Mueller Testimony Coming Soon

[Shabibilicious]

Nadler: Mueller hearing to air evidence of Trump wrongdoing

Associated Press•July 21, 2019

1,870 Comments

 

 

• 
• 

 

1 / 2

House Democrats

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., walks to the House Chamber, Tuesday, July 16, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday that this week's hearing with Robert Mueller will air "very substantial evidence" of wrongdoing by President Donald Trump and make a public case for impeachment. Republicans pledged sharp questioning of the special counsel about what they see as a "one-sided" Russia investigation.

Days before back-to-back hearings Wednesday, both sides seemed to agree that Mueller's testimony could be pivotal in shifting public opinion on the question of "holding the president accountable."

"This is a president who has violated the law 6 ways from Sunday," said the committee's chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. He argued that Mueller's report lays out "very substantial evidence" that Trump is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors," the constitutional standard for impeachment.

"We have to present — or let Mueller present — those facts to the American people ... because the administration must be held accountable and no president can be above the law," Nadler said.

The House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee will question Mueller in separate hearings on his 448-page report released in April. While the report did not find sufficient evidence to establish charges of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to swing the election, it said Trump could not be cleared of trying to obstruct the investigation . But Mueller believed Trump couldn't be indicted in part because of a Justice Department opinion against prosecuting a sitting president.

Mueller has said he doesn't intend to speak beyond the findings of the report in congressional hearings.

Still, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee plan to focus on a narrow set of episodes laid out in the report to direct Americans' attention to what they see as the most egregious examples of Trump's conduct, which point to obstruction of justice.

The examples include Trump's directions to then-White House counsel Donald McGahn to have Mueller removed and, later, orders from Trump to McGahn to deny that happened. Democrats also will focus questioning on a series of meetings Trump had with former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in which the Republican president directed Lewandowski to persuade then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit Mueller's investigation.

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the committee, argued that "any thought of impeachment is waning" and that the American public has moved on. He said Republicans will be focused in their questioning on making clear that the Mueller report represents a "final episode" in the Russia probe, which he described as flawed.

 

"Remember, the Mueller report is a one-sided report. It has not been questioned from the other side. This is our chance to do that," Collins said.

Mueller's appearance comes more than two years since the start of the Russia investigation, an extraordinary moment in Trump's presidency when, after Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey, his Justice Department appointed Mueller to take over the inquiry into election interference and the potential role that Trump and his winning 2016 campaign may have played.

While Mueller's testimony was once envisioned as a crystalizing event, a Watergate-style moment to uncover truths, public attention has drifted in the months since the report was released.

"We want Bob Mueller to bring it to life, to talk about what's in that report," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "It's a pretty damning set of facts that involve a presidential campaign in a close race welcoming help from a hostile foreign power, not reporting it but eagerly embracing it, building it into their campaign strategy, lying about it to cover up, then obstructing an investigation into foreign interference again to try to cover up."

Intelligence committee aides have said they believe the public has received a slanted view of what Mueller found on the question of criminal conspiracy because of Trump's repeated claims of "no collusion," and that the details of Russia's interference in the election — and the outreach to the Trump campaign — haven't gotten enough attention.

"Who better to bring them to life than the man who did the investigation himself?" Schiff asked.

Nadler said he's not worried that Republicans might seek to attack the credibility of the Russia investigation and says he hopes to take cues from the public after the hearing about "where we go from here."

"We hope it won't end up being a dud," he said.

Nadler spoke on "Fox News Sunday," Schiff appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" and Collins was on Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures."

 

https://news.yahoo.com/nadler-mueller-hearing-focus-trump-152502572.html

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited July 22, 2019 by Shabibilicious

[Indraman]

When you watch the same movie over, and over, and over, and it always has the same ending, you start to wonder about the sanity of those who are telling you that this movie will have a different ending. TDS, at it finest

 

Indy

[nstoolman1]

Wouldn't it be funny if the Dems force Mueller to reveal Grand Jury testimony and then AG Barr goes in and arrests the questioners?  

