It's MUELLER TIME !!!
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Mueller Delivers Report on Russia
Investigation to Attorney General
March 22, 2019
WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has delivered a report on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William P. Barr, according to the Justice Department, bringing to a close the investigation that has consumed the nation and cast a shadow over President Trump for nearly two years.
Mr. Barr told congressional leaders late Friday that he may brief them within days on the special counsel’s findings. “I may be in a position to advise you of the special counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend,” he wrote in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Judiciary committees.
It is up to Mr. Barr how much of the report to share with Congress and, by extension, the American public. The House voted unanimously in March on a nonbinding resolution to make public the report’s findings, an indication of the deep support within both parties to air whatever evidence prosecutors uncovered.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/mueller-report-release.html
Investigation to Attorney General
March 22, 2019
WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has delivered a report on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William P. Barr, according to the Justice Department, bringing to a close the investigation that has consumed the nation and cast a shadow over President Trump for nearly two years.
Mr. Barr told congressional leaders late Friday that he may brief them within days on the special counsel’s findings. “I may be in a position to advise you of the special counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend,” he wrote in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Judiciary committees.
It is up to Mr. Barr how much of the report to share with Congress and, by extension, the American public. The House voted unanimously in March on a nonbinding resolution to make public the report’s findings, an indication of the deep support within both parties to air whatever evidence prosecutors uncovered.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/mueller-report-release.html
Will the Trump Justice Department make it public?
source: Bloomberg
Top Democrat Sees ‘Cover-Up’ If Barr Denies Full Mueller Report
William Barr
Democrats demanded that Attorney General William Barr provide Congress with unclassified access to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s entire report along with underlying evidence on Sunday, vowing to take the challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said providing Congress with anything less would be equivalent to a “cover-up” and subvert the legislative branch of the government from holding the president accountable, a fight the party is willing to take to the nation’s highest court.
“Once you say that a president can not be indictable no matter the evidence as a matter of law, to then follow the principle that you can’t then comment on the evidence or publicize it is to convert that into a cover-up,” Nadler told “Fox News Sunday,” one of three television appearances for the morning.
Representative Jerrold Nadler
“If that is the case, and they can’t hold him accountable, the only institution that can hold a president accountable is Congress, and Congress, therefore, needs the evidence and the information,” he said.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is rallying Democratic lawmakers to deliver a unified message demanding Mueller’s report be unclassified and made public in full, as congressional leaders await a summary of his findings from the Justice Department, possibility as early as Sunday afternoon or evening.
Pelosi and six top committee leaders held what they termed an emergency conference call on Saturday with Democratic House members. The call provided no new insight on Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether anyone in President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with that effort, according to lawmakers who took part.
The heads of the committees primarily involved in investigations of the Trump administration led the discussion, including Nadler and Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff. The major thrust followed what Pelosi had earlier in the day outlined in a “Dear Colleague” letter -- that Congress must see the full report, plus its underlying documents and findings.
Several congressional Democrats made the rounds of political talk shows Sunday amplifying the message that they are ready to subpoena the full report and underlying documents, or even to obtain testimony or a briefing from Mueller, Barr or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
“That report needs to be made public ASAP, so we can evaluate the body of evidence on the issue of conspiracy and look at why Bob Muller decided not to indict,” Schiff said on CBS "Face the Nation" Sunday.
“It is not going to be satisfactory for the attorney general of the Justice Department to brief eight of us, the so-called Gang of Eight, in a classified setting and say, ‘OK, we discharged our obligation, we don’t have to tell the rest of the country anything,”’ he said. “That’s not going to fly.”
Democrats are attempting to keep pressure on Trump with their own investigations into his actions as president and his business dealings before taking office. But neither they nor Republicans know yet whether the conclusion of Mueller’s investigation will accelerate or tamp down further probes.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi said transparency is even more urgent given Barr’s letter on Friday that he may advise certain lawmakers this weekend on the “principal conclusions” from Mueller’s 22-month investigation.
“We are insisting that any briefings to any Committees be unclassified so that Members can speak freely about every aspect of the report and not be confined to what DOJ chooses to release publicly,” Pelosi said in her letter.
Barr is planning to release his summary of Mueller’s findings as early as Sunday, according to a Justice Department official. Pelosi said Congress must get Mueller’s entire report so that the relevant committees can proceed with oversight and with potential legislation to address any issues the investigation may raise.
Top Democrat Sees ‘Cover-Up’ If Barr Denies Full Mueller Report
William Barr
Democrats demanded that Attorney General William Barr provide Congress with unclassified access to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s entire report along with underlying evidence on Sunday, vowing to take the challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said providing Congress with anything less would be equivalent to a “cover-up” and subvert the legislative branch of the government from holding the president accountable, a fight the party is willing to take to the nation’s highest court.
“Once you say that a president can not be indictable no matter the evidence as a matter of law, to then follow the principle that you can’t then comment on the evidence or publicize it is to convert that into a cover-up,” Nadler told “Fox News Sunday,” one of three television appearances for the morning.
Representative Jerrold Nadler
“If that is the case, and they can’t hold him accountable, the only institution that can hold a president accountable is Congress, and Congress, therefore, needs the evidence and the information,” he said.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is rallying Democratic lawmakers to deliver a unified message demanding Mueller’s report be unclassified and made public in full, as congressional leaders await a summary of his findings from the Justice Department, possibility as early as Sunday afternoon or evening.
Pelosi and six top committee leaders held what they termed an emergency conference call on Saturday with Democratic House members. The call provided no new insight on Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether anyone in President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with that effort, according to lawmakers who took part.
The heads of the committees primarily involved in investigations of the Trump administration led the discussion, including Nadler and Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff. The major thrust followed what Pelosi had earlier in the day outlined in a “Dear Colleague” letter -- that Congress must see the full report, plus its underlying documents and findings.
Several congressional Democrats made the rounds of political talk shows Sunday amplifying the message that they are ready to subpoena the full report and underlying documents, or even to obtain testimony or a briefing from Mueller, Barr or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
“That report needs to be made public ASAP, so we can evaluate the body of evidence on the issue of conspiracy and look at why Bob Muller decided not to indict,” Schiff said on CBS "Face the Nation" Sunday.
“It is not going to be satisfactory for the attorney general of the Justice Department to brief eight of us, the so-called Gang of Eight, in a classified setting and say, ‘OK, we discharged our obligation, we don’t have to tell the rest of the country anything,”’ he said. “That’s not going to fly.”
Democrats are attempting to keep pressure on Trump with their own investigations into his actions as president and his business dealings before taking office. But neither they nor Republicans know yet whether the conclusion of Mueller’s investigation will accelerate or tamp down further probes.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi said transparency is even more urgent given Barr’s letter on Friday that he may advise certain lawmakers this weekend on the “principal conclusions” from Mueller’s 22-month investigation.
“We are insisting that any briefings to any Committees be unclassified so that Members can speak freely about every aspect of the report and not be confined to what DOJ chooses to release publicly,” Pelosi said in her letter.
Barr is planning to release his summary of Mueller’s findings as early as Sunday, according to a Justice Department official. Pelosi said Congress must get Mueller’s entire report so that the relevant committees can proceed with oversight and with potential legislation to address any issues the investigation may raise.
source: The Hill
McConnell blocks resolution calling for Mueller report to be released publicly
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blocked a resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller's report to be released publicly.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked for unanimous consent for the nonbinding resolution, which cleared the House 420-0, to be passed by the Senate following Mueller's submission of his final reporton Friday.
"Whether or not you're a supporter of President Trump ... there is no good reason not to make the report public," Schumer said from the floor. "It's a simple request for transparency. Nothing more, nothing less."
But McConnell objected, noting that Attorney General William Barr is working with Mueller to determine what in his report can be released publicly and what cannot.
"The special counsel and the Justice Department ought to be allowed to finish their work in a professional manner," McConnell said. "To date, the attorney general has followed through on his commitments to Congress. One of those commitments is that he intends to release as much information as possible."
Under Senate rules, any one senator can try to pass or set up a vote on a bill, resolution or nomination. But in turn, any one senator can block their request.
Mueller turned his report over to the Justice Department on Friday, signaling the formal end of the two-year investigation. Barr sent a four-page letter to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on Sunday outlining Mueller's main findings.
Mueller, according to the letter, did not uncover evidence that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
The attorney general's letter also said that Mueller made no conclusion as to whether Trump obstructed justice in the investigation into Russia's election interference. But it states that Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, after reviewing Mueller's findings, determined that they would not pursue an obstruction of justice charge.
He's separately told lawmakers he's working with Mueller to determine what in the report should or should not be publicly released.
Schumer added after McConnell's objection that the resolution didn't say the report should be released "immediately" but just that it ought to be released.
"I'm sort of befuddled by the majority leader's reasoning in this regard because it is not in the words of this resolution," he said.
But McConnell countered that the president has had to wait two years while the investigation was ongoing and "it's not unreasonable to give the special counsel and the Justice Department just a little time to complete their review in a professional and responsible manner."
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, quickly backed McConnell up in a tweet.
The GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation during the previous Congress that would protect Mueller from being fired, but it wasn't taken up on the Senate floor amid opposition from McConnell and other GOP senators.
It's the second time a Republican senator has blocked Schumer's attempt to pass the House resolution.
