Mueller to Testify Before Congress - July 17th

[fskimospy]

Which would be an evasion of a direct question I think they're going to put to him. Like I said, he's going to have to find a way to avoid answering the question. And he may well do just that.

But I'm not 100% sure. IMO Mueller doesn't actually mind testifying. I think he wanted to testify under subpoena instead of voluntarily because he didn't like the perception of him voluntarily testifying about Trump's misdeeds at the request of committee democrats. Which is to say, his actual testimony could turn out to be more helpful than one might assume. We'll see.

I would be surprised but I hope you're right. Maybe events since his report have shown him that it was a mistake not to issue that judgment.

 

[woolfe9998]

I would be surprised but I hope you're right. Maybe events since his report have shown him that it was a mistake not to issue that judgment.

I put the odds of him not answering the question directly at about 2:1, meaning I give it a 1 in 3 chance he will actually answer the question. Then again, that was 538's assessment of Trump's chance to win in 2016 so you never know. If he does answer, it's going to be a helluva soundbite for the public.

The thing is Mueller is a by-the-book rule of law kind of guy. Perhaps in the extreme. It might seem that would make him want to stay strictly within the four corners of the report but given that he's so rule of law, you have to wonder what he thinks of Trump now after almost 2 years of investigating him. And the fact that the general public just doesn't get it based on the Tolstoy novel that he already supplied, which was flagrantly misrepresented by Trump's AG. On some level, he may want to answer the question.

 

[HomerJS]

Might not matter anyway because apparently Mueller does not know the details of his own report:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-don-153319513.html

Wow! Now all of a sudden Mueller is the dummy who doesn't read?? Damn that takes chutzpah.

 

[fskimospy]

I put the odds of him not answering the question directly at about 2:1, meaning I give it a 1 in 3 chance he will actually answer the question. Then again, that was 538's assessment of Trump's chance to win in 2016 so you never know. If he does answer, it's going to be a helluva soundbite for the public.

The thing is Mueller is a by-the-book rule of law kind of guy. Perhaps in the extreme. It might seem that would make him want to stay strictly within the four corners of the report but given that he's so rule of law, you have to wonder what he thinks of Trump now after almost 2 years of investigating him. And the fact that the general public just doesn't get it based on the Tolstoy novel that he already supplied, which was flagrantly misrepresented by Trump's AG. On some level, he may want to answer the question.

This is the source of my hope, that he sees the rule of law as more threatened by a president who is able to commit crimes with impunity than he does the president not being able to directly rebut the charges in court. I would also hope that the fact that the only reason the president is unable to rebut the charges in court is because of an opinion the president's own lawyers wrote that said he couldn't be indicted. ie: the reason it would be unfair to state he would have indicted him is entirely due to the president's own actions, actions he could reverse at any time if he wanted to.

 

[UNCjigga]

Might not matter anyway because apparently Mueller does not know the details of his own report:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-don-153319513.html

What he’s trying to say is...perhaps we should have Barr testify instead? Maybe? Just a thought??

 

[dank69]

I put the odds of him not answering the question directly at about 2:1, meaning I give it a 1 in 3 chance he will actually answer the question. Then again, that was 538's assessment of Trump's chance to win in 2016 so you never know. If he does answer, it's going to be a helluva soundbite for the public.

The thing is Mueller is a by-the-book rule of law kind of guy. Perhaps in the extreme. It might seem that would make him want to stay strictly within the four corners of the report but given that he's so rule of law, you have to wonder what he thinks of Trump now after almost 2 years of investigating him. And the fact that the general public just doesn't get it based on the Tolstoy novel that he already supplied, which was flagrantly misrepresented by Trump's AG. On some level, he may want to answer the question.

I put the odds at 1000:1 given the fact that he blew sunshine up Barr's ass during his public statement. It would be a million to one if I didn't think there was an outside chance he gave Barr that rusty trombone simply to get Barr to trust him.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I understand why you'd want that asked, but I truly do think the question has very low relevance.

I think it is important because we are not asking if Trump should be found guilty we are asking if, in his professional opinion as an experienced prosecutor, we should hold the trial. It is the job of a prosecutor to look at the evidence and make a decision to move forward to indictment or not. That is, in the end, what Mueller was tasked by Congress to do, and what he dodged out of doing. He basically did a bunch of investigation, then paraphrased the evidence in a report threw his hands in the air and said 'too hard, you decide!'

It is like we took our car to a mechanic for an estimate and he looked at the car and said 'the car does indeed have engine problems (and his boss says we know what they are, but you can't see our diagnosis without deciding if you want it fixed or not), you can figure out for yourself how much that will cost to fix.' We have questions.