[Shabibilicious]

6 minutes ago, Indraman said:

When you watch the same movie over, and over, and over, and it always has the same ending, you start to wonder about the sanity of those who are telling you that this movie will have a different ending. TDS, at it finest

 

Indy

 

Who knows....this may very well be the Director's Cut...with the alternate ending.    But to your point....this could also be the end of the trail, no collusion, no obstruction, no FISA wrongdoing, no Deep State, etc. etc.

 

GO RV, then BV

[yota691]

Federal judge sides with Russian company, rebukes Mueller, Barr

 

Former special counsel Robert Mueller prejudiced a potential jury by stating that the Kremlin ran a social media campaign that the federal government says was connected to Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting LLC, said U.S. District Judge Dabney L. ... more >

 

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Sunday, July 21, 2019

A federal judge has chastised former special counsel Robert Mueller and Attorney General William P. Barr for stating that the Russian government was behind election year social media trolling when there is no evidence presented by prosecutors.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich culminated a secret legal battle between the Justice Department and the Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting LLC.

The judge this month began unsealing legal briefs and transcripts, which reveal that the release of Mr. Mueller’s 448-page report and Mr. Barr’s public statements triggered Concord attorney Eric A. Dubelierto seek contempt proceedings against both.

 

Mr. Dubelier said Mr. Mueller prejudiced a potential jury by stating that the Kremlin ran the social media campaign, which the federal government says Concord funded. That connection isn’t contained in the special counsel’s February 2018 indictment against Concord.

“That’s not alleged in the indictment primarily because there is no evidence to support that it was. There is none,” Mr. Dubelier told the judge at a closed May 28 hearing for which a transcript was just unsealed.

---

 

 

---

The conclusion at this stage means Russian President Vladimir Putin backed one major election intervention: his military intelligence hacking of Democratic Party computers and sending stolen materials to WikiLeaks for release.

But he might not have been involved in the parallel social media trolling, though U.S. media reported that it was part of a larger Kremlin conspiracy.

Judge Friedrich concurred that there was a lack of evidence.

Court observers say Mr. Mueller might have withheld evidence from his public report and from the court case for security reasons.

His report cleared President Trump of allegations of conspiring with Moscow.

Mr. Dubelier told the judge that Mr. Mueller and Mr. Barr violated a Justice Department criminal rule by stating before trial that Concord committed an offense.

“The court has discretion to impose sanctions on AG Barr and SC Mueller,” he said. “Specifically, sanctioning the government’s conduct now will highlight the impropriety of the government’s statements and potentially remove any taint that may have infected the jury pool as a result of those statements.”

Federal prosecutors are allowed to publicly set out what they see as facts in an indictment. But to avoid prejudicing a jury, they may not declare the target as guilty and must state that all defendants are considered innocent pending trial.

Mr. Dubelier said Mr. Barr has acknowledged that he released the Mueller report by overriding Justice guidelines that say special counsel reports should stay confidential.

“It was political interest,” he told the judge. “It has nothing to do with law enforcement.”

In a rare rebuke of Mr. Mueller from a judge in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Friedrich agreed that both the special counsel and attorney general violated the rule.

“In short, the Court concludes that the government violated [the rule known as] 57.7 by making or authorizing the release of public statements that linked the defendants’ alleged activities to the Russian government and provided an opinion about the defendants’ guilt and the evidence against them,” Judge Friedrich said.

She declined, however, to punish either person. Instead, she admonished the prosecutor not to speak publicly about Concord.

According to a January 2017 intelligence community assessment, Russian election interference hurt Hillarious Clinton and helped Mr. Trump in two main ways: through social media trolling and fake online advertisements. The indictment says these actions were undertaken by the Internet Research Agency and funded by Concord.

The Russian government simultaneously conducted a second direct intervention by hacking computers.

Judge Friedrich said the Mueller report erred by attributing the Internet Research Agency to Russiainstead of Russian individuals.

