Hang 10... or as they now say...hit the lip!

2nd Light Forums
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: What I would ask Robert Mueller
Topic Summary:
Created On: 07/23/2019 11:28 AM
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 07/23/2019 11:28 AM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


3rdworldlover

Posts: 20305
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

What I Would Ask Robert Mueller

By James Comey Friday, July 19, 2019, 3:37 PM

If I were a member of Congress with five minutes to question Robert Mueller, I would ask short questions drawn from the report's executive summaries.

Volume One: Russia

Did you find that there were a series of contacts between the Trump campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government? (p. 5)

In particular, did you find that a Trump foreign policy adviser learned that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails? (pp. 5-6)

Did you find that the Trump foreign policy adviser said the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton? (p. 6)

Did you find that senior members of the Trump campaign met with Russian representatives at Trump Tower after being told in an email that the meeting was part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump? (p. 6)

Did you find that, despite the fact that candidate Trump said he had "nothing to do with Russia," his organization had been pursuing a major Moscow project into the middle of the election year and that candidate Trump was regularly updated on developments? (vol 1, p. 5: vol 2, p. 19)

Support Lawfare

Did the Trump campaign report any of its Russian contacts to the FBI?

Not even the indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton?

Volume Two: Obstruction

Did you reach a judgment as to whether the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?

Did you find substantial evidence that the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?

For example, did you find that the president directed the White House counsel to call the acting attorney general and tell him the special counsel must be removed? (p. 4)

Did you find that the White House counsel decided he would rather resign than carry out that order? (p. 4)

Did you find that the president later directed the White House counsel to say he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)

Did you find that the president wanted the White House counsel to write a false memo saying he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)

Did you find that the White House counsel refused to do that because it was not true? (p. 6)

Did you find that the president repeatedly asked a private citizen - his former campaign manager - to deliver a message to the attorney general to restrict the special counsel to investigating only future campaign interference? (p. 5)

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wha...uld-ask-robert-mueller

Edited: 07/23/2019 at 11:29 AM by 3rdworldlover
 07/23/2019 11:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


crankit

Posts: 15016
Joined Forum: 07/30/2003

In a lengthy report published Monday, RealClearInvestigations' Paul Sperry reveals what he says might be the answer to one of the most "enduring and consequential" of questions involving the Russia probe: Why did Comey tell Trump privately that he wasn't the target of an investigation but then refuse to say the same publicly?
It was this refusal that was the fatal wedge between the two that ultimately resulted in the president unceremoniously firing Comey, an action that triggered accusations of "obstruction of justice" against Trump, one of the two focuses of the Robert Mueller investigation.
The reason Comey wasn't willing to say Trump was not the subject of an investigation, Sperry suggests, might just be that he was in fact the subject of an investigation - and one spearheaded by Comey himself.
"Sources tell RealClearInvestigations that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon file a report with evidence indicating that Comey was misleading the president," Sperry reports. "Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an investigative agent."
Sperry cites two U.S. officials briefed on the IG's investigation into possible FBI misconduct who say the former director was effectively "running a covert operation against" Trump, which started with a "defenseive briefing" he privately gave Trump a few weeks before his inauguration. Sperry reports:
[Two U.S. officials] said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a "counterintelligence assessment" of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York.
In addition to adding notes of his meetings and phone calls with Trump to the official FBI case file, Comey had an agent inside the White House who reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to other officials familiar with the matter.

-------------------------
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
 07/23/2019 11:43 AM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


3rdworldlover

Posts: 20305
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

Investigators don't typically inform the subjects of their investigation, and it was improper for the POTUS to ask the question. It was also improper and unethical for the POTUS to demand loyalty from the FBI Director, and it was obstruction when he fired Comey.
 07/23/2019 11:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


crankit

Posts: 15016
Joined Forum: 07/30/2003

What information was used in the multiple FISA warrants and what was the source of the information?
At what point did you know the investigation was not going to establish conspiracy between the campaign and Russia?
How did the Clinton campaign collect their dossier data?
Why was your staff all Dumbocrap donors and supporters?

-------------------------
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
 07/23/2019 11:48 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


crankit

Posts: 15016
Joined Forum: 07/30/2003

"and it was obstruction when he fired Comey"--proven BS, Rosenstein was the one who suggested that one!

-------------------------
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
 07/23/2019 11:55 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Fish Killer

Posts: 43511
Joined Forum: 10/09/2005

Originally posted by: 3rdworldlover
and it was obstruction when he fired Comey.


Liar!

-------------------------
 07/23/2019 12:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


theglide

Posts: 7943
Joined Forum: 08/06/2003

He won't say anything that's not in the report unless Rep. Jerkoff Jordan (R) pisses him off.
 07/23/2019 12:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Pagerow

Posts: 3033
Joined Forum: 12/22/2005

 07/23/2019 12:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Fish Killer

Posts: 43511
Joined Forum: 10/09/2005

Barr Upends Democrats Narrative On Mueller Testimony Instructions
By Steve Straub
Published July 23, 2019 at 12:03pm

Yesterday we learned that the DOJ instructed former Special Counsel Bob Mueller to not stray from the boundaries of his report during Congressional testimony scheduled for Wednesday.

