Trump Opposes Mueller Testimony As Declaring That McGahn Will No Testify

President Donald Trump has continued to oppose the testimony of key witnesses like former White House Counsel Don McGahn. He has now added his opposition to the testimony of Robert Mueller himself. It is a position that signals a certain defensive, if not fearful, posture with regard to the report. Congress clearly has a legitimate interest in hearing from these witnesses and will prevail in forcing their appearance. More importantly, it is not in the public’s interest for the White House to seek to silence such witnesses with lingering questions over the allegations against the President. I have long expressed my skepticism over the chances of a collusion or obstruction charge against Trump. However, Congress should move quickly to challenge any such block on key witnesses.

After declaring that McGahn would not testify a couple days ago, Trump tweeted that, while leaving the decision to Attorney General Bill Barr, he is opposed to Mueller testifying.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump · 5h

“After spending more than $35,000,000 over a two year period, interviewing 500 people, using 18 Trump Hating Angry Democrats & 49 FBI Agents – all culminating in a more than 400 page Report showing NO COLLUSION – why would the Democrats in Congress now need Robert Mueller….to testify. Are they looking for a redo because they hated seeing the strong NO COLLUSION conclusion? There was no crime, except on the other side (incredibly not covered in the Report), and NO OBSTRUCTION. Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems!”48.6K2:03 PM – May 5, 2019Twitter

Trump undermines his own point on collusion by steadfastly opposing any testimony from key witnesses. I fail to see the merits of such an objection. Congress has a core obligation to address such allegations, including suggestions that Mueller was not allowed or somehow inhibited in reaching a conclusion on obstruction.

What is also curious about this opposition is that the Mueller report is first and foremost a 400-page waiver of executive privilege.

I previously praised Trump for waiving executive privilege on the report. He is rapidly bulldozing that high ground in trying to silence witnesses before Congress.

100 thoughts on “Trump Opposes Mueller Testimony As Declaring That McGahn Will No Testify”

  1. Question. When is the real investigation going to begin?

    We already no that collusion is not a crime

    This coverup is getting boring.

  2. Bit Bucket Blockade Test Run:

    Page 91 of Volume II of The Mueller Report (PDF page 303)

    Contributed by The L4D You Can’t Even Paraphrase The Thing Here On This Blawg Project

  3. “Trump Opposes Mueller Testimony As Declaring That McGahn Will Not Testify”

    – Professor Turley
    _______________

    It is clear that Mueller did not charge or recommend charges, his report stating, “…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,…” and “…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,…” making his testimony before Congress a political show entirely outside of accepted protocols.

    Professor Turley believes it was appropriate for “Crazy Abe” Lincoln to suspend the Constitution, seize power and rule by executive order and proclamation using his own illegal act of denying the right of secession to states resulting in Lincoln’s unconstitutional opening of hostilities as a legal basis – despotism feeding despotism – while President Trump is wrong to assert the office’s historical executive privilege. Apparently, it’s OK to break the law if one is a dictatorial communist (i.e. liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat) but not if one is a constitutional patriot.

    Observing the hysteria, incoherence, chaos and anarchy that has become contemporary America, what would Professor Turley’s position be on President Trump if he were to follow the lead of Abraham Lincoln? Would the professor tell him of the unconstitutionality of his acts as Chief Justice Roger B. Taney told President Abraham Lincoln?

  4. The Whitewater, Benghazi and Clinton email investigations each began as a result of crimes that were committed. The FBI spied on the Trump campaign because…? Mueller’s investigation began because…? The FBI and Mueller could not find evidence to prove Trump or his campaign ever committed the alleged crime that prompted the investigation. In the former, crimes went before searching for the criminal; in the latter, allege a criminal and then go searching for a crime. Then Mueller and the FBI couldn’t find evidence of the initially alleged crime. And obstruction? Who in their right mind would ever believe President Trump would ever be able to fire his way out of an investigation?

    1. Criminal conspiracy to violate campaign financing laws – as “individual 1” is already named as a co conspirator in a conviction – by receiving help from a foreign government is a crime, as is witness tampering, and other instances of obstruction of justice. Lying to the public is fortunately for trump, not a crime.

      What were the crimes in Benchazi and Whitewater again? Lying about a blow job?