She said Mr. Barr went further by saying the Kremlin “sponsored” Concord.

“It is significant and prejudicial that the government itself drew a link between these defendants and the Russian government,” the judge said.

Mr. Mueller, who is to testify Wednesday before two House committees, resigned in May and turned over Concord’s prosecution to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan I. Kravis disagreed with Judge Friedrich.

“The report does not say that the Russian government participated in the activity that is charged in United States v. Internet Research Agency,” Mr. Kravis said.

Mr. Dubelier said the report clearly states on Page 35 that the Kremlin was involved.

“The investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through the ‘active measures’ social media campaign carried out by the IRA,” the report said.

The damage, he said, has been done to finding unbiased jurors.

“That’s what the headline was in every single major news organization that reported this,” he said. “This was a Russian government-run operation.”

Mr. Dubelier previously has argued that taking on false identities on social media is not a crime. If it were, lots of people would face criminal charges, he said.

Mr. Kravis attributed Mr. Barr’s congressional testimony to “loose language.”

“I think, at best, these are cherry-picked statements from what is at this point a large public record of statements about this activity,” he said.

The Obama administration’s official intelligence community assessment said the Kremlin engineered the hacking and the social media campaign, as carried out by the Internet Research Agency.

The Concord court record cast doubt on that conclusion.

[yota691]

This happen the following day after testifying...Drain the Swamp

Grassley Continues to Press DoD Over Mismanagement of Stefan Halper Contracts

Jul 12, 2019

 

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to Department of Defense (DoD) Acting Secretary Mark Esper seeking more information about contracting practices in the DoD Office of Net Assessment (ONA). It comes after an audit released by the DoD Office of Inspector General (DoD IG), which Grassley requested in a letter earlier this year.

“The results of this audit are disappointing and illustrate a systemic failure to manage and oversee the contracting process. Time and again, DoD’s challenges with contract management and oversight are put on display. It is far past time the largest, most critical agency in this country steps up and takes immediate action to increase its efforts to stop waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Grassley said.

Grassley’s letter highlights potential problems in relation to ONA’s contracts with Professor Stefan Halper, including a finding that ONA could not provide sufficient documentation that Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. It also notes significant flaws in ONA’s contract management and oversight processes.

Text of Grassley’s January 16, 2019 letter is available here. Text of the DoD IG audit is available here. Text of Grassley’s July 12, 2019 letter is available here and below.

Dear Acting Secretary Esper:

On January 16, 2019, I requested that the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD IG) review whether Department of Defense Office of Net Assessment (ONA) contracts with Professor Stefan Halper were used to support potential partisan political or other improper or wasteful activities.  On July 2, 2019, DoD IG provided a summary of its audit of those contracts with Professor Halper between 2012 and 2018.  The DoD IG’s audit revealed significant flaws in ONA’s contract management and oversight process that clearly indicate ONA’s internal controls over taxpayer-funded work are weak or non-existent.  This is just one example of why DoD is unable to earn clean opinions on its annual financial audits. 

The audit of Professor Halper’s contracts noted all four of his contracts with ONA “did not require Professor Halper to submit justification or obtain prior approval before traveling.”[1]  The audit further stated that Professor Halper’s travel to Japan for one contract was paid for by a third-party, who is not identified in the audit.[2]  Additionally, ONA “did not require Professor Halper to submit any evidence that he interviewed personnel cited in his proposals and statements of work,” which includes former Russian diplomats and intelligence officers.[3]  In conclusion, the audit found that ONA “could not provide sufficient documentation that Professor Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” “did not identify whether Professor Halper’s work while traveling to different countries and conducting interviews with individuals was conducted in accordance with the FAR” and that ONA “could not be certain” that payments related to his travel complied with OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C.[4] 

Shockingly, the audit found that these types of discrepancies were not unique to contracts with Professor Halper, which indicates ONA must take immediate steps to shore up its management and oversight of the contracting process.  Accordingly, no later than July 25, 2019, please explain to the Committee the steps DoD has taken to address the recommendations that DoD IG made with respect to ONA’s contracting procedures and produce to the Committee all records related to Professor Halper’s contracts with DoD.[5]  In addition, I request that ONA provide a briefing to my Committee staff regarding the Halper contracts.

