I think Mueller and everyone else got blind sided by Bill Barr stepping in to shield Donald Trump no matter what Trump has done. McConnell and Barr refuse to do anything about a President who defies the Constitution and the rule of law as if they don’t even exist.
I hope to be surprised but it’s looking like Trump and Barr will manage to continue to avoid justice.
63
Has everyone forgotten Mueller's full-throated parroting of WMD *evidence* before Congress in the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Any decent lawyer would impeach his testimony on that basis alone if it weren't for the fact that the military, Congressional, industrial complex disregards anything that might negatively impact its gargantuan profits.
9
Robert Mueller is a strong booster for serious law enforcement. Democrats in Congress who are thinking in strictly political terms might want to consider taking a law-enforcement first, politics-second approach to questioning Mr. Mueller as it will probably enhance their usual politics-first approach and burnish their law enforcement bona fides.
I am curious what kind of Articles of Impeachment are secretly waiting in the wings for Thursday.
16
History of the USA
Chapter 57 - The Rise of Autocracy
In 2019, Special Counsel Mueller appeared before Congress wherein he admitted that the Office of the President did indeed attempt to obstruct justice as a result of the Russian interference in the 2016 election.
No Impeachment was ever instituted however. Members of Congress decided to not to follow the morally correct, Constitutionally mandated course. Mostly because they didn't want to put their own jobs in peril in the upcoming election.
Chapter 58 - The Second American Civil War
The murders of hundreds of people of color and the ensuing 2022 race riots are often cited as the....
43
@Mike Bonnell
Would that reference be from the Encyclopedia Galactica?
4
@Mike Bonnell
Brilliant! I suggest you flesh it out more fully, and submit as a guest editorial.
Either that, or sell it to Hollywood.
4
@Mike
Had you told me in the year 2000 that trump would some day be President, I'd have asked you if that reference was from The Simpsons...
14
Our book club read the Mueller report, we listened to movie stars in the park do readings and we know the report by heart. We are getting on a bus to go to Washington DC to give Mr. Mueller our support. He won't know that we are there but we are going to send a message to the GOP that not on our watch are they going to be stupid and ignorant.
Mr. Mueller will be outstanding on Wednesday because he is a man of honor and integrity. He loves this country more than any GOP in office does,
Mr. Mueller is the best law enforcement person we have. In a world of hate and frightened white men, it will be a pleasure to listen and learn from an honorable war hero . Not from GOP liars who have spent there life getting over because they are white men
Bring it on Russian loving GOP. We are all the squad intelligent minorities who arent taking your racism anti democracy anymore.
Bring it on cause we have had over two hundred years to get ready for your tired mission of GOP hate. Its over!
43
@Tony I'm glad you're doing all you have and I wish I had the energy. I fear that Mueller's testimony won't move the needle at all. Why hasn't Mueller done more about these obvious crimes taking place? Why no subpoenas for Trump? If he loves these institutions so much how can he be so passive. And with that jawline.....
15
Why doesn't the author pay Mueller a lot of money and maybe he will say what you want him to say. Same difference with this editorial. You have made up your mind what you want him to say, what you want to hear.
3
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus
Here Here!
1
I think Mr. Katyal made a small error. It was Attorney General Cohn who misrepresented the Mueller report findings. Throughout the first two years in office, the occupant of the Oval Office lamented appointing Jeff Session as AG and constantly wondered, "Where's my Roy Cohn?" -- Cohn being the vicious attack dog of the McCarthy committee who moved back to NYC and mentored a young Trump. Well, the Oval Office occupant now finds in his current Attorney General all the protection he needs from the rule of law.
9
It will be interesting to see if we can uncover Russia's next moves to counter the impact of this report and more importantly, what the trump cadres do in concert with those actions.
9
Robert Swan Mueller lll is a marine with that humble, Christian ethic which raises blind loyalty to an absolute authority, right or wrong, without exception. This is the same blind allegiance that a fanatic Saint adheres to as he lies at night on his bed of rusty nails, seeking only the discomfort of his old hair shirt come the chilly morning.
These sorts of repressed sadly manipulated individuals belong far away from all public policy decisions and/or actions. Blind faith in fantastical superstitions has no place in our modern world now devoid of the effects of evil spirits. Any man who answers the call of his sovereign asking him to shed his blood in far away lands on behalf of the oligarchs who own and run the corruption some call their government is weak minded at best.
Mueller, therefore, seems to be an actual dunce in cop clothing.
4
Also, fF individual #1 was not President would he be charged?
11
Anyone too lazy to at least skim through the Mueller Report and/or read the summaries provided and then compare it to Barr's pathetic attempt to distort its conclusions, should be ashamed of himself. It's your basic duty as a citizen to inform yourself of the facts.
16
Once Trump grabbed the collusion narrative, he won.
[T]he term collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law; there's no such criminal charge called "collusion," nor does the term necessarily signal a criminal offense.
Collusion: Definitions and Meanings
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines collusion as "secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose," but Webster's New World College Dictionary calls it "a secret agreement for fraudulent or illegal purpose; conspiracy." According to Black's Law Dictionary, collusion is "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right."
Definitions offered by the latter two sources suggest illegal acts, but Merriam-Webster's definition is more vague (i.e. simply being dishonest is not necessarily a crime). However, despite its "legalistic" tone, the term collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law; there's no such criminal charge called "collusion," nor does the term necessarily signal a criminal offense.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/is-collusion-a-crime.html
1
Collusion? No Collusion. It's all mirrors in a Trump circus sideshow.
Collusion, plain and simple, has no criminal law meaning.
So how dd Trump come up with using a commercial law term to make ineffective a criminal law investigation?
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/opinion/when-trump-made-the-usfl-great-again.html
3
There will be no prosecution for obstruction. Do you seriously think that the Fed Dept of Justice under Barr would allow that?
He was just let off the hook as an unindicted co conspirator in the felony fed campaign violation re: stormy daniels. It is quite likely on orders from Washington to SDNY.
And if he loses in 2020 he not only will not face federal justice for his crimes in office, he won't even incur any legal fees on State charges around his corrupt foundation, let alone on what looks like his many other crimes, tax fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, suborning perjury, witness intimidation, RICO activities, etc.
Why? because it would smack of political persecution. Obama indicted no bankers, indicted no one on torture, etc., for that reason.
There will be no people's justice for the Trump crime family, I am sad to say.
Get used to it, this is what America has become.
My advice? Start learning to speak Russian.
5
It won’t matter how many questions are asked or how he answers them. The Dems and the media were absolutely convinced that Mueller would nail the coffin shut on Trump, and he did not. If it was so indicting, as is represented in what, the millionth negative Trump opinion piece in NYT, why was there such feeble support for impeachment last week?
The word parsing will continue, as will hopes for anything to bring down this Presidency. Not happening folks.
2
Among the two most important & key statements made when Mr. Mueller summarized his report for the US public that could benefit from Congressional prosecution: (1) “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”; and (2) “I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.”
7
Neal Katyal is one commentator whose views I respect (Chuck Rosenberg is another). While I did not read the entire Mueller report, I did read the executive summaries carefully. For Part 1, the summary concluded that evidence of conspiracy (or popularly, collusion) between the Trump campaign and Russia could not be found. But for Part 2, the clear message was that but for a convention that prevented indictment of a sitting President of the United States, an indictment would have been found for obstruction of justice, on any of several grounds.
It would be greatly helpful if every American would read the two executive summaries and come to his or her own conclusions.
And yes; I'm an attorney, though now inactive.
12
Thank you, Mr. Kaytal! Excellent questions, I hope members of the House Judiciary committee will read your op-Ed and ask these very questions!
Mr. Mueller’s testimony tomorrow IS America’s last hope to getting the TRUTH from the Mueller Report! To listen to, Mr. Mueller speak about what is IN his report would be enough, for me.
Mr. Mueller, sir, from all of your former FBI and DOJ colleagues we have heard what an outstanding, humble, brilliant and honest man you are! Andy McGabe, Neil Katyal, Chuck Rosenberg, Sally Yates and others have assured us, that YOU, sir, are a man that will stand up for truth, justice and our Constitution in the face of tyranny! Our nation looks to you, for TRUTH.
5
I disagree on impeachment. The public has that responsibility now, by election, despite the terrible precedent it sets. But that terrible precedent has already been set: it has become a political calculation, and its constitutional duty was long ago made a useless platitude. The truth is still supreme, though, and it must be upheld at any price. The three questions proposed are a brilliant way to make that truth absolute.
6
I disagree with you about impeachment though you make an excellent point.
1
Not to disagree with anything in the article, but we would not be in this situation if Katyal’s own Special Counsel regulations had been better drafted. The regulations were structured on the assumption of the Justice Department’s traditional independence from White House interference. In the age of Trump and Barr, that assumption can no longer be relied on. It is now clear (as it was to some of us at the time) that the old Independent Counsel statute should never have been allowed to expire. A truly independent counsel would have been free to deliver his findings directly to Congress, rather than confidentially to the Attorney General. Absent that statutory protection, Katyal should have foreseen the need for safeguards against interference by the Executive Branch. Had he done so, we would not be in the Catch-22 in which we now find ourselves.
12
It seems like the $64,000 question is: "If Donald Trump were not President, would he have been indicted for obstruction of justice?". How moronic is this? If anyone besides a sitting President tried to fire the FBI director or the special counsel, they would be considered nuts. I think we have all become nuts and are having a public breakdown over the results of the investigation.
5
From what I have seen of Mueller’s previous appearances before Congress, he is quite a tap dancer.
My guess is that he will not veer, and his testimony will be boring.
That said, the nine minutes that he previously gave regarding his report were quite influential.
It also seems that while Barr had no trouble lying about his interactions with Mueller, and had no qualms about throwing him under the bus, Mueller seems almost intimidated by Barr.
That could be problematic, as Barr needs to be called out for his criminal behavior.
8
I strongly agree with the second point - the House has an obligation to make it clear in the historical record that these are indeed impeachable offenses, regardless of what the Senate might do. There are 10 documented acts of obstruction in the report and they should be taken seriously.
As for the asterisk, this is a great point and one that should be taken advantage of by the Democratic questioners. In his arrogance, Barr now says Mueller could have made conclusions, probably believing he would never have to testify. OK then let's ask Mueller once and for all his conclusion on obstruction. Wouldn't the current attorney general's permission override the OLC opinion of 40 years ago?
3
Three questions, each of which is asking Mueller to affirm a negative in an investigative report? The proper way to ask these questions is in the affirmative - Did you find collusion, obstruction, etc. The way these questions have been framed by the editorial board the answers would be meaningless.
2
Would love to see every Democrat beginning his 5 minutes with the three questions. Then, flood the country with bumper stickers.
2
Good article. Let's just hope that Barr's Justice Department hasn't muzzled Mueller so much that he cannot, or will not, be forthcoming on his answers.
That's the read tragedy we face - a Justice Department totally lacking in objectivity, but only there to do the bidding of the president.
3
These questions should also be asked:
• did Acting Attorney General Whittaker influence, disrupt, or obstruct your investigation in any way?
• did Attorney General Barr influence, disrupt, or obstruct your investigation in any way?
• did any member of the House or Senate influence, disrupt, or obstruct your investigation in any way?
7
Mr. Mueller is a lawyer. He probably couldn't write a simple, declarative sentence to save his soul. Were "Papa" Hemingway still around, Mueller's literary life would be in jeopardy.
Mr. Mueller is also a life-long Republican. As we have seen, Republicans have either quit the party or become Trump Zombies ("Trombies".)
Clearly, then, Mueller used his lawerly literary non-skills to write a ridiculously long and outrageously obtuse "report" that served his president and his presidents personal lawyer, Bill Barr well. Mueller has, as well, given himself a catch phrase: "If I hadn't not thought he didn't do nothing, I wouldn't have not said so."
I want my money back.
4
Mueller strikes me as the very last single person with enough undeniable evidence, wherewithal and political power to halt Trump's ransacking spree. This grossly uninformed pathological liar was elected president, and if we don't succeed in AT LEAST impeaching him, we will have failed again.
"Trump 2020" is already thick in the air...now that gives me a pit in my stomach....
5
Also ask, "If Mr. Trump were not president, and thus unindictible per DOJ policy, would Mr. Mueller have indicted him for obstruction of justice?"
6
During the Roosevelt, Truman and Ike years there was no mention of impeachment, nor had their been for the preceding hundred years. But now the opposition starts talking about impeachment from January 20th on. There never has been sufficient grounds for taking away citizens votes by impeachment. Not for Johnson or Nixon or Clinton. None of them did anything that hadn't been done by another President.
1
Thank you, Mr. Katyal. We'll be needing you again before this is all over.
4
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for calling for impeachment. A majority of Democrats want this, so the pre-election calculation of "tearing the country apart" does not apply. What's tearing us apart is Trump's awful presidency and those who know what he is and still support him. WHY won't the Democrats ACT?
3
Mr. Katyal,
If a member of Congress actually were to persist with your three questions, I'd give about a 1 in 10 chance that they'd get any form of "yes" or "no" to any of the three questions, and I'm sure you'd prefer a parsed non-answer, given what a straight answer would sound like.
Robert Mueller was commissioned to conduct a counterintelligence investigation, so while he was allowed to prosecute, his goal was not to convict people but to discover facts. Going after obstruction cases for their own sake was not his mission. He was commissioned in this task by the Executive Branch, ultimately President Trump, so he answered to the same: not Congress or even the American people.
What does that mean?
First, Mueller should have a very solid, if nuanced, answer regarding collusion/conspiracy/etc--that was his job.
Second, he will probably have less facts on obstruction, particularly from the White House, as that was incidental to his mission.
But third, he will almost certainly not be able to exonerate the President, because he was not investigating the President, and probably left purposeful gaps so his investigation could not be used against the President who was paying his salary.
Congress knew all of this going in. Anyone wanting to impeach the President and expecting Robert Mueller to do their work for them has wasted the last two years in a delusion. And that, Mr. Katyal, is what Robert Mueller might just tell Congress if they press the issue.
1
@Eric
Your assertion that Mueller will have less facts on obstruction is belied by the fact that obstruction was the topic of a full volume of the 2-volume report.
9
Politics have no relations to morals (Macchiavelli). Everybody knows the truth, crimes have been committed in the open, even bragged about them. Nor the House, nor the Senate will do anything about it since this is a game of power; power today and power in the future. Nobody is willing to risk either when they can just wait and endure another four years at the expense of taxpayers with bad memory.
5
Great point! Keep the questions short, direct, and on-point!
In a truly functional party, the Dems (and any Repubs of conscience) would cede all their (risible) five minutes of questions to ONE person -- such as Head of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler -- and hammer out one clear line of questioning the way a prosecutor does.
The idea is to make clear what Trump and his gang did, and when they did it! And then pursue aggressive prosecution of all high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as of rampant personal and "family" criminality once the cancerous agent is removed from power.
6
1 He will say yes
2 He will say He made no decision. Just because you want a yes/no answer does not mean that will happen.
3. He will say that was not his charge
1
I have now completed a detailed reading of the Mueller Report, every unredacted word of it. Many of the issues are well covered in Volume II. However, it was one part of Volume I that was unreported and really caught my attention.
This was the description of Manafort ordering Gates to provide polling data to the Russians. In the report there never was a description of:
• What polling data exactly was provided?
• By what medium was it provided?
• Why of all things was it provided!
• How were the Russians going to use it?
It is my contention that the polling data was “targetting” information for the Internet Research Agency’s disinformation campaign of social media ads, bots and false flag operation. This was critical in the states of PA, WI and MI If only three of every one thousand Trump voters in PA and one of MI or WI had voted for Hillary she would have won in a blowout.
How did a bunch of Russians in a media market the size of the US know how to deploy their limited resources. The Manafort/Gates polling data was the equivalent of laser targetting for a smart bomb.
And who had more incentive to help the Russians than Manafort. Millions and millions of reasons.
I read that section again and again yet could not understand why Mueller’s investigation was so shallow on this crucial point. It is the most obvious point of Conspiracy between the campaign and the Russians.
I cannot understand this omission and believe it is a case of investigative malpractice.
13
A section of the article reads, "...The members of the House have a duty to act, even if the Senate won’t convict, because they are setting the standards for future presidents and because impeachment hearings will crystallize the nation’s attention on the actual events, as opposed to spin from the president and his attorney general." How true!! The House has a DUTY TO ACT and they refuse to do their job. It is frustrating, maddening, and deeply discouraging to have people in the House too afraid to do their jobs properly and impeach the President.
8
Congress has to begin impeachment proceedings and Robert Mueller makes this clear in his report.
Trump committed obstruction of justice, but because of DOJ guidelines Mueller said he couldn't indict a sitting president. He left it to Congress to impeach as a remedy and also stated that the president can be indicted using evidence gathered in the investigation upon leaving office.
After tomorrow's hearing Democrats should begin impeachment. And if the Senate refuses to remove Trump from office, at least the House did their best to uphold the rule of law. History is watching.
10
I regard Katyal as one of the finest legal minds in our nation. And unsurprising, he served as Pres. Obama's Solicitor General. His suggestions on the only three questions that truly require former Special Counsel Mueller to answer are apt. My fears are the Republican House members on these two committees who will be given questioning time, members such as Jim Jordan and Mike Meadows, Freedom Caucus founders who are opposed to freedom for anyone but the current fascists of Trump and his cabal. Their questioning will be designed to make a mockery of these hearings. Delighted to see their colleague from the House, Mick Mulvaney soundly defeated on the Budget proposals.
