Mueller Investigation

Keep Expectations Low for Mueller's July Congressional Testimony

The special counsel has said he wants his report on Russian meddling in the election to speak for itself.

|

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller has made it clear that he has said all he wants to about the results of his office's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Nevertheless, he will be appearing before a House committee hearing on July 17 to answer questions.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) sent Mueller a subpoena to get him to appear in a public hearing. They stated in a joint press release yesterday afternoon, "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."

There is very, very little likelihood that anything new will come out of this hearing, though it will certainly capture the nation's attention. Not only has Mueller's report been released (minus redactions), he went through the effort to publicly come forward in May and give a statement summarizing the report for those who didn't read it, to essentially beg Americans to read the report, and to say he'd prefer to let the report speak for itself and be allowed to ride off into the sunset.

That, unsurprisingly, is not to be. Expect a lot of grandstanding from politicians looking to score points for Team Blue or Team Red because, as things currently stand, the impeachment of President Trump seems to be off the table.

Some predictions:

  • Democratic candidates will be asked about the report and whether Trump should face impeachment in tonight's and tomorrow night's debates.
  • Republicans in the hearing will play up Mueller's finding that they determined no cooperation between anybody on Trump's campaign staff and Russian officials' attempts to mess with the election or their successful hacking of Democratic campaign officials. Mueller will attempt to remind lawmakers again that they found a lot of evidence of Russians trying to meddle and that they will certainly try to meddle in the 2020 election and maybe Congress should focus on that.
  • Democrats will try to trick Mueller to state that he believes that Trump did engage in obstruction of justice in his attempts to shut down the investigation. Mueller explained in his report that he did not make a recommendation one way or another about obstruction because he and his office accepted the argument that the president cannot be charged with crimes while in office. Because he doesn't believe the president could be charged, he said it would be inappropriate to make any recommendation, because there would be no mechanism to charge Trump and also no mechanism for Trump to defend himself from such charges. Mueller also said that if he believed Trump was innocent of any accusations of obstruction, he would say so. He did not, and he has pointed out that he did not. This has caused many people to conclude that Mueller would have likely recommended obstruction charges against Trump were Trump not the president. Democrats are going to try like heck to get him to say this. I predict he will not.
  • This issue will crowd out other policy debates (even our ever-growing immigration nightmare) all the way through the 2020 election. Though nothing seems likely to actually happen prior to the election, the investigation of Trump will be seen as a massive "get out the vote" tool for both sides.

Advertisement

NEXT: NCAA Doesn't Want California To Allow Student-Athletes To Be Paid

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mueller Again Glares Angrily

    1. Mueller’s Anus Groans Apathetically

      1. Witless, eunuch

        1. Can’t we all just get along? Takes all kinds, you know.

  2. The whole thing is ridiculous. The only reason they can even claim there was possible obstruction is from evidence that Trumps team actually handed over that they could have claimed executive privilege on.

    1. The Democrats and the deep state opened up a fraudulent investigation of Trump betting that he had to be guilty of something. They knew the Russia thing was bullshit. But they figured they would find something Trump had done and once they had done that everyone would forget why the investigation was started.

      I think since they are so crooked, they assume Trump must be the same. And it turned out he wasn’t. And they are still getting over the shock of that.

      Also, had Trump not won the election, the plan was to destroy his life and hopefully send him to prison. But hey that is not a threat to the Republic or anything. Reason assures me of this.

      1. You’re such a pickle-brained FOX News junkie moron.

        Take a vacation. At least reread your post and pretend someone else wrote it and see how fucking paranoid it sounds. Like mentally ill paranoid.

        1. “…and see how fucking paranoid it sounds. Like mentally ill paranoid.”

          Yeah, it’s not like the New Jerk State government conspired on special legislation to turn over Trump’s tax returns.

          1. How are you harmed by seeing Trump’s tax returns?

            1. So you admit you dont give a fuck about privacy. Yet I bet you’re pro abortion.

            2. How are we not harmed by bills of attainder? Laws directed at particular people are fundamentally improper.

            3. Tony
              June.26.2019 at 4:31 pm
              “How are you harmed by seeing Trump’s tax returns?”

              I’m sure shitbag here hands over whatever someone calls ‘his earnings’ to the IRS and it thankful when they return some many moons later.
              It’s not ME seeing his returns, it’s witless shitbags like you, who will then whine that ‘he didn’t pay his fair share!!!’