I anticipate that your written reply and most responsive documents will be unclassified. Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee. In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security. Although the Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information, it is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions. 

Should you have any questions, please contact Joshua Flynn-Brown or Quinton Brady of my Committee staff at (202) 224-4515.  Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

[Indraman]

If I were a sitting Representative on the Nadler Committee, here would be my questions:

 

1) When did you know that there was no evidence for Collusion?

2) Why did you continue with the Special Counsel looking for Obstruction Of Justice if there was no evidence for Collusion?

3) Why was there no investigation into Dossier being used for FISA warrants?

4) Why was there no investigation into Clinton funding Dossier?

 

Indy

Edited July 22, 2019 by Indraman

[Indraman]

The Moment They Have All Been Waiting For! | Mark Dice

 

 

Indy

[Pitcher]

Mueller has said he isn’t going to expand beyond the scope of his report.  The Dems are not very wise putting him in the hot seat.  The Reps will ask him some very very tough questions which will not go well for the Dems and Mueller.  Between the Squad and Hearings in Congress, along with the impeachment insanity, the Dems are basically turning moderates toward Trump and another term.  You would think they learned their lesson after the last election. 

[Shabibilicious]

Should be interesting to watch Donald put his Twitter feed on blast to distract the masses.

 

 

GO RV, then BV

[Pitcher]

Maybe, but I find the entire Russian Collusion story to be a distraction by the Dems to cover the fact they lost the WH, the Senate, and the House in the last election.  They had to do something because the Donald annihilated them in 2016.  

[Shabibilicious]

Politics

Trump says Mueller should not be allowed to tell congress about his obstruction: ‘It will be bad for him’

 Chris Riotta,The Independent 3 hours ago 

 

Donald Trump has suggested Robert Mueller should not be allowed to testify to congress about his investigation into the president’s possible obstruction of justice and links to Russia, saying “in the end it will be bad for him”.

“Highly conflicted Robert Mueller should not be given another bite at the apple,” the president said on Twitter about Mr Mueller’s appearance in front of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on Wednesday.

“In the end it will be bad for him and the phony Democrats in Congress who have done nothing but waste time on this ridiculous Witch Hunt. Result of the Mueller Report, NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION!”

The president has repeatedly hit out at Mr Mueller as “conflicted” – without evidence – as well as calling the investigation into Russia election interference a “witch hunt”. The aim for Mr Trump has always been to undermine Mr Mueller’s credibility throughout the two-year probe.

Mr Mueller’s report did not find sufficient evidence to establish charges of criminal conspiracy but did find evidence Mr Trump had potentially obstructed the investigation.

In presenting his report in May, the then-special counsel indicated he was prevented from indicting a sitting president — saying such an action was “not an option” — because of a Justice Department legal opinion.

He did not use the word “impeachment” but said it was the job of congress to hold the president accountable for any wrongdoing.

“But the questions should be asked,” the president said in a second tweet on Monday. “Why were all of Clinton’s people given immunity, and why were the text messages of Peter S and his lover, Lisa Page, deleted and destroyed right after they left Mueller, and after we requested them(this is Illegal)?”

Mr Mueller is expected to testify before congress in back-to-back hearings on Wednesday in a move that could potentially lead the Democrat-led House of Representatives to begin formal impeachment inquiry proceedings.

In a statement preparing for the upcoming testimony, house judiciary committee chairman Jerrold Nadler said the testimony would provide “very substantial evidence” against Mr Trump.

“This is a president who has violated the law six ways from Sunday,” Mr Nadler, a New York Democrat, said on Sunday.

He added, “We have to present — or let Mueller present — those facts to the American people ... because the administration must be held accountable and no president can be above the law.”