 

[dainthomas]

I presume you're talking about this story or something close to it. Either way it shows you have no understanding of the difference between "indict" and "convict."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

Remember back when presidents who could reasonably be indicted for just ONE felony would be facing a major scandal? Now it just means it's a day that ends in 'y'. Ditto assault allegations.

 

[brandonbull]

Nice. Looking forward to the testimony.

I hope he gets asked about the DOJ guidelines on indicting a sitting President and what was communicated to Barr and Rosenstein.

 

[glenn1]

I think it is important because we are not asking if Trump should be found guilty we are asking if, in his professional opinion as an experienced prosecutor, we should hold the trial. It is the job of a prosecutor to look at the evidence and make a decision to move forward to indictment or not. That is, in the end, what Mueller was tasked by Congress to do, and what he dodged out of doing. He basically did a bunch of investigation, then paraphrased the evidence in a report threw his hands in the air and said 'too hard, you decide!'

It is like we took our car to a mechanic for an estimate and he looked at the car and said 'the car does indeed have engine problems (and his boss says we know what they are, but you can't see our diagnosis without deciding if you want it fixed or not), you can figure out for yourself how much that will cost to fix.' We have questions.

I'm of the mind that simply prosecuting a politician without clear and compelling evidence that leads you very, very sure you will actually win a conviction is counterproductive. We've seen numerous examples (and yes, from both parties so get your #bothsides out now) of politicians being indicted and still winning re-elections, sometimes multiple times. Indeed sometimes news of an investigation or indictment actually HELPS the politician in question, heck many think a leak of being under FBI investigation is what helped former Philadelphia mayor Street win re-election a while back.

Basically if you're going to go down the prosecution and/or impeachment route, you better make damn sure you can finish the job and actually get rid of him because otherwise Trump may only be strengthened by the ordeal. You need to stake the heart, cut the head, and burn the body to ashes. Merely having Mueller say "I think we have the evidence to indict" isn't enough.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I hope he gets asked about the DOJ guidelines on indicting a sitting President and what was communicated to Barr and Rosenstein.

I would like to see questions asked after Mueller is reminded that Barr says Mueller can say whether or not he believes Trump is a criminal. You have a great idea there.

 

[cytg111]

When Trump totally thinks Mueller testifying is a good thing for him.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1143867664047190017

Erh... THAT is the sound of someone.... loosing their god damn shit. Right off the bat I am thinking drugs.. but his old biosuit likely cant handle that.

 

[hal2kilo]

Erh... THAT is the sound of someone.... loosing their god damn shit. Right off the bat I am thinking drugs.. but his old biosuit likely cant handle that.

Mueller. AKA The Terminator.

 

[MovingTarget]

As much as I look forward to Mueller's long-overdue testimony, I feel as though I need to temper my expectations. That report would've been a bombshell for literally any other administration. Mueller won't save us from The Orange One. What the Democrats (and whatever principled Republicans are left these days...) need to do is to more forcefully back up their subpeonas. While Executive Privledge is a thing, it is being overused to a point where it is recognizable in name only. If this isn't countered more effectively with the utmost urgency, game over.

 

[zinfamous]

Might not matter anyway because apparently Mueller does not know the details of his own report:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-don-153319513.html

I am 100% certain that Mueller doesn't really know the details in the version of his report that FOX news people and Trump have said exist.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm of the mind that simply prosecuting a politician without clear and compelling evidence that leads you very, very sure you will actually win a conviction is counterproductive.

Well, yes that is what we are asking. That is the job of the prosecutor, to decide if there is clear and compelling evidence that would make it worth prosecuting, and that is what Mueller failed to tell us. He said he had evidence but gave is little indication if that evidence rises to the level of clear and compelling. Hell, I can find evidence that the world is flat, but that evidence is neither clear and compelling. Since the President is obstructing our ability to see that evidence we need to ask the person tasked with finding it if he thinks it is worth perusing. It sounds like he was insinuating it was, but to start impeachment of a President we need a lot more then insinuation.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I hope what I heard Joe Scarborough say comes true.
He said he’d say what are your thoughts about section 7 of the report....
Mueller will say I’ve wrote them down.
Joe would then ask, “that part sounds pretty important how about you read it for us?”
Mueller: “you want me to read section 7?”
Joe: “Yes, I want to to read it because nobody else is reading it. I NEED YOU TO READ IT FOR THEM!”