      1. Again, the crime was imaginary. It doesn’t matter that you wish it happened. It did not happen.

    2. Although I don’t expect you to know, and you most assuredly won’t hear it on infowars or Pravda Faux News, but all police investigations don’t always lead to charges. Many times, the reasonable suspicion which supports further investigation doesn’t lead to probable cause to indict or arrest.
      Not that this reality is applicable, because the investigation here led to indictments, guilty pleas, guilty verdicts, and other investigations still pending. I guess it’s funny to your ilk how professional law enforcement won’t just give a criminogenic charlatan a pass because he’s mean to the dusky types–it looks good on you though.

      this is to “and hannity said he was innocent, but just stupid” ollie

      1. L4D says–Manafort’s breach of his cooperation agreement with the SCO was the critical impediment to the super-ceding indictment for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States against the Trump campaign. Going forward, we might need a constitutional amendment prohibiting the granting of pardons to people who enter into a Joint Defense Agreement with the President, who can thereby hide the abuse of the pardon power behind attorney-client privilege.

  5. In all of the things that rate worthy of attention, this overtried subject is not one of them. The POTUS was one of the subjects of the investigation so I can forgive him for giving it to much attention, but I won’t repeat the mistake. This is all over, except for after-action spinning by Democrat leadership, whose vain hopes were dashed on the rocks of misfortune.

  6. On the part of the column that states that it is not in the public’s interest to seek to silence witness when there are these “lingering questions”, I am skeptical that clearing up lingering questions is actually the goal here.
    I’ve watch the campaign ads Sen. Harris and Sen. Spartacus put on, in earlier appearances by Barr. And the TV series of Chairman Schiff.
    Based on their performances and other factors, it did not appear that they were trying to clear up anything.
    Additionally, the 10 month FBI investigation, followed nearly 2 years of the Mueller investigation, were ostensibly undertaken to clear up “lingering questions” and suspicions.
    And we’re NOW going to deal with “lingering questions”?
    I think Mueller should testify, but by time these Congressional actors are done with their performances and spinning, I’m not counting on that testimony to resolve remaining questions.

    1. Fat Jerry Nadler’s probably got seven or so good years left on this earth and is wasting his, his family’s, and his constituents’ time by trying to persecute Trump due to some grudge/resentment/hurt feelings going back to their days doing battle in NYC.

  7. I have discovered and enjoyed the writer of this blog now for several years. I identify as a conservative. I always felt this was a brilliant, common sense Democrat that i had actually envisioned as presidential. I am so VERY disappointed in the view taken here, that this time wasting charade should continue… Quoting …..” a position that signals a certain defensive, if not fearful, posture with regard to the report”. Nonsense !! Trumps frustration are absolutley understandable. This author of this blog now takes company with some of the worst players in the Democratic party. Adam Schiff and company will find comfort that an intelect such as the author is in fact ….just another hysterical Democrat that refuses to accept an election result.

    1. Ray, your wishes that this stain just disappear is not going to happen and shouldn’t. Mueller identified 10 possible obstruction attempts by Trump and detailed numerous attempts at colluding with the Russians preceding the election. Of course we knew about most of those already but the report confirmed them.

      If you’re truly a conservative, you should be appalled at the shenanigans the Trump campaign engaged in with the Russians as well as their repeated lying about it, failure to report it, attempts at witness tampering, and attempts to fire Mueller.

      1. Trump got under Muler’s skin and Muler spitefully tried to lay out a weak obstruction path for congress. Muler was charged with looking for Trump-Russia collusion and not to take issue with public Twitter comments or Trump’s executive authority to fire girly man Comey and/or contemplate firing Muler. Herr Muler acted like just another deep state hack resistance actor. This turd of an outcome is not sell-able in terms of congressional impeachment/removal or to electorate which knows a turd when it sees or smells one.

  8. The US ‘has a very strong military and a very strong economy. It has a weak divided government where the opposition lacks any concern for American security. Take note of the Russians, Chinese, Cubans and Muslim extremists in Venezeula. I doubt that would be happening today if the Democrats were trying to build up our nation instead of tearing it down.

  9. It seems incredible, even laughable that Congress should now conduct its own investigation into the collusion/conspiracy matters covered in Volume I of the Mueller Report. Can we never bring an investigation to an end? Unfortunately, on the obstruction issues, Mueller’s decision neither to prosecute nor to decline prosecution offers a predicate for Congress requiring him to answer at least two obvious questions:

    1. If there were no policy against indicting and prosecuting a sitting President such as that framed by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), would you have recommended an indictment for any of the 10 specific, arguably obstructive acts described in your Report? [Despite a lot of obfuscation on the issue, the Mueller Report specifically relies on the OLC policy: “Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations . . . this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.” Mueller Report, Introduction to Volume II.]