5
Here is a further fix to the three simple questions - get rid of the "no":
First, did your report find there was collusion?
Second, did your report find there was obstruction?
Third, did your report give the president complete and total exoneration?
18
For those who don’t want to read the 448 page report, there IS a Cliffs Notes edition. It’s called the Executive Summary. And this is ALL that’s needed to be able to answer the 3 powerful questions this article asks.
Also, let’s stop putting it out there that reading the full, daunting version is the only option available. No, to be able to understand the Mueller Report is not a binary decision, as in to read or not read the report. It’s more like a multiple choice format:
a. Read the full report
b. Read the Cliff Notes edition
c. Listen to Robert Mueller’s 9-minute speech
d. Read William Barr’s 4-page summary
e. Watch Mueller’s testimony before Congress tomorrow
*Trick question. If you chose ‘d’, you failed the exam.
8
Superb article!
Now if Trump doesn't declare war on Iran or manufacture some other horrible diversionary political stunt in the next 24 hours-- thus allowing Mueller to testify and the county to digest the findings of the report--that would be a miracle.
And if the Republicans on the committees don't try to drown out Mueller's testimony with partisan speeches and to mindlessly insult Democrats to use up precious time, that would be another miracle.
Sad to feel the need to say this, but these are sad and embarrassing times for our democracy and country struggling under the weight of the hardliners, the authoritarians, the thoroughly corrupted, and the fools.
14
Why is the Justice Department/White House allowed to dictate what a witness can say at a hearing? Especially a now retired, free citizen? People should stop cowtowing to the racist, anti-American DOJ and simply speak their mind. What are they gonna do? Lock Mueller up for detailing his views after THE PUBLIC paid his salary the last 2 years? The report is OURS, not Trumpniks.
13
@Dan
There is actually no legal mechanism for punishing those who go against DOJ dictates, which are policy only, not law. But Mr. Mueller is a company man, so he will follow any policies, regardless of whether or not he doesn't have to. How do we know this? Because he literally asked what he was allowed to say.
4
Other questions for Mueller that Katyal does not want asked because he is a partisan, not an objective scholar.
You had authority to investigate related matters related to collusion and obstruction.
The Steele Dossier was an action that sought and obtained information (something of value) from foreign nationals in an attempt to influence the presidential election. No matter that it was through a cutout law firm and a research organization and one foreign national. And in fact the release of the information by Democrat operatives did hurt Trump and influence the election (although not as much as the Democrats had hoped). No matter that opposed Republicans may have started the process. Cutouts do not absolve the criminal activity- if a paid hitman subcontracts another to do the crime, the one who solicited and paid is not absolved.
Mr. Mueller-Why did you not investigate related crimes as you did with members of the Trump campaign and administration?
After determining that there was no collusion to influence the election by the Trump individuals, you report that Trump was told 3 times by Comey, the head of the FBI that he was not under investigation. If Trump did not believe that he was under investigation, then he certainly could believe that he was lied to by Comey and that Comey should be fired for that act alone. Regardless of how Trump politically and publicly framed the issues, firing of Comey had a legal basis, did it not?
@edward smith
It's truly bizarre the stuff Fox News comes up with. You speak of the Steele Dossier as if it were front/center of the investigation into Russia's intrusion into the 2016 election. It did not play any role in the decision by all of our intelligence communities that Russia did intrude in 2016. Trump and his family's role - of publicly requesting and secretly accepting help from Russian-affiliated organizations - was also independent of the dossier. Finally, Trump's repeated attempts to subvert justice in the ensuing investigation into his "collusion" also had nothing to do with the dossier.
The dossier is and always has been nothing.
13
@edward smith
Weird to argue that the dossier affected the election when none of it was released to the public until long after the election was over. Pre-election, we had the NY Times falsely telling us that the FBI had found no links between Trump and Russia.
3
This is far and away the best analysis I have read of the Mueller report and the fundamental questions he must be asked at tomorrow's hearing. It also zeroes in on the Democrats response in terms of fear of the political repercussions rather than what is the right and just action to take against Trump - also known as impeachment. Bravo Mr. Katyal. Interesting that he worked in the Obama administration. Oh for the good old days!!
5
He CAN, but WILL HE?
If Mueller has the strength of character that I suspect he would like us to believe, he should answer ALL Democratic questions thoroughly with no abstentions or restrictions. Trump's attempt to throttle him only adds to the obstruction scenario.
If America is to have justice, we need ALL the facts.
4
I read the Mueller Report. I was devastated, especially at the documented and detailed instances of what Trump calls "collusion" with the Russian government directed and backed GRU and other agents, including Wikileaks. Obstruction occurred right before our eyes and the report painstakingly describes each instance comiitted prior to the report's publication. The report itself has been "obstructed" by both Trump and his Attorney General Barr.
We all believed that Mr. Mueller and his team would save our country with the help of our once austere and honorable Department of Justice. Now DOJ obstructs. And Mueller? Even if he answers Mr. Katyal's questions, it won't be in the indignant tone of an America affronted by the actions described in his reports. These actions are, in the best light, destructive to the health and continuation our liberal democratic Republic. If past is prologue, his answers will be those of a man who doesn't want to make waves. The Democrats want his answers to set off alarms in us all. The Republicans want to further obstruct and obfuscate the truth.
Congress must turn to the Constitution, disreguarded and demeaned by Trump and the GOP. Congress must, no matter how "divisive" begin impeachment proceedings against this president. Impeachment is their duty described by our Constitution and perhaps our last great chance to save our Republic.
10
Great questions, but not the only ones. Why didn't he push Trump to testify truthfully, when he was dissatisfied with the original answers to his questions? Why did he not insist on deposing Trump in person rather than in written questions that Trump avoided?
Does Mueller think that Trump has committed impeachable crimes? If so, which ones? Does Mueller think that Barr committed a crime when he produced a summary that was not accurate?
7
Discipline, Dems, keep your eyes on the prize. Coordinate your questions, short and sweet.
14
every citizen has the responsibility to read the 28 pages (17 in Vol 1 and 11 in Vol 2) that summarize the report; go to this link and do your civic duty; you need to understand what has happened, is happening and will happen regarding foreign attacks on our democracy so that you can take appropriate actions to prevent further damage to our way of life
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
page numbering is different in the report than in the pdf
to simplify things, use pdf page numbers which are 1 to 448
here are high level sections with pdf page numbers
Volume l
Table of Contents 3-7
Introduction 9-11
Executive Summary 12-18
Volume ll
Table of Contents 209-211
Introduction 213-214
Executive Summary 215-220
5
Aside from being prepared with these questions, Democrats should be prepared to counter the post-testimony spin. Mueller's responses and the spin from the White House should be fairly predictable, so it would serve the Democrats well to consider an effective messaging plan.
6
Robert Mueller has the ability to help save the US and world from destruction tomorrow but he won't do it. If previous testimonies are any indication, tomorrow's hearing will be a big, opaque nothing-burger.
So you’re suggesting that Mueller lie or fabricate evidence?
@Richard Winchester No, I'm suggesting he clarify but having viewed some of his previous testimonies, he won't.
The one issue that could probably endanger Trump's job is if he conspired with te Russians to commit fraud in the presidential election he won. And Mr. Muller answer to this question is that he did not gather enough evidence to conclude either way. We continue to spend energies, resources and time in something that will have to be resolved in the polls. Let us hope that the campaign leads to wisdom and truth defeating ignorance and distortion.
2
@berale8
There's plenty of evidence of obstruction. But it is up to Congress to impeach (indict) for that, not DOJ.
3
The Mueller report was written for the Attorney General and others in the Justice Department and, secondarily, for transmission to Congress. Yes, I have read the redacted version. But as somebody who is educated but is not an attorney or legal scholar, I can't evaluate the relevance of the dozens of citations to laws and court decisions that are used to back up the conclusions of report. A plain English summary, widely seen or read by the public, is needed.
3
As an attorney for the past 40 years, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Katyal. But once again, we have a well-reasoned, thoroughly nuanced discussion of the House's role in questioning Mr. Mueller, as if these points might actually affect the pursuit of justice.
We can essentially fast-forward to the end of Mr. Mueller's testimony. Regardless of the extent of incrimination Mr. Mueller's remarks will be toward Trump, absolutely nothing will be done. This exercise in the House is the exact opposite of a show trial. It is, in effect, an exercise designed to give one-half of the country the notion that some semblance of justice is being pursued.
And the other half will not believe Mr. Mueller's testimony under any circumstances. They are nothing more than cult members who will believe “no collusion, no obstruction, complete and total exoneration” every single time Trump utters these lies.
I expect Mr. Mueller to be extremely circumspect in his testimony. Mr. Mueller may well follow the Justice Department's orders for him to speak only of matters within the confines of his public report. He may believe that he should not unilaterally defy the Justice Department, and that this question should be resolved by the Supreme Court. And we already know what this ruling will be.
The House is reluctant to exercise its impeachment power. But House Democrats are not under the same constraints as Mr. Mueller. Their function is a political one. And they should begin exercising it.
304
@Charles Dodgson
Here's from an attorney with as many years, it isn't what is said but how it is interpreted which remains to be seen.
There will be live video fodder to bolster the political endeavors going forward but the process is key.
The people must understand the process and the power over Trump that he denies exists. The process checks him even if it is futile as you believe.
Sure the House needs to be led by the nose but that's good don't you think? It means they are afraid.
We the people need to know why they are afraid.
Charles, they will exercise after the hearing. Please help them. I'm just so tired of of our mutual pessimism. Let's lighten up.
26
@Charles Dodgson
We agree on many things but not all...
1. The Democrats have made a political decision not to impeach because as the Republicans found out with Bill Clinton, it can cost them big in the next election. I agree with their decision, but that opens up the next question.
2. The cases of obstruction outlined will definitely be something that can be prosecuted if Trump loses in 2020 and MAY be able to prosecute even if he wins in 2020. So far as I'm aware based on research I've done, statute of limitations has never been challenged when the person makes themselves completely unavailable by being President or by fleeing justice. In my opinion, Statute of Limitations should only apply if there are no charges filed when the person is available to prosecute.
3. You are correct that approximately 50% of the country would believe Trump even if he said he was a virgin and therefor couldn't have slept with Stormy Daniels.
4. There is at least one thing that needs to be questioned that isn't specifically about Trump -- Election Security. The House wants to give funds to increase security and the GOP refuses to even talk about it. Mueller needs to give additional details here.
5. It will be interesting to see how Robert Mueller testifies since Barr has basically said he should've come to a conclusion on the obstruction charges himself.
9
We should all stop repeating this line about impeachment being a political rather than a legal process. In truth, it is neither: it is a moral and constitutional matter. Every member of Congress, in both chambers, has sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” on which they have entered. It is their solemn duty to put aside political calculations and live up to their sworn obligations. We, the People, should demand no less.
25
"Second, the Democrats in Congress have myopically viewed the report in political terms, asking whether their fortunes would be harmed by opening an impeachment proceeding. That is the wrong way to look at it. The right way is to look at it in law enforcement terms — a president who takes grave steps to undermine the rule of law in the very way the report describes is not fit for office."
...back in the real world, we now know once and for all that the president can basically do anything he wants to do without fear of legal punishment. For a man like Trump, that is a license to plunder as he sees fit.
Sure, the congress and the judiciary might win a few skirmishes along the way, but the guardrails and historically accepted conventions of 3 coequal branches of government have been shown to be quaint at best. Once Mitch McConnell basically absconded with a SCOTUS nomination, we crossed the final Rubicon to basically an anything goes pseudo democracy.
As long as the incredibly misguided DOJ interpretation regarding the prohibition of indicting a sitting president remains in effect, the only thing that matters "are" political considerations, not how any of Trumps actions are framed up against "rule of law". Trumps supporters couldn't care less, and actually seem to enjoy and even revel in his wanton lawbreaking
Anybody who thinks at this late date that Mueller's testimony is going to move the needle by even a micron is a misguided naif.
4
Watergate looks so quaint now.
Back then, we could actually hold a sitting president responsible for breaking the law. And members of Congress, regardless of political party, would look at the evidence and stand up for the Rule of Law.
Today, apparently nothing can be done and we look the other way. Because less than half the country politically supports the president and his enablers in Congress.
How far we have fallen, as a people and as a nation.
339
@MidtownATL: Don't blame me -- I voted for McGovern.
Glibness aside, tens of millions of us have *not* fallen as persons or as citizens of a nation -- but we have been over-ridden by unscrupulous GOPs who rig the system to maintain artificial majorities and thus make it impossible for legislation that would improve American life to proceed.
51
@MidtownATL No critical thinking skills. Young voters can't be bothered with democracy. Too many fb and tinder posts to respond to. Democracy? What was that?
11
@WR Young voters "can't be bothered" because, for their entire lives, neither major party gave them a reason to vote. That began to change in 2018. If the Democrats nominate a progressive candidate, young voters will turn out; if they nominate another centrist, young voters won't turn out and Donald Trump wins reelection.
7
Neal K. Katyal's opinion piece is outstanding. I hope every congressional representative and senator reads it before tomorrow's testimony by Robert Mueller about our intelligence agencies' inquiry into Russia's meddling in our national election to get Trump elected, and the president's subsequent obstruction of justice. The president's firing of James Comey, his anger over the Jeff Sessions recusal, his cover up of his proposed hotel project with Putin in Moscow well into his campaign and presidency, and his odd private meetings and public solidarity with Putin in his presidency, are just a few of the glaring examples of illegal activities by the president that need to be addressed. The public needs to hear more about Mueller's findings. Yes, I read the Mueller Report, but it was a task that took focused, extended effort, and I don't think that everyone has the time or energy to read it. Barr must not be allowed to get away with misleading the public about its contents.
Mr. Katyal's approach is crystal clear, and his proposed questions for Robert Mueller are decisive and right on target. I wish he were in the room to ask these questions of himself. He also makes a rock solid case outlining the moral imperative for impeachment. I wish I could share this piece with everyone I know. We will look back on this period in history in bewilderment that Trump could go on for so long obscuring the truth about his illegal actions without repercussion.
4
Brilliant piece, Mr. Katyal. Should be obligatory reading by every Member of the House.
930
Jeff... the other obligatory reading by the House should be The Mueller Report. I'm not sure how many have put in the effort.
68
@Jeff Jesus let it go. It isn't going to happen. Mueller isn't going to give the Democrats what they want...isn't that obvious? The Gop will let the Dems engage in pointless committee investigations, divisive intraparty debates over impeachment. Much energy will be wasted. In the meantime, Republicans will quietly advance multiple agendas. And in the end, we won't learn anything new. The narrative since DAY ONE was there was blatant obstruction & Mueller would be a major player in revealing this obstruction. But the only clear thing that Mueller did was to remove himself from the investigation. Trump will never resign. The GOP Senate won't convict him. His supporters won't desert him. Pelosi to her enduring credit is trying to keep everyone's eye on the ball. But leftist zealots are determined to drive the party straight off the cliff. Impeaching Trump will facilitate his winning a 2nd term. Impeachment hearings driven by Progressive fanatics will over-reach. It will be easily spun by Trump as a witch hunt to fair-minded voters. When impeachment fails in the Senate, Trump will again claim victory! The pure efficiency that Democrats can deploy when it comes to shooting themselves in the foot is often breathtaking. This is the one time we should resist the temptation to pull the trigger. The excessive amount of attention to this can backfire miserably, with Trump being reelected & it not being the result of Russian interference. Time to move on & focus on winning in 2020.
18
@Jeff Well, the ones who care about finding out the truth anyway. So a bit over half. It's wasted on the rest.
7
To all those who ask, "Why wouldn't Mueller answer all questions and do his best to clarify the report; he's now a private citizen; what can DOJ do to him?" I want to say: Are you not aware that we live in a Surveillance State, and that Mueller is a human being with perhaps skeletons in his own closet? Even something as simple as losing the esteem and high regard of the people surrounding him for decades in his chosen milieu could completely terrify him as a disgraceful way to end his whole lifetime of living among this group. Don't discount it; they have a lot they can harm him with, one way or another.
it's laughable -- sad, true, but also laughable -- that politics in this country have devolved to this moment.
grandpa mueller reading the gist of his report, like dodgson reading to little alice liddell.
divert the children, grandpa mueller! we have donors to call, lobbyists to meet; we want to know if the people really, really want us to confront with our constitutional authority this "existential threat to our democracy" (quoting nancy pelosi).
seems to me that an existential threat would be met with the same alarm and full constitutional powers as a foreign invasion, but -- i'm not a politician. i use words to mean what they say.
1
The public is so tired of this subject including the Democrat’s obsession with it, each time they push for one more look it lowers their chances of success in 2020.
3
@Rowdy Burns
It is understandable that you might be tired of excusing the inexcusable and defending the indefensible, but you really can stop any time.
4
I am tired of all the accolades about Robert Mueller. He failed at his job by limiting conclusions. 45 actually did commit obstruction (I've read the Report), and there might not have been provable conspiracy with the Russians, but the hundreds of meetings/communications that were lied about indicates illegitimate "collusion". Mueller's reluctance to testify is arrogant anti anti love of our Nation.
7
Chairmen Nadler and Schiff should ask Neal K. Katyal to lead the questioning. Impressive.
7
This is absurd. In case you didn't know, Joyce, our country gives the presumption of innocence, not of guilt. In other words (again, in case you didn't know) in terms of a legal proceeding, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. In other words, (again, in case you didn't know), Mueller need not give "complete and total exhonoration," nor does he need to prove that Trump did NOT do something - he merely needs to prove that Trump DID something. If he can't, game over. Maybe a bit of studying would do you some good before you write such an off-base article that is out of touch with the legal system of the United States of America.