The New York Democrat’s first attempt came hours after the resolution cleared the House unanimously, but Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, objected to his request.
Graham blocked the resolution from passing after Schumer refused to amend it to include a provision calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged department misconduct in the handling of the investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's email use and the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications.
McConnell blocks resolution calling for Mueller report to be released publicly
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blocked a resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller's report to be released publicly.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked for unanimous consent for the nonbinding resolution, which cleared the House 420-0, to be passed by the Senate following Mueller's submission of his final reporton Friday.
"Whether or not you're a supporter of President Trump ... there is no good reason not to make the report public," Schumer said from the floor. "It's a simple request for transparency. Nothing more, nothing less."
But McConnell objected, noting that Attorney General William Barr is working with Mueller to determine what in his report can be released publicly and what cannot.
"The special counsel and the Justice Department ought to be allowed to finish their work in a professional manner," McConnell said. "To date, the attorney general has followed through on his commitments to Congress. One of those commitments is that he intends to release as much information as possible."
Under Senate rules, any one senator can try to pass or set up a vote on a bill, resolution or nomination. But in turn, any one senator can block their request.
Mueller turned his report over to the Justice Department on Friday, signaling the formal end of the two-year investigation. Barr sent a four-page letter to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on Sunday outlining Mueller's main findings.
Mueller, according to the letter, did not uncover evidence that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
The attorney general's letter also said that Mueller made no conclusion as to whether Trump obstructed justice in the investigation into Russia's election interference. But it states that Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, after reviewing Mueller's findings, determined that they would not pursue an obstruction of justice charge.
He's separately told lawmakers he's working with Mueller to determine what in the report should or should not be publicly released.
Schumer added after McConnell's objection that the resolution didn't say the report should be released "immediately" but just that it ought to be released.
"I'm sort of befuddled by the majority leader's reasoning in this regard because it is not in the words of this resolution," he said.
But McConnell countered that the president has had to wait two years while the investigation was ongoing and "it's not unreasonable to give the special counsel and the Justice Department just a little time to complete their review in a professional and responsible manner."
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, quickly backed McConnell up in a tweet.
The GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation during the previous Congress that would protect Mueller from being fired, but it wasn't taken up on the Senate floor amid opposition from McConnell and other GOP senators.
It's the second time a Republican senator has blocked Schumer's attempt to pass the House resolution.
The New York Democrat’s first attempt came hours after the resolution cleared the House unanimously, but Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, objected to his request.
Graham blocked the resolution from passing after Schumer refused to amend it to include a provision calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged department misconduct in the handling of the investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's email use and the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications.
source: NBC News
House committee chairs demand full Mueller report by April 2 deadline
In a letter to Attorney General Barr, the Democratic lawmakers said his summary of the special counsel's report "is not sufficient for Congress."
In a three-page letter, lawmakers wrote that the summary of Mueller's report released this weekend "is not sufficient for Congress."
WASHINGTON — Six Democratic committee chairs in the House sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Monday requesting that he submit the full report from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation to Congress by April 2.
In a three-page letter to Barr, the lawmakers wrote that his summary of the Mueller report "is not sufficient for Congress."
"We look forward to receiving the report in full no later than April 2, and to begin receiving the underlying evidence and documents that same day," the letter said.
The top House Democrats argued that providing the report "in complete and unredacted form," along with the underlying evidence and materials, would be fully consistent with the Department of Justice's practice and precedent with Congress.
"To the extent that you believe applicable law limits your ability to comply, we urge you to begin the process of consultation with us immediately in order to establish shared parameters for resolving those issues without delay," they wrote.
The letter was signed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.
"All I’m interested in is for them to release the full report, the full Mueller report," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Monday night at the Capitol.
Their request comes a day after Barr submitted to Congress and made public his four-page summary of Mueller's report, which said the special counsel did not find proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and provided no opinion on whether the president had obstructed justice, instead leaving that to Barr, who said there was not sufficient evidence to move forward.
In his letter, Barr said the Mueller report states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated" with Russia. Barr also wrote that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "have concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
Still, Barr continued by noting Mueller found that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it does not exonerate him."
Democrats have demanded that the entire Mueller report and the corresponding documents and materials used during the investigation be made public. Barr has not committed to doing that in previous comments and testimony to Congress.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday blocked an effort by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumerto unanimously pass a non-binding measure stating that Congress wants Mueller’s report be made available to lawmakers and the public. The measure was passed in a unanimous House vote earlier this month.
House committee chairs demand full Mueller report by April 2 deadline
In a letter to Attorney General Barr, the Democratic lawmakers said his summary of the special counsel's report "is not sufficient for Congress."
In a three-page letter, lawmakers wrote that the summary of Mueller's report released this weekend "is not sufficient for Congress."
WASHINGTON — Six Democratic committee chairs in the House sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Monday requesting that he submit the full report from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation to Congress by April 2.
In a three-page letter to Barr, the lawmakers wrote that his summary of the Mueller report "is not sufficient for Congress."
"We look forward to receiving the report in full no later than April 2, and to begin receiving the underlying evidence and documents that same day," the letter said.
The top House Democrats argued that providing the report "in complete and unredacted form," along with the underlying evidence and materials, would be fully consistent with the Department of Justice's practice and precedent with Congress.
"To the extent that you believe applicable law limits your ability to comply, we urge you to begin the process of consultation with us immediately in order to establish shared parameters for resolving those issues without delay," they wrote.
The letter was signed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.
"All I’m interested in is for them to release the full report, the full Mueller report," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Monday night at the Capitol.
Their request comes a day after Barr submitted to Congress and made public his four-page summary of Mueller's report, which said the special counsel did not find proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and provided no opinion on whether the president had obstructed justice, instead leaving that to Barr, who said there was not sufficient evidence to move forward.
In his letter, Barr said the Mueller report states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated" with Russia. Barr also wrote that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "have concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
Still, Barr continued by noting Mueller found that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it does not exonerate him."
Democrats have demanded that the entire Mueller report and the corresponding documents and materials used during the investigation be made public. Barr has not committed to doing that in previous comments and testimony to Congress.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday blocked an effort by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumerto unanimously pass a non-binding measure stating that Congress wants Mueller’s report be made available to lawmakers and the public. The measure was passed in a unanimous House vote earlier this month.
STOP THE STALLING!
source: Reuters
Nadler says Barr may miss Democrats' April 2 deadline for Mueller report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on Wednesday he was very concerned that Attorney General William Barr might not submit Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report to Congress by April 2 as Democrats have demanded.
Nadler said he had a 10-minute phone conversation on Wednesday with Barr, who released a four-page summary on Sunday of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Nadler said Barr would not commit to submitting the entire report to Congress.
“I am very concerned that it is apparent that the Department (of Justice) will not meet the April 2 deadline that we set. And I’m very disturbed by that,” Nadler told reporters.
“I asked whether he could commit that the full report, an unredacted full report with the underlying documents evidence would be provided to Congress and to the American people. And he wouldn’t make a commitment to that. I am very concerned about that,” Nadler said.
Nadler said Barr agreed to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Nadler left open the possibility that Mueller may be asked to testify sometime after Barr appears.
Barr said in his summary of the Mueller report that the special counsel’s 22-month investigation did not find that President Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia. Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, according to Barr.
Nadler said he knows the length of the Mueller - calling it “very substantial” - but he declined to reveal how many pages.
source: Reuters
Nadler says Barr may miss Democrats' April 2 deadline for Mueller report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on Wednesday he was very concerned that Attorney General William Barr might not submit Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report to Congress by April 2 as Democrats have demanded.
Nadler said he had a 10-minute phone conversation on Wednesday with Barr, who released a four-page summary on Sunday of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Nadler said Barr would not commit to submitting the entire report to Congress.
“I am very concerned that it is apparent that the Department (of Justice) will not meet the April 2 deadline that we set. And I’m very disturbed by that,” Nadler told reporters.
“I asked whether he could commit that the full report, an unredacted full report with the underlying documents evidence would be provided to Congress and to the American people. And he wouldn’t make a commitment to that. I am very concerned about that,” Nadler said.
Nadler said Barr agreed to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Nadler left open the possibility that Mueller may be asked to testify sometime after Barr appears.
Barr said in his summary of the Mueller report that the special counsel’s 22-month investigation did not find that President Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia. Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, according to Barr.
Nadler said he knows the length of the Mueller - calling it “very substantial” - but he declined to reveal how many pages.
Donald Trump celebrates the end of the Mueller report on 'SNL'
Robert De Niro made a cameo as Mueller -- maybe for the final time.
00:1602:21
Copy and paste to share this video
Copy and paste to embed this video
" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px auto; overflow: visible; display: block; width: 589.313px; padding: 0.375rem 0.75rem; color: rgb(73, 80, 87); background-clip: padding-box; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(206, 212, 218); border-radius: 0.25rem; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-in-out 0s, box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s;">
COMING UP | Mozambique floods, teacher wins, princess pups: World in Photos
By Mark Osborne Mar 31, 2019 12:20 AM
The real Donald Trump celebrated the end of the Mueller report this week, so you know the president's least-favorite program, "Saturday Night Live," was going to do the same.