        2. “”You’re such a pickle-brained FOX News junkie moron.””

          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

          1. What about people who talk in cliches?

            1. They go into banking.

            2. Tony
              June.26.2019 at 4:31 pm
              “What about people who talk in cliches?”

              You post here.

        3. Nice of you to openly admit you have absolutely nothing of use to say about this topic Tony.

        4. “You’re such a pickle-brained FOX News junkie moron.”

          Projection is a bitch, shitbag.

  3. I thought the Valerie Plame scandel was one of the more retarded non stories we would ever see. The russian collusion story tops it by a level of magnitude that is incalculable by a mere mortal.

    1. It’s definitely convenient to have foreign actors you can scapegoat for whatever. China and Russia have carried a lot of water lately.

    2. Benghazi, however, the near end of the republic, am I right?

      1. Was Iran-Contra a scandal? because that’s what they were doing in Benghazi. Also at least with Benghazi people died, hate to say it but that matters to a degree as far as fuckups go. And I was never one to say it was the end of the republic.

        1. Benghazi was a terrorist attack. The “scandal” was that government officials said an inflammatory video helped spark it, which turned out to be true. That’s the extent of that giant scandal.

          Iran-Contra was illegal arms sales to fucking Iran to fund terrorists in South America that required presidential pardons to deal with.

          You people are morons. You need help.

          1. “The “scandal” was that government officials said an inflammatory video helped spark it, which turned out to be true. ”

            Good God, you are utterly shameless. I mean that in all sincerity. As soon as the day after, she was telling the Egyptian Prime Minister, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.”

            It has been known for literally years that video had nothing to do with the attack. It was public knowledge within weeks.

            1. Thank you, Mr. Baltimore. I was going to say the same thing.

            2. That’s a lie, but even if it wasn’t, why is it a scandal anyway? So the government got the cause wrong? OMG it’s the end of the fucking world. (But they didn’t. Your facts are not up to date and haven’t been for years.)

              1. Move them goalposts, you lying sack of shit!

                1. Still hilariously unable to apply a logic 101 vocab word correctly, I see.

                  Let’s hear your thoughts on foreign policy.

                  1. Tony
                    June.26.2019 at 4:32 pm
                    “Still hilariously unable to apply a logic 101 vocab word correctly, I see.”
                    Shitbags is still moving the goal posts and pathetically changing the subject, I see.

                    “Let’s hear your thoughts on foreign policy.”
                    Try not to lie as transparently as Obo and the hag did.

              2. I usually don’t sink to this sort of language, but “lying sack of shit” does kind of sum it up.

              3. It was a scandal because HiLIARy and 0blama refused to provide adequate security for the Americans stationed there, despite pleas for it, because they didn’t want the optic of not trusting the government they had installed, through their overthrow of Kaddafi. AND that they refused to send aid to the Americans under attack by a bunch of terrorist, that the Lybian government let have free reign, resulting in four deaths, including our ambassador – supposedly the highest representative of the US government in foreign lands.
                They did it all, so that they didn’t have to admit that they had not eliminated Al-Qaeda, as they had been touting, close to the election.
                IOW for political purposes above the interests of the nation.

          2. what was a CIA field office and an ambassador doing in a civil wartorn rudderless state if not to facilitate gun buying and selling. The Scandal wasn’t just that Susan Rice lied or didn’t lie(she did) about what was going on the Scandal also had to do with us running operations there in the first place and an ambassador dieing over it.

          3. Tony
            June.26.2019 at 12:11 pm
            “Benghazi was a terrorist attack. The “scandal” was that government officials said an inflammatory video helped spark it, which turned out to be true.”

            Bullshit:
            “Video: Clinton and Benghazi”
            […]
            “As we have written, the Obama administration was quick to blame an online anti-Muslim video, which did trigger protests in Egypt and elsewhere, and slow to acknowledge that the heavily armed assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. “Hillary Clinton contributed to that false impression even though the State Department and Hillary Clinton seemed to know from the beginning that this was a terrorist attack,” Tapper says.”
            https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/video-clinton-and-benghazi/

            Everyone here knows you lie constantly.