4
Robert, you are at best oversimplifying when you forget (or willfully leave out) the fact that by dint of DOJ policy, Mueller is prohibited from trying to prove any accusations against Trump. Many have suggested, that his strategy has been to not taint any future impeachment trial by drawing stark conclusions, while at the same time, mapping a clear path for Congress to follow during such trial. It seems to me to be the best way to go about that - let the trial be the arbiter of the conclusion. I thought that was pretty obvious from watching Mueller's May testimony. Especially when he said "The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."
1
The problem is Republicans will also ask questions and Democrats are not going to like them or the answers.
2
Not a problem at all. Mueller’s answers to these questions the author wrote will be incontrovertible and framing of Trump in the extreme for all to hear and for the congressional and public record.
2
{Mr. Mueller’s report itself says that a sitting president cannot be indicted because it may “potentially pre-empt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” Our Constitution outlines only one such process: an impeachment inquiry in the House. It’s time.}
So what if the president is indicted.
One thing that has never been addressed is, WE DO HAVE A VICE PRESIDENT.
I'm sure his duty goes beyond taking over the presidency only if the president is ill or has died.
I have as much distaste for Pence as I have for Trump.
But if Trump is indicted, OK.
That's not to say he (Trump) will be removed from office at the present time, but if he is, we'll just have to be stuck with Pence and whomever he picks as his Vice.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
5
@marriea
The President is clearly guilty of obstruction of justice and other malfeasance. I think it would be wrong not to hold him accountable because we don't like his VP. We can deal with Pence's crimes if and when they come to light.
5
This is all self-delusion. We all know what is in the Mueller report. There was no evidence of a conspiracy. And, that is what it was all was supposed to be about. Mueller added he could not say with confidence there was no obstruction, but that statement was not within his mandate to make. Even so, the Mueller report catalogued what could be described as inept, never completed, half baked efforts to fire people, tangle pardons, or retaliate against people who already had spoken to the Mueller team. But, we also see that people just ignored Trump and all went about their business. So at worst Trump may have attempted to try to obstruct or he may have been just reacting badly to accusations when according to Mueller's own report there was no evidence of an underlying crime. So to be honest, it would be difficult if not impossible to convict Trump of attempted obstruction. If Mueller says anything at all, he might say just that. This all theater to convince America that Trump is just what we know he is. But, sadly, this is all a horrendous waste of time. Nothing more will surface though partisans will say so and attempt to gin up, more passion for or against Trump. I think most of America understands this and sees this whole business as a waste of time. So, try to impeach, but the senate will not convict. Or, run a moderate with a moderate agenda, and Trump will be voted out of office. That is how it should be done.
3
@Bian Why are you comfortable with foreign adversaries interferring in our elections? There is no such thing as a "free-ride," so when a foreign power gives you something, they expect something in return. Is that the new definition of patriotism on the right: allegiance to foreign powers whose interests they serve?
9
The writer didn’t say he was comfortable...you did
1
@Rowdy Burns The writer calls the investigation "theater," "self-delusion," and parrots "no evidence of a conspracy," along with the mind-boggling evasion, "at worst MAY have ATTEMPTED to TRY to obstruct" justice (obstructing justice naturally implies there's something to hide). Perhaps you're right: not many people can be comfortable with that level of contortionism.
2
love the three key questions. since it's almost a sure bet Mueller won't answer them as proposed, wouldn't it be great if the Democratic committee members just posed them, using slightly different language, each in her or his turn? just keep hammering on those key questions and don't let him off the hook.
9
@Pottree
Allow me to provide factually accurate and indeed the most likely answer we will hear from Mr. Mueller:
First, did your report find there was no collusion?
"Yes. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Second, did your report find there was no obstruction?
"We declined to reach a determination one way or another on obstruction. However, after applying the law to the alleged facts presented in our report, AG Barr did make a finding of no collusion, largely because we did not establish the requisite mens rea."
Third, did your report give the president complete and total exoneration?
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
2
Yes! The Democrats have been looking as craven as the republicans when they think of this document through only a political lens. They are shirking their constitutional duty regardless of what the senate does. Do you NOT do the right thing because the next person won't do the right thing?
7
Mueller likes his image as a straight-shooting, just the facts ma'am, lawman, loyal to his oath. Too bad he will go down in history as a mealy-mouthed weasel enabler of a corrupt regime. Or not, as history tends to be written by the winners, and there is every possibility that the present Trump/GOP regime will one day be viewed with rosy nostalgia as the necessary movement to protect our glorious homeland from descent into chaos and disruption by wrong-thinking liberals. Note that I am not reacting in surprised horror at Mueller's non-testimony after the fact; I am confidently predicting the way it will go down. Don't pin your hopes on him, or on the politicians who will be grandstanding all the way. I would be so happy to be proved wrong.
3
@John "Loyal to his party." No any higher oath than that.
Mueller is a man of few words. He will do his best NOT to deviate from the words he has written in the 440 page report. Democrats are wasting their time, expecting him to take a stronger position on the issue of obstruction of justice by Trump.
2
Mr. Trump has been " ... repeating multiple false claims and offering a misleading characterization of the findings in Mueller’s 448-page report ... " This has long been the game plan of the GOP. " ... Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, who helped prosecute the impeachment case against Mr. Clinton. 'Back then, Starr came out pretty clearly and said that he felt there were impeachable offenses that had been committed,' Mr. Chabot said. “Now we have a special counsel who, at this point, is saying no ... " This is the willful misreading of the report that Mr. Barr started before anybody had read the report. "Myth: Mueller found 'no collusion.' Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign ... Myth: Mueller found no obstruction. Response: Mueller found at least four acts by Trump in which all elements of the obstruction statute were satisfied ... " (TIME Magazine, 24June2019, These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong)
4
Katyal's questions are all very important for Mueller to answer.
The Bloomberg editors had some good ideas for questions also:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-23/mueller-testimony-a-few-questions-for-the-former-special-counsel?srnd=opinion
1
As a Brit, where we are about to be ruled by a nincompoop, and a lying jackass, we still find it inconceivable that trump could survive all the impeachable evidence against him because of corrupt politicians stupidly protecting him from prosecution.
The whole planet is dismayed by the childish antics of No 45, the US of A is a global laughing stock, because of trump and his republican puppies.
Sadly we are about to suffer a similar fate, as our inane twat of a pointless, useless, Prime Minister, from tomorrow, will wreck the UK's already tarnished reputation.
16
the sun will never again rise on the glorious British Empire.
1
I'm confused by the question I continuously ask myself as this issue unfolds... just who or what institution does the attorney general work for? I was under the quaint assumption that the attorney general worked in the capacity of insuring justice for the American people.. I'm struck that in this recent episode, one of the most seminal reports in my memory is being, in fact, neutered -by-threat... in support of what may very likely be obstruction of justice by the president of the united states. My guess is that the attorney general works for the guy in the much-reduced white house.
11
the Attorney General is supposed to work for the American people. these days, Barr works as a hireling of the President he is trying to elevate into a king, and hopes to eventually become the Viceroy or at least some type of Rasputin. the people are not on his agenda, and the law is merely a device for getting what the President wants. let the emoluments flow!
1
This is the BEST statement about what can and should happen tomorrow. Thank you.
14
An impeachment needs to proceed very carefully. If done too soon the testimony is quite possibly going to be forgotten when the election rolls around. And I think it is truly important that the hearings and investigations must be rolling while people are getting into the voting mind set.
Second if done too soon the Senate will not convict and t rump will use that exoneration to campaign on.
We Americans do not have a real good attention span. If we did t rump would not be president and mcturtle would not be senate leader.
15
Katyal is a very clever attorney at a time when we need a left leaning demagogue to go up against Trump. Mueller is equally impressive, but the wrong man for this time. This article is full of hope that somehow Muller will say the right thing, but that is really unlikely. Trump is a moving target and none of his critics are up to the task of competing with him. Of course, the issue is that we have more active voters who follow Trump than thoughtful people who listen to the logical case of Katyal and Mueller.
5
Sweet baby Jesus. Please don't let the Democratic members of Congress blow this one.
24
@Silence Dogood
That ship has already sailed. We're doomed. Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are like Potemkin villages (pardon the Russian reference): nice and sturdy on the outside, but nothing behind the facade. They have stalled and stalled (Adam Schiff didn't call any witnesses for months after Democrats took over the committees) until finally, Congress is now going on recess two days after the hearings. Their hope is that everyone will forget what happened tomorrow and that calls for impeachment will subside by the time they get back. I'm not even sure I can watch the incompetence. It will be too painful.
Is Mueller , or for that matter , anyone on the level anymore ? Have I been conned again and again in my 68 years ? Mueller’s testimony will , in all likelihood , be another dud . I can’t imagine what a straight thinking veteran who fought for ideals that have been destroyed must feel . A family who lost a relative fighting for “ freedom “ must be devastated at the decimation of this society .
16
The news-with-a-view site Wonkette put it most succinctly:
"Trump has asserted executive privilege over all evidence that he committed crimes."
18
The president is unfit for office and the House should bring the evidence to the American people in impeachment hearings.
Once the evidence is presented, members get to vote on the articles of impeachment.
It is immaterial what happens in the Senate. Each member of that body will have to face voters... and history.
22
For those who don’t want to read the 440 page report, there IS a Cliffs Notes edition. It’s called the Executive Summary. And this is ALL that’s needed to be able to answer the 3 powerful questions this article asks.
Also, let’s stop putting it out there that reading the full, daunting version is the only option available. No, to be able to understand the Mueller Report is not a binary decision, as in to read or not read the report. It’s more like a multiple choice format:
a. Read the full report
b. Read the Cliff Notes edition
c. Listen to Robert Mueller’s 9-minute speech
d. Read William Barr’s 4-page summary
e. Watch Mueller’s testimony before Congress tomorrow
*Trick question. If you chose ‘d’, you failed the exam.
13
This article begs the question as to why we and Congress allow Barr to misrepresent the Mueller's Report. He lied about its findings to the benefit of the man who appointed him.
A question for Mueller that he won't ever answer is: did Barr misrepresent your report?
There should be two impeachment proceedings.
26
All Mueller has to say is that there was collusion, and there was obstruction. He also has to say that notwithstanding the DOJ rules prohibiting indictment of a sitting President, there was evidence supporting an indictment of Donald Trump. That's it. But he won't say those things, and in fact, will say nothing directly. Which makes him a traitor in my book. He didn't do his job when he didn't conclude anything direct from the facts. He wants Congress to draw conclusions. Well, they won't. So he should. What's he got to lose. He's not running for anything and the DOJ can't do anything to him. Just answer directly, no indirect fluff.
13
The House may have a duty to investigate the President as part of an impeachment but they are not also obligated to hand the Republicans a cudgel with which to beat them to death — and that — BEFORE they decide to keep the incompetent. After all, they are silent today in the face of policy and language from the President which, if taken to heart, would have Senator McConnell send his own wife back to China. One suspects that there are other legislators in Congress who are also married to immigrants that the President bad mouths. The President himself has been married to two women who are immigrants! Of course, he distinguishes what he calls the legal from the illegal but his explanation of how they vary are muddled and not based on fact — just like every other idea that comes out of his mouth.
One conclusion, however, is refutable: our Founders were imperfect. They tried to put in place some guardrails against an ignorant population. So naive! What they could not foresee and were unable to imagine was how their entire Constitution would be distorted and undermined by the money and profits of huge corporations and individuals so wealthy they could own the entire Continental Congressional membership many times over.
Mueller’s testimony will alter nothing in the US’ march to democratic destruction because it won’t make a dent in the influence of that money and it won’t enlighten the ensorcelled voters.
8
No written document "speaks for itself" Every word is subject to interpretation.
10
Congress cannot be trusted to bring Trump and his gang to account for colluding with the Russians and obstruction. That said, my hope for the country is that Robert Mueller, and his team, will honor their oath to protect our country from enemies foreign and domestic. I say that because:
After reading the Mueller report I emailed Senator Tom Tillis (R) asking him to join the call for impeachment of Trump. What I got back was an email stating AG Barr said "no collusion or obstruction." I didn't bother to send an email to Senator Richard Burr (R) because he had colluded with the White House Counsel Don McGahn by sharing information from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that was investing Trump and the Russians. I sent two emails to Rep. David Price (D) asking that he join others in calling for the impeachment of Trump — no response.
I am sure there are honest people in Congress; however, those people are in the minority, ditto for the DoJ and executive branch leadership positions. The reality is that people like AG Barr use their power to protect the 1%, corporations, and to advance the interests of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservatives and libertarians use the Constitution as cover for their undemocratic actions.
I lost respect for the Supreme Court when a they anointed W. President. And the Robert's Court has made clear that the Constitution is a tool for partisan politics, and advancing the interests of corporations, and the 1%.
9
Mr. Katyal is mistaken that the House's highest duty is to impeach Donald Trump if he has committed crimes. For one thing, it's not necessarily true that all crimes constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" within the meaning of the Constitution. Secondly, the duty of the representatives as citizens is their highest duty. As citizens, this duty includes making sure that Donald Trump isn't elected to a second term, so he won't have the chance to continue ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law (whether or not, in any given case, doing so is a high crime or a misdemeanor). If this duty is more likely to be carried out successfully by not impeaching Donald Trump, then it "trumps" the House's duty to impeach him, even if it becomes completely plain that Donald Trump deserves to be impeached. The point of impeachment and the subsequent trial is to remove a criminal president from office, or to establish that the president is not guilty of impeachable offenses. If neither thing has any chance of happening, then we live in times that require a different, but legal and nonviolent, course of action.
3
People who cling to the belief that there is one system of justice in this country are fools if they think Robert Mueller will put service to country ahead of loyalty to the republicans. Nothing prevents him from telling the whole truth about his team's observations of crime by the trump clan and the damage being done to his nation.
When the hefty Billy Barr twisted the Mueller team's words to create the false impression that trump had been exonerated, nothing on his planet prevented Mueller from getting in front of a microphone and telling us the truth--instead of saying he would have nothing more to say. Party first; American a distant second.
8
@Paul Wertz This is an interesting theory that Mueller's reticence is driven by loyalty to the Republican party, but I cant accept it. First there is not really any principled Republican party left, it is completely the party of Trump. Moreover, Mueller has a long history of playing the "dry, just the facts" kind of person that was appropriate at a time of general respect for the rule of law. His annoying inscrutability at this time seems to reflect his misunderstanding that such even handedness is admirable, even if it sinks the country. I predict that he will say nothing valuable to Trump opponents and will fade into history still convinced that dispassionate is the honorable way to go.
2
Mr. Katyal,
Wonderful opinion piece, with clear questions that are designed to be responded to in clear short answers. I hope the people who will be asking the questions tomorrow have read your piece. However, I wish you were asking the questions, You have clarity and a gold standard legal mind. Thanks for your article!
16
Neal Katyal will take a seat on the Supreme Court.
6
Mr. Katyal, have you been contacted by any democratic politicians asking for your assistance for tomorrows questioning of Mr. Mueller? Have you sent this opinion piece to any of the members of the House of Representatives? Are you confident in their ability to ask succinct questions that Mr. Mueller will answer?
9
Why do Democrats and/or the Congress always want someone else to do something or make a stand. Just do it yourself. The House has the power to investigate and call witnesses, so do it. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. If you want something done right, do it yourself.
5
Folks, Mueller is still a registered republican. Please stop expecting miracles and expect, well, nothing of substance. That's the republican credo.
5
You see the President has a right to defend himself so Mr. Muller does not want to say anything in a setting where the President can not defend himself. Muller is a gentleman. Now for the Presidents defense he is simple going to say he was so angry at people accusing him of collusion that he went off the rails telling aids and lawyers what they should do and of course they did not do it because they are not as dumb as our President. So that’s his saving grace. Dumbness. No Obstruction because of Dumbness. It’s like Hillary not getting indicted because she did not hve the intent said FBI director Comey.
1
@Richard
Or Donald jr. not getting indicted for conspiring with the Russians for the same dumb reason.
trumps claim to be genius until confronted with the facts of their law breaking. Then they're ignorant.
2
No more double negatives!
Did you find collusion? Yes
Did you find obstruction? Yes
8
Congress, please be aware that the average American reads at the eight-grade level. No compound-complex sentences please. Communicating clearly is harder than you think.
6
Kaytal overlooks a critical statement made by Mueller in his report which will allow Mueller to decline to answer as to whether he found that there was “no obstruction“. Mueller states that because of DOJ policy against indicting a sitting President he did not consider the difficult questions of law and fact that would have to be analyzed to charge Trump.
That will be his answer... he cannot say there was no obstruction because the facts developed and applicable law were not analyzed. If asked if he would have indicted someone other than a sitting President he will likewise respond. Some of the conduct Trump engaged in may be within the scope of his Constitutional imperatives, and not available to an ordinary defendant. Barr expressed this in his 4 page summary: Trump wanted to short cut an unjustifiable investigation that interfered with his abilities to govern and advance his policies. Thus an ordinary criminal who tries to use personal political connections to thwart an investigation may be obstructing justice; a President who believes he is innocent may ask a political appointee to do the same with impunity to govern effectively. These are questions Mueller declined to consider because of the DOJ policy; that will be his answer.
He will similarly reply as to collusion which the report stated was not a crime he investigated.
It would be better to ask if he uncovered questionable but legal conduct which be should be subject to legislative prohibition or regulation.
3
I hope they ask these five questions and refrain from the showboating speeches. Committee: This one is not about you.
