John R. Houk
© July 25, 2019
I watched Mueller’s entire testimony before two House Committees Chaired by reprehensible Dems. The Dems pushed an Obstruction of Justice theme committed by President Trump with Mueller – often cryptically – agreeing Dem assertions. BUT as much as President Trump wanted to interfere in Mueller’s witch hunt, the relevant Aids involved essentially did their jobs in protecting the President from bad judgment calls but not doing the errors. Which means as much as the President wanted to meddle in Mueller’s investigation NOTHING obstructive HAPPENED relating to Trump’s righteous indignation of being falsely accused of working with Russians to win the 2016 Election.
The Dems persisted though. As far as the Dems on the Committees were concerned, thinking about interfering when you know you are innocent is an obstruction crime. Going after the President for thought crimes smacks of Orwell/Huxley inventing crimes to fulfill the agenda of an all-powerful State. A Big Brother scenario updated to today’s DEEP STATE.
The Republicans on both Committees kept asking questions essentially pointing to Russian interference BUT with the Dems and Crooked Hillary paying a foreigner getting disinformation from Russia as if it were facts. In ALL cases Mueller’s answer was not his purview or not getting into that. Hmm… The Mueller Mandate from Rod Rosenstein ORDER NO. 3915-2017 dated 5/17/17:
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
- § 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
- Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
- The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
- any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
- any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
- any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
- If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
- Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
Once Mueller determined that President Trump did not conspire with Russians to win the 2016 election, Mueller should have moved on to (b) ii. Which states “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.
It is evident Mueller chose to pursue any crime by people who has any association with Donald Trump before the President’s election even if the crime had NOTHING TO DO with Russian interference in the 2016 Election. If Mueller was actually investigating Russian interference HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED into the Dem Campaign managed by Crooked Hillary Clinton paying money to a foreign agent in Christopher Steele acquiring Russian disinformation for the purpose of insuring Crooked Hillary’s election as President.
Instead Mueller utilized false Russian information to remove a duly elected President Donald J. Trump from Office. NOW THAT HAS TO BE A CRIME of conspiracy committed by Robert Mueller and his team of Clinton Donors/Supporters angry Democrat prosecutors.
Now below are some observations from Conservative sources (Dems are unreliable) on the Robert Mueller House testimony. All of the GOP Committee members did a great job demonstrating Mueller bias and witch hunt agenda, but I begin with Rep. Jim Jordan pointing out the obvious. Then I follow the Jordan/Mueller interchange with a quite humorous The United West parody of the same interchange.
Then after the video fun, read further criticism of Mueller’s from Fred Lucas and Ann Coulter.
Your generosity is always appreciated:
Posted by PBS NewsHour
Published on Jul 24, 2019
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his July 24 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about how the investigation began. Mueller said in his opening statement that he could not address those questions. Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign, agreed to appear before Congress, but warned he would not go beyond what was already documented in his final report.
Posted by theunitedwest
Published on Jul 24, 2019
Humorous post please!
Could this be the real Judiciary Committee testimony???? Sure looks like this was pretty darn close to what actually happened!
8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress
By Fred Lucas
July 24, 2019
Former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia before two House committees.
“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
He was referring to his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored report released in May to the public.
But many of Mueller’s responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”
He also asked constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.
Democrats on the intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping Trump.
But neither of these points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”
“True,” Mueller said.
Trump repeatedly has called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow “a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.
Here are eight key takeaways from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.
- ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ on Exoneration
With regard to obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”
Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI director, when the Department of Justice ever had had the role of “exonerating” an individual.
“Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”
Mueller appeared not to be clear about the question.
“Let me make it easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”
Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”
Ratcliffe followed up by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until proven guilty.
“You can’t find it because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:
The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.
It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.
Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.
“Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.
“You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached,” Ratcliffe said, referring to the second volume of the Mueller report, devoted to evidence of obstruction of justice.
Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pushed the point in his opening question after Mueller was sworn in, saying the report specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.
“Did you actually ‘totally exonerate’ the president?” Nadler asked at the beginning of the hearing, quoting Trump.