    2. Would you characterize as truthful Attorney General Barr’s negative response before a House Committee on April 9 to the question posed by Representative Crist asking whether Barr had knowledge of reported concerns by the Special Counsel staff over deficiencies in Barr’s letter summarizing the conclusions of the your Report, given that prior to his testimony Barr had received your letter of March 25 expressing those concerns? Did anything in your subsequent telephone conversations with Barr concerning your letter justify his negative response to Rep. Crist?

    1. The Congress has the right to oversight of the Executive branch, and exclusively the right of impeachment. They would be derelict in their duties if they did not investigate after the Mueller report detailed collusion with the successful Russian effort to influence the 2016 election as well as the specific instances Mueller cited as possible obstruction by the President. Trying to end the investigation now, with most of the public still unaware of the facts within the report – a glance at this web site gives numerous examples of the public ignorance even among a group of politically – if not factually – aware citizens.

      We agree on the necessity of Mueller testifying.

  10. The Dems don’t care about getting to The Truth. They are searching for Their Truth

    Also, for a legal blog, there is an amazing amount of naivete and willful ignorance going on here. If/when Congress questions a witness with their intent to find dirt and force a lie, they can and will do it. They could get Mother Theresa to contradict herself, under oath, about washing the feet of the poor.

      1. The 800 page BenghaIi Report was thorough, did not leave much ( if anything) in the way of “lingering questions”, and was not conducted on the heels of over 2 1/2 years of FBI/ OSC investigations.
        This sounds like the popular “whataboutism” retort we’ve frequently seen the Hillaryites use.

        1. Be careful Tom. Anon has difficulty dealing with reality. He still can’t deal with Obama on video colluding with Medevev as an intermediary to Putin.

        2. “Ten investigations were conducted into the 2012 Benghazi attack, six of these by Republican-controlled House committees. Problems were identified with security measures at the Benghazi facilities, due to poor decisions made by employees of the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and specifically its director Eric Boswell, who resigned under pressure in December 2012.[1] Despite numerous allegations against Obama administration officials of scandal, cover-up and lying regarding the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, none of the ten investigations found any evidence to support those allegations.[2][3][4][5]…”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack

    1. It’s a blawg, but the only attorney among those who post regularly is Mespo. There are some occasional posters who are or were at one time attorneys, among them JMRJR, Mike Applelton, and Aspinwall. There are also some pretend lawyers (Natacha, Mark M.).

      1. Maybe you missed it but I’m a lawyer too. Just a humble nobody but I got a JD sheepskin on my wall and a license in my pocket and a shingle on my door.

        1. Also it seems obvious to me that the obnoxious Mark M is a lawyer as well. I make certain others for having gone to law school but not practicing in a conventional capacity

          Due to our RPC we are not going to be tossing our names out there or flashing creds, so adversaries can take endeavor to punish us with complaints to bar authorities on incivility or various other catchall ways of punishing lawyers who articulate politically incorrect ideas.

          My creds are very unimpressive anyways, so flashing them would be more of an embarrassment for underachievement than anything.

          1. Oh stop. You’re being too hard on yourself, Mr Kurtz. I’ll bet you have never flat out lied about your academic standing or been caught plagiarizing in law school — which is more than we can say about Joe Biden.

            Turns out Creepy Joe has some real character flaws and an embarrassing, unimpressive record. Unless you call being a corrupt career politican “impressive.” 😉

            “Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: “I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.”

  11. NOWHERE in this commentary does the term ‘confidential assistant’ appear. Any President should be exceedingly resistant to his confidential staff being subject to interpellation. If McGahn can be compelled to testify, than it’s only fair that Presidential commissions of inquiry have a franchise to subpoena legislative aides and ask about their conversations with members of Congress. And only fair that both Congressional committees and executive commissions of inquiry be able to summon judicial clerks for similar examinations.

    Of course, the moderator defends the prerogatives of the judiciary at every turn, so won’t advocate that last.

    1. Absurd,
      If there is “an investigation into the investigations”, then the private internal communication that the members of the OSC team had could be fair game, too.
      E.G., did you say to _x_ on (fill in date___________ “how do we figure out a way to nail this (or that) guy”? There is this “right” and “obligation” to know about these internal discussions that , as you suggest, can go well beyond legal counsel to the President.

      1. Sure, It’s outrageous they might have tried to nail a guy who was just walking down the street on the way to meet Kremlin operatives and minding his own business. Let’s get it all out in public and on TV. I’m in!

        1. Anon,
          You don’t have to be specific….just claim “some guy” was meeting with Kremlin operatives.
          If anyone actually has an interest in Kremlin operatives, why did the DOJ override the SDNY objections and allow Veselnitskaya to re- enter the U.S.?
          Her activities on, both sides of the fence ( with Fusion GPS, anti- Magnitski Act film screening for Congressional staffers, and meeting with Glenn Simpson right before and right after the Trump Tower meeting), seem to be far more egregious than the activities/ offenses of Marina Butina.
          Additionally, I think Veselnitskaya never bothered to register under FARA.