9
Mr Mueller is now a private citizen. Based on that, if I were him, I would let it all hang out.
5
Bravo! For once I have no comment, just praise.
5
genius!
Barr should be disbarred and jailed for his willful ignorance and intentional deception.
Lock him up!
7
Yes, thank you!!
4
Based solely on this article, Barr should be impeached!
5
Excellent commentary. There's one teensy-weensy problem. They won't follow your guidance.
2
It is rare to read an analysis with such clarity. While misguided "centrists" (such as the Time's Friedman and Maureen Dowd) blame "lefties" for potentially undermining Democrat's election prospects, it is Pelosi and her allies that are engaging in dereliction of duty. They have turned a constitutionally mandated legal process into a political spectacle. Fear of undermining Democratic election prospects in 2020 vs. initiating an Inquiry as the Constitution directs them to do puts Pelosi on the same footing as her counterpart in the Senate. Indeed, Republicans voting against valid Articles of Impeachment would be seen by a majority of the electorate as politics as usual and damn them most effectively in 2020. But centrist weakness, indecision and questionable political calculation is what has brought us to where we are today.
6
@LH
I know it is frustrating because of the slow pace but nurse Pelosi has to gauge the temperature and count the votes. She simply does not have the votes in her own party. So what is accomplished if she allows a vote for impeachment inquiry and it is voted down? Nothing. It would only give Trump an undeserved victory lap.
Believe me I share your frustration. I am hoping The Mueller televised testimony will be enough to get the congressional votes we both want. Fingers crossed.
1
Mr. Katyal concludes that it is time to start the impeachment inquiry. No, not quite yet. After the Mueller testimony is the time...because, first, Mueller will confirm the falsity of Trump’s claims of exoneration and, second, we must wait to see whether the testimony reveals any additional threads to start pulling. Regardless, the impeachment process is coming. It’s coming.
5
@Pen
From your lips to God's ears.
A more rational and clearly stated argument of why Nancy Pelosi is wrong and Democrats who want to start an impeachment inquiry are right has not been presented. If Pelosi cannot bring herself to give the go-ahead for an impeachment inquiry, then she has failed her constitutional duties and her legacy will be failure to carry out the most sacred responsibilities of her office.
2
If Mueller is asked directly whether Trump committed obstruction of justice he will give an answer that the Democrats would not want to hear. And that is that till now they have been claiming that the report found that Trump clearly did obstruct justice and the reason that the report did not state this was because of the justice department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and so Mueller did not want to officially conclude the president commited a crime.
However this is not at all the case. Mueller stated that he did not reach a conclusion on the actual question as to whether Trump's actions constituted obstruction, and the reason he didn't do so is because he felt it was irrelevant.
And the question of whether Trump's actions constituted a crime of obstruction is a serious one. And this is because there are a whole series of statutes describing different forms of obstruction, such as destroying evidence or intimidating a witness, to name two. So even if Trump succeeded in accomplishing what he attempted to do, like firing Mueller or getting potential witnesses to not cooperate it is not clear that it would constitute obstruction. However Trump didn't do even that. Telling somebody to fire Mueller is no more obstruction than telling somebody to destroy evidence, which is not a crime.
And so Mueller will tell the American people that he did not find Trump committed a crime, that the report was intended for the attorney general and that he cleared Trump.
1
@Michael Stavsen
What law school did you graduate from? This argument is laughable on it's face.
2
@Michael Stavsen Good luck with your analysis, faulty as it is.
1
Your third question re “exoneration” has no basis in law or in any prosecutor’s powers, because it implies a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. This sinister concept was no doubt concocted by Andrew Weisman to obfuscate his inability to find probable cause of obstruction. I am quite sure Republicans will flay Mueller for this concocted doctrine.
3
I'd like him to answer: Did you swear to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? (which he must have done as a Federal employee).
And "Do you think you are doing that by refusing to help the country understand your report?"
3
I know one thing. I need to read the Mueller report for myself. Justin Amash did, and he left the Republican party and is in favor of impeachment.
The Mueller report may be long, but what it says is important to any decision of whether Donald Trump should be impeached.
4
Neal Katyal's superbly expressed and well thought out position, reflected by compelling analysis and convincing logic, serves to significantly elevate the dialog about Mr. Mueller's long awaited testimony before two House committees on 24 July 2019. Positing the three carefully articulated questions, formulated with great skill, will permit the Special Counsel to concisely and directly respond with a simple yes-or-no. The asterisk notation is equally instructive. 45's persistently extreme, myopically paranoid preoccupation of blaming everyone except himself plays like a worn out record. Katyal's reasoning is especially significant. Informing America by presenting Mueller's testimony involving these specific areas, by live television coverage, will impact the body politic. Recall Richard Nixon's denunciation of the Watergate probe, the untiring, dogged, and unrelenting investigative efforts of Karl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Americans were basically laboring under a stupor by Nixon's attacks upon the media, extreme efforts to discredit, destroy, and denigrate his critics who dared register vocal, open dissent. But when the Ervin Committee commenced hearings, and the parade of witnesses from John Dean to Alexander Butterfield testified of the criminality practice by Nixon, in concert with Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, national opinion began to shift. As in 1974, so the process repeats itself in 2019! 45 engages in racial divisiveness to convince the base otherwise. False
6
Democrats have already wilted in the face of the Trump administration's blanket refusal to honor subpoenas, so I have zero confidence that any of them will have the courage to ask these simple questions.
8
@Vexations
Wilted? Confronting Trump’s lawlessness in court is a large undertaking. Seems to me that Congress is moving—deliberately—in that direction.
3
Mr. Katyal should have included a fourth question: "You have stated that a DOJ policy memo does not permit the indictment of a sitting president. If the president had been any other person in the United States of America, would your findings have led to an indictment?"
18
@Maani Rantel This is the most important question, and Mueller won't answer it directly, if asked. I have no confidence in the man, he's a Republican and therefore on the take.
1
@jbk I agree with you re the first (i.e., it is the most important question, but Mueller probably won't answer it directly), but not with the second (I doubt he is "on the take," despite his being a Republican).
No matter what new and credible revelations are presented to the American public tomorrow, Donald Trump the ultimate victim of the hearings will continue to spin them into his own version of reality, tweeting and speaking about the "hoax" for what will probably be the thousandth time, "NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION." His denial has already been permanently cemented in the minds of millions of Americans and will inevitably be reinforced by FOX News and other media outlets. Those who staunchly believe and support him today will continue to do so tomorrow after the hearings no matter what new facts are made public by Mr. Mueller.
3
@HMP
I agree with everything you say. I would add, though, that although Trump’s base won’t shift an inch, the hearings will very likely make a difference to suburbanites, independents, or anyone on the fence. The same people who came out in 2018 to give the Democrats the greatest election windfall since the post-Watergate election.
2
I think Mr. Kaytal misses Reason #4 to account for the variance between the report and how Americans see the report: we don't care. We think this is how most politicians behave behind the scenes, and while 40% of us don't vote, nearly 90% of those who do vote, vote the party, not the candidate. Meaning, about 6% of eligible voters are sufficiently open-minded to render a verdict on the facts, not the allegations. Layer atop all that Gerrymandering that makes maybe 10% of all Congressional districts competitive, and the outsized role of money in politics, especially Presidential politics, is it any wonder there's no groundswell of fury because of (or even at) the Mueller Report? I'm surprised, frankly, the Times keeps running articles on this. Almost no one cares.
3
@LongTimeFirstTime We'll learn more in 2020, but the results of the 2018 election suggest that a large number of citizens do care. This is what terrifies the GOP.
8
@Jim Demers
Not really. 8 of 41 flipped seats were competitive. I’m not saying it’s a good thing. But NY Times readers care (and also massively outpace America in liberal preferences). Most voters across America? Don’t care.
2
@LongTimeFirstTime
Assuming what you say is correct: vote the party, gerrymandered districts, few voters-- one can reasonably conclude there is not need for any money at all in politics EXCEPT in the rare case that a seat is open and then more in the primaries than in the general election. How much did AOC spend on her campaign?
It's that second factor that is likely to be the final green light for this train wreck to continue on course: a Democratic party leadership that will not bring itself to rise above political expedience to do their duty, to do what's right. But what can we expect when its "leader" is the lowest form of political animal, one who is content to munch on the droppings of the bigger animals and happily tell the rest of us, once again, "it's time to move on?"
3
I'm reading the Mueller report and think there's one more important question to be asked, not of Mueller but of our government. The most charitable way for me to read the Mueller report is that Trump's narcissism meant he remained focused on his legitimacy / popularity vs. the larger issue of interference with American elections. The question that's on my mind is: what is (and isn't) being done to protect our next elections?
6
One of the best opinions in the NYT I have read in a long time. It explains why it's important for Mueller to answer these key questions as well as the larger context of Congress' duty.
15
I have long abandoned any hope that the Democrats would do their Constitutional duty in this situation, and for the Republicans I never had any hope at all. We will suffer through the remainder of Trump’s term with his behavior unchecked and unabated, and maybe the American people will have the good sense to jettison him from the White House when they have the opportunity 15 months from now. All any of us can do at this point is vote. I sincerely hope that all Americans will think long and hard before they complete those ballots in 2020, not only about Trump but about an entire government that has done it’s level best to shirk it’s most important responsibilities - upholding the Constitution and protecting the country from threats, both foreign and domestic - in favor of their own perceived political fortunes.
13
@WesternMass
All any of us can do is vote. We can also march in the streets.
1
Mr Katyal has cut to the quick of what is still likely to be a showboating goat rodeo. It'd be helpful if Messrs Nadler and Swalwell also cut to the chase and ask these questions right up front before allowing committee members to comment. That'd save the Nation a lot of time and headaches.
19
Whether Mr. Mueller likes it or not his name will appear in the history books.
It is his choice, be complicit in this travesty, or stand by your principles. Few men can control how they will be remembered.
12
The Mueller report details about a dozen instances that might be construed as obstruction, but it gives exculpable evidence for each. The most serious allegation is that Trump obstructed justice by telling White House lawyer Don McGahn to call Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and tell him “Mueller has conflicts and can’t be special counsel.”
But the report reveals that Trump told McGahn to call Rosenstein after reading news media reports that alleged Muller had conflicts of interest. Deciding to fire Muller because of real or perceived conflicts of interest would not have been obstruction.
But the assertion the McGahn incident constituted obstruction is completely undermined by the fact Trump changed his mind about removing Mueller because he realized it would be regarded as obstruction. No reasonable prosector would indict and no jury would convict a person for deciding not to commit an act that might be construed as obstruction.
7
Mr. Katyal's article is an act of great patriotism, and I think we all owe him our deepest gratitude. One of the responders here wrote that Mueller's testimony would not change his supporters' minds. It can't, and it doesn't have to. Leaving Fox liars and their minions aside, the audience for this hearing and the reporting on it consists of citizens who retain open minds, prefer order and justice, and want to have their concerns taken into account. Many were hoping that Trump would deliver sensible policies. Obviously that hope has been dashed. It remains for the hearings, and the Democrats, to offer a better way.
17
You say the audience for this hearing "consists of citizens who retain open minds, prefer order and justice, and want to have their concerns taken into account." Unfortunately it won't help even if all 100 of them reach a proper conclusion.
Well stated. I hope members of the House read this!
18
Neal Katyal for Attorney General.
24
I would hope Mr. Muellar, despite his past public reluctance on expanding beyond what was written in the Special Council's report, would approach his appearance under his former Marine banner, Semper Fidelis. Always be loyal to your country which leaves no post script for the nebulous, by the book, which has contributed to the pollution and arrogance of the Executive Branch and decimation of the Department of Justice. The choice he makes will decide his legacy and the nation's fate. History will record him as a dignified honorable hero or another suit who collaborated with the injustices which led to America's fall. By protecting the obvious corruption Mr. Muellar could ultimately knowingly give a second term to a racist, incompetent, charlaton who holds the title of President due to the aid of a long standing antagonist, Russia. The same person who has stated no wrong with foreign assistance in his election and has faithfully stood by Putin's denial.
Semper Fidelis Mr. Muellar, be loyal to your country not the fake book.
10
This proposes that "Yes" or "No" to these three questions are all the public or Congress needs to know, all they should know. In all due respect to Mr. Katyal's credentials, that is absurb. The report said that Congress should investigate things. Well, Congress is investigatin' so Mueller should help them out. Please see a far more astute and detailed account of what Congress should learn about at:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/22/congress-robert-mueller-hearing-227415
4
@Anne Sherrod
Thank you for the link. It's fascinating.
@Anne Sherrod
You are right; Katyal's call to the House leadership to ask three questions and consider the job done is simplistic but Katyal is on to something: namely, to focus on the real issue of the President's secret effort to work with Russian agents for electoral help, and to highlight obstruction of justice.
Significantly, there was collusion: a secret effort to coordinate with a foreign agent for political / electoral purposes (it may not rise to a conspiracy but collusion doesn't need to qualify as a "misdemeanor").
The Politico article you cite recommends the House leadership employ seasoned attorneys to ask the questions, (for more effective information gathering) which I expect Katyal would support.
More importantly, getting information out of Mueller as a way to highlight the key findings of the Mueller Report is a tactical battle for the Democrats to lose.
An earlier news story said members of the House committee are reading and re-reading the Mueller Report; but I hope they don't put personal grandstanding above a well concerted process for asking questions and compelling Mueller to reveal in starker terms the truth of the President's malfeasance.
@Chuck - Thanks a lot for this, I agree with much of it. Iwould really like if the suggestion to have a couple of lawyers ask the questions.
The House of Representatives is not a junior partner to the Senate. Whether or not the Senate is likely to convict President Trump should have no bearing on the House's actions. But Speaker Pelosi, as usual, places political calculation ahead of doing the right thing. Her strategy may work over the short term, but it can never work over the long term. She and House Democrats are signaling to future presidents that they can violate their oath of office with impunity if the public opinion polls and prospects for the next election indicate that it is expedient for the House to turn a blind eye and disregard its own responsibility under the Constitution.
15
Those three questions are essential to putting the lie to Barr's deceptive blather, but I also like this one:
"Had he not been the president, was there sufficient evidence of obstruction to bring charges?"
19
For all the reasons you cite, it is time - long past time - to impeach Trump and put a big black cloud over him. We are overdue for our system of checks and balances to be put into action. Then let's see how Trump cracks under that additional pressure and what further unforced errors he makes.
5
I can't help but to be frustrated that Mueller and his "rule of law" mentality has not stepped out of his personal comfort zone )or whatever) to address the lies and damage that this President has done to his beloved "institutions". To live a life as he has, just whimper away bullied by lies and criminal dishonesty baffles me. This is his actual legacy. I think I projected some morality in him but he seems intent on preserving the status quo. Please surprise me, Mr. Mueller.
5
Thank you, Mr. Katyal. I believe you are 100% correct and pray that Congress will heed your much-needed advice. We cannot afford to continue standing by while lawlessness emanates from the White House. Our representatives have a duty to act and you have shown them the way. Thank you.
5
3 questions, with yes or no answers, asked by each member in turn at the start of their time period. Then dig into the details. Really dig.
5
If Mueller decides to stretch or ignore the constraints please on him by Barr, what is the downside repercussions he faces? Would they haul him our in handcuffs from the hearing? Who will be the patriot?
1
Because the American people are not informed as to the origins of the Department of Justices' rule, of not indicting a sitting President (many probably think it is in our Constitution) the following questions should be asked of Mueller...
Are you aware that the rule for not indicting a sitting President came from a DOJ Memo written in 1973?
Is that memo the personal opinion of the person who wrote it?
Is that memo a Law? Is that memo a part of the Constitution?
The American People need to be informed as to the ridiculous longstanding guideline regarding this and all future Presidents.
8
@iabdny
I thought the DOJ Memo that says a "sitting president can't be indicted for a crime since it would be a distraction to the president from doing his job," was issued by a staff attorney acting on orders from President Clinton in 2000 after he was put through the ringer by Attorney Starr for his perjured testimony to the House.
But still, the questions you pose would be interesting to hear answers to.
Just let Mueller read the report on TV. Then the report will speak for itself.
3
Very clear and straightforward questions. Let’s hear them asked and find out the answers.
3
All eyes are going Capitol Hill tomorrow investigation report of the President Donald Trump , Mueller report. But will the Democrats get what they wanted on the Mueller report No. Mueller already stated that he would talk about the four corners of the report but last night in the wee hours. A letter to Mueller from William Barr to obstruction the hearing for tomorrow not to speak no evil see no evil or hear no evil only to the President ears. Did anybody clarify job responsibility to William Barr not to be his lawyer but for the people America .
William Barr should be prosecuted and put in jail for his actions to distort the facts from the Mueller report and turning it into favorable condition to the President Donald Trump.
I hope and pray that Mr. Mueller will present his report to the American people without being tainted by William Barr the DOJ God help America.
2
Mueller will disappoint. That’s who he is. Steve Bannon, surprised at the circumspect conclusions of the report, was reported to have said, “never send a Marine to do a hit man’s job.” Accurate or not it’s a great observation. AG Barr isn’t a Marine. He’s got no governor. He has only one audience and he aims to please and he isn’t hampered by appearances, public opinion, facts, honesty, or consequences. The entire Trump administration has one common denominator; shamelessness. And it’s boosters, former Republicans (all Republicans are now former Republicans) who are now Trumpers, cheer Trump on. They celebrate, and memorialize his lies, erratic thinking, counterproductive policies, his rending of institutions, and far worse shifting alliances from the free world to the despotic world. At this point it’s not enough to vote Trump out. The stink of his presidency has polluted Trumpers sitting in Congress. It will take years of disinfection to cleanse the system.