“No,” Mueller responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
Regarding obstruction, ranking Judiciary member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked: “At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”
Mueller responded: “No.”
Later, to drive the point of a lack of obstruction further, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked: “Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?”
Mueller began by saying, “Not that I … ” then answered more directly: “No.”
Later that afternoon during the intelligence committee hearing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked about exoneration.
Mueller initially said, “I’m going to pass on that.”
When pressed on the question, Mueller said, “Because it embroils us in a legal discussion and I’m not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.”
Turner noted that the headline from Mueller’s morning testimony was that he did not exonerate Trump.
“You have no more power to declare Trump exonerated than you do to declare him Anderson Cooper,” Turner said, referring to the CNN personality.
- Indicting a President
Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, asserted: “Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the law.”
Other Democrats said much the same during the day.
At first, during the morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee, it appeared that Mueller was contradicting Attorney General William Barr.
That impression was left hanging for well over an hour before he clarified the issue at the outset of the Intelligence hearing.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued two legal opinions, most recently in 2000, stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The second one reaffirmed a 1973 opinion at the height of the Watergate scandal.
Barr has stated on multiple occasions that those official opinions were not the sole reason that Mueller decided against seeking a grand jury indictment of Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein later decided the evidence was insufficient to make a case.
During the Judiciary hearing, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Buck: “You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”
Later in the hearing, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., followed up, citing the Office of Legal Counsel opinions to determine whether Trump’s being president is the only reason he wasn’t indicted.
“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [an] OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?”
Mueller: “That is correct.”
It wasn’t clear whether Mueller was talking about indicting Trump, or speaking about legal theory behind indicting any president under existing Justice Department policy.
Mueller tried to clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing, referring to what he had told Lieu.
“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
- ‘Collusion’ and ‘Conspiracy’
The first part of the Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is,” Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said. “In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?”
Mueller’s initial answer was “No.”
Collins then referred to page 180 in Volume 1 of the Mueller report, which states the two words are “largely synonymous.”
“Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?” Collins asked.
“Not when I read it,” Mueller responded.
“So, you would change your answer to yes, then?” Collins asked.
“No,” Mueller said, seeming somewhat unclear.
“I’m reading your report, sir,” Collins said. “It is a yes or no answer. Page 180, Volume 1. This is from your report.”
Mueller: “Correct. And I leave it with the report.”
During the Intelligence hearing in the afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked about evidence of collusion with Russia.
Mueller, criticized on social media and by cable news pundits for seeming a little off his game, had some trouble answering.
“We don’t use the word collusion. We use one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used,” he said haltingly.
Welch jumped in: “The term is conspiracy?”
Mueller: “That’s exactly right.”
“You help me, I’ll help you,” Welch said, prompting laughter in the chamber.
- Allusions to Impeachment
Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, made what seemed like a vague reference to impeachment during his opening remarks.
“We will follow your example, Director Mueller,” Nadler said. “We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who noted he was also a member of the Judiciary Committee during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, asked why Mueller didn’t specify in his report whether there was impeachable conduct–as then-independent counsel Ken Starr had in his report.
“We have studiously kept in the center of the investigation our mandate, and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct,” Mueller said. “Our mandate goes to developing the report and turning the report in to the attorney general.”
Mueller, given many openings by Democrats, refused to state that impeachment was what the report means in referring to other venues to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice.
Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said Congress must do it’s duty to ensure Trump isn’t above the law. Other Democrats made similar vague comments, but most did not outright call for impeachment.
Later, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., asked, “Mr. Chairman, was the point of this hearing to get Mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment?”
Nadler responded: “That is not a fair point of inquiry.
- On When He Put Conspiracy to Rest
Mueller asserted early on that he would not talk about the origins of the Russia investigation–currently under review by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.
“It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited,” Mueller said.
“These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department,” he said, referring to the contested origins of the investigation.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a Judiciary member, asked when the special counsel’s team determined there was no conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Many Republicans argue that Mueller could have issued that conclusion before the midterm elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House.
“As you understand, when developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information as you make your case,” Mueller said. “When you make a decision on that particular case depends on the factors. I cannot say specifically we reached a particular decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time.”
