House Judiciary/Intel: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - July 24 2019; Mueller Report

Post Reply
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

House Judiciary/Intel: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - July 24 2019; Mueller Report

#1

Post by Addie » Thu May 02, 2019 12:58 pm

Reuters
Agreement reached to have Mueller testify on Russia probe: lawmaker

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said on Wednesday an agreement had been reached to have Special Counsel Robert Mueller testify to Congress on his probe into Russian election interference and possible attempts by the President Donald Trump to impede the probe.

Representative Jerry Nadler told reporters the agreement was for Mueller to testify sometime in May, but that a specific date had yet to be agreed upon.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary/Intel: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 2019; Mueller Report

#2

Post by Addie » Sat May 04, 2019 2:37 pm

Reuters
Pressure grows on Attorney General Barr over Mueller

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump and a senior U.S. House Democrat tightened the screws on U.S. Attorney General William Barr on Friday over the Mueller report, making new demands on him after an already tough week for the Justice Department chief.

Trump said it will be up to Barr to decide whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, author of the report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, will testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which wants to hear from him.

Earlier in the day, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler set a new deadline of Monday at 9 a.m. for Barr to comply with a subpoena seeking an unredacted version of the report before moving to hold Barr in contempt of Congress.

The two developments ensured that Barr, Mueller and his report will remain in sharp focus next week in Washington, where Congress and Trump are on a collision course over investigations being led by Nadler and other committee leaders.

At the White House, speaking to reporters, Trump was asked whether he would let Mueller testify to the Senate panel. The president responded, “That’s up to our attorney general.”



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 2019; Mueller Report

#3

Post by Addie » Sat May 04, 2019 5:46 pm

The Hill
Anticipation builds for Mueller testimony

Democrats’ anticipation for public testimony by special counsel Robert Mueller is building by the minute.

The demands for Mueller to testify before Congress reached a new level of urgency this week, after internal correspondence was revealed to show Mueller objected to Attorney General William Barr’s handling of his investigative findings in late March.

The revelations prompted Democrats to amplify their distrust of Barr over his disclosures about the Mueller report’s remarks on obstruction of justice while whetting the appetite for testimony from the special counsel that now appears likely in the House later this month.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) stressed that the testimony is vital, given Mueller’s evident frustrations with Barr's summary assessment of the 448-page report.

"I hope that he is desirous of testifying so that he can, from his perspective, talk to the American people, and to the representatives of the American people, on what his views are,” Hoyer told reporters this week. “Clearly, this letter indicates that they are not being represented by Attorney General Barr."

"This is a two-year effort, a little short of that, [and a] major investment,” Hoyer added. “And I think the American people are justified in hearing his view as to what he found and the interpretation he put on it."



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#4

Post by Addie » Sun May 05, 2019 10:34 am

Update: The Hill: Judiciary Dem clarifies saying Mueller testimony is set: 'Nothing has been agreed to yet' ...

"Just to clarify: we are aiming to bring Mueller in on the 15th, but nothing has been agreed to yet," Cicilline, who is a member of the committee, wrote later, after his remarks circulated. "That's the date the Committee has proposed, and we hope the Special Counsel will agree to it. Sorry for the confusion."


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


Axios
Mueller agrees to "tentative date" to testify before House Judiciary Committee

The House Judiciary Committee and a representative for special counsel Robert Mueller have agreed to a "tentative date" of May 15 for Mueller to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said on Fox News Sunday.

Why it matters: Calls for Mueller to testify were reinvigorated after Attorney General Bill Barr's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, with Democrats accusing Barr of lying about his knowledge of Mueller's dissatisfaction with the rollout of his report. The House Judiciary Committee has reportedly been negotiating directly with Mueller's team, though Barr has repeatedly said that the Justice Department has no problem with Mueller testifying.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has extended an offer for Mueller to testify if he has any objections to the way that Barr characterized their conversations about the report. If there are no objections, Graham said he will not bring Mueller in to testify.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#5

Post by Addie » Sun May 05, 2019 10:49 am

Bloomberg - Lorin L. Reisner
INSIGHT: ‘Mueller Doctrine’ Prevented Finding That Trump Committed Crimes ...