Alec Baldwin returned as Trump, while Robert De Niro made his now-expected cameo as special counsel Robert Mueller and Aidy Bryant joined the show's trend of gender-bending impressions as Attorney General William Barr.
The news trickled downhill from Mueller's 300-plus page report to Barr's "almost four page" summary to Trump's tweets -- of course.
"Sean Hannity has read it and he's so excited he texted me an eggplant," Baldwin's Trump said.
(MORE: Kenan Thompson channels R. Kelly for unhinged interview on 'SNL')
To the news of everyone indicted in the probe related to Trump, Barr responded they were "good people" and Trump responded, "The pardons are already in the mail."
And of course Trump further implicated himself.
Saturday Night Live - SNL
✔@nbcsnl
https://twitter.com/nbcsnl/status/1112199030350712832
And now, Robert Mueller finishes his report, William Barr summarizes the report, and Donald Trump tweets his reaction to the summary. #SNL
3,447
11:44 PM - Mar 30, 2019
1,767 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
"Russia, if you're watching, go to bed, daddy won!" Baldwin said.
We also got a visit from Trump's brilliant legal mind: Kate McKinnon playing Rudy Giuliani.
"I guess my legal strategy worked," Giuliani said. "If you want to know my legal strategy you'll have to ask the family of goblins that live in my head and hold my eyes open."
We'll have to see if this was De Niro's last appearance on the show as Mueller, now that the report has wrapped up in real life.
(MORE: Ben Stiller returns to 'SNL' as Michael Cohen testifies before Congress)
Vladimir Putin, played as usual by Beck Bennett, made an appearance in a sketch later in the show where he pleaded with his staff that the Mueller report was wrong and he really did control Trump.
"Is Trump work for Russia or not?" an aide asked.
Putin reluctantly answered "no," to the disappointment of his staff.
"I do most of what people think," Bennett's Putin pleaded. "I'm still a powerful, scary guy!"
Robert De Niro made a cameo as Mueller -- maybe for the final time.
00:1602:21
Copy and paste to share this video
Copy and paste to embed this video
" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px auto; overflow: visible; display: block; width: 589.313px; padding: 0.375rem 0.75rem; color: rgb(73, 80, 87); background-clip: padding-box; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(206, 212, 218); border-radius: 0.25rem; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-in-out 0s, box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s;">
COMING UP | Mozambique floods, teacher wins, princess pups: World in Photos
By Mark Osborne Mar 31, 2019 12:20 AM
The real Donald Trump celebrated the end of the Mueller report this week, so you know the president's least-favorite program, "Saturday Night Live," was going to do the same.
Alec Baldwin returned as Trump, while Robert De Niro made his now-expected cameo as special counsel Robert Mueller and Aidy Bryant joined the show's trend of gender-bending impressions as Attorney General William Barr.
The news trickled downhill from Mueller's 300-plus page report to Barr's "almost four page" summary to Trump's tweets -- of course.
"Sean Hannity has read it and he's so excited he texted me an eggplant," Baldwin's Trump said.
(MORE: Kenan Thompson channels R. Kelly for unhinged interview on 'SNL')
To the news of everyone indicted in the probe related to Trump, Barr responded they were "good people" and Trump responded, "The pardons are already in the mail."
And of course Trump further implicated himself.
Saturday Night Live - SNL
✔@nbcsnl
https://twitter.com/nbcsnl/status/1112199030350712832
And now, Robert Mueller finishes his report, William Barr summarizes the report, and Donald Trump tweets his reaction to the summary. #SNL
3,447
11:44 PM - Mar 30, 2019
1,767 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
"Russia, if you're watching, go to bed, daddy won!" Baldwin said.
We also got a visit from Trump's brilliant legal mind: Kate McKinnon playing Rudy Giuliani.
"I guess my legal strategy worked," Giuliani said. "If you want to know my legal strategy you'll have to ask the family of goblins that live in my head and hold my eyes open."
We'll have to see if this was De Niro's last appearance on the show as Mueller, now that the report has wrapped up in real life.
(MORE: Ben Stiller returns to 'SNL' as Michael Cohen testifies before Congress)
Vladimir Putin, played as usual by Beck Bennett, made an appearance in a sketch later in the show where he pleaded with his staff that the Mueller report was wrong and he really did control Trump.
"Is Trump work for Russia or not?" an aide asked.
Putin reluctantly answered "no," to the disappointment of his staff.
"I do most of what people think," Bennett's Putin pleaded. "I'm still a powerful, scary guy!"
HAPPENING NOW: House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler, other lawmakers, activists and more gather in front of the White House calling for the release of the full report by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Mueller Is leaving Justice Department 'within the coming days'
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel's office, told The Hill on Monday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will leave the Justice Department "within the coming days." Carr did not elaborate, and he used the same phrase a month ago.
President Trump is pulling out all the stops to prevent Mueller from testifying before Congress. House Democrats have tentatively scheduled Mueller to testify on May 15, despite Trump's efforts.
Mueller leaves the Justice Department, though, Trump will have even less control over whether he testifies. Attorney General William Barr reportedly still maintains he has no concerns about Mueller testifying, as a private citizen or Justice Department employee.
Source: The Hill, ABC News
.
Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line
'The president was not exculpated,' he says.
Politico
By ANDREW DESIDERIO
and KYLE CHENEY
07/24/2019
Former special counsel Robert Mueller pushed back against President Donald Trump’s characterizations of his 22-month investigation, telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he did not evaluate “collusion” with the Russian government, and confirming that his report did not conclude that there was “no obstruction” of the probe.
“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
Full Story: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/robert-mueller-testimony-1428423
.
____________
Exculpated -- adj. 1. freed from any question of guilt; having suspicion of guilt eliminated.
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/exculpated
Thats all yall going to get from me
CONGRESS
Here’s what surprised us during the Mueller testimony — and 4 other takeaways
Five of POLITICO’s reporters who have been tracking the Russia probe for two years give their thoughts on what stood out and what they wish Mueller had discussed.
By POLITICO STAFF
07/24/2019
It’s over. After months of anticipation, Robert Mueller has finally testified on Capitol Hill.
Over five-plus hours of testimony, Mueller regularly deflected and refused to answer lawmakers’ questions about anything that wasn’t already in the 448-page report Mueller’s team submitted when it closed up shop earlier this year.
Still, to five of the POLITICO reporters who have been tracking the Russia probe for years, there were a number of observations and moments that stuck out. We asked them for their thoughts.
What surprised you?
Natasha Bertrand: I was surprised by the change in Mueller’s tenor between the first and second hearings. He seemed much more confident and forceful during the House Intelligence Committee hearing than during the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The difference might reflect the fact that investigating Russia’s election interference and the Kremlin’s potential ties to the Trump campaign was Mueller’s original mandate.
Kyle Cheney: Mueller allowed cutting criticisms of his report to stand unchallenged, including some lengthy monologues from Republican lawmakers who mocked his understanding of criminal law. It was at times a painful contrast, as Mueller watched blankly while his credibility was called into question.
Andrew Desiderio: I’m, frankly, surprised that Mueller slipped up in his answer to Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) about whether he would have indicted Trump if there wasn’t a DOJ policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president. Democrats were elated at Mueller’s initial response, and for a moment there, I thought that answer alone could be a defining moment in the impeachment debate. But Mueller had to walk back his answer later that day, a striking moment for a question that he must have known would come.
Josh Gerstein: While Mueller was very mild-mannered throughout — critics might say almost somnolent — he got notably animated when explaining why he explicitly noted he wasn’t exonerating Trump. The answer seemed to be that Mueller feared Attorney General Bill Barr might seek to argue that a decision not to charge was a kind of vindication for the president.
“We included in the report for exactly that reason. [Barr] may not know it. He should know it,” Mueller said.
Darren Samuelsohn: I’d been hearing the chatter for months that Democrats were warned Mueller didn’t want to participate in the hearing, and maybe it was because he wasn’t “up to” doing it.
There wasn’t much more detail than that, but it did fuel lots of speculation he didn’t have the stamina for two major hearings like this. While Trump supporters and even some of his lawyers were making these points as the hearings got started, it surprised me how quick others spoke up expressing concerns about Mueller’s demeanor.
Did we learn anything new that wasn’t in the report?
Bertrand: Mueller appears to have shot down one potential avenue of Trump-Russia conspiracy — the repeated pinging in late 2016 between the Trump Organization servers and servers belonging to Russia's Alfa Bank.
“My belief at this point is it's not true” that the servers were secretly communicating, Mueller said. He also indicated that the issue was investigated.
The response is notable because Alfa Bank and the pinging servers was not addressed in the report, making it a rare divergence from the report for Mueller.
Cheney: Very, very little. Mueller refused to answer dozens — if not hundreds — of questions. At times, he even refused to answer things that were laid out in the report. He did, however, defend his investigation as “not a witch hunt” and directly criticized President Donald Trump’s praise of WikiLeaks, saying that calling it “problematic” would be “an understatement.”
Desiderio: Mueller held closely to the Justice Department’s directive about the scope of his testimony — and for that reason, he declined to answer many of the burning questions both sides posed to him. However, Mueller refuted many of Trump’s attacks on his probe and his findings, potentially giving Democrats fresh ammunition.