 

While Mr Mueller has said he does not intend to reveal anything more than what he laid out in his nearly 400-page report, many Democrats in congress will hope the public testimony could push forward the case for impeachment as the former special counsel is probed about the 10 examples of alleged obstruction of justice on the part of the president.

Republicans are likely to follow a similar line of questioning line to Mr Trump, and ask Mr Mueller about his team.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-mueller-not-allowed-131520576.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

7 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

Maybe, but I find the entire Russian Collusion story to be a distraction by the Dems to cover the fact they lost the WH, the Senate, and the House in the last election.  They had to do something because the Donald annihilated them in 2016.  

 

Actually the Dems stormed back strong and retook the house in the last election of 2018.....Trump and his divisive rhetoric essentially created "the Squad" after all.

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

The day before Mueller accepted this assignment he was turned away from an FBI position  in the Trump Administration.....seems to me that represents a conflict of interest in itself.........He never should have led the investigation.....

 

Then you have the Russian collusion premise based on a ficticious dossier which was created for....and paid for, by the DNC, and the Clintons....

 

Then you have the illegal surveillance  of Trump and his campaign based on FISA warrants that were obtained illegally.....

 

This investigation was about "Russian Collusion".....and Mueller didn't find any.....read the report yourself....

 

Then you come to obstruction....if there was no collusion......no crime.....you can't obstruct anything.....just how the law works......

 

The left is in a panic here because they know what is coming.....they know what they did.....the Obama years were full of a large number of bad actors.......of which many will see some prison time!

 

I still doubt Mueller testifies....there is nothing for him that can be good .....if he does.......

 

JMO.       CL 

[Karsten]

If Mueller does indeed Testify the dems of the committee will have scripted all the question as well as his testimony to suit their agenda. His Testimony will be much "In his opinion" Most hearsay on what "he believes" could have happened and possible what Trump could have "thought about doing"

 

In other words just an extension of this Dog and Pony show with a special appearance of Hello Kitty with the cast of Oompa Loompa's .

 

Karsten

[Pitcher]

Breaking news. Comey had an informant 

(spy) in the White House who reported to Comey and was approved by Barry.  I’ll find a link soon. 

[Shabibilicious]

34 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

Breaking news. Comey had an informant 

(spy) in the White House who reported to Comey and was approved by Barry.  I’ll find a link soon. 

 

My goodness....it could be anybody.  

 

 

GO RV, then BV

[Pitcher]

Amarosa was a huge loss

[Shabibilicious]

1 minute ago, Pitcher said:

Amarosa was a huge loss

 

My money is on the Mooch or the Quaker Oats guy. 

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

Amarosa was a huge loss

 

Not before she was a quality vetted hire.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[bostonangler]

1 hour ago, Pitcher said:

Breaking news. Comey had an informant 

(spy) in the White House who reported to Comey and was approved by Barry.  I’ll find a link soon. 

 

That's not a surprise... Look at everything that was leaked... There are many, even in the administration concerned about his grasp on the law... His own attorney said that much.

 

B/A

[Pitcher]

You fellows are not understanding the story. I’m not sure you ever have.  The truth will get out and maybe then you will understand why people like me are incensed with the brazen Coup attempt by Barry and his Dem supporters in the CIA, DOJ, FBI, and the complicit National Media.  

 

 

 

[Pitcher]

54 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Not before she was a quality vetted hire.  

 

 

President Trump gave her a free ride and she stabbed him in the back.  Typical behavior of some people who are ingrates.  BTW she broke the law and should be in jail

[Pitcher]

5 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Actually the Dems stormed back strong and retook the house in the last election of 2018.....Trump and his divisive rhetoric essentially created "the Squad" after all.

 

Actually they picked up 40 seats in the House less than what Reps got off Clinton’s and Barry’s first mid term. The Dems also lost a number of Senate seats.  We’ll see how things stack up in 2020 after the economic numbers vs.phony Russian Collusion Story, Open Borders, calls for Socialism and the constant hysteria of Racism continue to play out.   In other words the Dems got zip.  

[yota691]