According to what can be termed the “Mueller Doctrine,” regardless of the evidence, a special counsel is prohibited from concluding that a sitting president committed a crime. A corollary of the Mueller Doctrine, which reserves exclusively to Congress the authority to conclude that a sitting president committed a crime, reveals serious falsehoods in the letter sent by Attorney General William Barr to Congress on March 24.

Let me explain. In the Introduction to Volume II of the Mueller Report, which looked at “whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations,” the special counsel summarized the “considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation.”

Those considerations started with the legal conclusion reached by the Office of Legal Counsel of the DOJ in an October 2000 Memorandum Opinion that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would violate the constitutional separation of powers. That OLC memo concluded that “the Constitution requires a recognition of a presidential immunity from indictment and criminal prosecution while the President is in office.”

The special counsel took that principle a step further. In addition to prohibiting indictment and criminal prosecution, Mueller determined that he was prohibited from reaching an investigative conclusion that Trump committed a crime. As stated in the report: “we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”



User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2313
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#6

Post by fierceredpanda » Sun May 05, 2019 10:58 am

I very much look forward to Mueller explaining how his notion that it is impermissible to even utter that POTUS has broken the law is in any way distinguishable from the notion that the king can do no wrong, particularly in the context of a Congress where no sane person believes that 67 senators will agree to remove POTUS from office. It seems as though Mueller has adopted the unitary executive view that the President is a de facto term-limited monarch who can do entirely as he or she pleases for the duration of their time in office.


"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10534
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#7

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sun May 05, 2019 3:48 pm

Didn't Mueller say the reason he wouldn't accuse the president of committing a crime is that because of the rule against indicting him, he would not have the right to defend himself?

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. If Mueller's report said straight out that trump had committed a crime, but there was no way to indict him for it, it doesn't give him any way to legally disprove the accusation.



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10477
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#8

Post by Orlylicious » Sun May 05, 2019 4:04 pm

It seems only because Donald the USURPER* (HRC won the popular vote and the Russians threw 70K votes in 3 states that Donald's camp told them to target) is pResident* he hasn't been indicted already, for example the unindicted co-conspirator charges from SDNY in the Michael Cohen case. There's been talk about how long the Limitations statutes are so they can charge him after leaving office.

Posted elsewhere but of course now Donald doesn't want Mueller to testify.

Donald Mueller.JPG



* A little homage to birfers :)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Photo: Merry Christmas from the titular Mama June. Santa (aka Sugar Bear) and her lovely family!
Hey! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2313
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#9

Post by fierceredpanda » Sun May 05, 2019 4:32 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 3:48 pm
Didn't Mueller say the reason he wouldn't accuse the president of committing a crime is that because of the rule against indicting him, he would not have the right to defend himself?

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. If Mueller's report said straight out that trump had committed a crime, but there was no way to indict him for it, it doesn't give him any way to legally disprove the accusation.
Sure there is. Resign the office and go to trial the way everyone else who maintains their innocence does. Or wait until your term is up and go to trial. Better that than the alternative of essentially holding the President to be above the law.


"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#10

Post by Dan1100 » Sun May 05, 2019 4:49 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 4:32 pm
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 3:48 pm
Didn't Mueller say the reason he wouldn't accuse the president of committing a crime is that because of the rule against indicting him, he would not have the right to defend himself?

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. If Mueller's report said straight out that trump had committed a crime, but there was no way to indict him for it, it doesn't give him any way to legally disprove the accusation.
Sure there is. Resign the office and go to trial the way everyone else who maintains their innocence does. Or wait until your term is up and go to trial. Better that than the alternative of essentially holding the President to be above the law.
Baseless speculation, but another thought, is that maybe Mueller knew that if he was going to say that Trump was guilty of a crime Rosenchicken would fire him and stop the investigation. But Mueller wasn't about to say that Trump wasn't guilty of a crime, like Rosenchicken wanted him to, so instead he lays out the evidence of obvious crimes and then ducks the issue by saying the law doesn't let him make a criminal accusation.


"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10534
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#11

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sun May 05, 2019 9:00 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 4:32 pm
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 3:48 pm
Didn't Mueller say the reason he wouldn't accuse the president of committing a crime is that because of the rule against indicting him, he would not have the right to defend himself?

