Here are James Comey's questions at "Lawfare":
If I were a member of Congress with five minutes to question Robert Mueller, I would ask short questions drawn from the report’s executive summaries.
In particular, did you find that a Trump foreign policy adviser learned that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails? (pp. 5-6)
Did you find that the Trump foreign policy adviser said the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton? (p. 6)
Did you find that senior members of the Trump campaign met with Russian representatives at Trump Tower after being told in an email that the meeting was part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump? (p. 6)
Did you find that, despite the fact that candidate Trump said he had "nothing to do with Russia," his organization had been pursuing a major Moscow project into the middle of the election year and that candidate Trump was regularly updated on developments? (vol 1, p. 5: vol 2, p. 19
Did the Trump campaign report any of its Russian contacts to the FBI?
Not even the indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton?
Did you find substantial evidence that the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?
For example, did you find that the president directed the White House counsel to call the acting attorney general and tell him the special counsel must be removed? (p. 4)
Did you find that the White House counsel decided he would rather resign than carry out that order? (p. 4)
Did you find that the president later directed the White House counsel to say he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)
Did you find that the president wanted the White House counsel to write a false memo saying he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)
Did you find that the White House counsel refused to do that because it was not true? (p. 6)
Did you find that the president repeatedly asked a private citizen—his former campaign manager—to deliver a message to the attorney general to restrict the special counsel to investigating only future campaign interference? (p. 5)
Add your own questions...Or those of others.
In the meantime, the Justice Dept. has its own list: Questions that Mueller should not answer! Is this obstruction? Or what? Washington Post.
Volume One: Russia
Did you find that there were a series of contacts between the Trump
campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government? (p. 5)In particular, did you find that a Trump foreign policy adviser learned that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails? (pp. 5-6)
Did you find that the Trump foreign policy adviser said the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton? (p. 6)
Did you find that senior members of the Trump campaign met with Russian representatives at Trump Tower after being told in an email that the meeting was part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump? (p. 6)
Did you find that, despite the fact that candidate Trump said he had "nothing to do with Russia," his organization had been pursuing a major Moscow project into the middle of the election year and that candidate Trump was regularly updated on developments? (vol 1, p. 5: vol 2, p. 19
Did the Trump campaign report any of its Russian contacts to the FBI?
Not even the indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton?
Volume Two: Obstruction
Did you reach a judgment as to whether the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?Did you find substantial evidence that the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?
For example, did you find that the president directed the White House counsel to call the acting attorney general and tell him the special counsel must be removed? (p. 4)
Did you find that the White House counsel decided he would rather resign than carry out that order? (p. 4)
Did you find that the president later directed the White House counsel to say he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)
Did you find that the president wanted the White House counsel to write a false memo saying he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)
Did you find that the White House counsel refused to do that because it was not true? (p. 6)
Did you find that the president repeatedly asked a private citizen—his former campaign manager—to deliver a message to the attorney general to restrict the special counsel to investigating only future campaign interference? (p. 5)
First, did your report find there was no collusion?
Second, did your report find there was no obstruction?
Third, did your report give the president complete and total exoneration?
Add your own questions...Or those of others.
In the meantime, the Justice Dept. has its own list: Questions that Mueller should not answer! Is this obstruction? Or what? Washington Post.
The danger here is not only that enough Representative will behave like asses, but that Mueller who is famously prickly and persnickety about decorum will both manage to convince the American people there is no possibility of good governance in Washington, DC.
ReplyDeleteA profile of Mueller testifying as head of the FBI:
"In 88 trips to Capitol Hill, Mueller Grew Weary of Partisanship."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/us/politics/mueller-testimony-congress.html
Bungled sentence.
ReplyDeleteThe danger here is two fold: 1.enough Representative will behave like asses, and 2. Mueller, who is famously prickly and persnickety about decorum, will do his patrician act. If so, both will end in convincing the American people that there is no possibility of good governance in Washington, DC.
One question could cover everything. No, make it two.
ReplyDelete1. Was Attorney General Barr's summary of your report accurate and complete in terms of your most important points?