As you might expect Democrats and their media allies went ballistic over this and claimed that the White House was interfering and trying to obstruct Mueller's testimony.

Turns out Bob Mueller had requested that Attorney General Bill Barr issue guidance on his upcoming testimony, which completely destroys the Democrats narrative.

Via Politico:
"They asked us for guidance in writing to explain or to tell them what our position was, so we responded in writing," Barr told reporters in New York. "The department sent the guidance they had requested."

Mueller is scheduled to appear Wednesday on Capitol Hill for a pair of highly anticipated hearings before the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee.

But DOJ officials communicated to Mueller on Monday that the department expects his public testimony to stay within the parameters of his 448-page report detailing the findings of his 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

The Justice Department considers any evidence gathered throughout the course of Mueller's probe to be "presumptively privileged," POLITICO reported.

So there you have it. Attorney General Bill Barr issued instructions to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller at Mueller's request.
When will Democrats and the media learn to take a deep breath, and do some investigating before flying off the handle with false facts?

My guess is never. Which only hurts their cause as no one believes them anymore.


http://thefederalistpapers.org...RNQ5owjJr9ewtqOTsY5hUo

-------------------------


Edited: 07/23/2019 at 12:32 PM by Fish Killer
 07/23/2019 12:30 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


3rdworldlover

Posts: 20305
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

Here's a better strategy:

By Benjamin Wittes
http://www.lawfareblog.com/if-...estion-robert-mueller

Here's a puzzle: Imagine that you are a member of Congress who, under rules seemingly designed to preclude effective questioning, had exactly five minutes to interview Robert Mueller on national television. What would you ask him?

Let's make the puzzle more difficult by adding to it some other known elements of reality. Mueller does not want to testify at all and has said pretty clearly that he will not go beyond the four corners of his report in doing so: "[T]he report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress." Mueller is also likely to be grumpy when you question him. And who can blame him? You would be grumpy too if you were being subjected to hours of unwanted hectoring by your colleagues, many of whom are not very bright, will not have done their homework, and will want to yell at the man and ask him things that would be wildly inappropriate for him to answer.

But you are that rare thing: a diligent member of Congress who wants to use your time with Mueller to bring out important findings and nuances of the Mueller report. What do you do?

Here are a few principles for questioning Mueller under these circumstances, along with a set of questions I would ask him if I were a member of Congress:

First, you get to develop only one point. Design your questions to bring out one - and only one - major idea. If you try for more, you will deliver less.

Second, ask him only yes-or-no questions. You don't have a lot of time. Use it to build up to the point you want to make. Ask short, crisp questions that require short, crisp answers that allow you to move on to the next question.

Third, stay within the four corners of the report. If you ask Mueller for evidence he did not include, he will not give it: He has been very clear that he does not intend to share additional information beyond what is set out in the report. If you ask him for interpretations he did not offer when he had the chance to write more than 400 pages of his interpretations, he will decline. If you ask him about his interactions with Attorney General William Barr, he will likely demur. By contrast, the closer you hew to asking him to read his own words, the likelier he is to cooperate. The trick is to use questions in this latter form to develop a single bigger idea over the course of a short stretch of time.

Fourth, ask him questions to which you know the answer. This is not an investigative hearing. It is an exercise in political and legal theater, and you are trying to provide a compelling elucidation of Mueller's work and findings. Ask only questions you know he can answer and whose answers you know will reasonably contribute to the thread you are developing.

What might this look like in practice? Here's one example. Reading this sequence of questions aloud and allowing time for Mueller's yes-or-no answers, it clocks in at right around five minutes:

You write that your "investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA's [Internet Research Agency's] interference operations." Is it fair for me to read that as saying you developed no evidence implicating the president in crimes related to the Russian social media campaign during the 2016 election?
Your findings with respect to the Russian hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails are more complicated. But is it fair to say that you did not find evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign, including the president himself, participated in the Russian hacking operations themselves?
With respect to possible conspiracy charges, you write something very different: that the investigation "did not establish that the contacts" between the campaign and the Russians "amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law." You also write that you "did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials - or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals - to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period." The language "did not establish" implies to me something different from language like "did not identify evidence"; it implies to me that you did identify evidence to one degree or another, just not evidence sufficient to bring a criminal case. Is that a fair reading?
So, in other words, when the evidence you found truly exonerates the president, the report says that clearly, and when the evidence you found is insufficient to prosecute, the report says that clearly too. Is that correct?
With respect to obstruction of justice, you use different language still. You write, "f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." But, you write, "[W]e are unable to reach that judgment" in the face of "difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Given that you elsewhere use language like "did not identify evidence" with respect to the IRA social media operations and "did not establish" with respect to conspiracy, is it fair for me to read your report as saying that the evidence you developed on obstruction, in contrast to your earlier conclusions, was strong enough that a finding of criminality was genuinely possible?
Is it fair for me to read your statement that "if we had confidence ... that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state" as meaning that it would have been improper for you to render a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on whether President Trump had violated the obstruction statutes precisely because it was possible that he had done so?
You write that one factor in your decision not to evaluate this evidence is that "we recognize that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct." Am I correct that the constitutional process you are referring to here is the impeachment power?
Yet you did not reach any conclusions as to whether President Trump committed impeachable offenses. Is that right?
So it's reasonable for me to conclude that you were deferring to Congress on the question of whether the facts your report describes do or do not constitute impeachable offenses?
You also write that the investigation was appropriate to conduct, notwithstanding the fact that the president is not amenable to criminal indictment while in office because the Justice Department recognizes that "a President does not have immunity after he leaves office." In fact, you say explicitly that "we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available." Is it fair for me to read this as deferring to future federal prosecutors the question of whether the president's conduct described in your report constitutes criminal offenses?
So, to summarize, I take your report to state that you found substantial evidence of presidential obstruction of justice, which you chose not to analyze, because you were deferring to Congress on questions of impeachment and to federal prosecutors after President Trump leaves office on questions of criminality. Is that a fair reading?T
 07/23/2019 12:34 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