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. If Mueller's report said straight out that trump had committed a crime, but there was no way to indict him for it, it doesn't give him any way to legally disprove the accusation.
Sure there is. Resign the office and go to trial the way everyone else who maintains their innocence does. Or wait until your term is up and go to trial. Better that than the alternative of essentially holding the President to be above the law.
If he can't be indicted, how can he go to trial?

And thinking this through for more realistic scenarios, can lawyers/prosecutors publically accuse someone of a crime if the statute of limitations has passed? If the person has died?



User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#12

Post by Dan1100 » Sun May 05, 2019 9:20 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 9:00 pm
fierceredpanda wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 4:32 pm
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 3:48 pm
Didn't Mueller say the reason he wouldn't accuse the president of committing a crime is that because of the rule against indicting him, he would not have the right to defend himself?

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. If Mueller's report said straight out that trump had committed a crime, but there was no way to indict him for it, it doesn't give him any way to legally disprove the accusation.
Sure there is. Resign the office and go to trial the way everyone else who maintains their innocence does. Or wait until your term is up and go to trial. Better that than the alternative of essentially holding the President to be above the law.
If he can't be indicted, how can he go to trial?

And thinking this through for more realistic scenarios, can lawyers/prosecutors publically accuse someone of a crime if the statute of limitations has passed? If the person has died?
You'd have to think that if the president can't be indicted while in office, that would toll (i.e. pause) the Statute of Limitations. Which could end up where Trump gets out of office, gets charged, and makes a Motion to Dismiss saying that the Statute has run and it wasn't tolled because the President can be indicted after all.


"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#13

Post by Addie » Mon May 06, 2019 2:25 pm

WaPo
Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#14

Post by Addie » Mon May 06, 2019 8:04 pm

The Hill
Trump move raises pressure on Barr ...

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are angling to bring Mueller in to testify on May 15 and are said to be negotiating directly with the special counsel.

Mueller is still employed at the Justice Department, meaning Barr would need to sign off on his testimony and could in theory block him from appearing. Mueller is also expected to leave the Justice Department soon, which could leave the administration with little control over his actions as a private citizen.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, told The Hill on Monday that Mueller “will be concluding his service within the coming days.” Carr offered no information regarding negotiations surrounding the special counsel’s potential testimony.

“They could instruct him not to appear voluntarily, but then Congress would just subpoena him, and I don’t think there is any basis for fighting the subpoena,” said Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor. “If they tell him not to go and he wants to go, he can quit and then go.”
Adding:
Talking Points Memo: Report: Barr Still Thinks Mueller Should Testify, Despite Trump’s Opposition



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#15

Post by Addie » Sun May 12, 2019 10:53 am

This headline sounds more definite than the article does, at this moment.

ABC News
Robert Mueller 'is going to testify': Rep. Adam Schiff

As House Democrats weigh imposing fines on Trump administration figures to try to force officials to obey subpoenas, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., argued for having special prosecutor Robert Mueller testify before Congress.

"The American people have a right to hear what the man who did the investigation has to say and we now know we certainly can't rely on the attorney general who misrepresented his conclusions," Schiff said on "This Week" Sunday. "So he is going to testify." ...

This is a developing news story. Please check back for updates.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 15 2019; Mueller Report

#16

Post by Addie » Wed May 15, 2019 11:32 am

Morning Consult
It’s Still Mueller Time, Voters Say: Most Want Special Counsel to Testify

But Republicans are split about whether he should appear before House panel


House Democrats have public opinion on their side as they seek special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony about his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and allegations that President Donald Trump obstructed justice.

A new Morning Consult/Politico poll, conducted May 10-12, found 56 percent of voters said Mueller should testify before Congress about his report, which totals more than 400 pages, while about a fifth said he should not. ...

Rank-and-file Republicans were almost evenly split on the question: Thirty-seven percent said Mueller should testify, and 36 percent said he should not. By contrast, majorities of Democrats (79 percent) and independents (51 percent) said the special counsel should appear.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has said he wants Mueller to testify by the end of May, and is among the Democrats who criticized Barr’s handling of the report’s release. His committee voted last week to hold the nation’s top law enforcement officer in contempt of Congress for not providing an unredacted version of the special counsel’s report.