Gerstein: A few small things. For instance, Mueller said he didn’t take part in approving any surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, a subject that Republicans have long hammered. But Mueller was extraordinarily cautious, declining to confirm or restate things actually in his report. And at times it seemed like we were actually losing details, when he either misunderstood questions or misstated the report, like when Mueller said he never investigated whether the Trump campaign sought to steal Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Samuelsohn: Mueller did finally put words to his report in a substantive way, with the give and take that you just don’t get by reading the document. That’s something. But as for substance, I didn’t learn anything new.
What did Mueller not talk about that you were hoping to hear?
Bertrand: I still want to know why he did not subpoena the president, whether Donald Trump Jr. cited his Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate as a way to prevent Mueller from forcing him to testify and why Mueller ended the investigation when he did. I also wish Mueller had gone into more detail about campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s handing over internal campaign polling data to a suspected Russian spy. What did Mueller think the purpose of that was?
Cheney: I was hoping Mueller would expound a bit on his interactions with Attorney General Bill Barr and whether he believed Barr accurately portrayed the findings of his report when he first summarized them in March. Democrats have said Barr’s portrayal was essentially a disinformation effort that cast Trump’s actions in a benign light while Mueller’s report remained secret for a full month. But Mueller’s refusal to engage on this left those questions mostly unanswered.
Desiderio: I would’ve liked to hear Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s top deputy, interject when Mueller responded to a question by saying he was unsure or could not recall. Zebley was sworn in as a witness for the Intelligence Committee hearing, but his involvement was minimal. He was more involved in the day-to-day aspects of the investigation and likely could have answered some questions that Mueller couldn’t.
Aaron Zebley, Mueller's top deputy, was sworn in as a witness for the Intelligence Committee hearing, but his involvement was minimal. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO
Gerstein: I was surprised that Mueller didn’t offer a more forceful defense of his staff. He did deny his probe was a witch hunt, and launched into something a couple times about the professionalism of his staff, but never really sold it. I expected a bit of reserved outrage at the repeated attacks on his office and also on the FBI. Perhaps he didn’t want to seem too protective of his former colleagues there in case the looming inspector general report slams folks at the FBI.
Samuelsohn: I’ve been as interested as others in why Mueller ended his investigation when he did — when Trump adviser Roger Stone’s trial was still months off and when cooperation from the likes of Trump deputy campaign chair Rick Gates had not ended. Mueller didn’t go there on Wednesday, leaving us to continue to wonder why things wrapped up in late March.
What did the hearing accomplish? Will this change anything?
Bertrand: I think people’s predetermined views on this will just be further hardened. Right-wing media is doubling down on Trump being innocent and the Russia probe being a hoax, while Democrats are highlighting the few things Mueller did reiterate about the campaign’s contacts with Russia and WikiLeaks, as well as the president’s alleged obstruction of justice.
Cheney: It’s dangerous to assume how the hearing might play out politically and in terms of public perception — including on impeachment. Though the hearing was widely seen as a bust for Democrats, due to Mueller’s halting performance, it could be days or weeks before it becomes clear which moments resonate outside Washington.
Desiderio: Out of the gate, I don’t think the dynamics on Capitol Hill will change much at all. The hearing gave Democrats an opportunity to highlight the most damaging parts of the report, while Republican were able to use their time to challenge Mueller’s legal theories and prosecutorial decisions. I don’t think anyone’s mind was changed — at least in the short-term.
Trump on Mueller: The Republican Party had 'a very good day today'
Gerstein: In the short term, Democrats are going to take a hit from various commentators and pundits for once again swooning for Mueller rather than carefully thinking through how a hearing was likely to play out. I think they got fewer usable soundbites to feature in TV ads than they hoped, if that was the goal. I don’t think it will muster much sympathy for Trump either, in part because Mueller did not seem like a crazed zealot.
Samuelsohn: Not much. I think it sends the political parties deeper into their respective corners. Democrats got some soundbites, though I don’t think they were especially made-for-TV moments. Trump is only going to rant harder about the Mueller team, which he has been painting for two years as partisan hacks pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Are we any closer to impeachment?
Bertrand: These hearings would’ve had to convince House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that impeachment is necessary — she’s currently against it — and it remains to be seen whether Mueller’s testimony was strong enough to change her mind.
Cheney: Though Mueller didn’t do the effort any favors, Democrats pushing impeachment are unlikely to be deterred, while those wanting to oppose it can feel more comfortable with their decision. Pro-impeachment Democrats said halfway through the day that they still viewed an impeachment inquiry as a likely course and predicted that more than half of House Democrats would be on board in the not-too-distant future.
Desiderio: It’s almost certain that the pro-impeachment number will rise before the end of the week. But the only indicator Pelosi cares about is public sentiment. If public opinion doesn’t shift closer to impeachment, Pelosi will remain entrenched.
Gerstein: Attention to Mueller and his report tends to encourage more Democrats to move in that direction. And we have August recess coming up, during which many Democratic lawmakers will see their most partisan constituents at town hall events demanding a move to impeachment. But I think the effect on public opinion will be negligible.
Samuelsohn: I think we get more Democratic impeachment supporters coming forward. And I’d not be surprised, too, if House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler announces the launch of proceedings at some point soon to open up new lines of inquiry and embolden his court fights ahead. But I don’t think any Republicans will flip on impeachment because of what happened Wednesday, and so the process itself is far off from getting the kind of bipartisan traction it would need to become a reality.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/mueller-testimony-1432264
Here’s what surprised us during the Mueller testimony — and 4 other takeaways
Five of POLITICO’s reporters who have been tracking the Russia probe for two years give their thoughts on what stood out and what they wish Mueller had discussed.
By POLITICO STAFF
07/24/2019
It’s over. After months of anticipation, Robert Mueller has finally testified on Capitol Hill.
Over five-plus hours of testimony, Mueller regularly deflected and refused to answer lawmakers’ questions about anything that wasn’t already in the 448-page report Mueller’s team submitted when it closed up shop earlier this year.
Still, to five of the POLITICO reporters who have been tracking the Russia probe for years, there were a number of observations and moments that stuck out. We asked them for their thoughts.
What surprised you?
Natasha Bertrand: I was surprised by the change in Mueller’s tenor between the first and second hearings. He seemed much more confident and forceful during the House Intelligence Committee hearing than during the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The difference might reflect the fact that investigating Russia’s election interference and the Kremlin’s potential ties to the Trump campaign was Mueller’s original mandate.
Kyle Cheney: Mueller allowed cutting criticisms of his report to stand unchallenged, including some lengthy monologues from Republican lawmakers who mocked his understanding of criminal law. It was at times a painful contrast, as Mueller watched blankly while his credibility was called into question.
Andrew Desiderio: I’m, frankly, surprised that Mueller slipped up in his answer to Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) about whether he would have indicted Trump if there wasn’t a DOJ policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president. Democrats were elated at Mueller’s initial response, and for a moment there, I thought that answer alone could be a defining moment in the impeachment debate. But Mueller had to walk back his answer later that day, a striking moment for a question that he must have known would come.
Josh Gerstein: While Mueller was very mild-mannered throughout — critics might say almost somnolent — he got notably animated when explaining why he explicitly noted he wasn’t exonerating Trump. The answer seemed to be that Mueller feared Attorney General Bill Barr might seek to argue that a decision not to charge was a kind of vindication for the president.
“We included in the report for exactly that reason. [Barr] may not know it. He should know it,” Mueller said.
Darren Samuelsohn: I’d been hearing the chatter for months that Democrats were warned Mueller didn’t want to participate in the hearing, and maybe it was because he wasn’t “up to” doing it.
There wasn’t much more detail than that, but it did fuel lots of speculation he didn’t have the stamina for two major hearings like this. While Trump supporters and even some of his lawyers were making these points as the hearings got started, it surprised me how quick others spoke up expressing concerns about Mueller’s demeanor.
Did we learn anything new that wasn’t in the report?
Bertrand: Mueller appears to have shot down one potential avenue of Trump-Russia conspiracy — the repeated pinging in late 2016 between the Trump Organization servers and servers belonging to Russia's Alfa Bank.
“My belief at this point is it's not true” that the servers were secretly communicating, Mueller said. He also indicated that the issue was investigated.
The response is notable because Alfa Bank and the pinging servers was not addressed in the report, making it a rare divergence from the report for Mueller.
Cheney: Very, very little. Mueller refused to answer dozens — if not hundreds — of questions. At times, he even refused to answer things that were laid out in the report. He did, however, defend his investigation as “not a witch hunt” and directly criticized President Donald Trump’s praise of WikiLeaks, saying that calling it “problematic” would be “an understatement.”
Desiderio: Mueller held closely to the Justice Department’s directive about the scope of his testimony — and for that reason, he declined to answer many of the burning questions both sides posed to him. However, Mueller refuted many of Trump’s attacks on his probe and his findings, potentially giving Democrats fresh ammunition.
Gerstein: A few small things. For instance, Mueller said he didn’t take part in approving any surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, a subject that Republicans have long hammered. But Mueller was extraordinarily cautious, declining to confirm or restate things actually in his report. And at times it seemed like we were actually losing details, when he either misunderstood questions or misstated the report, like when Mueller said he never investigated whether the Trump campaign sought to steal Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Samuelsohn: Mueller did finally put words to his report in a substantive way, with the give and take that you just don’t get by reading the document. That’s something. But as for substance, I didn’t learn anything new.