2
Mueller isn't going to do it. Stop expecting him to swoop down and save us like some Superman.
5
Right as right can be in every sense.
The missing element is political courage and undiluted responsibility to the American people.
3
I'm not for against anyone. The facts are the facts. Here's my question...How could it be that Mueller did not know what his options were once his investigation was complete? If Mr. Katyal knows, why doesn't Mueller? This was his singular focus for months and months.
For the last 2 plus years I've been waiting for an individual in a unique position to command the public's attention to make a principled stand. Mr. Katyal, you present a wonderfully simple set of questions that does not leave much room to wiggle. I'm afraid that Mr. Mueller will not fill this vacuum. I believe Mr. Mueller to be a man of principle, but at this most critical hour he will ultimately shy away from saying what needs to be said to allow our system to take over (impeachment). I truly hope I'm wrong.
5
@DW
I share your concern that Mueller will not "fill this vacuum."
However, If Mueller is a man of principle, why would, or should, he shy away from saying what needs to be said?
His only motive for "shying away" from doing what's right is that he has received marching orders to do so...but now I am thinking like a conspiracy theorist.
As another comment has posed, it was Mueller who took orders from someone (Cheney maybe, or Rumsfeld??) to represent weapons of mass destruction being stored by Saddamm Hussein, that really weren't there.
@Chuck I think you answered your own question. I think his strings are getting pulled and that he's an institutionalist vs. a trailblazer. I think history will ultimately hold him in some contempt for not doing more to sound the alarm while the fire was controllable.
1
@Chuck
What "needs" to be said if anyone in the Trump campaign, including Trump himself, did anything technically wrong to pass the bar required for indictment.
That is what prosecutors and law enforcement are supposed to do.
They should not be moralizers or catering to the need for mob justice. That's ow you get Eric Garner being chocked to death over selling loose cigarettes. Of course a man who sells loose cigarettes is of poor character and must be doing other nefarious things. Look at him at how inappropriately he acted on being confronted over a minor thing!
If you want moralizers, bring in your priests and your rabbis and your imams. They say what "needs" to be said. Abandon the false notion that you're actually operating within the confines of the rule of law.
Trouble is, Mueller appears to be too timid to clarify or provide answers to questions raised by his report. Although he is no longer a Justice Department employee subject to the orders of an attorney general who has abandoned all principles to protect Trump, Mueller sent him a letter asking what he can and cannot say. He then received a reply from one of Barr's flunkeys in effect telling him that he can't say anything beyond what he said in the report. So I'm not expecting much enlightenment on Wednesday.
19
"With Three Simple Answers, Mueller Can Speak Volumes
For those who have read it, the special counsel’s report speaks for itself. For those who haven’t, he can speak for it in Congress. "
It would be some comfort if we could know that the people in congress have either read the entire report, or, are reading the articles and opinions pieces presented on the this news web site and the one on the Washington Post.
I think it's up to the citizens of our country to start getting after their representatives and senators and ask them point blank if they have read either the Mueller report or are closing following all of the articles and opinions on the major news sites.
People in our congress have got to educate themselves rather than just ignoring the issue in hopes it will go away, because it isn't going to go away. We want answers, not just a know nothing look from congress.
8
There are three ways to get rid of Trump. Impeach, at the polls, or follow Puerto Rico's example through mass protests and bringing the country to a complete standstill. Congress won't impeach .. it is time we shut the economy down. Call in sick, block transportation systems and networks, and don't let up. Five million people can make this happen.
14
@Ted There are some problems going the route you suggested. 51 years ago those who wanted to end the war in Vietnam converged together at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago to demonstrate. Mayor Daly, a Democrat, gave his okay for the police to do what they wanted to clear the crowds, mostly young people. Every young person, who happened to be on the streets-many not having anything to do with the demonstrations were beaten bloody. This hurt the Democratic Party. Both of the candidates for the Presidency, Humphrey and McCarthy were against the war. This melee hurt the party. The eventual candidate, Humphrey, went way down in the polls. He made a strong comeback but he was beaten by Richard Nixon. Nixon ended up extending and broadening the war resulting in the deaths of 20,000 more Americans and far more Vietnamese. The same thing could happen here. Middle Americans might perceive Trump as the more law and order candidate and gave him another term.
3
Mr. Mueller, your country needs you now more than when you wore the uniform and put your life on the line. Your principles, I believe, will compel you to open the doors for brighter days for the nation. I kindly, humbly, sincerely, with heartfelt gratitude, ask you to help us all to leave the dark days behind and look into a brighter future.
Thank you for your ongoing service to your, mine, and our country. May your last round of service be the crowning achievement of your life and career.
30
Brilliant analysis as always from Neal Katyal. Please, Chairman Nadler, begin the hearings with NOTHING BUT these three questions, and then the "asterisk" questions! Game over! The rest is just posturing and grandstanding by both sides, that means nothing.
Then draft and vote on articles of impeachment in the Judiciary Committee in early 2020, send them to the House in mid-2020, and then let Speaker Pelosi TABLE THEM and announce in Sept. 2020 that there will be no floor vote on the articles, because the American People should vote on them in 2020! That would be a brilliant move!
17
Mr Katyal suggests 5 questions. The first three should elicit Mueller's statement that Trump's continual claim of no collusion, no obstruction and complete exoneration is false.
The last two questions ask whether Mueller would have found criminal activity if it had been possible to indict a President. 1000+ former US attorneys have concluded yes; Barr has now given Mueller the green light to answer the question; how can he refuse?
26
Anyone asking those three simple questions is, in effect, admitting that they did not read the report. All three are answered clearly within it, and there is as an attorney, Mr. Mueller's response should be "Asked, and answered".
5
@michaelscody. That might be sufficient if Trump and his enablers had not spent the weeks since the report lying about its contents.
@michaelscody I believe Mr. Katyal's idea is not for the questions to showcase who read the report and who didn't. The idea is to put the answers to those questions on television in front of the people of the United States, untainted by William Barr's unseemly bias.
2
@michaelscody, what? Yes, the members of the committees HAVE read the report. It's for the benefit of OPEN discourse that these hearings are conducted. So the public can see for themselves. If important issues get filtered through corrupt government officials only, that's hardly an informed electorate. But that IS how trump would like it.
Your logic is so strange, it's really trying hard to justify keeping information out of the public sphere. Strange that trump/barr have somehow convinced you that public Congressional hearings, after 250 years, should be stonewalled and ridiculed.
1
this is a very good, and important, op-ed piece. members of congress should read it carefully.
the public does not want to hear from every member of the committees. the dems should delegate their questioning time to, maybe, four or five members, preferably former prosecutors, to keep the questioning simple, and use follow up questions.
13
Justice is analysis with conceptual tolls that are the state of the law at that " photography " moment when a criminal question arises. Justice is not punishment . The anglo saxon law is very much on the metonymy side of the signifiant/ signifie rapport.
It goes by the letter of the law. Like if it was a set of commandments. It is about the punitive conclusion. And that can detriment to judgement , which is the core of justice.
And how the law evolutes by incorporating new elements of analysis . It can be written again. Some actions that were not recognized as crimes before , in other times, are now.
Justice conducts the law. The symbolic interpretation of justice.Not the opposite . The object of the human debate for justice is the intentionality of the action .And that is how justice is recognized collectively. Respected and integrated into the consciences . If there is no debate of justice about an action in question, if the circumstances of the action are not exposed clearly, there is no justice and the law is dead forclusion.
We cannot or won't expose those facts publicly because they are not relevant to the law .Or because they are not punishable by the law .That is not conducting justice .
But if those facts are debated, the debate can uncover others, or they can be "recognized " into the law by the spirit of the law . The direction of the law . Intentionality. Was is the intention here? Montesquieu.
2
@JPH What is the intention here ? Or What was the intention there ?
Lucid, thank you!
6
Adding to the list:
On July 22nd, the DOJ forced you to limit your testimony to the American people. Do you, in your successor’s words, believe a higher loyalty is ever appropriate?
21
If we still have to discuss this report, with the nth degree of precision after all this time, the report is worthless.
It's a dead end - we need to back out of this stupidity, and get ready for 2020 with all our forces united.
Mueller is not going to say anything. He knows, that because he failed to knock our Trump, he is the one in danger now, not Trump.
3
@Peter Zenger
Mueller is not in any danger whatsoever. He has retired.
@Peter Zenger, that's the point. We HAVEN'T discussed the report. We have been trying to wrest the report from Billy Barr. How can you be tired of discussing what has been kept from Congress itself, let alone redacted for the public to read. That's your best shot? it's just weird how trump hypnotizes folks like you into a mantra of 'public discourse is dangerous Dem poison!"
First, how many Hillary email hearings are still being called for by republicans in 2019? Several, even though the angry Jim Jordan has been on this for years. There have been over 33 hearings into the 2016 terror that was the Clinton server blah blah blah blah. And here are folks like Peter to tell us that a report on documented, actual Russian mischief is stupid. Your words.
The Russians meddled, only Democratic servers were hacked/leaked, everyone admits it was to benefit trump, every. single. republican. lied about one thing: RUSSIAN CONTACTS, and trump cuddles in secret with Putin, telling us it's all none of your business, Peter.
Instead of wanting to hear both sides, or even read the few relevant passages, it's easier for you to flap your hands and tell us all to move along, but only on this one topic, because trump's covered in cold sweat at the thought of Mueller saying things out loud.
Information is power; knowledge is power. Weird that trump keeps trying to keep knowledge and information, with his loyal base ready to lecture us all that there is no Russia, just lily white brothers.
Chairman Nadler,
Did you read the first paragraph?
One more question to add before the LAST three...
Mr. Mueller, are you a registered Republican?
7
Members of Congress. If you are out there I hope you are listening!!!!!
13
These are great questions. Regardless of the answers, the house must follow the processes defined in the constitution and impeach.
If the Pelosi and the Democrats don’t do this, they have NO room to complain about (and are no better than) McConnell and the Republicans in what was their ongoing obstructing of Obama and the egregious constitutional process breaking in not vetting an Obama Supreme Court pick.
DO YOUR JOB!!! All of you!!!!’
14
You just can't help yourselves, can you, NYT?
Pinning your hopes on yet another "Big One". The one that this time, surely, will defeat Trump.
This will be such a non-event.
7
Bet he won't answer any of those.
2
I hope that Neal Katyla's approach of posing these simple but fundamental questions yields results. But I then read carefully key sections of the Muller report, especially that involving Muller's decision to send Trump written questions and to accept his written answers, as detailed in Appendix C of Volume II. A close examination of Appendix C illustrates the problems of holding Trump to account.
The Report slips easily from declaring that interviewing the president is “vital to our investigation” to then noting that Muller’s team had offered “numerous accommodations to aid the President’s preparation and avoid surprise” to declaring that “after extensive discussions with the Department of Justice” accepting written answers to their questions would be sufficient. Lo and behold, after receiving Trump's (i.e., his lawyers’) written responses, Muller points out “that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall ' or ‘remember ' or have an ‘independent recollection’ of information called for by the questions.” After discussing what to do next, including possibly subpoenaing the president, Muller folds and accepts the written responses despite their glaring inadequacies.
Again and again, Muller’s investigation goes right up to the door of truth but never opens it, allowing Trump to declare, "Fake News."
10
@MG
Mueller follows the rules. And the Law.
Trump does not.
History will show what Trump prevented from coming out.
6
Unfortunately, the present cannot wait for what history might show.
@TheraP
Since Mueller follows the rules and Trump allegedly doesn't, then it shouldn't be too difficult for Mueller to show what rules were broken.
Your whole Mueller dilemma is that Trump technically didn't break the law, ergo Mueller can't nail him on anything.
Dear Mr. Meuller, Please clarify the double talk; I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read your report.
5
The latest instructions from the DOJ to Mueller can be covered in one word. Cover-up.
17
The Democrats have dropped the ball so many times on this that they should just move on. They allowed Trump/Pence/Barr/Rudy to smear Mueller to the point that no conservative believes him. He is a Hillary plant or something. They waited and waited for Barr to get them the report when they should have demanded it right away. They keep playing games with threats of subpoenas but when people don't bother to show up they just wring their hands and come on here and shout "Shame!".
Pelosi already read the report. Her own party has tried to bring up impeachment and she shoots it down. So, I'm to believe that Mueller is going to say something to Congress that was NOT in his report and we're all going to go, "gotcha"? No, she read the report, she has stated till she is blue in her face that she does not want to impeach and that is that.
How many times have I heard Schiff or Nadler say explosive evidence is coming? Reminds me of the time Rachel Maddow claimed to have Trump's tax returns. I spent 28 minutes listening to her babble on and on and finally she admitted that she had nothing. I'm not going to watch. What's the point? To see Mr. Monopoly make an appearance in the background audience? To see some of the most stupid people I have ever encountered run to Kinko's and make a poster or eat a bucket of chicken? I'm done with the Democrats and the Republicans. So, sad. LOSERS! :)
5
The cowards of Congress will fail us as they have since W was president..
6
I believe Neal Katyal wrote this stupid Special Investigator statue replacing the Independent Prosecutor statue that was used by Republicans (headed by the pious and sanctimonious right-wing Ken Starr) to bring down President Bill Clinton for consensual sex in the Oval Office.
Now that we have an illegitimate "president" the weak and nearly useless Special Investigator statue handcuffed Democrats in trying to control a would-be dictator who is dismantling the US government, and crippling our democratic institutions by relentlessly attacking the media and packing the federal courts with right-wing extremists, etc.
Blame Mr. Katyal and his stupid Special Investigator statue for crippling the system of checks and balances that existed previously. Mr. Katyal keeps painting a pretty picture and assuring us that everything is going to turn out well. No, it's not OK and it's not going to be OK, and his Special Investigator state is the cause of this disaster!
Mueller was useless! He didn't even bother to bring Trump before a Grand Jury or force him to testify which he could have done by issuing a subpoena. I'm now suspicious that Mueller, a life-long Republican, has deliberately made it more difficult for Democrats to impeach this would-be tyrant, not necessarily because he loves Trump, but out of loyalty to his Republican Party! I think Mueller is batting for the Republicans, 90% of whom support Trump.
Mr. Kataly's law has allowed all this to happen.
6
@NY Times Fan
The Law of unintended consequences.
Who among us could have predicted Trump, prior to his entry into the GOP primary?
Who among us could have predicted he’d win the GOP primary?
Who among us could have predicted the role of Putin/Russia and Facebook in affecting the electoral outcome?
And as bad as we feared Trump would be, who among us could have predicted the new lows nearly every day and the trashing of the Constitution and our Republic due to Trump?
So, let’s cut a little slack for Neal Katyal - who failed to take all these “predictions” into account? Even the Founders, who tried to put stop-gaps in place, could never have predicted the awfulness of Trump!
1
So tell me what is Barr going to do to Mueller if he takes the lead of all in This reprehensible administration and refuses,to cooperate with Barr’s game.
7
p. 10
"...some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications..."
Who deleted communications?
Also, same page:
Who invoked their fifth amendment right?
Americans deserve to know.
4
There was a fair amount of back and forth between Mueller and Barr (a letter and at least one telephone call) concerning Barr's handling of the report; I would hope those exchanges would be explored.
6
@Excelsior,
Something, anything! Propaganda meets reality.
No, Mr. Kaytal, there is only one question Mueller needs to answer:
"Did your report, anywhere in its 448 or so pages, determine that--but for your cop out interpretation of the DOJ memo stating that a sitting President could not be indicted-- probable cause existed to charge President Donald J. Trump with any high crimes or misdemeanors worthy of impeachment? If so, please point us to the sentence, paragraph, and page number where your report established probable cause for any and all such alleged crimes."
3
Three words to describe this entire investigation fiasco: Mueller: Loyal Republican.
5
If Mueller says there was no collusion, no obstruction, and Trump was illegally targeted, Mueller will become the target. If you don’t tell us what we want to hear you must be lying.
3
YES, the Constitution ALLOWS Indictment of the President! UNDERSTAND THIS FIRST!
It happened with Bill Clinton didn’t it?
Clinton was charged on 11 separate counts – 4 were lying to a grand jury and 7 were Obstruction of Justice.
These laws have not changed at all.
Trump was charged with NOTHING because he did not commit a crime. If there was sufficient evidence then an indictment would have followed, it did not. Did EVERY American forget Clinton
Mueller’s words at the Press Briefing about Russia Investigation
‘’as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.’’
The investigation is finished. So understand that ‘Insufficient evidence’ is the same as ‘NO evidence’.
If there was sufficient evidence then an indictment would have followed, it did not. Remember
Clinton was indicted.
--AG Barr comments on Russia investigation --
Barr quoted the Mueller report as saying the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
THIS SENTENCE ONLY MEANS ONE THING – NO COLLUSION!!!
Barr concluded on obstruction of justice ‘’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"
THAT MEANS NO OBSTRUCTION….
1
@Jose Clearly, you have not read the report and have not been paying attention to the reports of those who have.
1
Thank you for making it real simple to understand.
And now, it’s time to act - send him back to the Tower, — open up Trump Towers to house immigrants... let him continue to make a buck, if he can - his Presidency has been a business, hasn’t it? ( entertainment business):
3
Trump supporters actively cheer the crimes committed by their man. Mueller and his report makes no difference to them. Their minds are shut.
These includes almost every single GOP lawmaker in Congress.
10
@Midtown2015
Sad but true.
This morning, I was 2 cars behind a minivan that had "Trump 2020" painted on its back window in red, white, and blue.