A 38 percent plurality of voters disapprove of the way Barr has handled the release of information from Mueller’s report, though 32 percent said they were unsure or had no opinion and 31 percent approve. Democrats have the strongest views about Barr’s handling of the report, with 61 percent saying they disapprove, compared with 54 of Republicans who backed it.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 2019; Mueller Report

#17

Post by Addie » Thu May 16, 2019 8:40 pm

Cross-posting

Associated Press
The Latest: Judge Orders Parts of Mueller Report Unredacted

WASHINGTON — The Latest on former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn (all times local):

6:55 p.m.

A federal judge has ordered portions of special counsel Robert Mueller's report to be unredacted and made public in the criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the limited order Thursday. Portions of the report relating to Flynn are redacted and would be made public under the order.

It is the first time a federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to make public portions of the report the agency had kept secret.

Mueller officially concluded his investigation in March. Attorney General William Barr released a redacted version of Mueller's report in April.

Flynn is awaiting sentence after admitting to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 2019; Mueller Report

#18

Post by Addie » Fri May 17, 2019 10:12 am

Wall Street Journal
Mueller Testimony to Congress Stalled by Executive-Privilege Claim

Legal questions could limit special counsel from commenting on matters beyond redacted version of his report


Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appearance before a House panel has been stalled partly due to discussions on whether the White House’s assertion of executive privilege would limit his testimony, according to people familiar with the matter.

The House Judiciary Committee and Mr. Mueller’s team have been in negotiations for days about the contours of the special counsel’s eagerly-awaited testimony about his 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and episodes in which President Trump allegedly sought to influence the investigation.

Attorney General William Barr released the Mueller report publicly last month with redactions for grand jury and other sensitive material. The House committee then subpoenaed the unredacted version of the report plus the underlying evidence. Last week, the White House asserted executive privilege over the subpoenaed materials.

Legal questions on how Mr. Trump’s assertion of executive privilege would affect Mr. Mueller’s testimony are central to the continuing negotiations, said the people familiar with the matter. The privilege claim could prevent him from discussing details involving Mr. Trump and his advisers beyond what is in the redacted report, the people added. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel is weighing the questions and is expected to provide guidance, officials said.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 2019; Mueller Report

#19

Post by Addie » Sat May 18, 2019 3:06 pm

New York Daily News
Fox News surprising poll results: Mueller is more trusted than Trump and Barr ...

“On the Russia investigation, who do you trust more to tell the truth?” one of the questions asked. Respondents were given a choice between two key players in the investigation:

Between Trump and Mueller, 45% said they trusted the special counsel, 27% said the president, 6% said both, 16% said neither, and 6% didn’t know.

Between Mueller and Barr, 40% said they trusted the special counsel, 22% said the attorney general, 8% said both, 16% said neither, and 14% didn’t know.

Between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration, 44% said they trusted the Democrats, 33%, said the White House, 3% said both, 15% said neither, and 5% didn’t know.

When respondents were asked about how Barr handled the Mueller report, the attorney general didn’t fare so well: 44% approved, while 35% disapproved. And by an even larger margin, they were weary of Barr’s true intentions. When asked to describe Barr’s behavior, 45% said that he was “covering up for the president,” and 33% feel he is being “transparent.” (23% of respondents refused to answer or weren’t sure.)

Another interesting takeaway that goes against Trump’s they-are-out-to-get-me defense (“no politician in history... has been treated worse or more unfairly”): 49% said that Democrats in Congress are seeking the truth for the American people, against 41% who felt they are attacking the president unfairly.



User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10534
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 2019; Mueller Report

#20

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sat May 18, 2019 5:28 pm

Addie wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 3:06 pm
New York Daily News
Fox News surprising poll results: Mueller is more trusted than Trump and Barr ...

“On the Russia investigation, who do you trust more to tell the truth?” one of the questions asked. Respondents were given a choice between two key players in the investigation:

Between Trump and Mueller, 45% said they trusted the special counsel, 27% said the president, 6% said both, 16% said neither, and 6% didn’t know.

