• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

House Democrat says Mueller representative and Judiciary Committee tentatively agree on May 15 for special counsel’s testimony

11382

A key member of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that the panel and a representative for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III have tentatively agreed on May 15 as the date for Mueller to testify.

The committee has been seeking to hear from Mueller amid disagreements about whether Attorney General William P. Barr mischaracterized the special counsel’s report in his congressional testimony and statements.

Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) had said earlier during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” that a “tentative date has been set” for Mueller’s testimony. But he said in a tweet Sunday afternoon that he had misspoken.

“Just to clarify: we are aiming to bring Mueller in on the 15th, but nothing has been agreed to yet,” Cicilline said in the tweet. “That’s the date the Committee has proposed, and we hope the Special Counsel will agree to it. Sorry for the confusion.”


A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.

In late March, Mueller wrote a letter to Barr voicing dissatisfaction that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of his investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his work.

Barr defended his handling of the caseduring a contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. He repeatedly denied accusations and insinuations by Democrats that he had lied or misrepresented anything.

“I wasn’t hiding the ball,” Barr told Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), who pressed the attorney general on whether he omitted key details of Mueller’s report from his initial account of the findings.

In his “Fox News Sunday” interview, Cicilline said the panel hopes Mueller will agree to testify.

“We think the American people have a right to hear directly from him,” he said.

Asked whether Mueller himself has agreed, Cicilline responded, “The representative for the special counsel has, but, obviously, until the date comes, we never have an absolute guarantee.”

It will be fascinating to watch his testimony.
 
Why do I do it? ?

 
Trump says Mueller shouldn't testify before Congress

Donald Trump.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


After Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) announced on Sunday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller might testify before the House Judiciary Committee later this month, President Trump fired off a few tweets, declaring that "Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems!"

Trump said Mueller's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice showed "NO COLLUSION," and he wants to know "why would the Democrats in Congress now need Robert Mueller to testify? Are they looking for a redo because they hated the strong NO COLLUSION conclusion?" Trump went on to claim that the Democrats committed a crime which was "incredibly not covered in the report," although he didn't elaborate on what illegal activity allegedly took place.

After discussing Mueller's possible testimony on Fox News Sunday, Cicilline clarified on Twitter that the committee is "aiming to bring Mueller in on the 15th, but nothing has been agreed to yet. That's the date the committee has proposed, and we hope the special counsel will agree to it."

How many words rhyme with delusion? ?

I'm afraid we'll find out.

Let Mueller testify.
 
Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report in latest confrontation with Congress

President Trump formally asserted executive privilege over special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report Wednesday, his first use of the executive authority in the escalating confrontation with Congress.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd wrote in a letter to Congress that Trump had “asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials.” Boyd argued that Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s push to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt had “terminated” their negotiations over what materials lawmakers would be allowed to view from Mueller’s investigation.

“As we have repeatedly explained, the Attorney General could not comply with your subpoena in its current form without violating the law, court rules, and court orders, and without threatening the independence of the Department of Justice’s prosecutorial functions,” Boyd wrote.

The White House assertion of privilege represents the latest collision between Trump and House Democrats, who have seen their investigations of the president blocked at every turn. Some legal experts argued the White House and Attorney General were simply stalling, making a dubious claim of privilege over the Mueller report they have intensively reviewed to put off a fight in court.

Democrats assailed Trump officials and accused the White House of trying to hide the truth from the public, embracing secrecy for a report that the president repeatedly said had exonerated him.

“This decision represents a clear escalation in the Trump administration’s blanket defiance of Congress’s constitutionally mandated duties,” Nadler said, later adding: “As a coequal branch of government, we must have access to the materials that we need to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities in a manner consistent with past precedent.”

The White House move came shortly before the House Judiciary Committee met to vote to hold Barr in contempt for failing to provide the full Mueller report. The likely move against Barr represented just the second time in history that a sitting attorney general would be held in contempt of Congress; the Republican-led House admonished Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012 over his failure to provide documents to Congress.