“We were ongoing for two years.”
Biggs pressed: “That’s my point, there are various aspects that happen. But somewhere along the pike, you come to the conclusion there is no there there for this defendant.”
Mueller finally said: “I can’t say when.”
The former special counsel said he did not have knowledge of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who compiled the so-called Steele dossier, an unverified, salacious collection of information about Trump, including during a visit to Moscow. Both the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign paid for that work.
Although President Barack Obama’s Justice Department and FBI used the Steele dossier as the basis for spying on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and the dossier is mentioned in the Mueller report, the investigation apparently did not look into its origins.
- What Else He Didn’t Answer
Mueller declined multiple times before both House committees to answer why his team did not prosecute Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic who Republican lawmakers said had lied to investigators. Mifsud in spring 2016 told Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Moscow had some of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Mueller also declined to answer questions about whether he interviewed Steele or Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson. During the Intelligence hearing, he refused to answer whether he even read the Steele dossier.
Mueller repeatedly answered that such questions were “outside of my purview.”
Among Democrats’ questions Mueller didn’t answer: whether the Trump campaign had turned its back on the country, whether Trump told associates his 2016 campaign was an “infomercial” for the Trump businesses, what would happen if Trump wins a second term and serves beyond the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice, and whether Trump had potential illegal ties to foreign banks.
He also declined to speculate whether Russian meddling swayed the outcome of the presidential election.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., asked Mueller whether he agreed with an open letter in May signed by about 1,000 former federal prosecutors that said Trump would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he were anyone else.
Mueller responded: “They have a different case.”
Swalwell seemed a bit surprised, and asked whether Mueller would sign the letter.
Mueller again responded: “They have a different case.”
- Defending Alleged Conflicts
Mueller responded to questions about the number of Democratic lawyers, many of whom donated to Democratic candidates, who worked on his staff.
“I’ve been in the business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask someone about their political affiliation,” Mueller said at one point. “What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job.”
Trump has said several times that after he fired James Comey as FBI director, he met with Mueller, who wanted the job back.
Mueller testified that he talked to Trump, but “not as a candidate” for the job, in response to a question from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.
Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., later asked: “Did you interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as special counsel?”
Mueller said he was only advising Trump.
“My understanding, I was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job,” Mueller said.
He also defended Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer on his team and one of the hires Trump and other Republicans criticize Mueller for.
“Let me say that Andrew Weissmann is one of the more talented attorneys we had on board,” Mueller said.
- Trump’s Responsibility and ‘New Normal’
Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., brought up Trump’s tweeted support of WikiLeaks and its hacking of Clinton campaign staff emails. He quoted Trump as a candidate saying, “I love WikiLeaks” and tweeting similar sentiments, then asked Mueller for his response.
WikiLeaks is an online operation that made its name on releasing confidential and secret government information
After hesitating, Mueller said: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”
The Mueller report said the Trump campaign was aware of Russian election meddling and expected to benefit from it.
Welch, the Vermont Democrat and member of the intelligence panel, said he was concerned that Trump may get away with not reporting Russian interference in the future.
“If we establish the new normal for this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns, so that if any one of us, running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States are aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report that to the FBI or other authorities …, ” Welch began to ask, before Mueller interrupted.
“I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is,” Mueller said.
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred.
MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION
Ann Coulter mocks bureau whose attitude is never having to say you’re sorry
By ANN COULTER
July 24, 2019
It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)
If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.
Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing. Here are a few from Chabot’s list:
- Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
- Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.
- Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
- Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign – and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.
- Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.
None had donated to the Trump campaign.
The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”
Obviously, no one believes this – otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.
In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”
No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.
An independent counsel investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors. You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.
But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.
As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens might beg to differ.
After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed – until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.
Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.
During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators, that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”
The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case.
Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”
Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.
Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.
Months later – too late for Stevens’ political career – Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.
Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t – which is worse.
In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.”
[Blog Editor: Help keep WND an independent Internet source BY DONATING.]
My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done
John R. Houk
© July 25, 2019
8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress
The Daily Signal HOMEPAGE
MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION
© Copyright 1997-2019. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.