Between Mueller and Barr, 40% said they trusted the special counsel, 22% said the attorney general, 8% said both, 16% said neither, and 14% didn’t know.

Between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration, 44% said they trusted the Democrats, 33%, said the White House, 3% said both, 15% said neither, and 5% didn’t know.

When respondents were asked about how Barr handled the Mueller report, the attorney general didn’t fare so well: 44% approved, while 35% disapproved. And by an even larger margin, they were weary of Barr’s true intentions. When asked to describe Barr’s behavior, 45% said that he was “covering up for the president,” and 33% feel he is being “transparent.” (23% of respondents refused to answer or weren’t sure.)

Another interesting takeaway that goes against Trump’s they-are-out-to-get-me defense (“no politician in history... has been treated worse or more unfairly”): 49% said that Democrats in Congress are seeking the truth for the American people, against 41% who felt they are attacking the president unfairly.
Arrrgggg.....surely they meant "leery?"



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 2019; Mueller Report

#21

Post by Addie » Sat May 18, 2019 5:45 pm

Or "wary."
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 5:28 pm

Arrrgggg.....surely they meant "leery?"



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - June 2019; Mueller Report

#22

Post by Addie » Sat May 18, 2019 6:34 pm

Talking Points Memo
Nadler: ‘I Would Assume’ Mueller Testimony Pushed Back Until June ...

According to Politico, Nadler and a senior Democratic committee aide said Friday night that no Mueller hearing is planned for the next week.

“I would assume not,” Nadler said when asked whether Mueller would publicly testify before the upcoming Memorial Day recess that begins next Friday. ...

“Mueller could always call us and say, ‘The heck with it, I want to come in Wednesday,’ and we would make time,” the Judiciary staffer said. “But at the moment, no Mueller planned for next week.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday night that the White House’s decision to assert executive privilege over special counsel Robert Mueller’s report have stalled negotiations about Mueller’s possible testimony. The assertion blocked the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas demanding the underlying evidence and the unredacted version of the Mueller report.

Attorney General William Barr insisted Thursday morning to the WSJ that it was “up to Bob” whether he wants to testify.



User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10534
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - May 2019; Mueller Report

#23

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sat May 18, 2019 7:11 pm

Addie wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 5:45 pm
Or "wary."
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 5:28 pm

Arrrgggg.....surely they meant "leery?"
Well, I, for one, am weary of all the lies and bullshit coming from that may have been the right word after all.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - June 2019; Mueller Report

#24

Post by Addie » Tue May 21, 2019 11:58 am

Politico Mag - Darren Samuelsohn: I Watched 20 Hours of Robert Mueller Testifying. Here’s What Congress Would Be In For.

The former FBI head hasn’t talked in public for two years—but when he did, he knew his Russia threats and didn’t suffer fools gladly.
CNN: Special counsel's team hesitant about Mueller testifying publicly, part of hold up securing testimony
The Hill: What the Mueller report tells us about Putin, Russia and Trump's election



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 36210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: House Judiciary: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Public Hearing - June 2019; Mueller Report

#25

Post by Addie » Wed May 22, 2019 11:57 am

The Hill
Most Americans want to see Mueller, McGahn testify: poll

Majorities of American adults say that both special counsel Robert Mueller and former White House counsel Don McGahn should testify before Congress about the investigation into President Trump's campaign and Russia, according to a new poll.

A Monmouth University survey released Wednesday found that 73 percent of U.S. adults think that Mueller should testify about his findings amid accusations from Democrats that Attorney General William Barr misrepresented Mueller's findings in his summary of the investigation.

Of those surveyed, 58 percent said Mueller should testify publicly, while another 14 percent said that the special counsel should give private, classified testimony to lawmakers.

McGahn, whose role as White House counsel has been scrutinized over Mueller's report of orders Trump reportedly gave to McGahn directing Mueller's firing, which McGahn reportedly refused while threatening to resign. ...

Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed said that McGahn should testify, including 10 percent who said he should do so only in a closed setting, according to the poll.

Still, the poll showed conflicting results over what Congress' direction should be in the wake of the investigation: 52 percent of Americans said that Congress should move on to other matters, a slight drop from last month's poll when 54 percent said Congress should drop its investigations.



Post Reply

Return to “Congress”