Barr released a redacted, 448-page version of the Mueller report on April 18 that found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, which interfered in the 2016 election. The report also identified 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

House Democrats have pressed for the full, unredacted report and the underlying evidence, arguing that Mueller did not make a decision on whether Trump obstructed justice and left the matter to Congress. In order to determine what happened — and whether they should impeach Trump — they panel said it needs access to all of Mueller’s material.

Democrats moved to reprimand Barr for ignoring their congressional subpoena. And during the Wednesday contempt hearing, they cast the White House claim of privilege as bogus, arguing the administration waived privilege by allowing aides to testify before Mueller — and Barr to release the report to the public...

Full article at link
 
Interesting. So, 2+ years in before he uses Executive Privilege. Ok. I kinda thought someone so self obsessed and tyranical would have invoked it earlier, and more often. I have a smirk as I read this article, as it was just earlier today I was reading how many times he could have invoked it over this investigation and didn't.

“As we have repeatedly explained, the Attorney General could not comply with your subpoena in its current form without violating the law, court rules, and court orders, and without threatening the independence of the Department of Justice’s prosecutorial functions,” Boyd wrote.

I believe this refers to the legal requirement that material relevant to open grand jury investigations cannot be shared. Not a decision made by Barr or Trump. But congressional democrats believe the law should not apply?

The White House assertion of privilege represents the latest collision between Trump and House Democrats, who have seen their investigations of the president blocked at every turn. Some legal experts argued the White House and Attorney General were simply stalling, making a dubious claim of privilege over the Mueller report they have intensively reviewed to put off a fight in court.

"blocked at every turn" HA. This is the first block they've encountered from Trump. He's allowed his team to be interviewed, and not done anything that can be prosecuted as obstruction, so where before this have they actually been blocked by Trump?

As a reminder, there is a much less redacted version available to select congress members, only the grand jury info is redacted, and it has remained available since Barr put it out for them back on 18APR and ZERO of those Democrats with access have bothered to go read it here part way into May. Tomorrow marks 3 weeks.

Almost the entire report — 98.5 percent — is available in the version provided to Congress, according to the Department of Justice. The only redacted portions are grand jury information that by law cannot be disclosed, even to Congress.

“Chairman Nadler is asking the attorney general of the United States to break the law and commit a crime by releasing information that he knows he has no legal authority to have,” Sanders said, referring to Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. “It’s truly outrageous and absurd what the chairman is doing and he should be embarrassed by his behavior.”
 
the grand jury claim is weak. if i understand correctly, barr could ask a federal court to release the materials.

why are trump and his administration so determined to protect a report they claim fully exonerates the president?

alasdair
 
I don't know law, maybe he can. Why should he if it doesn't change the content of the report? After all, 98.5% is already available. Why won't Dems read that before claiming it is insufficient?
 
how do you know it doesn't change the content of the report?

"dems haven't read it" seems like a bit of an assumption?

do you think it's acceptable, regardless of the parties of those involved, for the subject of the report and those appointed by him to be the only people so far able to read the full report?

is that in any way transparent?

alasdair
 
how do you know it doesn't change the content of the report?

I kinda thought you'd come with that question. Perhaps you missed that I used the word "IF." I did not say whether it changed the content or not, nor did I give my own view of what the content is with or without it. Check again. I said "IF it doesn't change the content". The only ones who would know that are those who read it (Barr, Mueller). I don't believe Trump has seen it, though I'm open to being pointed to a different reality. But as of right now, I expect only those who read it fully would know if something is redacted that would change the content. If the criteria is 'grand jury', I don't think anyone but Barr and Mueller have much say in what gets redacted as they are following the law. Mueller, may I point out, is the one who was responsible for doing the redaction (though, I read his submission skipped doing their job to some degree, leaving it for Barr?).

"dems haven't read it" seems like a bit of an assumption?

Fact. Check the article, or the one I posted earlier. But the article I linked this time is dated 8MAY and STILL no Dems have read it. None.

do you think it's acceptable, regardless of the parties of those involved, for the subject of the report and those appointed by him to be the only people so far able to read the full report?

Has Trump read the full report? I would expect, but don't know for fact, that the redactions for 'grand jury' means even Trump and his team cannot see those bits. If he has read it, and I accept it is possible, I've not seen it mentioned anywhere. I'd love a citation if you have one stating he read it. Or are you making an assumption?