          1. Gee, I don’t know Tom. Let’s have multiple televised hearings on all these mysteries, OK?

            PS Fusion GPS is an equal opportunity research firm founded by three WSJ reporters and editors. The oppo research on Trump was begun under their contract with a right wing web site called the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to that – 2014 -they worked for a Russian owned company which was being sued by the SDNY. After Preet Bharara was fired by Trump, the $18 million he had sought was quickly lowered to $6 million and without any admission of wrong doing. Maybe we can have that looked into as well. Is that what your question about the Russian babe lawyer is about?

            1. Wrong as usual even after being corrected multiple times. Fusion GPS was a company that worked for various people and groups. The Hillary campaign or Hillary paid the company.

              In 2012 it was opposition research f or Democrats against Romney.
              In 2015 it was hired by Planned Parenthood in a defensive manner.

              Anon seems to remain ignorant of these facts.

            2. It was actually a statement about the lax monitoring of a Kremlin- connected agent, admitted to the U.S. due to extraordinary intervention by the DOJ, and allowed a free hand in acting as an unregistered foreign agent. It does indeed raise a lot of questions as well, but I won’t waste time trying to explain that to “anon”; he would find it “irrelevant”.

  12. The globalists strategy has always been to undermine the election and hence the authority of populist leaders. Their willing apparatchiks, the Dimocrats, fully understand and employ this strategy in compelling testimony on Barr and Mueller. This isn’t a good faith effort to understand the report but a way of keeping suspicion alive and continuing to weaken a duly elected leader. More of the tyranny of the duopoly that detests both Trump and you. Why anyone would advocate this exercise in bad faith is beyond me. In any event, Trump is right to oppose them and to defend our nation, customs and traditions against at the globalists who would sell us and our culture down the squalid river of Islamic colonization, techie tyranny, firearm confiscation and politically correct muzzling.

    1. Preventing Mueller and McGahn from testifying before Congress is defending America from Islamic colonization???

      Contributed by The L4D–Did I Read That Wrong Or Did I Read That Right–Project

      1. “Preventing Mueller and McGahn from testifying before Congress is defending America from Islamic colonization???”
        ********************
        It’s the tunnel vision of when a hostile army is arrayed before you and all you can see is the make and model of the firearm in the last guy on the right’s hands and conclude it must be deer hunting season.

        1. Most of the people hunting happening in the US is by right wing extremists according to FBI stats.

          1. Provide the stats.
            Provide the definition of right wing / left wing
            Many of the crazies attributed to the right are left wing activists.

            Antifa is the most prominent violent group of today. They are left wing.

            1. Maybe Allan can tell us how many domestic killings are by Antifa. He’s really big on stats.

              “According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100. ….

              The bureau investigates thousands of Americans for charges related to terrorism every year, though, as the Post notes, the public only is aware of dozens of the high-profile suspects charged with violent crimes, or the plans to carry them out…

              The rise in domestic terrorism — as profiled in a captivating New York Times Magazine report from 2018 — is largely driven by an uptick in far-right extremism. Of the 263 acts of domestic terrorism that occurred between 2010 and the end of 2017, 92, around a third, were committed by Americans on the far right. “If you have politicians saying things like our nation is under attack, that there are these marauding bands of immigrants coming into the country, that plays into this right-wing narrative,” Gary LaFree, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, told the Post. “They begin to think it’s okay to use violence.”

              With the increase in right-wing terrorism has also come an increase in hate crimes: FBI statistics show that these acts have been growing for the past three years. Anti-Semitic attacks are driving the increase of hate crimes in New York City, which, in February, were up 72 percent compared to that month last year.’>

              http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/domestic-terror-still-greater-threat-than-islamic-extremism.html

              1. I don’t know how many Antifa members have killed other people but I have seen enough of their violence and the Internet has plenty of videos showing such violence in many different areas of the country. Apparently Anon believes all those violent Antifa videos were phony even the ones shown on CNN.

                As usual you use soft data that doesn’t respond to the statement previously written and repeated beolow:

                Provide the stats.
                Provide the definition of right wing / left wing
                Many of the crazies attributed to the right are left wing activists.