 

[glenn1]

Well, yes that is what we are asking. That is the job of the prosecutor, to decide if there is clear and compelling evidence that would make it worth prosecuting, and that is what Mueller failed to tell us. He said he had evidence but gave is little indication if that evidence rises to the level of clear and compelling. Hell, I can find evidence that the world is flat, but that evidence is neither clear and compelling. Since the President is obstructing our ability to see that evidence we need to ask the person tasked with finding it if he thinks it is worth perusing. It sounds like he was insinuating it was, but to start impeachment of a President we need a lot more then insinuation.

I hope you ask and hope you get an answer. My guess is that whatever answer he does give will be as inconclusive and caveated as the one in his report, maybe even using 95% of the same words. Not verbatim but not anything else that's useful.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I hope you ask and hope you get an answer. My guess is that whatever answer he does give will be as inconclusive and caveated as the one in his report, maybe even using 95% of the same words. Not verbatim but not anything else that's useful.

I agree with you there. I would not be surprised if he literally did nothing but read verbatim from the report and declined to answer any question that he could not answer that way as unethical for him to answer at all.

 

[cytg111]

As much as I look forward to Mueller's long-overdue testimony, I feel as though I need to temper my expectations. That report would've been a bombshell for literally any other administration. Mueller won't save us from The Orange One. What the Democrats (and whatever principled Republicans are left these days...) need to do is to more forcefully back up their subpeonas. While Executive Privledge is a thing, it is being overused to a point where it is recognizable in name only. If this isn't countered more effectively with the utmost urgency, game over.

Sure... but the more of this shit that goes on the record, the more fringe the GOP will become and in a hopefully post Trump era, these people will have comitted political suicide, full retard, the lot of them...

 

[DrDoug]

Donnie Two-Scoops' didn't disappoint in his reaction to the news of Mueller testifying next month. By calling Mueller a criminal today he's set the starting point for the horrible shit he's going to say about him. Today he called him a criminal so tomorrow he has to top that. Then the next day and the next and...

We get about three more weeks of this...lol! Keep the popcorn poppin'!

 

[K1052]

Just the run up to Mueller showing up on all the airwaves in front of congress is a sure recipe for Trump to go out of his goddamed gourd.

took less time than I thought...

 

[sportage]

The question is, where does Mueller's loyalties lie?
Democrats mistake from the get go was believing Mueller was neutral and decent patriotic all around American guy.
Is Mueller a loyal republican with the interest of his president and party in mind? Yes, he is.....
Otherwise, Mueller would have simply said Trump had conducted criminal activity. But Mueller did not say that.
Mueller made some idiotic statement that "if Trump had not broke the law, we'd would have said so".
You can take that two ways.
"if Trump was guilty of breaking some law, we'd would have said so"
And there lies the reasoning used by Barr, and still used by Donald Trump to this day.
Thanks Robert Mueller. Thanks for your loyalties to Donald Trump.
This is why people hate lawyers so much. A skilled lawyer can get a murder off with only a slap on the hand.
And Mueller can muddy the waters to the extent that a simple sentence can have two meanings. Or no meaning at all.
Pick which meaning you prefer. The one that best supports your agenda.

Lets face it. We are never going to get the truth from Robert Mueller nor from his report.
So just forget that.
And forget what Mueller may or may not say to the house committee because it wont matter.
His appearance will be as confusing as was his report.
No.... if people want to get to the truth it is now up to congress. The democrats in the house.
Democrats must adopt the same hard line as Mitch McConnell held against Obama and holds in support of Trump.
If subpoenas are ignored then use the laws that exist and toss the offenders into jail.
There are strict laws when it comes to ignoring subpoenas and avoiding subpoenas, so damn it house democrats USE EM.
Go after these justice obstructionist and LOCK EM UP!
If this were 2008 and Obama, Mitch McConnell would have already removed Obama from office.
Obama's political life would be over.

So, don't expect Robert Mueller to have any impact what so ever.
His appearance could further exonerate Donald Trump. And then what are house democrats to do?

PS. And the fat lady has yet to sing so don't be surprised if Trump's lawyers block Mueller from testifying hours before Mueller's appointment.

 

[Jhhnn]

took less time than I thought...


View attachment 7740

Meanwhile, Bolton & Pompeo are waltzing the very stable genius into a war with Iran...

 

[esquared]

Might not matter anyway because apparently Mueller does not know the details of his own report:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-don-153319513.html

How do these fauxnews mofos sleep at night knowing of the shit that comes out of their pieholes.
Really, Mueller doesn't know what's in his own report?
Effing reprobate morons.