I doubt very much its driver will watch or care what Mueller says.
This is why Trump is so panicked?
1
The feckless Democratic leaders frighten me almost as much as Trump does. Show some spine, Nancy et al.
9
Bill Maher was right about Mueller: sometimes, a person is called upon by history to do the right thing. To speak the truth loudly and clearly to power, whatever the consequences.
Mueller received that call, and he let it go to voicemail.
Now, astonishingly, he is again called upon. So what will he do, what will he say, and how will he say it? If his report is anything to go by, the answers are, respectively: probably nothing, not very much, and cryptically.
I dearly wish I am wrong, but I think (or, rather, I FEAR) that Mr. Mueller is a coward.
14
"In 88 Trips to Capitol Hill, Mueller Grew Weary of Partisanship"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/us/politics/mueller-testimony-congress.html
Knowing the past history of Mueller's testimony before Congress, it is not surprising that he would be reluctant to do so again. He knows he will have to deal with insults and assaults on his honesty and character from the partisan Republican members of the committees he is appearing before. I am sure he is steeling himself to deal with them but he knows it will not be a pleasant experience.
But, we know he is, above all else, a partriot and defender of our laws and Constitution who will feel he must defend the work of his team and present their findings to the American people without a filter imposed by Barr (a partisan hack and bootlicker).
5
Congress sadly cares not a whit about this report. The American people have the ability to remove the current President in 2020. Your dog doesnt hunt.
Even if Mueller rings the bell that cannot be unrung, will the good people of Rust Belt America understand or want to hear it?
3
@Cottager
The good people of the Rust Belt will just yawn, call it fake news, and turn the channel back to Fox.
Why do people ignore what we already know? "Russia, if you're listening..."
All the people, including trump's son, lying about the Russian meeting. Back channels to Russia?!?
The question I'd ask Mueller is, "Did William Barr lie about the report?", even 'tho I know the answer.
8
Mueller: I am not going to comment on possible interpretations of the report; the report speaks for itself.
So then what?
3
"...a president who takes grave steps to undermine the rule of law in the very way the report describes is not fit for office..." [op cit] Amen.
--
And who besides Mr. Mueller says, "Presidents can't be indicted?” [my caption]
—
Is "Justice Department Policy," [op cit] enshrined in (1) Federal Law, or (2) the Constitution? I may be wrong, but I don't think so. I believe it's more, "a traditional thing." [my caption]
--
So I say, "Why not indict?" And let SCOTUS decide if it is or isn't constitutional?
--
And regardless of who says what, the fact remains: If anyone in our society, including the President, commits a crime, he or she should be indicted and tried.
Isn’t that what “the rule of law,” is all about?
***
Mike Pence is, I believe, a good Vice President, at least in Republican eyes. So why not Pence instead of Trump as President, starting Thursday morning; that is, if on Wednesday, the House “discovers,” actual [read, “proven”] criminal wrongdoing on Trump’s part, with Mr. Mueller as, “the star witness.” [But who in Government would act on it?]
***
Conclusion: I say, that if Congress demonstrates, "beyond a reasonable doubt" on Wednesday, that Donald Trump has committed crimes, then he should be (1) Indicted *now*, as a legal matter (2) Relieved of his duties (3) Impeached by the House and tried by the Senate, as a matter of political record, (4) Referred to the Justice Department for immediate arrest and trial.
--
Now what's wrong with that?
2
The role of Bill Barr is likely to lead to several interesting historical studies. On the one hand, Barr openly played PR agent for Trump and opened investigations that appear designed to distract attention from Trump's own alleged crimes. On the other hand, he released much of the special counsel report and appears to have allowed some indictments that might lead ultimately to the President. (His role in ending the SDNY investigation and other unknown actions to protect Trump, his family and associates are yet to be determined.) As to obstructive conduct, phony privilege arguments, rationalizing improper behavior, Barr appears to have acted more as the President's lawyer than the nation's. His actions appear to transgress the applicable ethics rules but the role he played behind the scenes might be of particular interest to historians. It will be interesting to see if he has been the dishonest villain he plays in public or the institutional player advertised prior to his confirmation.
4
Every questioner should start with these three questions. Over and over. It will be quick. One word answers, and the repetition will be the news for days.
7
@Ken
this is a brilliant idea....it's past time for the democrats to leave nuance behind when they perform for the american people. evidently, choreographed propaganda is the only thing people will listen to anymore.
Need only one question.
Mr. Mueller- Are you a Republican?
Answer: Yes
No further questions Mr. Chairman.
4
Okay, for what it’s worth I downloaded a copy from CNN and read the Mueller report and what became clear to me was that someone as “stupid” as Trump is supposedly could never have masterminded such a elaborate scheme as was laid out in it. Therefore for me reading it represents Trump’s complete exoneration, unless on the other hand Charles Blow and the entire Times Editorial Board is willing to eat that word they’ve been calling Trump since day one. Now let’s see which comes first, ego or country, and with who?
3
Mr. Katyal, Robert Mueller, with his Sphinx-like approach to the nearly two-year epic conducted by himself and his aides, largely forfeited the debate to his erstwhile friend and putative boss, William Barr.
The Special Counsel made the mistake of assuming that most Americans are—more or less—heavily invested in the course of our nation and in the conduct of the president that he was tasked with investigating. His naïve assumption was really one bridge too far.
His appearance on The Hill may, indeed, be riveting and revealing of a president who was in thrall to the Russians and therefore became deeply indebted to them for his position. Red Square, in Moscow, holds his marks.
But we must ask ourselves now, has the shot in his flintlock been ruined by water and time? The president has now, with his attacks upon certain women in Congress—and by extension—certain “others” who do not—and have not ever—figured into America’s dream, reconfigured the narrative for his re-election. How many care, now, about a testimony that might be proven to have lost its bite?
Robert Mueller’s iron, once smoking white-hot, has gone cold. Four months ago, he had a final chance to rescue us from the corrupt authoritarian president’s grip.
He ceded the arena to the lions who now prowl at will, fearing no challenge.
8
Won’t happen. Mueller has been silenced by DOJ.
6
Mueller will shock us again. His answer to most questions will be apt. Please read the report and not my lips.
Cry for the beloved country
4
I want a US administration where Neal Katyal and Paul Krugman are two of the senior most people in it.
That would assure me that America is in good hands.
10
The problem for America with Neal K. Katyal's brilliant analysis is that Donald Trump is the criminal that the GOP has always dreamed of. For the GOP it doesn't matter if Trump brakes federal laws and conspires with a foreign government as long as he supports the agenda of the .1 percent.
The question is do we as citizens care if elected officials commit treason? Do Americans want a democratic law abiding society or just a white one? We will see in 2020.
8
If anyone wants a great summary of tens acts of obstruction by Trump and his minions, as outlined in the Mueller report and performed by an all-star cast, see this:
https://lawworksaction.org/
A bit over an hour and very entertaining (John Lithgow as Trump, Joel Grey as Jeff Sessions!). Frightening, too.
3
“The Mueller Report for Busy People” are un-spun summaries of the Mueller report, in 1, 3, 10, and 30 page versions.
URLs to free versions of these summaries are listed on the left side of:
https://www.amazon.com/An-American-Citizen/e/B07SRCZ6KK/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
1
I would venture that fewer than 10 percent of Congress, and fewer than that the general population, has read even part of this report, never mind its entirety. With his testimony, we shall see if Mueller is an honorable man or sniveling, lying, Trump coward as Barr has proven to be.
4
Between Barr and Rosenstein, you have an obstruction of truth and collusion to mislead.
3
Double shame on the NYT!
By wasting the endless stream of articles and columns about the alleged Trump racism, sexism and obstruction of the law, it distracted the American public from the really important topic - that Trump and the Congressional Democrats quietly cut the budget deal and skyrocketed the national deficit to cover up all the budgetary pitfalls and reckless spending by the Trump Administration.
It treats us like the native Indians.
It provides us with the shiny glass marbles while the gold is reserved for somebody else…
Who cares!
Let’s focus on Robert Mueller testifying tomorrow…
2
Mr Ketyal,
After reading this article, the first question to arise is do you think after what we are seeing in last one week, GOP guard has any gumption to stand up to this man?
Haven't Republicans scanned through the Mueller Report and all we had after McConnell's "case closed", has been radio-silence. That means nothing Mr Mueller might say is going to really change their minds.
If they don't have the guts to call racist attitude racist (4 votes, really?), I don't see this Republican party having the moral authority or the will to do anything.
And if you are betting on Trump's base, well... they are perfectly okay to land themselves, and inhabit that basket of deplorables, they have no qualms about it.
So, what's left?
Angry democrats...
Progressives and liberals who already know he is a fraud, crook, and a lair...
The blue-collar white men, who are happy with economy...
The independents who if they aren't convinced already, nothing new will matter...
So, who is left to be convinced, I ask?
1
I wonder what questions the Republicans on each Committee will ask.
Just because he committed crimes while in office doesn't make him a criminal. He doesn't have a criminal bone in his body!
2
We are getting the "government we deserve" because no congress person will lay their political lives on the line for the Constitution. The hypocrisy of this lot acquiescing to slaying of American Servicemen without a vote or nod and yet hiding and cowering to protect their skins is beyond sickening.
Unless we get people into office who have a higher calling, this country is doomed.
5
@rickw22 There are currently about 80 representatives and at least one senator calling for impeachment proceedings to begin. A big part of the problem is that the majority of Americans are not in favor of impeachment.
3
Send this op-ed directly to your Congressperson.
Call your Congressperson, and read it to them aloud.
3
Let's go for it! However, I feel utter despair about our country and Trump! Did you see today that his approval rating is at 45% --- the highest it has ever been?
Did you see what ultra-conservative George Will had to say about Trump and the future of our country which will never, ever, ever be the same bc of Trump...on PBS Newshour?
https://www.pbs.org/video/july-22-2019-pbs-newshour-full-episode-1563840234/
In all honesty, I sometimes wonder about giving up my life (ie, dying) to save this country from Trump. Utter despair and shame of 45% of my American citizens.
4
Mueller has to follow AG guidelines or what?
What's going to happen?
Trump and his gang routinely flout and ignore law so why should Mueller worry?
Just what is big bad Barr going to do!
Throw a hissy fit for speaking the truth about our " great leader?"
4
The idea that the people that voted for the sitting buffoon care about any crimes he committed is laughable......He was spot-on when he made his "shoot someone on 5th ave." remark.........the relative silence of those on the right that are now complicit in the looming march toward his desire for a totalitarian regime is sickening.....
6
If facts actually mattered, Trump would not be president.
Doesn’t matter what Mueller says. It only matters what FOX says.
When oligarchs and corporations (FOX, fossil fuel corps, agricorps, big pharma, the NRA, etc.) “partner” with the government to subvert the will of the minority you get fascism.
This is what it looks like.
7
Being retired I had time to read the Mueller report. After reading the report I sent Senator Tom Tillis (R), an email asking him to join the call for impeachment of Trump. What I got back was a marketing email stating AG Barr said "no collusion on obstruction."
I did not bother to send an email to Senator Richard Burr (R) because he had colluded with the White House Counsel Don McGahn by sharing information from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that was investing Trump and the Russians.
I sent two emails to Rep. David Price (D) asking that he join others in calling for the impeachment of Trump — no response. There are good honest people in Congress; however, they are the real minority in Congress, ditto for the DoJ. My observation is that honest people in government leadership positions are few.
The reality is that people like AG Barr use their power to protect the 1% and advance the interest of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservatives and libertarians that uses the Constitution as cover for their undemocratic actions.
I lost respect for the Supreme Court when a they anointed W. President. And the Robert's Court has made clear that the Constitution is a tool for partisan politics, and advancing the interests of corporations, and the 1%.
My hope for this country is that Robert Mueller, and his team, will honer the oath they took to protect our Nation from enemies foreign and domestic.
21
@old soldier
Yes, I wish our countrymen and women had the time and inclination to find out the facts as you have.
3
I am puzzled why Mueller, now a private citizen, would not discuss his revulsion by being railroaded by Barr, who summarily dismissed the report as a nothing burger. If Mueller speaks his peace, the DOJ has no standing to prosecute him for going outside the four corners of his report. And let's dismiss the semantics here. Mueller's report indicates he cannot exonerate Trump on obstruction. There is no gray area here. If Trump can't be exonerated, he can be indicted. It's like a baseball umpire tasked with declaring safe or out and saying he's not safe and he's not out. Poppycock!
9
Nope. Mueller told Barr that the latter’s summary was accurate.
The House needs to start impeachment hearings. Assuming the senate wouldn't remove him, at least the cowards would be forced to vote on the record. Their legacy will be defined for historians and it won't be pretty.
8
My hope is that this is the pretense for Sam's to finally defend this country and it's people from a maniacal narcicist. Courage is nowhere to be found in Washington because our leadership is focused on keeping and gaining power. If no impeachment process is triggered by this testimony, we will be witnessing the beginning of the end of our Democracy. I believe this will signal the complete willingness of our governments complete tolerance for and complicit approval of corruption. VOTE and protest PEACEFULLY if we citizens are abandoned by our civil servants as the last line of defense against corruption and a fascist leaning President and a political party propping him up.
7
@JDH
Sam's should be Dem's.. Darn spell check.
3
If the House impeaches Trump, as Mr. Katyal suggests, the Senate won't convict, thus giving Trump the opportunity to claim, with superficial validity, that the prejudiced House condemned him, a Republican, but the full Senate redeemed him and "spoke the truth."
"It's all politics," he will then tweet, and that is plausible, too. Catching out Trump is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. Mr. Katyal needs then to put away his hammer till a more appropriate situation shows up.
(Granted, the House's impeachment would set a good precedent, but it won't change much, if at all, what happens in 2020. Each side has already made that decision.)
1
@Jim Muncy
Well then let's set a good precedent and see what happens.
3
Here’s another: Did Russia interfere in the 2016 presidential election?
6
I think much better questions from Mueller would be as follows
How much money did you make on this?
Do you think you could’ve stretched it out even more and made even more money?
Did you make enough money to retire?
@Pogo So, all this report was about money to you? What was reported had no meaning for you? Not even, AT A MINIMUM, Russian interference in our election?
And I dare say Mr. Mueller did not take the job to increase his 401k.
The warning to Mueller by the DoJ to "stay within the boundaries of the report" in his testimony tomorrow clearly demonstrates that Barr and company are terrified of what questions may be asked at the hearing.
Mr. Katyall's questions are critical and required. However, an issue that was never adequately addressed was why Mueller decided that a personal interview with the POTUS would not be conducted. Why? (Laywers Dowd, Sekulow, Kasowitz, & Chris Christie & Newt Gingrich all advised against it, despite Trump's statements that he would be willing to do so.)
Apparently, the self-proclaimed "stable genius best president in history" could not be trusted to answer Mueller's questions truthfully by his legal team and political allies. The report's appendix included the Trump's written in which on 23 pages of responses, Trump asserted on at least 30 occasions that he "did not recall" or "had no recollection of" the incidents/events about which he was being questioned.
The report itself stated that they found the responses "indicative of the inadequacy of the written format, especially given the office’s inability to ask follow-up questions." (p. 417 of the report).
Mueller's decision not to subpoena the president was the weakest part of his report. "We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report." We must demand an explanation!
4
Leave it to Neal Katyal to cut to the chase! I only hope that some of the Democrats in Congress read this essay.
6
I hope the Trumplicans on the panel make him angry with their fake drama. Then, maybe Mueller will answer the questions in Layman's term. It's your moment to immortalize yourself in American history as the champion of the rule of law. The Special Council that defied a corrupt President and Attorney General. Please do the right thing. We will erect a monument in your honor.
7
Neal
Great article and great questions. What worry's me now is the power or control Barr has over Mueller, justified or not. And, will Mueller show up? You have clearly articulated the key questions. Are the Democrats listening. Also will the Republicans try their best to turn this into a circus? Will Adler prevent this?
2
The New York Times has frequently described persons—most famously the Central Park Five—as “exonerated” even though there were no “not guilty” verdicts and suspicion of their guilt remain. Yet it takes exception to President Trump’s claim that the evidence does not support prosecution as exoneration. That’s bizarre.
Regardless of what Robert Mueller tells Congress, the evidence he presented in his report remains the same, and it still does not support prosecution.
2
I read the Mueller report over the weekend following its release. I’m currently reading a 120 page summary of the report compiled by one of the most respected and published political scientist, Thomas Patterson. I consider myself a well informed person and a reasonably astute student of politics. That said, nothing I’ve heard or read has come close to the precise distillation of the entire Trump-Mueller-Barr dark matter vortex than this piece by Mr. Ketyal.
His “3 questions” are worthy of catchphrase reverence on par with “what did the president know and when did he know it.”
It is my sincere hope that these questions penetrate the tweet/meme lexicon and raise the understanding of the Trump cabal’s illegality to the four- corners of our nation. Or, at the very least, to a member of Congress with the sharpness of mind to simply ask them tomorrow exactly as you have stated.
Thank you for this, Mr. Katyal.
17
We are going to be very disappointed. Mueller isn't, after all, the great patriot we were told he was. He knows Barr is meddling as Trump's consigliere, and he's still going to follow Barr's instructions, which he specifically requested. Democrats should not pin much hope on this testimony. No one is saving this country. Mueller could but doesn't think it's his job. Pelosi could and refuses to. We're in trouble.
16
@Amelia I disagree. Innocent until proven guilty. So far Mueller has been honest and has acted within the framework of his role.