                1. From a national security statepoint, stopping plots with the goal of inflicting mass causualties is a higher priority than stopping an extremist from committing a hate crime.
                  At last count, there were 70+ thwarted plots by Islamist extremists.
                  Most involved the goal of inflicting mass causualties.
                  The suicidal determination ( “seeking marytrdom”) is another distincction.
                  There is a recently uncovered “border plot” by an extremist group, but I haven’t seen much about it beyond the headlines.
                  Plots of that nature and of that magnitude are rare, as opposed to the” 9-11 types” of plots.
                  Also, most if the domestic “right-wing” plots and actual attacks don’t have the backing and support of international terrorist organizations.
                  I don’t think there is a national or international Nazi Party or KKK advocating the “right-wing hate crimes”.

                  1. Tom, when one looks at the Political viewpoints of those terrorists accused of being on the right one sees a pattern. People like Anon assume guns and violence come only from the right but the truth is the left is the side that uses guns and violence and killed over 100 million people in the 20th century just to maintain power.

                    When we look at the individual terrorists we can note that most of them believe in a government more involved in our individual liberties just like the left.

                    1. Allan,
                      In 2001, maybe there were 100? incidents of “hate crimes/ terrorism” from domestic sources in the U.S.. But maybe “only one” international in the U.S. on 9-11.
                      That perspective is not, or should not, be dfficult to understand as a national security issue. I thought even “anon” might be able to grasp that concept, but I overestimated him.
                      He cones back with some attempt to apparently link right- wing extremists with nukes and makes a half-assed accusation that I’m understating the threat of right- wing terrorism in pointing out contrasts between the “9-11 brand of terrorism v. domestic hate crimes/ terrorism.
                      He seems to be as whacked-out as Natacha, but he probably was able to conceal it better earlier on.

                    2. He seems to be as whacked-out as Natacha,”

                      Anon is desperate to talk but has nothing to say. TDS is his lifeline to what he thinks is intelligent dialogue.

                    3. “I’m glad Allan and Tom are able to comfort each other.”

                      Anon, it is only natural. We agree on facts that are pretty solid. You rely on self gratification dependent on mistruths. Tell us how the Pocahontas statement by Trump was a lie. Tell us the significance. You can’t but that is what your mind thinks is the most important thing in the world.

                  2. Tom, you left out the threat of nuclear war in your effort to downplay violence by domestic right wing extremists. Otherwise, I’m sure the families of the synagogue victims will be cheered by your research.

                    1. It’s no secret that there are major international terrorist groups out there who would like to get their hands on nukes. This was actually a concern in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, when there was the concern ( probably based on faulty Intel) that there were sleeper cells in possession of “suitcase- size” nukes.
                      I haven’t heard about an international Nazi or KKK or similar organization pursuing nukes.
                      Again, the magnitude of the threat is a consideration that goes beyond bean-counters right- wing terrorism.

                    2. Tom, you’re perverse attempt at trying to minimize right wing domestic terrorism – the major source of domestic terrorism over the last several years – now has you talking about dead Americans as “beans”.

                      WTF is wrong with you?

                  3. Should be “From a national security standpoint”, not “statepoint”. That might be the reason “anon,” is confused about what I wrote. But I doubt it.
                    The TDS-afflicted can’t always grasp fairly basic concepts, so I won’t ask WTF is wrong with anon. He is a run- of-the-mill hack who preaches his own gospel. Anything that falls outside of his narrow little mind is to be dismissed as either incomprehensible or “irrelevant”.

                  1. I am not going to search but check out the universities and see where the violence has come from. Antifa. You don’t provide intelligent stats so I don’t know what you are talking about except it’s meaningless.

                    1. “Learn how to read, “Anon”.”

                      Tom, Anon’s reading skills are at the level of his most common retort “WTF”. End of story. No dialogue, just repetition of the same talking points already proven wrong.

                2. Allan says: May 6, 2019 at 10:25 AM

                  “I don’t know how many Antifa members have killed other people . . .”

                  Why not? Mr. presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You’re not yet willing to concede that your admitted ignorance of a single guilty verdict returned on a murder charge against any member of Antifa might mean that the members of Antifa are still to be presumed innocent of murder until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

                  Contributed by The L4D–Allan-Doesn’t-Even-Believe-Himself-Half-The-Time–Project

                  1. Diane I can’t help it that your brains are outweighed by your stupidity. I haven’t done a search of who has participated in violent Antifa attack and who has been convicted of killing someone. But there are plenty of videos out there demonstrating the violent actions of Antifa members. You don’t even know have to read to view them.