What did Mueller not talk about that you were hoping to hear?
Bertrand: I still want to know why he did not subpoena the president, whether Donald Trump Jr. cited his Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate as a way to prevent Mueller from forcing him to testify and why Mueller ended the investigation when he did. I also wish Mueller had gone into more detail about campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s handing over internal campaign polling data to a suspected Russian spy. What did Mueller think the purpose of that was?
Cheney: I was hoping Mueller would expound a bit on his interactions with Attorney General Bill Barr and whether he believed Barr accurately portrayed the findings of his report when he first summarized them in March. Democrats have said Barr’s portrayal was essentially a disinformation effort that cast Trump’s actions in a benign light while Mueller’s report remained secret for a full month. But Mueller’s refusal to engage on this left those questions mostly unanswered.
Desiderio: I would’ve liked to hear Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s top deputy, interject when Mueller responded to a question by saying he was unsure or could not recall. Zebley was sworn in as a witness for the Intelligence Committee hearing, but his involvement was minimal. He was more involved in the day-to-day aspects of the investigation and likely could have answered some questions that Mueller couldn’t.
Aaron Zebley, Mueller's top deputy, was sworn in as a witness for the Intelligence Committee hearing, but his involvement was minimal. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO
Gerstein: I was surprised that Mueller didn’t offer a more forceful defense of his staff. He did deny his probe was a witch hunt, and launched into something a couple times about the professionalism of his staff, but never really sold it. I expected a bit of reserved outrage at the repeated attacks on his office and also on the FBI. Perhaps he didn’t want to seem too protective of his former colleagues there in case the looming inspector general report slams folks at the FBI.
Samuelsohn: I’ve been as interested as others in why Mueller ended his investigation when he did — when Trump adviser Roger Stone’s trial was still months off and when cooperation from the likes of Trump deputy campaign chair Rick Gates had not ended. Mueller didn’t go there on Wednesday, leaving us to continue to wonder why things wrapped up in late March.
What did the hearing accomplish? Will this change anything?
Bertrand: I think people’s predetermined views on this will just be further hardened. Right-wing media is doubling down on Trump being innocent and the Russia probe being a hoax, while Democrats are highlighting the few things Mueller did reiterate about the campaign’s contacts with Russia and WikiLeaks, as well as the president’s alleged obstruction of justice.
Cheney: It’s dangerous to assume how the hearing might play out politically and in terms of public perception — including on impeachment. Though the hearing was widely seen as a bust for Democrats, due to Mueller’s halting performance, it could be days or weeks before it becomes clear which moments resonate outside Washington.
Desiderio: Out of the gate, I don’t think the dynamics on Capitol Hill will change much at all. The hearing gave Democrats an opportunity to highlight the most damaging parts of the report, while Republican were able to use their time to challenge Mueller’s legal theories and prosecutorial decisions. I don’t think anyone’s mind was changed — at least in the short-term.
Trump on Mueller: The Republican Party had 'a very good day today'
Gerstein: In the short term, Democrats are going to take a hit from various commentators and pundits for once again swooning for Mueller rather than carefully thinking through how a hearing was likely to play out. I think they got fewer usable soundbites to feature in TV ads than they hoped, if that was the goal. I don’t think it will muster much sympathy for Trump either, in part because Mueller did not seem like a crazed zealot.
Samuelsohn: Not much. I think it sends the political parties deeper into their respective corners. Democrats got some soundbites, though I don’t think they were especially made-for-TV moments. Trump is only going to rant harder about the Mueller team, which he has been painting for two years as partisan hacks pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Are we any closer to impeachment?
Bertrand: These hearings would’ve had to convince House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that impeachment is necessary — she’s currently against it — and it remains to be seen whether Mueller’s testimony was strong enough to change her mind.
Cheney: Though Mueller didn’t do the effort any favors, Democrats pushing impeachment are unlikely to be deterred, while those wanting to oppose it can feel more comfortable with their decision. Pro-impeachment Democrats said halfway through the day that they still viewed an impeachment inquiry as a likely course and predicted that more than half of House Democrats would be on board in the not-too-distant future.
Desiderio: It’s almost certain that the pro-impeachment number will rise before the end of the week. But the only indicator Pelosi cares about is public sentiment. If public opinion doesn’t shift closer to impeachment, Pelosi will remain entrenched.
Gerstein: Attention to Mueller and his report tends to encourage more Democrats to move in that direction. And we have August recess coming up, during which many Democratic lawmakers will see their most partisan constituents at town hall events demanding a move to impeachment. But I think the effect on public opinion will be negligible.
Samuelsohn: I think we get more Democratic impeachment supporters coming forward. And I’d not be surprised, too, if House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler announces the launch of proceedings at some point soon to open up new lines of inquiry and embolden his court fights ahead. But I don’t think any Republicans will flip on impeachment because of what happened Wednesday, and so the process itself is far off from getting the kind of bipartisan traction it would need to become a reality.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/mueller-testimony-1432264
Especially in 21st century AmeriKKKa if it's populace doesn't see concise easy to comprehend video on their telescreens then they don't believe any important event ever happened in this country.
Reading of non-fiction books, newspapers, and periodicals in the U.S. is at all time lows; this is a perfect situation for committed liars and propagandist to spew PSYOPS and create non-reality based cult followings i.e.FOX FAKE news, Reich-wing radio & internet broadcast & tweets,facebook (Alex Jones {InfoWars}, Breitbart, Stormfront, Rush, Savage, Mark Levin, et al.)
Onto this sinking stinking ship sailing on non-reality came lifelong committed con-man SOCIOPATH Donald Drumpf . The mainstream media, the big professional establishment press (ABC, CBS, NBC/MSNBC, CNN, NYTIMES, WashPost) for the most part gave the SOCIOPATH Donald Drumpf a free pass, in 2015-2016 despite his sordid con-man past and his 8 year birther lie about Barack Obama. It is obvious to see how some of the white males who were running the establishment media operations had a kinship with Trump. The head of CBS Les Moonves now deposed had a woman at CBS receiving a six figure corporate salary whose job duty was to suck Moonves dick on command. The head of CNN Jeff Zucker who was running NBC when they paid Trump millions for the show "The Apprentice" also knew about "Today Show" host Matt Lauer who brought a female subordinate into his office, locked the door and fucked her so harshly that a nurse had to be called to escort her out for treatment. He got fired. These guys are guys Trump would get along with fabulously.
Willfully DUMB REPUBLIKLAN TRUMP SUPPORTER BELOW
Mueller's Testimony Exposes
Trump for What He Is
July 25, 2019 | https://www.truthdig.com/articles/muellers-testimony-exposes-trump-for-what-he-really-is/
Donald Trump keeps trying to hypnotize people by saying “no collusion, no obstruction,” and saying that Robert Mueller exonerated him. Because so few Americans and so few in Congress will actually read the Mueller report, he thinks he can get away with the big lie.
Mueller explicitly denied yesterday that he had exonerated Trump. So that’s a Trump lie.
The Mueller report contains ample evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation. In fact, we know that Trump tried as hard as he could to simply fire Mueller for the purpose of obstructing the Mueller report.
Although Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., did not in fact elicit from Mueller, as Alex Ward at Vox showed, an admission that he had decided on Trump’s guilt but did not indict, Lieu carefully walked Mueller through the report to establish fairly conclusively that Trump committed what any reasonable person, knowledgeable of the law, would conclude was obstruction of justice:
Lieu demonstrated from the Mueller report that all three elements of obstruction of justice were committed by Trump when he told White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and then told McGahn to cover up the order (which was not implemented).
LIEU: Thank you, director Mueller, for you long history of service to our country including your service as a Marine where you earned a brown star with a V device.
I’d like to now turn to the elements of obstruction of justice as applied to the president’s attempts to curtail your investigation. The first element of obstruction of justice requites and obstructive act, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
LIEU: OK. I’d like to direct you to page 97 of Volume 2 of your report, and you wrote there on page 97, quote, “Sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president and his campaign,” unquote. That’s in the report, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
LIEU: That would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct their investigation, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
LIEU: OK. Let’s turn now to the second element of the crime of obstruction of justice which requires a nexus to an official proceeding. Again, I’m going to direct you to page 97, the same page of Volume 2. And you wrote, quote, “by the time of the president’s initial one-on-one meeting with Lewandowski on June 19, 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the special counsel was public knowledge.” That’s in the report, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
LIEU: That would constitute evidence of a nexus to an official proceeding because a grand jury investigation is an official proceeding, correct?
MUELLER: Yes.
LIEU: OK. I’d like to now turn to the final element of the crime of obstruction to justice. On that same page, page 97, do you see where there is the intent section on that page?
MUELLER: I do see that.
LIEU: All right. Would you be willing to read the first sentence?
MUELLER: And that was starting with…
LIEU: Substantial evidence.
MUELLER: Indicates that the president…
LIEU: If you read that first sentence, would you be willing to do that?
MUELLER: I’m happy to have you read it.
LIEU: OK. I will read it. You wrote, quote, “substantial evidence indicates that the president’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the special counsel’s investigation be featuring (ph) election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the president and his campaign’s conduct,” unquote. That’s in the report, correct?
