traditional law interpretation, did not break the law!!

If you are Left leaning read this as,,, He is Guilt as all hell!!

On what planet does 'it does not exonerate him' = 'Did not break the law'

 

[oped]

Jun 26, 2019 9:08:19 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

 This appears to be like almost every thing posted on this board,   The same sentence is interpreted by the leaning of the reader.

Two things, in the conclusion.

1. Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct.

2. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

I, of course read this as,,, We under Traditional law interpretation, did not break the law!!

If you are Left leaning read this as,,, He is Guilt as all hell!!

No. It says We under Traditional Law do not have the authority to bring charges against him because he is currently sitting as president.  

[oped]

Jun 26, 2019 10:05:53 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 26, 2019 9:08:19 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

 This appears to be like almost every thing posted on this board,   The same sentence is interpreted by the leaning of the reader.

Two things, in the conclusion.

1. Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct.

2. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

I, of course read this as,,, We under Traditional law interpretation, did not break the law!!

If you are Left leaning read this as,,, He is Guilt as all hell!!

On what planet does 'it does not exonerate him' = 'Did not break the law'

 

Obviously 'Did not draw a conclusion' is the same as concluded he 'did not break the law' ... 

[Tennesseer]

trump is scared to death of Mueller.

trump, without offering evidence, accuses Mueller of illegal activity

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday, without offering evidence, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller "terminated" FBI communications in what he called an illegal move.

"Mueller terminated them illegally. He terminated all of the emails ... Robert Mueller terminated their text messages together. He terminated them. They're gone. And that's illegal. That's a crime," Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network, referring to two former FBI employees who exchanged disparaging messages about the president.

Trump made the remarks ahead of Mueller's scheduled testimony in front of lawmakers about his investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow.

Complete article here:  trump, without offering evidence, accuses Mueller of illegal activity

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 25, 2019 21:03:38 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

What are the Democrats going to do if he does not reveal anything?

I think their bigger worry should be: what if he does?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Robert Mueller will testify publicly before a "joint committee". There are 40 members. There will be one round of questions. This is part of the design of a staged event designed to shield Robert Mueller as much as possible from having their coordinated coordinated enterprise exposed- the two-year Rosenstein, Weissmann and Mueller scheme. It will be interesting to see how well they're able to pull this off. Remember: Weissmann was briefed on the counterfeit intelligence document used to defraud the FISA court in an effort to ex post facto justify long-term, on-going spying on the Trump transition team a YEAR before being added to the Mueller team. So, that means that no later than the day he came on board, Robert Mueller had a team member that KNEW it was all a hoax. Mueller also had the FBI lovebirds Lisa Page's and Peter Strzok's text messages indicating there's "no there there". Which brings me to THE question Mueller must answer:

When did you learn that the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dossier- the work product of former MI6 "Russia House" spy filled with, in the words of James Comey to President Trump, salacious and unverified claims made by Russian government operatives which were part of a larger Russian disinformation campaign to sow confusion, discord, and doubt about the 2016 election- had been crafted into a counterfeit intelligence document and formed the basis of the FBI's entire Trump-Russia investigation?

Because on that day, Mueller's entire scam ought to have ended.

Instead we have over 600 days and nearly $40 million spent-- for what?

By the way- what are the Vegas odds he pleads the fifth?

[Tennesseer]

SATIRE:

Andy Borowitz

3 hrs ·

Fox To Preempt Mueller Testimony With Rerun of Benghazi Hearings

[happyhoix]

Jun 26, 2019 10:58:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

trump is scared to death of Mueller.

trump, without offering evidence, accuses Mueller of illegal activity

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday, without offering evidence, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller "terminated" FBI communications in what he called an illegal move.

"Mueller terminated them illegally. He terminated all of the emails ... Robert Mueller terminated their text messages together. He terminated them. They're gone. And that's illegal. That's a crime," Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network, referring to two former FBI employees who exchanged disparaging messages about the president.

Trump made the remarks ahead of Mueller's scheduled testimony in front of lawmakers about his investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow.

Complete article here:  trump, without offering evidence, accuses Mueller of illegal activity

Trump's repeated himself so often he's become boring.

Trash talking someone he used to admire as a way to intimidate them and/or smear their reputation in advance.

Most of us have caught onto the ruse by now.

[oped]

What are the Vegas odds on a Paul prediction? 

[Tennesseer]

Hillary will be dead in a couple of weeks from terminal Parkinson's disease?

[oped]

How many seats did Republicans pick up in the House in 2018? 

[happyhoix]

Were all the Obama officials frog marked out of their offices and shot at dawn yet?

[moon/Laura]

Jun 26, 2019 6:42:02 GMT -5 oped said:

Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.....<rest of quote snipped for length>

Oped, as per the CoC, you need to edit your reply number 8, to be a *snippet* with a link to the source.
It appears that you have not only posted something in its entirety but did not provide the source, which puts us at risk for copyright infringement issues.

[oped]

I’ll get the link as soon as I can but it is not the entire thing, just one section.

Public government reports aren’t copyrighted. That’s why the report is filling like 6 of the top 10 slots on Amazon. Anyone can publish it. 

Here are a few sources for the summaries. You can also get the full report on audible for free.

www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/mueller-report-release-summaries-barr-trump/587182/

www.washingtonpost.com/subscribe/signin/index.html?case=fms&next_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fgraphics%2F2019%2Fpolitics%2Fread-the-mueller-report%2F&tid=usw_paywall

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html

[tbop77]

Jun 26, 2019 11:07:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Robert Mueller will testify publicly before a "joint committee". There are 40 members. There will be one round of questions. This is part of the design of a staged event designed to shield Robert Mueller as much as possible from having their coordinated coordinated enterprise exposed- the two-year Rosenstein, Weissmann and Mueller scheme. It will be interesting to see how well they're able to pull this off. Remember: Weissmann was briefed on the counterfeit intelligence document used to defraud the FISA court in an effort to ex post facto justify long-term, on-going spying on the Trump transition team a YEAR before being added to the Mueller team. So, that means that no later than the day he came on board, Robert Mueller had a team member that KNEW it was all a hoax. Mueller also had the FBI lovebirds Lisa Page's and Peter Strzok's text messages indicating there's "no there there". Which brings me to THE question Mueller must answer:

When did you learn that the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dossier- the work product of former MI6 "Russia House" spy filled with, in the words of James Comey to President Trump, salacious and unverified claims made by Russian government operatives which were part of a larger Russian disinformation campaign to sow confusion, discord, and doubt about the 2016 election- had been crafted into a counterfeit intelligence document and formed the basis of the FBI's entire Trump-Russia investigation?

Because on that day, Mueller's entire scam ought to have ended.

Instead we have over 600 days and nearly $40 million spent-- for what?

By the way- what are the Vegas odds he pleads the fifth?

And then....2 weeks before the 2020 election, President Trump will finally have her locked up?  So, money well spent, right?