            2. Since 9-11-2001, there have been somewhere in the range of 550-700 convictions in U.S. courts on charges of international terrorism. I suspect that the number of convictions related to right-wing domestic terrorism are a small fraction of that 550-700 convictions, but I haven’t seen that number.
              When I used the phrase “bean- counters”, that was in reference to those who speciously use and distort statistics to “make a point” . Anyone with half a brain should be able to discern that I was not referring to dead bodies as “beans”.
              I don’t know if the Obama Administration ultimately moved away from it’s initial description of “workplace violence” for the Major Hasan/ Fort Hood massacre. Those kinds of fanciful euphemisms and impresice definitions and categorization can muddy the waters if one is objectively and accurately trying to get a fix on the scope of the problem of “international terrorism”, “right-wing donestic terrorism”, “left-wing domestic terrorism, or “workplace violence”.

        2. Mespo said, “It’s the tunnel vision of when a hostile army is arrayed before you . . .”

          Since you’ve earned an answer, (but only because you’ve earned an answer), I might be willing to confess to a fallacy of division (unless it’s the other one–fallacy of composition) in which I focused on the minute events of Trump preventing McGahn and Mueller from testifying before Congress while you were alleging a far grander, more long-term historical process (conspiracy?) involving something that you called “the globalist strategy” that merely “enables” Islamic colonization by means of being mostly just indifferent to it.

          Honestly, I could never tell the difference between fallacy of division versus fallacy of composition. But it looks to me like your thesis is a fallacy of composition–blaming the part (Mueller) on the whole (globalism). On the odd chance that I’ve got the “vector” wrong, then your thesis reads like the other one–fallacy of division–in which you blame the part (Mueller) for the whole (globalism).

          Contributed by The L4D–Why Didn’t-Bill-Clinton-Blame-The-Globalists–Project

    2. Mespo, take a pill.

      Did you have similar conspiratorial suspicians about Whtiewater and Benghazi? They went on for ever. Whitewater took 4 years and there were 10 Congressional committee investigations on Benghazi.

      Also, to be a “populist leader” don’t you need the support of the voters and the people.

      1. The Whitewater investigation managed in it’s first 18 months to secure convictions of the McDougals, Gov. Tucker, and Webb Hubbell, none of whom were convicted of process crimes or convicted on charges irrelevant to the object of the investigation.

        Because Whitewater had real crimes to investigate. Mueller and McCabe never did.

        1. Very impressive. Especially that blow job which dominated the hearings and report!

          So whether colluding with the Russians in affecting our elections – established in the report – rose to a provable criminal conspiracy and included public lying, failure to report contacts to the FBI, and witness tampering is not a real crime?

          Interesting theory.

            1. These lefties scream Russia! $4k in Facebook ads and maybe involved in Podesta emails that exposed truth about Hilary/DNC. Dems had a lousy and corrupt stay at home candidate who got her fanny spanked by Trump in 2016 which is a truth too hard to swallow. Loons not concerned about illegal taping of Romney during 2012 election when he made “47 percent” comments.

              1. https://images.app.goo.gl/Su6XppT11y5GBit5A
                Bill Martin,
                It’s time to do an updated version of this great film.. ..at the risk of appearing “ambiguous”, I could recommend a few of those who comment here to write a screenplay about the c.2016-2019 Russian “invasion”.
                It’s “highly probable” that our regular early AM propagantist’sscreenplay would have to be trimmed down considerably in the editing process…..few people would be willing to sit trough a 10- hour movie.

                1. Bill Martin,
                  Did you know that a TDS-afflicted clown has upgraded you to “Trump cultist”? Do you get a MAGA hat from every fool that throws that label out there?

                  1. Bill Martin,
                    PS…..The next level and label is “deplorable”. The TDS crowd saw that strategy work so well in 2016 that they’re getting a big headstart on these winning slogans/ labels for the 2020 election.😀

              2. I guess we can take Bill off the “conservative” list. “True believing Trump cultist” is more appropriate.

    3. Looks to me like Bannon was channeling me on Lou Dobbs today. He rejects the “managed decline” of the nation by the globalists. Welcome to the Revolution:

    4. I don’t know about “globalists” or whatever (maybe one who wears shoes outdoors?), but there are a multitude of American patriots who revere our beloved country and who don’t wish to have a criminogenic charlatan undermining the rule of law, American security and common decency while corrupting the government and degrading the presidency. So, there’s that.

      to mespo

  13. Given Mueller’s decades long relationship with James Comey, would someone explain how he gets around the disqualifying section of the Special Counsel Statute? And given that his report suggests that doing something that is completely legal can still be considered obstruction, I would like to see a member of the committee ask him if he is familiar with the Supreme Courts 9-0 reversal in the Arthur Anderson case.r

  14. I don’t think his reaction is “curious” at all. Trump is and has always been a situational player. His “victory” message can be repeated by saying that Mueller’s testimony is useless because the Dems already LOST, and he WON. He loves that message, and will take any opportunity to repeat it. I wouldn’t overrate his fear of what Mueller and McGahn are likely to say. And it’s also his game to applaud any witnesses on the FBI “spying”. Oh, that testimony is very, very important!