MUELLER: That is in the report, and I rely what’s in the report to indicate what’s happened in the paragraphs that we’ve been discussing.
LIEU: Thank you. So to recap what we’ve heard, we have heard today that the president ordered former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to fire you. The president ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we’ve heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he — you stop investigating the president.
I believe any reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. And I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.
LIEU: The fact that their orders by the president were not carried out, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice because a statute itself is quite dry. It says that as long as you endeavor or attempt to obstruct justice, that would also constitute a crime.
MUELLER: I’m not going to get into that at this juncture.
LIEU: OK. Thank you, and based on the evidence that we have heard today, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that at least three crimes of obstruction of justice by the president occurred. We’re going to hear about two additional crimes. That would be the witnessed hamperings of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, and I yield back.
MUELLER: Well, the only thing I want to add is that I’m going through the elements with you do not mean or does not mean that I subscribe to the — what you’re trying to prove through those elements.
Objections that McGahn did not follow through on the order are irrelevant, since obstruction is defined as attempting to obstruct, which Trump did. Objections that the obstruction was to stop an investigation into collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, which was not proved, are also irrelevant, because an accused person can attempt to obstruct an investigation even if the investigation’s premise is never proved.
Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson’s questioning underlined that obstruction can be committed even in noncriminal matters, for instance, to avoid personal embarrassment.
As for collusion, what Mueller found was that there was insufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy, which is a federal crime, to bring charges. He did not conclude that there was no criminal conspiracy, only that he could not prove one. Collusion is a much vaguer conception and is not a defined crime in the law. But Mueller did not rule out collusion, as The Washington Post’s Philip Bump points out.
In fact, since “collusion” is not a legal term, it seems obvious that there was collusion. As Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., elicited from Mueller, the Russians extensively interfered in the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign team actively welcomed this interference in the election.
That would be a form of collusion.
Reading of non-fiction books, newspapers, and periodicals in the U.S. is at all time lows; this is a perfect situation for committed liars and propagandist to spew PSYOPS and create non-reality based cult followings i.e.
Onto this sinking stinking ship sailing on non-reality came lifelong committed con-man SOCIOPATH Donald Drumpf . The mainstream media, the big professional establishment press (ABC, CBS, NBC/MSNBC, CNN, NYTIMES, WashPost) for the most part gave the SOCIOPATH Donald Drumpf a free pass, in 2015-2016 despite his sordid con-man past and his 8 year birther lie about Barack Obama. It is obvious to see how some of the white males who were running the establishment media operations had a kinship with Trump. The head of CBS Les Moonves now deposed had a woman at CBS receiving a six figure corporate salary whose job duty was to suck Moonves dick on command. The head of CNN Jeff Zucker who was running NBC when they paid Trump millions for the show "The Apprentice" also knew about "Today Show" host Matt Lauer who brought a female subordinate into his office, locked the door and fucked her so harshly that a nurse had to be called to escort her out for treatment. He got fired. These guys are guys Trump would get along with fabulously.
Willfully DUMB REPUBLIKLAN TRUMP SUPPORTER BELOW
Mueller's Testimony Exposes
Trump for What He Is
July 25, 2019 | https://www.truthdig.com/articles/muellers-testimony-exposes-trump-for-what-he-really-is/
Donald Trump keeps trying to hypnotize people by saying “no collusion, no obstruction,” and saying that Robert Mueller exonerated him. Because so few Americans and so few in Congress will actually read the Mueller report, he thinks he can get away with the big lie.
Mueller explicitly denied yesterday that he had exonerated Trump. So that’s a Trump lie.
The Mueller report contains ample evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation. In fact, we know that Trump tried as hard as he could to simply fire Mueller for the purpose of obstructing the Mueller report.
Although Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., did not in fact elicit from Mueller, as Alex Ward at Vox showed, an admission that he had decided on Trump’s guilt but did not indict, Lieu carefully walked Mueller through the report to establish fairly conclusively that Trump committed what any reasonable person, knowledgeable of the law, would conclude was obstruction of justice:
Lieu demonstrated from the Mueller report that all three elements of obstruction of justice were committed by Trump when he told White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and then told McGahn to cover up the order (which was not implemented).
LIEU: Thank you, director Mueller, for you long history of service to our country including your service as a Marine where you earned a brown star with a V device.
I’d like to now turn to the elements of obstruction of justice as applied to the president’s attempts to curtail your investigation. The first element of obstruction of justice requites and obstructive act, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
LIEU: OK. I’d like to direct you to page 97 of Volume 2 of your report, and you wrote there on page 97, quote, “Sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president and his campaign,” unquote. That’s in the report, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
LIEU: That would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct their investigation, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
LIEU: OK. Let’s turn now to the second element of the crime of obstruction of justice which requires a nexus to an official proceeding. Again, I’m going to direct you to page 97, the same page of Volume 2. And you wrote, quote, “by the time of the president’s initial one-on-one meeting with Lewandowski on June 19, 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the special counsel was public knowledge.” That’s in the report, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
LIEU: That would constitute evidence of a nexus to an official proceeding because a grand jury investigation is an official proceeding, correct?
MUELLER: Yes.
LIEU: OK. I’d like to now turn to the final element of the crime of obstruction to justice. On that same page, page 97, do you see where there is the intent section on that page?
MUELLER: I do see that.
LIEU: All right. Would you be willing to read the first sentence?
MUELLER: And that was starting with…
LIEU: Substantial evidence.
MUELLER: Indicates that the president…
LIEU: If you read that first sentence, would you be willing to do that?
MUELLER: I’m happy to have you read it.
LIEU: OK. I will read it. You wrote, quote, “substantial evidence indicates that the president’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the special counsel’s investigation be featuring (ph) election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the president and his campaign’s conduct,” unquote. That’s in the report, correct?
MUELLER: That is in the report, and I rely what’s in the report to indicate what’s happened in the paragraphs that we’ve been discussing.
LIEU: Thank you. So to recap what we’ve heard, we have heard today that the president ordered former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to fire you. The president ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we’ve heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he — you stop investigating the president.
I believe any reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. And I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.
LIEU: The fact that their orders by the president were not carried out, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice because a statute itself is quite dry. It says that as long as you endeavor or attempt to obstruct justice, that would also constitute a crime.
MUELLER: I’m not going to get into that at this juncture.
LIEU: OK. Thank you, and based on the evidence that we have heard today, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that at least three crimes of obstruction of justice by the president occurred. We’re going to hear about two additional crimes. That would be the witnessed hamperings of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, and I yield back.
MUELLER: Well, the only thing I want to add is that I’m going through the elements with you do not mean or does not mean that I subscribe to the — what you’re trying to prove through those elements.
Objections that McGahn did not follow through on the order are irrelevant, since obstruction is defined as attempting to obstruct, which Trump did. Objections that the obstruction was to stop an investigation into collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, which was not proved, are also irrelevant, because an accused person can attempt to obstruct an investigation even if the investigation’s premise is never proved.
Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson’s questioning underlined that obstruction can be committed even in noncriminal matters, for instance, to avoid personal embarrassment.
As for collusion, what Mueller found was that there was insufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy, which is a federal crime, to bring charges. He did not conclude that there was no criminal conspiracy, only that he could not prove one. Collusion is a much vaguer conception and is not a defined crime in the law. But Mueller did not rule out collusion, as The Washington Post’s Philip Bump points out.
In fact, since “collusion” is not a legal term, it seems obvious that there was collusion. As Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., elicited from Mueller, the Russians extensively interfered in the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign team actively welcomed this interference in the election.
That would be a form of collusion.
Last edited:
The Questions Mueller Didn’t Ask
The “Trump, Inc.” team listened to all of special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony. We talk about what wasn’t said.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-robert-mueller-testimony
Perhaps you’ve heard: Special counsel Robert Mueller testified on Wednesday. There’s plenty of analysis about who won and who didn’t. We’re skipping that part. Instead, on a special, speedy episode of “Trump, Inc.” we’re focusing on the few tidbits that were actually revealing and how it came to be that there weren’t more.
ProPublica’s Jesse Eisinger and Heather Vogell talk with WNYC’s Andrea Bernstein about the many things we didn’t learn and why. They discuss potential mistakes during the investigation, avenues Mueller didn’t explore and witnesses — like the president — he decided not to try to question in person.
Mueller’s testimony is over. His report is done. And his office is closed. But there are plenty of critical yet unanswered questions remaining. And we’re still digging. Listen to the episode to hear what we still want to know.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/trump-inc-questions-mueller-didnt-ask
The “Trump, Inc.” team listened to all of special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony. We talk about what wasn’t said.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-robert-mueller-testimony
Perhaps you’ve heard: Special counsel Robert Mueller testified on Wednesday. There’s plenty of analysis about who won and who didn’t. We’re skipping that part. Instead, on a special, speedy episode of “Trump, Inc.” we’re focusing on the few tidbits that were actually revealing and how it came to be that there weren’t more.
ProPublica’s Jesse Eisinger and Heather Vogell talk with WNYC’s Andrea Bernstein about the many things we didn’t learn and why. They discuss potential mistakes during the investigation, avenues Mueller didn’t explore and witnesses — like the president — he decided not to try to question in person.