            1. What I find interesting is the people that think an investigation into the deaths of 4 US personnel including an ambassador was a useless waste of time and money, but was demanding the US investigate the murder of a single foreigner at a foreign embassy.

              1. The useless part was how their deaths were exploited in a failed attempt to implicate Hillary Clinton for nakedly cynical partisan reasons.

                Republicans are evil. Just entertain the possibility. See how the universe seems to make sense when you do.

                1. When people talk about the uselessness, they were referring to the investigation as a whole. They say the time and money spent was a waste.

                2. “Tony
                  June.26.2019 at 4:33 pm
                  “The useless part was how their deaths were exploited in a failed attempt to implicate Hillary Clinton for nakedly cynical partisan reasons.”
                  Are those goalposts heavy, shitbag?

                  “Republicans are evil. Just entertain the possibility. See how the universe seems to make sense when you do.”
                  The hag is a D; you seem confused.

                  1. No one is more evil that the party of lies, doing the bidding of the father of lies – AKA the demoncraps.

      2. No, but it was 4 lives lost to cover some shady bullshit. And your thinking what difference does it make now anyhow, amirite?

        1. Shady bullshit, meaning what specifically?

          1. The shady bullshit that the CIA is always involved with. Specifically? well that’s classified. But the CIA is big in arms smuggling to factions it can use to its advantage.

          2. Gun running to preferred parties for information/nation building purposes that went awry like it always does. CIA is full of gullible chucklefucks who glow in the dark. The rest of the world laughs as we feed the likes of ISIS high quality weapons because they wear a different color headband and say what we want to hear.

            1. What’s funny is Tony already gave an example when he pointed to the Iran Contra affair.

              1. But that was OK because a Republican did it, right?

                Libertarians, where are thee?

                1. No, it was not OK. Happy?

                2. No, it wasn’t ok.

    3. Why was Trump’s campaign manager working for a Russian oligarch and passing campaign data to a Russian spy?

      1. and when did that happen exactly?

      2. Political operatives are shady, sketchy people. Why is this a surprise?

      3. Why was hillary working with the ukraine? Why did she give us technology to russia in skolkovo deal? Why did obama ask to wait until after the election?

      4. OG
        June.26.2019 at 2:02 pm
        “Why was Trump’s campaign manager working for a Russian oligarch and passing campaign data to a Russian spy?”

        You seem quite skilled at posting lies and bullshit without any sort of evidence.
        Would that be a result of your condition as a fucking lefty ignoramus?

  4. Robert Mueller’s investigation proved beyond all doubt that #MaddowWasRight about #TrumpRussia.

    His testimony will be a tipping point. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.

    #ItsMuellerTime
    #Resist
    #Impeach

    1. #ProgressUberAlles
      #TeamDeepState
      #FuckVoters

  5. The Left is truly bat-shit crazy. I welcome all these clown-show efforts. They only increase the chances of Trump’s re-election, and damage the D’s House and Senate aspirations.

  6. I heard Mueller is going to impeach Trump on the spot.

    1. And then he’s gonna make Trump poop his pants on TV!

      1. I think it’s more likely that Mueller will poop his pants. I foresee his testimony wandering off into old Columbo episodes and trying to remember the names of various 1950s pin-up girls.

        But all the same, I’ll try to keep my expectations low.

        1. Alright. That made me laugh out loud.

      2. Doesn’t everyone in their 70s poop their pants once in a while? This is the reality I am preparing for.

  7. Hey, I have really high expectations!
    A number of Ds are going to hyperventilate themselves into quivering piles of flesh!
    And they will finally prove to all that Trump is guilty of being Trump!
    I just hope not to be stuck in some waiting room with CNN providing wire-to-wire coverage…

    1. In all seriousness, what would high expectations actually consist of? Shackford is rather non specific. If this whole thing is a non story for the sake of political theater, why would anyone continue to lend it credence by acknowledging it? If Shackford laments that this will detract from real policy discussion, aren’t these sorts of commentaries counter productive?

      1. Presumably “high expectations” would be Mueller producing some kind of new evidence that would implicate the President in wrong doing. The fact that Shackford calls such expectations “high” and seems to lament their being unlikely provides a pretty good clue of where his political sympathies lie.