However, the cautionary tale here is Colin Powell.He aided the decision to invade Iraq based on, at best, inconclusive information and went from upstanding hero to a man of questionable integrity.
2
Katyal continnues to play the same surly and cynical word games that he played when he was Solicitor general.
Collusion is a subjective term and not an element of the Mueller investigation.
Conspiracy, is the term that counts and Mueller stated flatly that they found no evidence of conspiracy.
And with no conspiracy, there is no underlying crime related to obstruction charges - required in order to establish corrupt intent.
Katyal is just a political hack trying to breathe some life into a dead horse.
You have it wrong. An actual crime does not have to have been committed for there to have been obstruction of justice. Every law student knows that.
22
@Objectivist Mueller certainly did not state they found no evidence. That's one of the biggest falsehoods being propagated. Not sufficient isn't the same as none. The quote below is page 9 in the report, on page 10 in the report they state the gaps in evidence (caused in part by lies and destroyed data) might have made a difference in their findings.
"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. "
3
@Objectivist
You are right that collusion is not a legal term that Mueller could indict anyone for. However, his report abounds with examples of collusion and attempted collusion and it is well within the rights of the U.S Congress and the American people to say that collusive behavior to sabotage a presidential election is not acceptable behavior by a presidential campaign.
You are entirely wrong that Mueller stated flatly that he found no evidence of conspiracy. In fact, the report goes to great pains in explaining the very high standard for criminal conspiracy the special prosecutor set, and why the "admissible evidence" did not enable him to "establish" conspiracy. Among the things that prevented establishment of a conspiracy were witness tampering and witness lying, suppression of evidence, and non-cooperation.
5
Once again the Democrats dependence on Mr Mueller for doing their job is going to be a colossal disappointment.
3
Dems, take heed of this sage advice. Please do not jockey for “your moments,” especially those running for president. Keep the greater good of our democracy at the forefront of your words and actions. The American people are depending on you, collectively.
11
@TR NJ Great point.
1
Mr. Katyal is the mild-mannered guy who always ends up in the wrong. He told us Barr would be OK. Mueller, everyone keeps saying, is a patriot, apolitical, restrained, refined, the ultimate selfless soldier. I think he's a coward. And like Mr. Katyal, unlikely to really save us. Because he'll find a way not to answer these questions. Not to do what needs to be done. Like he's afraid of something. Like they don't think we can handle the truth.
I looked at the evidence and knew who Barr was going to be. Why couldn't these so-called experts figure it out. Barr betrayed Mueller, it's obvious, and he broke all the rules he seems to be trying to impose on Mueller, who just submits. These people are all political operatives, Mueller included. He won't save us. Jerry Nadler refuses to save us. Nancy Pelosi wants to make deals with the devil. They don't know how to play to win. I think the game is already over.
5
I would add a fourth: "If Donald Trump was not in office, would he be charged with a crime based on the evidence you uncovered?"
9
The very notion that all Americans would read the Report is ludicrous. It is beyond ludicrous. Barr knew that and Mueller knew that and all Republicans knew that. We have to remember Mueller is first a Republican. And while he may dislike Trump and Putin, he hates Obama and detests and loathes Clinton far far more. He is a “birther.” He may dislike Trump but he loves tax cuts and white Christian far-right conservative judges. He loves the policies. He fought in Vietnam to save the white Christian world order. And he is fighting now to save the white Christian world order. Like Barr, Mueller is blowing enough fog into the investigation and into the reporting of the findings to save the Republican project. Don’t expect him to save America if your idea of America is not a white Christian nationalist idea of America.
My concern in all this is what sway the DOJ (in Trumps hip pocket) has with the breadth of Muellers testimony. I saw a blurb on MSNBC last night that indicated he might be restrained.
2
The main thing working against this devastatingly simple and effective approach is, of course, the ego of your basic Congresscritter, among whom only the rarest are able to see that the job of getting at the facts outweighs the need to bloviate self-importantly, draw attention to the questioner not the question, drag in their own distracting hobby-horses unrelated to the issue in front of them, and otherwise try to supply their personal publicity and media relations teams with video footage of The Important One for fund-raising and reelection purposes. "Huh? You mean there's something else?" Yes, senator; yes congressperson, there actually is. Please for once just do your job. For the sake of the country, just this once. Here are the questions. Ask them.
6
Mueller is finally going to talk
Down the garden path this walk
If he could have said it was a crime
He is a republican they don't drop dimes
He had all of the information in his hand
And let Attorney General abscond the plan
He didn't interview trump or his Son
Both were holding the smoking gun
The meeting in trumps golden tower
Covered up when things went sour
They conjured up a story about adoption
A bold face lie in the face of collusion
Wikileaks fired the salvo
July 27th trump looking to let emails go
Mueller ain't the saint the media portraits
Its the republican with whom he always plays
I've read only the first 12 pages of the Mueller report and leaves very little questions that a.) the Russians influenced our elections and may well have gotten Mr. Mayhem elected president, and b.) he knew about it, supported it, and knowingly sought to benefit from it.
5
@Amy Haible. Amy, for heavens sake. The Trump campaign and election were held during the Obama reign. So if there was Russian interference, it was up to Obama to know about it and do something about it. Stop blaming Trump for Russian interference. Its getting old.
2
@KCE Have you read the Mueller report, which is what this article is about? I think not. But you should. For heaven's sake.
1
@KCE
You are mistaken. Obama did know about it and reported it to the Gang of Eight. Mitch McConnell told Obama that if he made it public, Republicans would accuse Obama of interfering with the election to benefit Hillary.
2
I would add a fourth question that I believe has been overlooked and is no less critical to public understanding of Mueller's findings. I would ask him if "collusion" has the same meaning of "conspiracy" and then I would ask him to explain the distinction between the two. He addressed "collusion" in a footnote, and frankly it deserves greater attention than that.
6
Mueller really needs to start off and hammer home the whole logic behind why we are in this horrible dilemma.
1) Sitting president can't be indicted. (this is the key puzzle piece from which all else follows)
2) There is a ton of evidence that implies that he obstructed justice, which for anyone else, would be indictable. But for Trump, this was never an option, so I just laid out the evidence.
3) You can obstruct justice, even if there is no underlying proven crime. In part, this is because the obstruction may actually prevent proving that their was a crime. If it were true that you couldnt be indicted for obstruction without a crime, you would obstruct to the greatest extent possible with impunity. In this case, Manafort's efforts (and others) successfully hid the likely underlying crime.
4) There is substantial evidence of underlying crimes, but there was not enough evidence to indict, due to the obstruction, and the dangling of pardons which gave witnesses the green light to obstruct, and these pardons are dangled with the knowledge that even if this is obstruction, as per 1), the president cant be indicted.
5
Well stated. Congressional committee members, read this column and follow the instructions!
4
Clarifying the story and focusing public attention is all an excuse. Democrats want Mueller to tell them to go impeach Trump. He is not going to do that. I therefore don't really see how Mueller's testimony changes anything. Anyone paying attention has already formed an opinion. That's why Barr delayed the report. That's why Pelosi was wrong to delay the impeachment inquiry. Democrats sacrificed both momentum and moral authority. Mueller isn't going to help them find it again.
That said, I'm beginning to suspect Pelosi plans to impeach. She just doesn't want acquittal before the election. That's a really dangerous game to play but it makes a certain amount of sense. Slow walk the investigation but leave the conclusion hanging. That's the Republicans' goal in Mueller's testimony. They want to put a period on Russia and obstruction. Democrats have given them an opportunity to try. That's what the second half of the program is all about.
I personally think Democrats would have been better off starting the inquiry and worrying about Mueller's opinion later. They appear to have botched the impeachment option. If so, that's really bad for America.
1
its seems hard to convince the whole country of trump's guilt. so let's take the easy route. how serious was Russian interference?
please cite the worst examples. trump says this a hoax and has done nothing to keep us safe. do we have a president who is failing to protect us?
6
This article seemed to me to be cogent, well-reasoned, and a good blue-print for the first Democratic Congressman to lead off. Unlike Watergate, there won't be a big national tv audience tomorrow. I suspect that Trump has,again, obfuscated his guilt.However, 2020 presents the Democrats with an opportunity to send the "bum" packing.Hopefully, that will be the focus.
7
Why was McConnell allowed to get away with denying Garland a hearing? It feels like if he could get away with that Republicans can get away with anything. There has been article after article sainting Pelosi as the savior of the Democrats but when she takes a position we wish could be circumvented for the sake of the letter of the law, our wish or need for initiating impeachment hearings that might serve to only cement Republican lies, we suddenly see obstinacy in place of her former saintly smarts. Mueller sort of whispered that it was up to Congress to decide what to do. Is it meaningful to remember that the man is a Republican? Maybe Schiff's initiating hearings about why NY suddenly stopped investigating Trump's known crimes would be more productive.
5
Khatyal should no better. He is a very educated lawyer: the role of prosecutors is NOT to make the finding he's suggests. The EXCLUSIVE role of prosecutors is to determine whether their is evidence of a crime sufficient to seek indictment.
This is proof that even the most intelligent can be ruled by emotion. Khatyal knows that what he has written has no basis in the law.
2
@Allan H. This isn't about having a basis in law, this is about getting Mueller to make clear statements about his findings that can be understood by many. Mueller needs to contradict the lies propagated by Barr and Trump. Hopefully, now that he is a private citizen, he will do that, even thought the DOJ has put a gag order over him. I pray he finds the confidence to speak openly, honestly, and without restriction from those who are in a cover-up.
5
@Allan H.
I read Khatyal's first three questions as asking the prosecutor as to whether he found evidence of crimes sufficient to seek indictment. I don't read them as emotional questions. They are fact based and can be answered with one word each.
4
That‘s what he says: Mueller could determine wether there is enough evidence to indict the president if given the occasion to do so!
You‘re on the same side!
One should not raise too many expectations from Mr. Muller's testimony. Moreover, because there are so many lawyers in the US including Mr. Katyal, truth becomes a matter of opinion and interpretation.
2
The real problem is that none of the republicans in Congress care, nor do trump’s supporters.
11
@Joan Karter. I am a Trump supporter and your comment is the absolute truth. Thank you.
2
@KCE When grave facts are ignored, irrelevant and do not sway opinion about the fitness of the person holding the highest office of our country we are all in trouble. It defies reason and is dangerous to our system of government. Those are the seeds of authoritarianism and dictators.
I do not, and never will understand people who reject facts to maintain an opinion ignorant of facts. That's the essence of Trump however, so I suppose it's not a surprise his supporters do the same.
Democrats should stick to this script: asking succinct respectful questions that the witness can answer.
The Republicans in the committee have the difficult job of denying or distorting Mueller’s findings. Let them be the ones to grandstand. Let them ask questions and let Mueller correct them.
8
Do not forget to ask Mr. Mueller about the context in which his investigation was begun, continued, and ended. Did the DOJ attempt to interfere or limit the investigation in any way? Was the investigation ended on your timetable, or that of the AG? Was your investigation entirely conducted as you, and no one at DOJ, deemed proper? And if you had to reach legal conclusions regarding conspiracy and obstruction, absent the OGC opinion on indicting a sitting president, what would those conclusions be?
4
@Ron S
Extremely important. I found it very telling that within three weeks of Barr being confirmed, the investigation wrapped up, with many loose ends.
1
The most hopeful moment of this two and a half year nightmare for me was when Adam Schiff gave his "It's not okay" speech. He was forceful, he kept it simple and clear, and his moral authority was unmistakable. The Republican congressmen next to him were squirming in their seats. Democrats need to begin every day watching that speech and not worry about the politics of impeachment. Even if Mueller is taciturn and stingy with his answers, Democrats can breath life into his dry words if they never forget the rightness of our cause. The question isn't why are Democrats calling for impeachment, but why are Republicans okay with a criminal autocrat in our White House!
25
Not to be forgotten in all of the inevitable focus on Trump is
the report's conclusion that "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systematic
fashion." Putin has denied any interference and Trump, in
deference to Putin in Helsinki, found Putin more believable than American intelligence services and repeatedly called
any such assertions a "hoax." Trump's failure to acknowledge the extent of Russian meddling as comprehensively and precisely described in the report is suspicious and a genuine threat to our elections and ultimately to the security of the nation. Mueller must be given a chance to speak to the urgency of addressing that threat, given all that he discovered, and to discount any
efforts to undermine the veracity of his findings about
Russian interference. Mueller, himself, tried at the end of his public statement, to direct attention to the dangers posed by Russian interference, but his warnings were lost in the
overwhelming focus on Trump. If Mueller is asked only these three questions, the reality and threat of Russia manipulation will yet again be lost. These hearings should be not only about Trump's possible culpability but about how we can best protect the inviolability of our elections and media from Russian and any other nefarious intervention. Insecure elections are an even greater threat than Trump to the future
of the Republic.
16
As Mr. Katyal states, Democratic leaders have made the mistake of viewing the report in political terms rather than legal terms. That only confirms what Trump and Republicans have been saying...that you're conducting a political witch-hunt. As he said, "the right way is to look at it in law enforcement terms." When you limit your actions and discussion to that, then Trump and Republicans can cry and whine all they want, but will have no defense.
Now, Trump and the GOP can use the politics excuse, and when you decide not to impeach, they will say that Trump didn't do anything wrong because otherwise the House would have taken some action.
Nicely played, Pelosi, Schumer, et al.
1
@Dario Bernardini The laws about politics cannot think about politics ? The law is constantly changing and adapting. It is not because an action cannot be considered by the law at one moment that it will not later.That is the process of the law to incorporate facts, events and associate them into the symbolic ensemble of the law .
The answers Mueller would give:
1. Collusion has no legal meaning so I can't answer that question.
2. That's for congress to decide. I laid out the evidence, it's their responsibility to take from there.
3. I could not exonerate the President.
5
„Collusion has no legal meaning, so I can‘t answer the question!“
That does not make any sense given that the whole part 1 of the report and therefore Mueller answer exactly this question, didn‘t they?
I wish the press would examine the president's claim about 13, or is it 18, "angry Democrats" who compiled the Mueller report. We know that Mueller is, and has been, a Republican. Who are the others, and does the President's oft repeated claim have any validity?
2
I am hoping that at least Mueller will tell us what Barr redacted from the summaries that were prepared for release to the public.
Barr isn't working for the public good, he's working as Trump's new fixer.
The president is not a king, and is not above the law.
McConnell and the GOP continue to shirk their duty under the Constitution.
I feel our democracy is at stake.
21
@D. DeMarco
Ya think? You just now coming to that fear?
A cautious prosecutor might want to have Trump deposed before deciding on criminality. Give Trump the Ken Starr treatment, under oath deposition.
Katyal is correct...start impeachment. Hope Pelosi changes her mind after Mueller's testimony.
10
Katyal has compressed the core questions into three diamond-hard gems.
440 pages of evidence, a suggested direction which has been ignored because it wasn't an order, and here we are at the penultimate point in this procedural dance.
The finale is up to Congress. No excuses.
24
As former acting solicitor general, Neal Katyal, was fourth-highest-ranking official in the Justice Department.
He has the legal acumen to analyse the 440-page long Mueller report and cherry pick pieces of it, that the wider public – which hasn’t read it – must know.
No doubt members of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, many of whom have law degrees, know what to do when they interview Mueller.
The three straight forward questions Katyal raises will invalidate Trump’s self-exoneration and expose William Barr’s servileness, protecting his boss from legal liability, not biting the hand that feeds him.
For Trump’s supporters, his guilt won’t change anything. Let’s hope that the rest of the population does care about the damage he has inflicted on the country.
34
I am a nobody.
OK not to the people in my life.
And I do value my integrity and hold myself to standards one would call ethical, etc.
And take myself to task when I miss the mark and try to do better - be humble - apologize.
And I did serve in military honorably and mostly have been a good worker, manager, husband, father, grandfather.
But I am a nobody. Hold no power, plebeian in the political and social sciences. Not an orator; don't hire me to do your marketing!
But this nobody BEGS my fellow citizens to listen to and heed this - perhaps the wisest and most truthful thing this nobody will advance in a public forum:
Hearings like the one coming and arguments and consternation over some rhetorical pontificating on some implementation of a policy objective by a D candidate do NOT mean a hill of beans.
It is broader and deeper! And I hope MOST of us can see it and act on it nobly.
We are in an existential war! This is not ordinary politics nor normal debating implementations/priorities against common objectives.
On one hand the GOP (Trump just makes them worse) fighting against liberal democracy/truth to establish a theocratic authoritarian plutocracy - regressive and reactionary in a very negative sense. NOT conservative NOT libertarian!
On the other the Ds. Imperfect but obviously in line with liberal democracy and ethnic/racial/social/secular modernity.
The decisive battle: 2020 election. Hope enough voters stand with this nobody against the dark side.
54
While our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico take to the streets by the hundreds of thousands to demand the resignation of their corrupt governor, we mainlanders sit lazily by as our even more corrupt president wreaks havoc on the whole world.
Sign me,
Dissatisfied
75
We should skip the Mueller hearing and just put Trump behind bars. Also don't forget to use handcuffs when taking him out of the White House.
10
Think about the type of people that Mr. Mueller has been speaking to for the last two years. I think he is astonished that he, a former director of the fbi, did not know the extent of this quasi-organized crime syndicate. I know I can't stop shaking my head, and I've only smelled the smoke, He looked into the fire.
23
You are not going to like the answers you get from him on those three questions.
5
@Mark Thomason Okay everyone. Last one out, turn out the lights. Mark Thomason has seen the future for us.