Mueller’s testimony is over. His report is done. And his office is closed. But there are plenty of critical yet unanswered questions remaining. And we’re still digging. Listen to the episode to hear what we still want to know.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/trump-inc-questions-mueller-didnt-ask
It was enough to let us know you’re still around.
Take care.
I'm way too busy to be on here debating politics like I used to.
In 'True Crimes,' Toobin Presents A Summation For The Jury In The Case Against Trump
July 31, 2020
At some point in the future, it is entirely possible that the full details of Donald Trump's business affairs, personal imbroglios and political maneuverings will be laid bare to the public. Should that happen, it is easy to imagine much of the world wondering how the man got away with so much for so long.
In that hour, readers may well turn to True Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Investigation of Donald Trump. This tome by Jeffrey Toobin, the longtime CNN legal analyst and contributor to The New Yorker, analyzes Trump's survival in the face of two major investigations during his first years in the presidency. It also asks whether the magic charm that saw Trump through these travails will suffice for him to survive the coronavirus pandemic.
This 450-page work is more than a journalist emptying his notebook of all his interviews and insights. It is more than a legal expert analyzing how the best work of talented and committed lawyers could be frustrated by governmental rules and rivalries within the executive and legislative powers in our federal system.
Perhaps its highest function is as a condensation of the best evidence against the presidency and character of Donald Trump, a summation offered up much as a prosecutor would do in seeking to sway a jury.
Few who are familiar with Toobin's career, or his previous seven books about law and power, will be surprised that he finds fault with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's two-year investigation of Trump and the extensive interference by Russian operatives in the 2016 election.
"Mueller's caution and reticence led him to fail at his two most important tasks," Toobin writes. "Thanks to the clever actions (and strategic inaction) of Trump's legal team, [1] Mueller failed to obtain a meaningful interview with Trump himself. [2] Even worse, Mueller convinced himself — wrongly — that he had to write a final report that was nearly incomprehensible to ordinary citizens in its legal conclusions."
Worst of all, Toobin contends, the form and manner of Mueller's report played directly into the hands of Mueller's immediate boss, Attorney General William Barr, who was able to suppress the document and distort it as a total exoneration of the president.
In the end, of course, Toobin concedes he faces the same dilemma as Mueller himself. There's a wealth of evidence indicating the Russians strove mightily to interfere in the 2016 election and did so with a conscious wish of defeating Hillary Clinton and electing Donald Trump. Moreover, the Trump campaign's response was to be fascinated, intrigued. "Certainly Mueller found abundant evidence that Trump and his campaign wanted to collude and conspire with Russia," Toobin says, "but they hadn't been able to close the deal."
Yet the best admissible evidence Mueller or Toobin could find suggests the Russians did their thing and Trump's campaign did its own. They may have shared goals, but there was not enough beyond that to sustain a charge of conspiracy in a court of law.
There may have been a far clearer case for charging Trump with obstruction of justice, as he attempted several times to have someone fire Mueller and end the special counsel's investigation. There were also indications that pardons were being dangled to persuade Manafort and others not to "flip" and testify against the president. But without an actual firing of the special counsel or the actual granting of pardons, Mueller had less to work with.
Complicating all this was the decades-old policy of the Justice Department saying that a president could not be indicted while in office. This was a relic of the 1970s era when President Richard Nixon was on the brink of impeachment, a legal opinion rendered by the department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and never repudiated.
Whatever the legal merits of the OLC policy itself, Toobin is dismayed that Mueller took it a step further. Mueller's report clearly stated that it was not exonerating the president, adding that it would have done so if the evidence supported exoneration. Yet Mueller refused to say explicitly that he was only withholding an indictment because of the OLC-imposed ban. Instead, Mueller insisted that such an "if only I could" statement, in the absence of an actual indictment, would leave the president standing accused de facto with no means of clearing his name.
Toobin tells us this attitude, combined with Mueller's studied air of dispassion and detachment, left the prodigious work product of the special counsel's team vulnerable to misinterpretation and dismissal. And that was precisely what happened. Barr, who had denounced Mueller's investigation almost from the moment it began (when Barr was still a private citizen), received Mueller's report and called it total exoneration. Mueller raised mild objections in a statement, but the president and his supporters celebrated and never looked back.
But Toobin is not writing exclusively about the Mueller saga, as he segues in the book's later chapters to the subsequent scandal and impeachment trial over Trump's dealings with Ukraine. The shift is foreshadowed when Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud based on his alliances with pro-Russian factions in Ukraine. Even after agreeing to cooperate with federal authorities, Manafort is still adjudged to be lying to protect those connections.
We also see Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and presidential candidate, traveling to Ukraine to collect dirt on the son of Joe Biden, a probable Democratic candidate against Trump at the time. Soon we have Trump himself calling the president of Ukraine and speaking of military aid to that country in the same breath with his personal desire for an investigation of the Bidens. The rest, as we know, is history. The phone call led to Trump's becoming the third president in history to be impeached.
Ultimately, Trump was acquitted in the Senate, so the impeachment process came up as empty as Mueller's probe. Yet Toobin is far more respectful of the managers of impeachment, starting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is nearly always described in magisterial terms. Toobin is also impressed with Adam Schiff, the Southern California congressman featured in the impeachment proceedings in the House and Senate.
But no amount of evidence or lawyering was enough to break the phalanx of the Republican majority's resistance in the Senate. With the lone exception of Mitt Romney of Utah, every member of the president's party voted for acquittal.
There is a great deal of detail amassed here that even hardcore Trump investigation junkies will not have seen. Much of it has to do with behind-the-scenes strategizing and negotiating by the myriad lawyers involved on all sides — the FBI, Mueller's team, the White House, other executive offices and both parties in both chambers of Congress. Toobin is fascinated not only by the language of, say, the impeachment articles themselves, but by the individuals who drafted them, reviewed them or lent their imprimatur.
In fact, while True Crimes offers a one-stop catalog of the legal proceedings surrounding the Trump presidency, it can also be read as a who's who of the legal profession in Washington and New York. More than a dozen key attorneys each rate pages of description and detailed narrative, while dozens more make cameo appearances or get drive-by mentions.
Many will recognize the main names, but most have mercifully forgotten the likes of Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels' suit against Trump. Most of us had also forgotten the early phases of Trump's negotiations with Mueller that were handled by the likes of Ty Cobb and John Dowd. Later we meet Jay Sekulow, who plays a role in both the Mueller matter and the impeachment struggle and continues to represent Trump in current cases. Toobin has plenty to say about them all.
One attorney after another appears, like Shakespeare's "poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more." In a few cases, these players continue strutting and fretting right out the back end of the book and remain very much in the news today. One such is Michael Cohen, one of a host of Trump's personal lawyers who seem willing to do anything for him. Cohen gets caught up in Mueller's web, handed off to the U.S. Attorney in New York City for prosecution on unrelated crimes and then sent to jail on an ill-advised and poorly rewarded guilty plea. Cohen has recently been in and out of prison, and is now at work on what is touted to be an explosive tell-all.
We also hear Trump bellowing "Where's my Roy Cohn?" –- a familiar wail to those who have tried in vain to please him on legal matters. Cohn advised Trump and his father on a federal discrimination-in-housing case in the 1970s and later became a kind of mentor for the younger Trump. Cohn was also known for his work for red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and later for various figures from organized crime.
Another intriguing figure highlighted at length is Donald McGahn, who was chairman of the Federal Election Commission and then a campaign law advisor to Trump before becoming his first White House attorney. McGahn is an unusually colorful figure, known for his lead guitar work with a cover band in East Coast rock clubs as well as for being a partner in the nationally eminent law firm of Jones Day. McGahn had some 30 hours of interviews with Mueller's team, souring his relationship with the president and leading to a quiet departure from the White House (he called it his "Irish exit").
It is a notable irony that while Toobin expressed disappointment with Mueller's key decisions, he always describes Mueller himself in terms of respect that border on reverence. His treatment of Giuliani the person, by contrast, is critical to the point of contempt. He finds some of Giuliani's TV appearances cringe-worthy, as when he tells NBC's Chuck Todd: "Truth isn't truth."
Yet he tips his professional cap to Giuliani the lawyer, saying "his methods had been unconventional, to be sure, but his public advocacy for Trump had transformed Robert Mueller's image from that of a revered public servant into that of just another partisan actor." Beyond that, Toobin credits Giuliani's leadership when the Trump team avoids an interview with Mueller and negotiates "a nearly risk-free substitute of written questions and answers, only about the campaign period."
Toobin is often most respectful of people such as Marie Yovanovitch and William Taylor, ambassadors who represented the U.S. in Ukraine and held out against White House pressure. Their testimony was key to the House hearings on impeachment, as was that of former Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Each of these witnesses has paid a professional price for telling what they knew of Trump and the ways he deals with business rivals, political opponents, critical journalists, former wives and associates and employees and, yes, even foreign leaders.
Most of what is new here is at the level of detail. The broad outlines and the key quotations from the Mueller saga and from the subsequent impeachment and trial of the president have been the stuff of nightly news, daily papers and constant Twitter feeds for years.
But Toobin has gathered such a weight of evidence and such a chorus of witnesses that his summation is more damning than the sum of its parts. By integrating the Russian interference story with all the twists and turns of Trump's defensive moves and the segue to the Ukraine arms-for-favors deal, Toobin presents a persuasive summation to the jury of his readers.
www.npr.org
.