        1. High expectations are Mueller telling Congress I gave you a road map to impeachment, do your job already.

        2. This is an “opportunity” for Mueller to say anything he wasn’t originally willing to put into a formal report.

          This is going to be him speaking, not as the special counsel, but as the guy who did the job as special counsel. So expect a lot of personal characterizations, vaguely couched suspicions, and non specific innuendo.

      2. Depends on what side you are on. High expectations for the Dems would be some new damaging information or opinions from Muller. For the Reps, it would be some admission that there is really nothing there.

        1. The only thing Ds can hope for are opinions.
          As for the Rs, the entire report already says there’s nothing there – so far as what Mueller and his hit team were willing to look for, at least.
          There are many, many unanswered questions and suspicious details Mueller could reveal. Unfortunately for Reason, none of those potential revelations would look good for the Ds and the deep state.

        2. “For the Reps, it would be some admission that there is really nothing there.”

          There will be no admission that they’ve wasted millions of dollars and several years.
          He is Trump; of that he’s guilty, and as far as those afflicted with TDS, that’s all that matters.

    2. A number of Ds are going to hyperventilate themselves into quivering piles of flesh!

      How will anyone notice?

  8. fun to watch people who *have* expectations get smacked in the face over and over.

    1. Mueller is going to indict Trump any day now.

      1. exactly what i’m saying.

        1. The walls are closing in! It’s the beginning of the end!

          1. The one thing the dems don’t want to talk about, although Pelosi is aware, is the outcome of the previous time a president was impeached for obstruction. A dem controlled Senate didn’t think it was worth removal.

            1. Republicans had a 55-45 Senate majority.

              1. I stand corrected.

                No democrat voted guilty though.

  9. John didn’t read the Mueller report. John doesn’t read things. He’s probably barely capable of eating unaided.

    The Mueller report said Russia interfered with the election (with dozens of indictments to go along with it), and that Trump welcomed their interference and obstructed justice to try to cover it up, but couldn’t be prosecuted because he’s president, according to some memo.

    Glad to clear it up. Just pretend the president has a (D) after his name and you idiots might see some inkling of the vast corruption and criminality going on.

    1. There is no context at all, all countries interfere with elections. China Britain and Israel also “interfered” with our election why the selective outrage with them? Interference is literally described by Mueller as writing propaganda.

      1. And it seems to me that propaganda, from whatever source, is protected by the first amendment. So, while it may be unseemly for a candidate to welcome “interference” from a foreign country (whatever that means), I still don’t see much actual wrongdoing. Investigate any political campaign enough and I’m sure you will find some people to indict.

        1. And mueller couldnt indict on anything related to the actual election. Why he settled on show indictments that once again are novel readings of the law. Knowing it would never be tried in court.

      2. Obama actively tried interfering in israeli elections even going as far as to monitor Congress. Odd how quickly assholes like tony forget that.

        1. Obama actively tried interfering in US elections, and he used damn near the full force of The State to do it

    2. Tony, this is Reason and not The Hill. Remember that when peddling your propaganda.

    3. Thanks for the summary.

      However, when you write “… Russia interfered with the election …” it should probably be “Russia hacked the election.” That wording packs a bigger punch.

      #TrumpRussia
      #ItsMuellerTime

    4. “…Glad to clear it up….”

      “lie about it” is not spelled “clear it up”.

    5. Well it’s obvious you didnt read it Tony.

      Care to mention how the report kodified material at least. twice to change the tenor or narrative of the material?

      Care to discuss how the majority of the obstruction claims require novel interpretations of the statute that are so broad that declaring your innocence can be covered?

      Care to discuss how it completely ignored the steele documents which was paid for Russian intelligence and easily covered on the first SP mandate?

  10. “he’d prefer to let the report speak for itself and be allowed to ride off into the sunset.”

    Another way to put that, is that he doesn’t want to be questioned about anything he didn’t volunteer to say. Sorry, Mueller, doesn’t work that way. You’re going to have to answer questions you didn’t want to answer. Like, “When did you know that there hadn’t been any collusion, and why didn’t you announce it when you first figured it out?”

    1. “he’d prefer to let the report speak for itself and be allowed to ride off into the sunset.”