I believe the only ones who read the unredacted version is Mueller (and his team?) and Barr. As for the minimally redacted 98.5% available version, as I've linked, it was made available to 6 Dems and 6 Reps. Only 2 Reps had read it as of late last week or early this week, with another saying he'd get to it (no idea if he did or not). The fully redacted version is out there for all of us. I wonder how many Dems have even read that. Again, I ask just as we did in this forum - how can people make statements about what is, or is not, in it without reading it? Any version of it.

is that in any way transparent?

The 98.5% version has been equally available to a small set of Dems and Reps. Without knowing if Trump has read it, I have to assume Barr is being fair with that 12 person access. Is that not fair? I'll admit, I'm laughing typing this, because I simply cannot see Trump having the attention span to do so - and I mean a 4 page report, God forbid he thought of reading the actual multi-hundred page report itself. Do YOU think he read any version of it?

Back to your question - transparency. And, keeping it focused to your context of the subject of the report and those appointed by him being the only ones to read the full report. My belief is Trump has not read it, likely never will. I have no issue with Barr, although appointed by Trump, being an independent person in this regard. Trump didn't have Barr in his back pocket waiting to put him in place. Trump had a situation where Barr's predecessor had to be replaced, and Trump had a predefined pool of candidates from which to choose. By predefined, I refer back to those who made a career of being impartial and professional. Barr has been a career judge, required to be impartial and not let his personal beliefs interfere with his decisions as he evaluates what is legal and what is not by the letter of the law. He hasn't suffered accusations or character questions to this point, only now. Is it coincidence that Barr's integrity is now being questioned by Dems, when it never has been before? Haven't we heard this played out somewhere similar, just recently. But I'm digressing to a bitter point that bothers me. To your question - I don't think Trump can read it (not allowed AND incapable). I'm not seeing a transparency issue if Barr is following the existing laws on what can be shared with whom. So long as Barr remains FAIR in sharing the same material with both parties equally (content, not numbers), that is all that can be asked of him. Transparency is a function of the law, not persons in power. Or at least, that's how it should be, and I believe it is in this case.
 
mueller has already said that barr's summary did not reflect the report. not only that barr admitted not reading the evidence before coming to his conclusions. at best, barr's just not doing his job which is troubling. at worst, he's just a trump lackey who's covering for him...

alasdair
 
Don McGahn Rebuffed White House Request to Say Trump Didn’t Obstruct Justice

After release of the Mueller report, the president sought to have the former White House counsel say that he didn’t believe the president’s push to dismiss the special counsel constituted a crime

im-73683

Don McGahn, then White House counsel, at a meeting with President Donald Trump last June. PHOTO: JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS

WASHINGTON—Within a day of the release of the Mueller report last month, President Trump sought to have former White House counsel Don McGahn declare he didn’t consider the president’s 2017 directive that he seek Robert Mueller’s dismissal to be obstruction of justice, but Mr. McGahn rebuffed the request, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Trump has publicly denied asking Mr. McGahn to fire the Russia probe special counsel since the release of the report. Mr. Mueller’s report detailed that directive, and a subsequent request by Mr. Trump that Mr. McGahn deny that conversation ever happened, and said that Mr. McGahn rebuffed both. Last month, Mr. Trump tweeted: “If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself.”

Privately, Mr. Trump asked White House special counsel Emmet Flood to inquire whether Mr. McGahn would release a statement asserting that he didn’t believe those interactions with the president—and Mr. Trump’s subsequent efforts to have Mr. McGahn deny news reports about that request—amounted to obstruction, the people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Flood didn’t respond to a request for comment.

William Burck, a lawyer for Mr. McGahn, said in a statement about the request: “We did not perceive it as any kind of threat or something sinister. It was a request, professionally and cordially made.”

Mr. McGahn turned down the request because he didn’t want to weigh in on the totality of evidence in the report beyond his own testimony, and didn’t want to comment on his own testimony in isolation, the people said. Mr. McGahn also didn’t view his personal opinion as relevant, because Attorney General William Barr had already said he didn’t believe the evidence in Mr. Mueller’s report amounted to obstruction of justice, the people said.