  15. When you “no testify” it means that you take the stand, testify and say “no” to all questions requiring a yes or no.

  16. Mueller Took Issue With Barr Letter

    Robert Mueller reportedly wrote a letter in early April complaining that Attorney General William Barr’s four-page memo to Congress “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the special investigation into Russian election interference. What do you think?

    “If Mueller had objections, he should have gone through the correct channels to bury them forever.”
    – Craig Orozco • Binary Interpreter

    Our democracy will always be safe as long as officials can still politely express their principled misgivings.”
    – Brad Lambert • Cantilever Enthusiast

    “I haven’t been this enthralled by a letter since Mr. Darcy admitted to trying to disrupt Bingley’s romance with Jane.”
    – Melissa Lewis • Flame Eater

    https://www.theonion.com/mueller-took-issue-with-barr-letter-1834487615

  17. Evidence that is inadmissible in a United States Court might be admissible in a congressional hearing. The Mueller Report stated that the investigation could not establish willfulness on the part of Donald Trump Jr. with admissible evidence. That implies that the investigation uncovered inadmissible evidence that could establish Donald Trump Jr.’s willfulness. I have no idea what that inadmissible evidence might be. It could be Don McGahn’s testimony and interview statements. McGahn was the legal counsel for the Trump campaign in 2016. McGahn had previously served five years as a Commissioner with the Federal Election Commission.

    If McGahn told Mueller and crew that Donald Trump Jr. knew that the June 9th Trump Tower meeting could be construed as knowingly, willfully receiving, accepting or soliciting an illegal foreign campaign contribution because McGahn, himself, said so to Donald Trump Jr., then McGahn’s statements to that effect could be covered by attorney-client privilege and, therefore, inadmissible in a United States Court, but nonetheless admissible in a congressional hearing–not for the sake of incriminating Donald Trump Jr.–but for the sake of demonstrating the underlying criminal culpability the investigation of President Trump intended to obstruct.

    That would certainly explain Trump’s assertion of executive privilege over McGahn’s testimony to Congress. As for Trump’s assertion of executive privilege over Special Counsel Mueller’s testimony to Congress, that would trigger requirements for reporting to Congress by Attorney General Whitewash Barr under the existing Justice Dep’t regulations for Special Counsels. If AG Whitewash balks at required reporting to Congress, then AG Whitewash gets impeached.

    Did I neglect to mention that Rosenstein never promised not to land the plane in The Potomac? Whitewash, row the boat ashore. Hallelujah. Whitewash, row the boat ashore. Hallelu-u-u-u-jah.

    Contributed by The L4D–Gently Down The Stream, Life Is But A Dream–Project

    1. Headline says Mueller-Pelosi affair is ‘steamy,’ but it’s fake news | PunditFact

      House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, looks over her remarks before a news conference on Capitol Hill July 14, 2017, where she renewed calls for a vote on an independent commission to investigate Russia’s involvement in the election. (AP)
      A story on Facebook says that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and former FBI director Robert Mueller are having a “steamy, 13-year affair,” but the story is fake news.

      “Mueller will be forced to resign over Pelosi affair,” stated a Jan. 18 headline by The Patriot Report.

      Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. The story has no evidence and is fake news. The story attributes the information to Ladies of Liberty, a website that describes itself as satire.

      Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department as special counsel to investigate connections between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. In May, Pelosi supported Mueller’s appointment as a “first step” but in October called for an “outside, fully independent investigation.”

      The Patriot Report said that Pelosi and Mueller had a 13-year affair that will force Mueller to resign, but Pelosi will hold her California congressional seat until she dies.

      The story said that Pelosi said her husband was aware of the affair and that her “husband was afforded the same freedom to explore ‘pleasures of the flesh.’ ”

      Pelosi has never made any such comment.

      Fictional affairs are common fodder on fake news websites. We previously debunked fake articles claiming that U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, had an affair with former FBI Director James Comey, and that U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, had an affair with a cheerleader. We rated both of those claims Pants on Fire.

      We sent a message to The Patriot Report on Facebook and did not get a reply.