      Or, more accurately:
      he’d prefer to hide behind the fact that there’s a report and be allowed to slink off into the shadows (millions of dollars richer)

      Also, what Brett said

      1. Mueller knows the report doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

        Btw… how much did the usual publishers just pay Weismann?

    2. “”“When did you know that there hadn’t been any collusion”‘

      That information is in my report, I refer you to that.

      “”why didn’t you announce it when you first figured it out?””‘

      My mandate was to issue a report. It was not to give a play by play to the media or Congress as the report was coming together.

      Anything about the report he can refer to the report as his answer.
      Anything outside of the report he can answer by claiming it’s outside of the scope and it’s not proper for him to comment.

      What are the dems going to do if they don’t like his non-answers. Hold him in contempt?

      1. Sort of. What you describe is both going to be his shield – from answering any specific questions he does not like. But also a sword, that will allow him to offer opinions / personal speculations that will largely avoid making any factual claims while seeking to slay the white whale damn Trump.

  11. “Keep Expectations Low for Mueller’s July Congressional Testimony”

    When you hope the truth will come out, whatever it is, is that keeping expectations low or high? When you think that’s pretty much already happened, which expectations are those?

    Hoping that Mueller will excoriate the president and rejuvenate the push for impeachment–regardless of the truth–is that high expectations or low expectations? Seems pretty asinine either way.

    1. My expectations of finding Seth Rich’s killer and bringing her to justice are sufficiently dashed.

      1. How dare you mention that which has been memory holed!

    2. Shack’s a west coastie, no? Maybe we should cut him a little slack. It’s awful hard to recognize your own preconceptions when you never have the ability to test them against others who are not like minded.

  12. “Keep Expectations Low for Mueller’s July Congressional Testimony”

    This may not exactly be “bottom story of the day,” but it seems that way to me. Haven’t they stopped worrying that bone yet?

  13. The Dems have screwed the pooch on this one. Mueller can add nothing factually to his report, he’s already stated as much that the report speaks for itself.

    This opens him up to massive questioning of his procedures, biases, staffing, etc.

    1. P.S.
      Not to mention all the ripe areas he did not investigate, which is more damning than what he did investigate

      1. Yep.

  14. If Mueller knew there was no collusion a year before the report was written, then why did the investigation drag on for another year?

    I agree with Dershowitz, there should never again be a special counsel.

    The question of whether the Russians interfered with the election is ridiculous. Of course they did. When have they not stuck their corrupt/commie noses into US elections? They will do it again in 2020. Given the Bernie leanings of the Democrat party, the Russians will be warmly embraced just as they were during 2016.

    1. Define interfered?

      I don’t think creating fake meme on social media is interference. You could make an argument about influence. But as pointed out, counties try to influence other countries elections all the time. Which is why I think people want to use the word interfered.

      1. Stealing and then releasing emails from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign manager on the day the Access Hollywood tape was released. The DNC emails were released to inflame tensions with Bernie supporters which played a huge role in Trump’s campaign strategy. The Russians were also laser focused on depressing African American turnout another perennial goal of the Republicans.

        1. To the extent those are true they were indeed efforts to influence the election.

          Same as Hillary giving money to her lawyers to pay a British spy to buy allegations from Russian agents in order to us it against Trump.

          1. It’s worth pointing out that it was the content of the emails, what the DNC was saying and doing that was the agent of influence. Not the fact that emails were stolen or published.

        2. That is using the bad behavior of the DNC to influence. This is not interference.

          “” The DNC emails were released to inflame tensions with Bernie supporters which played a huge role in Trump’s campaign strategy.””

          Trump had a strategy for the dem’s primary election? I doubt it.

        3. OG
          June.26.2019 at 2:17 pm
          “Stealing and then releasing emails from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign manager on the day the Access Hollywood tape was released. The DNC emails were released to inflame tensions with Bernie supporters which played a huge role in Trump’s campaign strategy. The Russians were also laser focused on depressing African American turnout another perennial goal of the Republicans.”

          Cites missing.
          You made the claims; put up or shut up.

          1. You really are a sad, innocent little creature.

            Barr was all too successful in spinning this report as good for Trump, which is blatantly absurd. But you wouldn’t know that if you get all your thoughts from the fat TV man with the wombat on his head.