July 31, 2020
At some point in the future, it is entirely possible that the full details of Donald Trump's business affairs, personal imbroglios and political maneuverings will be laid bare to the public. Should that happen, it is easy to imagine much of the world wondering how the man got away with so much for so long.
In that hour, readers may well turn to True Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Investigation of Donald Trump. This tome by Jeffrey Toobin, the longtime CNN legal analyst and contributor to The New Yorker, analyzes Trump's survival in the face of two major investigations during his first years in the presidency. It also asks whether the magic charm that saw Trump through these travails will suffice for him to survive the coronavirus pandemic.
This 450-page work is more than a journalist emptying his notebook of all his interviews and insights. It is more than a legal expert analyzing how the best work of talented and committed lawyers could be frustrated by governmental rules and rivalries within the executive and legislative powers in our federal system.
Perhaps its highest function is as a condensation of the best evidence against the presidency and character of Donald Trump, a summation offered up much as a prosecutor would do in seeking to sway a jury.
Few who are familiar with Toobin's career, or his previous seven books about law and power, will be surprised that he finds fault with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's two-year investigation of Trump and the extensive interference by Russian operatives in the 2016 election.
"Mueller's caution and reticence led him to fail at his two most important tasks," Toobin writes. "Thanks to the clever actions (and strategic inaction) of Trump's legal team, [1] Mueller failed to obtain a meaningful interview with Trump himself. [2] Even worse, Mueller convinced himself — wrongly — that he had to write a final report that was nearly incomprehensible to ordinary citizens in its legal conclusions."
Worst of all, Toobin contends, the form and manner of Mueller's report played directly into the hands of Mueller's immediate boss, Attorney General William Barr, who was able to suppress the document and distort it as a total exoneration of the president.
In the end, of course, Toobin concedes he faces the same dilemma as Mueller himself. There's a wealth of evidence indicating the Russians strove mightily to interfere in the 2016 election and did so with a conscious wish of defeating Hillary Clinton and electing Donald Trump. Moreover, the Trump campaign's response was to be fascinated, intrigued. "Certainly Mueller found abundant evidence that Trump and his campaign wanted to collude and conspire with Russia," Toobin says, "but they hadn't been able to close the deal."
Yet the best admissible evidence Mueller or Toobin could find suggests the Russians did their thing and Trump's campaign did its own. They may have shared goals, but there was not enough beyond that to sustain a charge of conspiracy in a court of law.
There may have been a far clearer case for charging Trump with obstruction of justice, as he attempted several times to have someone fire Mueller and end the special counsel's investigation. There were also indications that pardons were being dangled to persuade Manafort and others not to "flip" and testify against the president. But without an actual firing of the special counsel or the actual granting of pardons, Mueller had less to work with.
Complicating all this was the decades-old policy of the Justice Department saying that a president could not be indicted while in office. This was a relic of the 1970s era when President Richard Nixon was on the brink of impeachment, a legal opinion rendered by the department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and never repudiated.
Whatever the legal merits of the OLC policy itself, Toobin is dismayed that Mueller took it a step further. Mueller's report clearly stated that it was not exonerating the president, adding that it would have done so if the evidence supported exoneration. Yet Mueller refused to say explicitly that he was only withholding an indictment because of the OLC-imposed ban. Instead, Mueller insisted that such an "if only I could" statement, in the absence of an actual indictment, would leave the president standing accused de facto with no means of clearing his name.
Toobin tells us this attitude, combined with Mueller's studied air of dispassion and detachment, left the prodigious work product of the special counsel's team vulnerable to misinterpretation and dismissal. And that was precisely what happened. Barr, who had denounced Mueller's investigation almost from the moment it began (when Barr was still a private citizen), received Mueller's report and called it total exoneration. Mueller raised mild objections in a statement, but the president and his supporters celebrated and never looked back.
But Toobin is not writing exclusively about the Mueller saga, as he segues in the book's later chapters to the subsequent scandal and impeachment trial over Trump's dealings with Ukraine. The shift is foreshadowed when Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud based on his alliances with pro-Russian factions in Ukraine. Even after agreeing to cooperate with federal authorities, Manafort is still adjudged to be lying to protect those connections.
We also see Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and presidential candidate, traveling to Ukraine to collect dirt on the son of Joe Biden, a probable Democratic candidate against Trump at the time. Soon we have Trump himself calling the president of Ukraine and speaking of military aid to that country in the same breath with his personal desire for an investigation of the Bidens. The rest, as we know, is history. The phone call led to Trump's becoming the third president in history to be impeached.
Ultimately, Trump was acquitted in the Senate, so the impeachment process came up as empty as Mueller's probe. Yet Toobin is far more respectful of the managers of impeachment, starting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is nearly always described in magisterial terms. Toobin is also impressed with Adam Schiff, the Southern California congressman featured in the impeachment proceedings in the House and Senate.
But no amount of evidence or lawyering was enough to break the phalanx of the Republican majority's resistance in the Senate. With the lone exception of Mitt Romney of Utah, every member of the president's party voted for acquittal.
There is a great deal of detail amassed here that even hardcore Trump investigation junkies will not have seen. Much of it has to do with behind-the-scenes strategizing and negotiating by the myriad lawyers involved on all sides — the FBI, Mueller's team, the White House, other executive offices and both parties in both chambers of Congress. Toobin is fascinated not only by the language of, say, the impeachment articles themselves, but by the individuals who drafted them, reviewed them or lent their imprimatur.
In fact, while True Crimes offers a one-stop catalog of the legal proceedings surrounding the Trump presidency, it can also be read as a who's who of the legal profession in Washington and New York. More than a dozen key attorneys each rate pages of description and detailed narrative, while dozens more make cameo appearances or get drive-by mentions.
Many will recognize the main names, but most have mercifully forgotten the likes of Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels' suit against Trump. Most of us had also forgotten the early phases of Trump's negotiations with Mueller that were handled by the likes of Ty Cobb and John Dowd. Later we meet Jay Sekulow, who plays a role in both the Mueller matter and the impeachment struggle and continues to represent Trump in current cases. Toobin has plenty to say about them all.
One attorney after another appears, like Shakespeare's "poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more." In a few cases, these players continue strutting and fretting right out the back end of the book and remain very much in the news today. One such is Michael Cohen, one of a host of Trump's personal lawyers who seem willing to do anything for him. Cohen gets caught up in Mueller's web, handed off to the U.S. Attorney in New York City for prosecution on unrelated crimes and then sent to jail on an ill-advised and poorly rewarded guilty plea. Cohen has recently been in and out of prison, and is now at work on what is touted to be an explosive tell-all.
We also hear Trump bellowing "Where's my Roy Cohn?" –- a familiar wail to those who have tried in vain to please him on legal matters. Cohn advised Trump and his father on a federal discrimination-in-housing case in the 1970s and later became a kind of mentor for the younger Trump. Cohn was also known for his work for red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and later for various figures from organized crime.
Another intriguing figure highlighted at length is Donald McGahn, who was chairman of the Federal Election Commission and then a campaign law advisor to Trump before becoming his first White House attorney. McGahn is an unusually colorful figure, known for his lead guitar work with a cover band in East Coast rock clubs as well as for being a partner in the nationally eminent law firm of Jones Day. McGahn had some 30 hours of interviews with Mueller's team, souring his relationship with the president and leading to a quiet departure from the White House (he called it his "Irish exit").
It is a notable irony that while Toobin expressed disappointment with Mueller's key decisions, he always describes Mueller himself in terms of respect that border on reverence. His treatment of Giuliani the person, by contrast, is critical to the point of contempt. He finds some of Giuliani's TV appearances cringe-worthy, as when he tells NBC's Chuck Todd: "Truth isn't truth."
Yet he tips his professional cap to Giuliani the lawyer, saying "his methods had been unconventional, to be sure, but his public advocacy for Trump had transformed Robert Mueller's image from that of a revered public servant into that of just another partisan actor." Beyond that, Toobin credits Giuliani's leadership when the Trump team avoids an interview with Mueller and negotiates "a nearly risk-free substitute of written questions and answers, only about the campaign period."
Toobin is often most respectful of people such as Marie Yovanovitch and William Taylor, ambassadors who represented the U.S. in Ukraine and held out against White House pressure. Their testimony was key to the House hearings on impeachment, as was that of former Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Each of these witnesses has paid a professional price for telling what they knew of Trump and the ways he deals with business rivals, political opponents, critical journalists, former wives and associates and employees and, yes, even foreign leaders.
Most of what is new here is at the level of detail. The broad outlines and the key quotations from the Mueller saga and from the subsequent impeachment and trial of the president have been the stuff of nightly news, daily papers and constant Twitter feeds for years.
But Toobin has gathered such a weight of evidence and such a chorus of witnesses that his summation is more damning than the sum of its parts. By integrating the Russian interference story with all the twists and turns of Trump's defensive moves and the segue to the Ukraine arms-for-favors deal, Toobin presents a persuasive summation to the jury of his readers.
In 'True Crimes,' Toobin Presents A Summation For The Jury In The Case Against Trump
There is a lot of detail amassed in the CNN analyst's book that even Trump investigation junkies won't have seen, much having to do with behind-the-scenes strategizing and negotiating by lawyers.
www.npr.org
.