2. Are you pleased that only a few Americans have read your report but almost all of them know, or think they understand, what was in Barr's summary?
Both of those questions should get a two-letter answer, which is the kind Mueller is noted for.
Then we can go on to impeach Trump not for the non-existent cooperation with the Russians, not for the blatant failure to report the Russian contacts to the FBI, the Secret Service or the D.C. Police Department, but for his active failure, knowing what Russia did, to do anything to prevent Russia from doing it again.
It is as if, on Dec. 8, 1941, FDR had gone out to the driveway and said, "Japan had nothing to do with what the Navy says happened at Pearl Harbor. Hirohito assured me of that, personally. In fact, this I can tell you: We may have a meeting, me and him, at Hyde Park sooner than you think. We'll see." That is the impeachable offense.
More questions from Sharon LaFraniere at the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/22/us/politics/mueller-testimony-questions.html?module=inline
ReplyDeleteGood questions, including ones, like Tom's, that ask about Barr's intervention/interference.
DeleteWhat do you make of these (see links below)? I haven't been able to follow these issues nearly as closely as I would have liked to, and so wonder what to make of the clash between McGovern's analysis and the analyses he criticizes.
ReplyDeleteHere are three paragraphs from Wikipedia about the author:
"After retiring from the CIA, McGovern became a commentator on intelligence-related issues since the late 1990s.[9] He was heavily critical of the government's handling of the Wen Ho Lee case in 2000.[10] In 2002 he was publicly critical of President George W. Bush's use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.[11]
In 2003, together with other former CIA employees, McGovern founded the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).[12] The organization is dedicated to analyzing and criticizing the use of intelligence, specifically relating to the War in Iraq.[2]
"In the same year, McGovern confronted Donald Rumsfeld openly and live-broadcast by CNN interrogating him about his lies concerning weapons of mass destruction,[13] a dispute later called the "vivisection of Donald Rumsfeld" by Keith Olbermann.[14] "
In case you'd want to know more about him, I've included a link that has a bio.
Here are the links:
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/07/16/ray-mcgovern-sic-transit-gloria-mueller/
https://raymcgovern.com/2019/04/01/on-dissent-within-vips-re-russian-hacking/
https://raymcgovern.com/2019/04/01/david-corn-digs-deeper-hole-on-russia-gate/
https://raymcgovern.com/bio/
We'll know tomorrow.But this is not the first time that McGovern has what we call in the trade a scoop. And a lot of them remained scoops, being a story that somehow only McGovern could find.
DeleteSo does this mean anything? I thought Mueller was a private citizen now. Does the DOJ have any jurisdiction over him? It seems like somebody is pretty nervous, to issue such an instruction.
ReplyDeleteWell, there is no real basis in the Constitution or law for executive privilege. Presidents pretend they believe in it when they invoke it. Congress doesn't believe in it, but they take pity on the president when he is so desperate as to invoke it, so Cogress tries to work out a deal so it doesn't have to be tested. Robert Mueller is a private citizen and a lawyer, so he knows there is no such thing. Unless he has signed a non-disclosure agreement, which I doubt would be legal in this case but which Trump always thinks he has with anyone whom he perceives to be a threat, i.e., about 329,000 Americans and foreigners too numerous to count.
DeleteIf Trump knew what he was doing, he would have invoked military/intelligence secrecy for which there is a basis in law, since there undoubtedly were some intelligence sources and methods in his conclusions about the Russians. But the stable genius doesn't have to know what he is doing.
I see PBS coverage starts at the crack of dawn with the main event to start at 8:30 a.m. Anyone have food made ahead so you can stay glued to the TV for the duration without interruptions?
ReplyDeleteBeen watching for about 90 minutes.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats: Highlighting portions of the report,esp Trump directing trying to shut down the investigation, to build case for obstruction. Seems repetitive to anybody who has been paying attention.
Republicans: Casting aspersions on credibility of sources and their testimony in the report, questioning Mueller's competence, and pointing out that Mueller, unlike Ken Starr, did not characterize Trump's actions as "impeachable."
The few times that Mueller has been asked questions or raised objections to the interpretation put forth by committee members, he is interrupted and not allowed to explain.