tpapablo

Posts: 30599
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

I knew it. Progs have caught impeachment fever again. This just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Boy, what dimwits.

-------------------------
I :heart; Putin

 07/23/2019 12:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


johnnyboy

Posts: 14404
Joined Forum: 07/22/2003

I know, I know, its disappointing that some people keep trying to hold the President accountable and after that seems to lose steam, the President gets on tv and says something stupid and starts the whole process over again. Maybe this time. Maybe not.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

 07/23/2019 01:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


fishkller

Posts: 4519
Joined Forum: 11/13/2016


Trollpablo is like that Debby Downer type standing next to the Wright brothers going "You dimwits will NEVER fly.."

LOL

Oh I gotta catch a flight.. later!

-------------------------


 07/23/2019 01:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Fish Killer

Posts: 43511
Joined Forum: 10/09/2005

Originally posted by: fishkller

Trollpablo is like that Debby Downer type standing next to the Wright brothers going "You dimwits will NEVER fly.."
LOL
Oh I gotta catch a flight.. later!


No...it's like you sitting on the port rail of the Titanic right after it hit the iceberg.....claiming again and again to anyone who would listen to you... that the ship was unsinkable.

You're going down moron!

LOL

-------------------------
 07/23/2019 03:37 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


somebodyelse

Posts: 6008
Joined Forum: 06/29/2006

In particular, did you find that a Trump foreign policy adviser learned that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails? (pp. 5-6) ....................How did they have her thousands of e-mails.........................When did they start accruing her thousands of E-mails....................................Were ANY of Hillarys thousands of e-mails that the Russians had dated from the time she was Secretary of State..................................Were any of the e-mails dating from when she was secretary of state Secret oor Top Secret.................................Were any of those E-mails to or from the office of the President????????????????? Did any of those E-mail reveal names or aliases of American agents................Did any of them reveal locations or plans involving men and women of the American armed forces................Did any of the stolen E-mails involve negotiation detail with North Korea... Iran..........Sudan, or any other Russian backed nation.................... Did those stolen E-mails reveal any American policies concerning the Crimea and did Russia know in advance what Americas policies were going to be in any of these countries because of Hillaries E-mails??????????

-------------------------
 07/23/2019 03:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


fishkller

Posts: 4519
Joined Forum: 11/13/2016

It's "Hillary's"

FYI...

and you only need one question mark.

-------------------------




Edited: 07/23/2019 at 03:58 PM by fishkller
 07/24/2019 04:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


HAPDigital

Posts: 7472
Joined Forum: 11/29/2004

My questions but not for Mueller.

Why is Trump so adamant about their being no "collusion or obstruction" in the report yet he is bashing Mueller and his deputy, the people that wrote the report that "exonerated" him? If this was a partisan hit job, then they did a very terrible job at it. They could have, I don't know, directly said there was collusion and obstruction instead of leaving it up to Barr and Congress (both GOP). Right?

The dude is guilty plain and simple.

Why sue SDNY about your taxes if there is nothing to hide? Because he is guilty of something....

Get a clue peeps.
 07/24/2019 05:39 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Cole

Posts: 40822
Joined Forum: 07/22/2003

Trump said he would take any information offered to him, no matter the source.

The words came from his very own mouth.
 07/24/2019 07:18 AM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


somebodyelse

Posts: 6008
Joined Forum: 06/29/2006

AND THEN... the rest of the story................Trump then said he would refer the information to the FBI or Justice as warranted................... The Liberals on here only see the half of the story their overlords allow them to see.....

-------------------------
 07/24/2019 07:23 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Cole

Posts: 40822
Joined Forum: 07/22/2003

Trump then said he would refer the information to the FBI or Justice as warranted

Yes, after he consumed the information. And that's still a maybe, did he refer the Don Jr meeting to the FBI?
Statistics
145953 users are registered to the 2nd Light Forums forum.
There are currently 6 users logged in to the forum.

FuseTalk Basic Edition - © 1999-2019 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

Hey Matt B ... How the hell o are you ??? :)