      A headline said that “Mueller will be forced to resign over Pelosi affair.” There is no evidence that such an affair occurred. We rate this headline Pants on Fire.

      https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jan/24/patriot-report/headline-says-mueller-pelosi-affair-steamy-its-fak/

      1. Your argument by analogy is incredibly weak.

        Contributed by The L4D–Eat Your Spinach Il Postovir–Project

    2. “might be… implies that….could be”. It’s “highly probable” that I had never seen as many house of cards built in my life as L4B has constucted here.

      1. Mueller did not say that he had no evidence to show Trump Jr.’s willfulness. Mueller said that he had no admissible evidence to show Trump Jr.’s willfulness. And that means that Mueller has inadmissible evidence to show Trump Jr.’s willfulness. The inadmissible evidence could inadmissible because of attorney-client privilege. Or the inadmissible evidence could be inadmissible because Manafort was declared in breach of his cooperation agreement. You’d have to ask a lawyer to find out. Even so, the point remains that what is inadmissible in a United States Court might very well be admissible in a congressional hearing. And since Congress has no power to indict Trump Jr., but only the power to Impeach Trump Sr., whatever evidence might otherwise incriminate Trump Jr. could demonstrate the criminal intent of Trump Sr. to obstruct justice.

        Contributed by The L4D Huff And Puff And Blow The Trump White House Of Cards Down Project

  18. @JT-It would be great if you began to discuss who started this mess, the laws that were broken and how they will be brought to justice. You might also discuss the fear that seems to be coming from the Dems now that this AG (hopefully) will get to the bottom of this mess. I mean JT your this big law guy don’t you see some type of conspiracy to remove a duly elected US President. I find that more concerning then Trump declarations at this point. The guy did not collude with Russians, he fired a guy who should have been fired. We have gone through two years of this BS and there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight. Can you please start asking some real serious questions on who was/is trying to undermine our nations process? There seems to be some indications that some of our supposed allies may have had a hand in this mess.

    1. Excerpted from the Op-Ed linked above:

      This mishmash of legal arguments is absurd. No responsible scholar who thinks a sitting president cannot be indicted also thinks an attorney general can try to truncate a process of oversight — by Congress, for example — by “pre-clearing” the president in advance. The whole idea behind the notion that a sitting president cannot be indicted is that the responsibility lies in Congress.

      Contributed by The L4D it’s Not Over Till It’s Over Project

  19. Jon Turley: What part of “Special” Counsel don’t you get? Muler was given free reign and unlimited budget to investigate a hoax. Trump cooperated with special counsel and is reasonable expectation on his part that this witch hunt not go into overtime with political hacks like Fat Jerry, Eric Swallos, Adam “Stawker” “Pencil Neck” “Shifty” Schiff running with it less than 18 months before election. Enough is enough.

    1. A hoax that led to the imprisonment of nearly a dozen coconspirators, including Michael Flynn who Obama warned Trump not to hire because he was already under investigation for alleged back-dealings? Did you even read the report or just the cliff notes version from Barr and friends?

      1. L4D says–No, of course Bill didn’t read the report. And he never will, either. The sections on Flynn were heavily redacted in both Volumes. Some of those redactions protect the referral investigations in other U. S. Attorneys’ offices. But some of those redactions are for the ongoing counter-intelligence investigation into Trump, himself.

        Either Trump told Flynn to talk to Kislyak or Trump, himself, talked to either Kislyak or Putin. Also, the communications between Flynn and Kislyak actually did begin in 2015 in preparation for Flynn’s trip to Russia for the RT event in which Flynn sat next to Putin. And those communications continued on several occasions in 2016 before the election and during the transition.

      2. All process crimes resulting from investigation of hoax and/or unrelated to the Trump-Russia collusion lie. Is that clear enough?

      3. Michael Flynn was under attack by the Obama administration in 2015. They tried honeypots and failed. They were upset that Flynn transferred the review of operations in Iraq and Iran from Washington to onsite. They also were upset since Flynn was looking into how money was being spent and its approrpriateness.

        1. Right. That explains Flynn’s trip to Russia to attend an RT event on December 10th, 2015, in which Flynn sat next to Putin. Did you know that both Flynn and Donald Trump Jr. met with Kislyak on–get this–December 2nd, 2015, just eight days before Flynn travelled to Russia for the RT event in which Flynn sat next to Putin?

          Contributed by the L4D–Flynn Served His Country Honorably Before Flynn Sol His Country To Putin And Erdogan–Project

          1. Soon to be Presidents meet with a lot of foreign people.

            I never saw Trump bow to a foreign leader.

      4. No co-conspirators have been imprisoned. All the indictments were of Russians Mueller knew perfectly well he’d never have to try and of people who were shnagged on process crimes. None of the guilty pleas delineate any conspiracy in which the subjects participated.

Leave a Reply