            1. So, Mueller was to incompetent to write a report that could not be spun away into a nothingburger.

              Yet – somehow – him having to answer questions, extemporaneously, in public, and under oath is going to solve the problem???

            2. Tony
              June.26.2019 at 5:11 pm
              “You really are a sad, innocent little creature.”

              Yes, asking for evidence to support a partisan claim is really “sad”, isn’t it, you pathetic piece of shit.
              How about I jam this down your throat again:
              “By now everyone knows the attack on our embassy and the deaths of four American consulate members in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept.11, was a coordinated military attack by Al Qaeda Islamists. It was planned well in advance so as to coincide with the anniversary of Sept. 11 — their day of “glory” — and was not a consequence of some obscure video released months prior. Indeed, the Obama administration knew the facts within 24 hours of the assault and was even repeatedly warned of the possibility beforehand by our professionals on the ground in Libya.
              Yet President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and administration spokesmen continued ad nauseum for almost two weeks to blame the Benghazi attack on a spontaneous crowd incensed over a video instead of what it was: an attack that was anticipated by the embassy staff and our intelligence gatherers yet ignored by a careless, amateurish, and indifferent Obama administration.”
              https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/rabbi-aryeh-spero/obama-clinton-blaming-video-benghazi-attack-did-more-incite-filmmaker-himself

      2. I would like to say that I do believe Russia is screwing with everyone’s elections via social media. But the vaccine is to quit believing and or hyperventilating to what you read on social media. Quit taking opinion as fact or news.

        Our intel agencies have repeatedly said the Russia is running a campaign to divide our nation. Those screaming Russian interference and jumping on the TDS bandwagon have done much to help Russia towards its goal.

  15. This has caused many people to conclude that Mueller would have likely recommended obstruction charges against Trump were Trump not the president.

    So if he colluded with foreign nationals and intelligence assets but still lost the election the FBI should find evidence of guilt and hand over such evidence to the AG to file charges? Then, in the name of gender equality and equality before the law, we wouldn’t come to a different conclusion if ‘he’ were a ‘she’, right?

    No need to warn us off of any expectations, Scott, they’ve been sufficiently low since Mueller was still head of the FBI.

  16. Oh, and the hag will *still* not be POTUS.

    1. that thought is always a day brightener.

  17. And let us not forget;
    Harvey Silvergate saying, “This experience made me realize that Mueller was capable of believing, at least preliminarily, any tale of criminal wrongdoing and acting upon it, despite the palpable bad character and obviously questionable motivations of his informants and witnesses.”

    “Mueller walked into the room, went to the head of the table, and opened the meeting with this admonition, reconstructed from my vivid and chilling memory: “Gentlemen: Criticism of the Bureau is a non-starter.” (Another lawyer attendee of the meeting remembered Mueller’s words slightly differently: “Prosecutorial misconduct is a non-starter.” – Silvergate

    Sessions got the right man for the job.

    https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017/10/17

    /silverglate-how-robert-mueller-tried-entrap-me

  18. BS
    MS
    PhD

    Bullshit
    Muleshit
    Piled higher and Deeper

    While they will certainly hope to wrench a smoking fire cracker from this, it is all for show and feigned indignation.

  19. The whole point of the Ds bringing Mueller in is for him to say one thing:
    “Yes, I personally believe that Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice.”
    That’s it.

    I hope the Rs crucify him.
    Among the questions that should be asked: “Why were no members of the administration in office at the time of the alleged interference called in for questioning?”
    There are many more.

    1. I expect a shitload of non-answer push back from a guy that is pissed that Congress drags him in with a subpoena after he made a strong plea for them to not do so.

  20. I would ask Mueller about the DOJ policy against charging or accusing a President of a crime. I would like to know if a federal law enforcement officer could do anything if he witnessed the President sexually abusing a child or murdering someone? What exactly are the implications of the policy?

    1. Mueller can deflect that by saying that’s a question for the DOJ. And the scope of his investigation does not include speculation on DOJ policy implications.

    2. So you would ask stupid things. At least you are consistent.

    3. OG
      June.26.2019 at 2:09 pm
      “I would ask Mueller about the DOJ policy against charging or accusing a President of a crime. I would like to know if a federal law enforcement officer could do anything if he witnessed the President sexually abusing a child or murdering someone? What exactly are the implications of the policy?”