Mr. Flood, as he sought the statement from Mr. McGahn, pointed to previous assertions by Mr. Burck that if Mr. McGahn believed Mr. Trump had committed a crime, he would have resigned his post, the people said.

Last August, following reports that Mr. McGahn had spent 30 hours talking to Mr. Mueller’s investigators, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow reached out to Mr. Burck to inquire about the scope and nature of Mr. McGahn’s testimony to Mr. Mueller, according to people familiar with the conversation. John Dowd, who headed the president’s legal team, had also contacted Mr. Burck previously to inquire about Mr. McGahn’s testimony and whether he had told Mr. Mueller that Mr. Trump committed any crimes, the people said.

Mr. McGahn told investigators that he prepared to resign in June 2017 rather than follow Mr. Trump’s directive to call the deputy attorney general and ask him to dismiss Mr. Mueller, but stayed in his post when Mr. Trump didn’t press him on the matter. Mr. McGahn left his White House position in October 2018.

Mr. Trump’s effort to have Mr. McGahn make a public statement after the report’s release could intensify efforts by Democratic lawmakers to compel him to testify about his interactions with Mr. Trump. The White House on Tuesday directed Mr. McGahn to rebuff a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee for documents related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation, saying the requested documents implicated executive privilege.

Mr. Trump has said he will fight all congressional subpoenas to his current and former aides, telling reporters last month: “It’s enough.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), in a letter to Mr. Burck on Tuesday evening, said he expected the committee would vote to hold Mr. McGahn in contempt if he didn’t appear before the panel on May 21. If that were to happen, the matter would be likely be litigated in the courts.

Mr. Trump and his allies have criticized Mr. McGahn since the report’s release. Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani called Mr. McGahn “hopelessly confused” in a CNN interview. Mr. Burck has defended the episodes in the report involving his client as “accurately described” and called Mr. Giuliani’s comments a “mystery.”

A statement from Mr. McGahn declaring that he didn’t believe Mr. Trump committed a crime could have bolstered the White House’s broader public argument for Mr. Trump’s innocence, particularly as Congress continues to investigate Mr. Trump for obstruction and other matters related to the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and Moscow’s ties to the Trump campaign. Mr. Trump has publicly declared the Mueller report exonerates him and has denied obstructing justice.

Mr. Mueller in his report said he wasn’t exonerating Mr. Trump and wrote: “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.” He said he decided not to make a decision on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice in part because of a Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

According to the Mueller report, Mr. Trump called Mr. McGahn at home in June 2017—a month after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had appointed Mr. Mueller—and directed him to call Mr. Rosenstein and say Mr. Mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as special counsel. “You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod,” the president said.

Mr. McGahn was “perturbed” by Mr. Trump’s order, according to the report, and prepared to resign rather than carry it out, telling then-chief of staff Reince Priebus the president had asked Mr. McGahn to “do crazy shit.” He told Mr. Mueller’s investigators that he and other White House aides saw the alleged conflicts—which included Mr. Mueller’s effort to obtain a refund from one of Mr. Trump’s golf clubs in 2011—as “silly” and “not real,” and that they had said as much to Mr. Trump, according to the report.

After the New York Times reported in January 2018 that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. McGahn to have the special counsel dismissed, Mr. Trump publicly denied it and sought to have aides, including his personal lawyer, his press secretary and his staff secretary, ask Mr. McGahn to dispute the reports, at one point threatening to fire Mr. McGahn, according to the Mueller report. The next month, he met face-to-face with Mr. McGahn and asked him: “Did I say the word fire?” Mr. McGahn told Mr. Trump that he understood the conversation as “Mueller has to go.”
 
I got a notice on my phone with a headline to the effect of "Mueller says his office cannot charge a sitting president but denies to clear him of wrongdoing"
 
.... That's exactly how I interpreted the mueller report the first time.

Trump keeps talking about how the report clears him of wrong doing. Which is totally untrue. It doesn't clear, or not clears him. It provides findings and evidence for congress and determines that mueller decided he can't indict a sitting president.
 
Top