      Are we dealing with the product of government-schools civics classes here, or just a partisan to stupid to understand?
      Here, OG, even a caveman can understand; take your time and give it a real effort:
      The POTUS is immune to prosecution while in office. If s/he were caught in those circumstances, s/he would have to be impeached, removed from office and then prosecuted.
      The same is true of diplomatic immunity.
      Grow up and learn something; being 15 may be fun for you, but you are a disturbance to the adults.

  21. Future headling: “Mueller disappoints Dems- again”

    1. How many times do the dems want to be Charlie Brown to Mueller’s Lucy?

  22. How does Nadler get so fat eating Nothingburgers?

  23. I would find it hilarious if Mueller walked in, set a copy of the report next to the mic, then walked out.

    1. Why are you afraid of the American people learning the truth?

      1. Why are you such a reality adverse idiot?

      2. You say some stupid shit, but this one is up there.

    2. It will be interesting how Mueller responds if members of Congress seek to use their immunity while speaking in chambers to do an end around of the restrictions on releasing grand jury testimony contained within the report.

      Picture them reading five minutes snippets of that in the form of a “question” followed by Mueller staring blankly in reply.

  24. I don’t think my expectations of anything the government does could get any lower.

  25. It’ll be interesting to see how many ways Mueller can say, “Congressman, everything I have to say is in my report.”

    1. Gotta turn that into a drinking game.

      Drink every time Mueller refers to his report.

      1. Small sips

  26. “Mueller will attempt to remind lawmakers again that they found a lot of evidence of Russians trying to meddle and that they will certainly try to meddle in the 2020 election and maybe Congress should focus on that.”
    This should be the primary focus of Mueller’s testimony. Sadly it will likely get pushed aside.

    1. Russian meddling goes beyond Trump and probably started before 2016. It’s not easy to discuss when the majority wants to make the hearing about Trump impeachment instead of Russia propaganda campaigns

      1. “This should be the primary focus of Mueller’s testimony. Sadly it will likely get pushed aside.”

        Absolutely!
        It’s hard to count the number of Euro-wienies who publicly supported that hag, or simply griped about Trump.
        I’m sure that’s what you meant, right?

        1. I’m acknowledging that there is a real issue with Russia trying to influence elections worldwide. If our concern is Russia interference, just focusing on Trump isn’t really dealing with the issue. This isn’t about Euro-wienies or gripes about Trump.

    2. Indeed. We should be asking about British, Australian, Ukrainian, and Russian interference in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary.

      Wait, you mean you’re not concerned with actual interference? I’m shocked.

      1. If we are concerned about foreign interference, yes we should look and discuss all of it.

        “”Wait, you mean you’re not concerned with actual interference? I’m shocked.””

        Project much?

  27. Remember, kids, investigations are good because they can prove you innocent!

    #wokatarians

  28. Keep expectations low?????
    They’ve really got Trump this time!

  29. Shackford missed the boat thinking Republicans will play up Muller found no crime. I think they’ll be asking Mueller embarrassing questions like why he didn’t recuse himself, why he didn’t investigate Hillary’s interactions with Russians but investigated old tax returns and taxi medallions, when did he know Trump was innocent and why didn’t he announce it earlier, why did he hire such a biased team with stained records, etc. It will discredit the establishment along with Mueller.

    1. I’d like to see them ask about Whitey Bulger and Richard Jewell.

    2. The Republicans in the Senate should subpoena Mueller for a hearing – with perjury traps. That is, they should dig deep into how the investigation began and was conducted, so that Mueller either

      1) Spends 2 hours taking the 5th in front of news cameras,
      2) Confesses to misconduct,
      3) Or lies. And if he does that and doesn’t serve time in prison, AG Barr should be impeached!

  30. […] one of many journalists who has watched this investigation play out, this is pretty much exactly what I was expecting. My interpretation of the disappointment today is that Democrats in Congress fervently hoped a […]

  31. […] one of many journalists who has watched this investigation play out, this is pretty much exactly what I was expecting. My interpretation of the disappointment today is that Democrats in Congress fervently hoped a […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.