Mr. Mueller, do you agree with President Trumps statements that your report:
1. Totally exonerates him?
2. Found no evidence of obstruction by the President?
A simple yes or no please.
8
I would like to know why it was necessary to send in a swat team to arrest Roger Stone.
3
@Dady
This has been litigated in the press already.
"Law enforcement agencies often conduct early morning arrests or raids with large numbers of officers and tactical equipment... Michael German, a former FBI special agent and now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice, "In the FBI, we tend to defuse situations by removing the fight-or-flight inclination, via our overwhelming presence. To arrest one, we bring 10. For 10, we'll bring 100,””. Michael Parks
1
@Dady
It was a show! Wasn't just a swat team, but lights, cameras, news trucks. I was a few blocks away at the time and it was like someone in your neighborhood setting off almost professional fireworks...you couldn't ignore it. The whole show tried to make people believe that something was actually being done to bring the crooks into line.....Hah.
Meuller is the Jack Webb dragnet of the old TV series, just the facts ma'am...
He has no interest in anything above that, he is apolitical.
The dems should treat him with respect, try to dig a little, hope to learn a little more but in the end....
He is passing it off to the House dems to develop a case for impeachment.
Even if they do, and it is all but certain they can have a case, it doesn't matter one iota is the American people cannot go over 50% re impeachment.
If so impeach, if not concentrate on defeating him in 2020.
1
Better questions:
Why did you continue the investigation when you discovered there was NO evidence?
Why didn't your report simply state no collusion? Why did you turn it into a political smear?
If Trump had obstructed justice, you would have said so in the report....right?
3
@George Orwell
Mueller found plenty of evidence.
Mueller found plenty of collusion, he just wasn't able to find enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, he specifically states that he could not exonerate the President on Obstruction charges. Mueller then goes on to explain in detail why he can't press charges against a sitting President and why that precludes him from coming to any conclusions.
5
@George Orwell
George: By stating such, Mueller would have effectively been charging the president - therefore, in his professional, legal opinion, he could not. So hence the double negative thing.
Sadly, Mueller didn't just abandon "policy" or JD "tradition". Why should a president or any public official be immune from prosecution for anything illegal? Trump attempted to thwart an investigation into himself. That in itself should cause him to resign in disgrace. But that's not a word in his vocabulary.
1
@George Orwell Translation: I like to simplify things in order to have my opinion mean more than it should.
Mueller: Please, please speak clearly and simply to America. No double negative speak. Remember that you can/should help take us out of this nightmare swamp of lies. Americans are so overwhelmed, depressed and sad, sad, sad.
19
Three simple questions.
Let's start with WHO wrote the Mueller Report.
#1. Was the team put together with the best and the brightest from the legal and law enforcement constituencies - people nominated by a neutral committees from the American Bar Association and from a pool of FBI agents named by the various FBI field offices?
NO.
Admittedly, with only over a million lawyers in the USA, it would have been difficult to find the necessary talent.
#2. Did the Mueller team, among the over 500 witnesses contacted, interview Julian Assange, who claimed that the source of the leaked Hillary Clinton emails was NOT Russia?
NO.
Admittedly, it was hard to locate Mr. Assange during the Mueller investigation - as he was either on the second floor of the Ecuadorian embassy in London or on the third floor. To this day, no one knows.
#3. Did President Trump actually fire Robert Mueller during his investigation?
NO.
Admittedly, President Trump may have had the legal right to fire Robert Mueller if he considered that Mr. Mueller was not doing his job properly (e.g. - by virtue of ignoring Questions #1 and #2) - but President Trump did not do so.
From the outset, Mr. Mueller should have said: "Listen, I'm the wrong guy to head this up, due to my proximity to James Comey and the top people at the FBI. Plus, I've developed blindness - I can't even notice when people like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are blatantly and under-my-nose engaged in a vendetta against the President>"
3
@Maurice Gatien
By your logic-- Barr should recuse himself from involvement based upon his close relationship with Mueller.
Similarly-- since there is no evidence of inappropriate collusion or entanglement by Mueller w Comey and Strzok/Page-- there is then no evidence of misconduct suggesting his removal.
@Maurice Gatien Translation: I didn't read any of the bios of any of the team.
An old man corrupted by conservatism isn’t going to be truthful
1
So, the deal according to Barr is....the prosecutor isn’t able to talk about anyone not indicted (including the POTUS) and the prosecutor is not able to indict the POTUS.
Here is Barr’s letter to Mueller. That means the POTUS is above the law.
“Please note that there will be no testimony concerning the redacted portions of the public version of your report, which may not be disclosed because of applicable laws, court rules and orders, or long-standing department policies. As you know the U.S. vs. Stone and U.S. vs. Concord cases remain pending, and local court rules and specific orders issued in those cases substantially restrict the departments ability to make public statements about those cases. In addition it is the departments long-standing policy not to discuss the conduct of uncharged third parties. Established department policy also precludes any comment on the facts developed and legal conclusions by the special counsel‘s office with respect to uncharged individuals, other than information contained within the portions of your report that have already been made public.
Finally, any testimony must remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within the scope of your investigation were covered by executive privilege, including information protected by law enforcement, deliberative process, attorney work product, and presidential communication privileges.”
2
Agree.
Let’s see if the Democrats have the spine to ask these questions.
5
So well stated. Thank you!
4
I read the report. It's outrageous. His campaign sought and received help from Russia, and Trump tried again and again to bully-away the investigation. They guy's a crook. Always was, always will be.
30
Trump has apparently committed capital crimes. Conspiring with Russia to illicitly win the 2016 election is a capital crime; treason is a capital crime; rape is a capital crime. And capital crimes demand capital punishment.
Trump is a good exemple of who Americans are and what the USA are .
30 years in this country, asked to go back to where I am from several times, I am not surprised . Even educated Americans have been traitorous to me. Cheating, not paying, using and abusing, that is the culture.
Then becomimg a US citizen I have to swear I abandon my nationality of orgigin when it is us who gave you the independence.
1
Question. Who is the “us” that gave the USA independence?
The majority doesn't want impeachment. The likelihood of conviction in the Senate is not very likely. The Democrats don't have to walk away from the Mueller hearings with a smoking gun. What they DO need to walk away with are 80,000 minds changed. And absolutely come to realize that if you predict a win and you come up short, your arrogance and confidence will become useless going forward. I fear the worst for Democrats. All they have to do is sow doubt into the jury's (the public) mind. Not get the defendant with sweat running down his face, to jump up and yell "He's guilty....OK? Trump's guilty". Instead of being Perry Mason, one of them should be Atticus Finch. And then instead of running to get in front of the TV cameras, just say "My questioning speaks for itself" and go home to your family and embrace them. It's them that you are fighting for.
The problem IMO isn't collusion with the Russians , the problem is the establishment of an oligarchy in the US. The rich have always managed to get away with OK call it murder. (Look at how many people went to jail for misconduct leading to the last great recession. But now not only lowering already low taxes, allowing public land to be exploited and ruined for private gain.. and meantime tying to make life miserable for those with less (BTW plenty of the founding father believed in the merit of more -- God's chosen)
If there are ground for impeachment , let the proceedings begin It's time to be fearless. Pragmatism brought us the current mess.
6
Mueller, remember where you were when you heard: "Ask what you can do for your country..."
Boy, do you have the opportunity.
It's what Theodore Roosevelt "the crowded hours."
You risked your life in Vietnam for patriotism...do it again.
Our un-elected tumor threatens all we hold dear.
Tell us the truths you told your wife -- and in those words.
Barr's chosen darkness.
Light a candle.
Be the profile in courage the country needs.
Everyone who loves this country, dead or alive, will be watching.
19
Don Quixote charged at old windmills, thinking they were evil giants swirling maces. Mr. Katyal’s Quixotic loathing of President Trump makes make him see things simply aren’t there. The Muller Inquest is over and done with. It’s time to accept its findings. And besides other parallel inquires, and investigations came up empty. True, all this provided much needed gossip, fodder for the anti-Trump media. And desperation to extend hatred of Mr Trump as much as you can, with filmy, airy-fairy insinuations. For some, bashing Mr. Trump, amounts to a real livelihood. And that rusting political ax is always there to grind. But fortunately for justice loving Americans there’s another counter-inquiry in progress. And that is about how "this inquiry" got started─ and to find out how and why at all, even this inquisition of President Trump was warranted in the first place. Or was this “un-found” inquest only the tip of much larger iceberg and much more diabolical scheme? Soon, we shall find the answers…
1
@ChandraPrince
"The Muller Inquest is over and done with. It’s time to accept its findings.”
I suggest you actually read the report. You might not like “its findings."
2
Read the report
1
Will the US newspapers please not report a single trump tweet the the day of Mueller’s testimony? Perhaps a ban on anything he says and does?
19
What a stain on the Department of Justice William Barr is. History will judge him one of the most corrupt, unethical and contemptible individuals ever to occupy the office of Attorney General.
It would have been hard to imagine, prior to Barr's tenure, that anyone could make Jeff Sessions look like a dignified, qualified A.G.
26
I read the report. The answer to all three questions is "NO, I did not find that there was no collusion; no, I did not find there was no obstruction; no, I did NOT give the [prezzz i dunce] complete and total exoneration."
End of story.
Read the report. I did. I also read the text of the questions posed to the Trumpet, as well as his non-answers. The copy of the report which I purchased also included the full text of all the indictments against the principals in these crimes against the United States of America.
Impeach the Trumpet!
15
And with recent reports by Politico that the DOJ has been meeting with Mueller to limit his testimony to ONLY the recorded information in the report, it makes one wonder what William Barr wants hidden from the public? Questions about who ended the investigation? Questions about the 2 letters that Mueller wrote to Barr in response to the mischaracterization of the report? Questions about Trump’s efforts to direct Barr to “investigate the investigators”? Questions about who decided which parts of the report should be redacted?
All of this screams of Barr protecting himself from incrimination and Trump’s efforts to continue to obstruct justice.
9
Despite the uproar it would have caused, I wish that Mueller would have found a way to charge Trump with obstruction on at least 1 of the 10 detailed investigation results in the Mueller Report, and let the issue of the OLC Memo (and thus, DOJ policy) about not being able to indict a siting president go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Or, in lieu of charging, explicitly state that "if not for" that DOJ policy, the investigation showed that there were _____ instances where there was enough evidence to charge, and then let the due process argument about impugning a sitting president go all the way to the Supreme Court.
I realize I did not have ever word right, in all that.
Point is, I did read the whole report, and rather than do what the media did at first -- look for the most juicy parts --- the first place I went to was Volume II, the first 2 pages, which clearly said that the DOJ policy was a determinate factor in whether any conclusions were stated about obstruction.
Lastly. The Mueller Report did not exonerate Trump from anything, and so stated. Exonerating happens after being charged, and exonerating is the same as being acquitted in court, or having your defense lawyer win a motion to dismiss with prejudice.
BTW: I really appreciate Mr. Katyal's analysis, on TV and in print.
7
I've been thinking about Jon Meachum's Soul of America, in which he recounts various other eras of deep cultural division in American history and what brought us out of them. His general recommendation is to keep speaking the truth loudly, clearly, and repeatedly, and eventually enough people will truly hear it and absorb it so that we can move forward.
The example that most sticks with me from the book is Joseph Welch's rhetorical "have you any decency?" question to McCarthy. On Meachum's telling, that simple rhetorical barb from a respected personage broke the fever of McCarthyism. Of course, that sort of paranoia and scapegoating of the "other" didn't totally stop, but McCarthy himself was brought back down to size and lost much of his political influence. There wasn't necessarily anything special about Welch's retort; it just happened to be the one rebuke of McCarthy that landed for whatever reason and made enough people sit up and realize, "Oh yeah, this McCarthy guy is a jerk and crackpot."
I think that is the purpose and hope of these public testimonies. Hopefully, we get that Welch moment from Mueller (though that doesn't seem his style), and if not from him, some other person called to testify to the house.
4
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but didn’t.
Mueller just needs to answer one question. If Trump was not President would you have brought charges against him? Simple
9
"Mr. Katyal was an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration."
.
Happy to have Congress ask your three simple questions. Maybe they can have some time left over to find out what was going on in the White House, Justice, the FBI, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC in 2016-2017 too.
.
There's plenty of stench to clean out and Americans want to get it all.
1
Excellent, useful, timely, piece. Thanks
4
There's really only one question to ask:
If the decision were yours, would you have indicted Donald Trump?
OK, we know the answer, based on his statements: "Yes" and, of course, we'd have to know for what and why, but once Mueller says he was unable to determine the existence of collusion because of Donald Trump's continued operation of a criminal enterprise to obstruct his team's efforts, and would have indicted him, THEN it's over.
Why waste time?
We'll want to know who else was part of the conspiracy who was not indicted, I suspect William Barr would be one of the top three ... but once we have the record that may even lead to impolite patriots to take to the streets, shouting "Lock Him Up".
Remember, Trump says "patriots" are the racists who repeat his lies and shout "Send Her Back" about a woman who legally emigrated, became a citizen and ran, successfully for Congress - without being born with anything like the equivalent of Daddy Trump's Golden Spoon.
2
Amen. We’ve spent so long saying the GOP has no moral principles and absolutely no courage.
Stand up, Democrats.
Do your sworn duty.
6
I keep reading this type of line - "the total distortion of the Mueller report by Attorney General William Barr." Here is the exerpt from the 4 page summary with regards to obstruction :The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” How is this a distortion of the report? Which word , let alone sentence distorts Mueller's report? For lefties who are into "truth"= the characterization of Barr is simply dishonest.
1
That, as you say. Is an excerpt from the report. Conveniently cherry picked to defend the indefensible.
@Fed upset
Then copy and paste an excerpt that shows distortion.
I’d be obliged. More than curious to know what was distorted. ( and please don’t reference mueller letter who wanted the report out quicker and has since publicly affirmed his comfort level with Barr)
If I’ve cherry picked - please point to the real distortion
1
Here is the first question for Bob Mueller:
"Mr. Mueller, President Trump told the American people that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his followers would be fine with it.
Now you come to us telling us that you accept the Republican Attorney General's office order telling you that Trump cannot be indicted for any crime, period. Are you telling us that Donald Trump is right, that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and you could witness it with your own eyes and you would STILL refuse to indict him?"
Follow up question: "If a US President had shot 5 little children on Fifth Avenue right in front of you, would you still refuse to indict him because that President's Attorney General told you that you could not? Or do you have situational ethics where you decide some crimes are worthy of indicting the President but you used your own judgement as a lifetime Republican to decide that a Republican President committing obstruction of justice isn't worth indicting?"
Read "Summary & Interpretation of the Mueller Report " on Amazon only. Condenses 448 pages to 27. Fills in the blanks that Mueller deliberately left for unbiased readers to see and complete. Search for this exact title. Everything you need to know is there. Only $1 on Kindle and under $4 in paperback.
1
Trump is to smart for the democrats. Only the Mueller written report can be told.
@Bill I think intuitively gifted Liar that goes to church every Sunday.JMO
One more question. Is Trump an agent of the Russian government?
2
I blame mueller for writing a nuanced report in a time when Americans don’t understand nuance or anything else for that matter.
An excellent plan. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that what will come out of this questioning will be much less fruitful - and that's even if Mueller is a cooperative, helpful witness. Generally there is grandstanding, efforts to make points, high-horse lecturing etc.
Add to that Mr. Mueller's statements that the report says all he has to say and I don't have high hopes. In addition, the media has been putting out articles claiming that this is make or break for Democrats. Trump is likely to cause a competing media uproar (can't wait to see what).
I would love to have clarity come out of Wednesday's testimony. It would be great if Mr. Mueller would clarify for the American people exactly what he said and did not say - and do that in simply non-legalese for the rest of us. It would be great if all the egos on the committees give him the space and oxygen to do that. I'm not holding my breath.
360
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Well. let's see because the video will show a man like few others; willing to put himself on the line for his country.
There will be many sound-bites that resonate into Nov. 2020.
We will play them and play off them until it's over. Get ready for a surprise>>the truth.
8
@Anne-Marie Hislop, the problem with the media coverage is that Mueller's appearance is being pre-covered like a WWE Smackdown. I don't see it as a Democratic must-win or game over; Democrats can win more but they won't lose everything because, despite the dense language, the report is out there. Our political timeline has been both stretched and telescoped, and a lot can happen in a short time. I'd love to see our long national nightmare end quickly, but "end" is the key word and I support whatever it takes to get us there.
One more thought: let's not have false hopes of an instant turn-around. Joseph Welch's famous comment the McCarthy hearings, "At long last sir, have you no shame?," didn't change things instantly, and neither will any one thing Mueller says. But with luck, what he says will positively affect the elimination of Trump and at least the worst of trumpism.
12
@Anne-Marie Hislop
I would like Mr. Mueller to inform Congress that impeachment is an authority and responsibility that Congress cannot delegate or pawn off, especially not to the Executive Branch, so they need to quit trying.
If Congress wants it done right (or at all), they need to do it themselves. Alternatively, they need to quit blaming anyone else for their inaction.
3
I am a trial attorney. My livelihood relies in part on my ability to ask simple, short questions which jurors readily understand. And the reasons behind my questions must also be readily apparent.
This article is dead on. My concern is that there are showboats in Congress who will ask questions which are too long and incomprehensible: questions with appositives, clauses, cumbersome offshoots — which ought never be asked in this setting.
Long questions show lack of preparation. Be courteous to Mr. Mueller and to everyone watching: plan ahead so you are able to ask short, clear questions. No “two part” questions. No double negatives. No speeches woven into the questions.
I hope our Congresspersons are reading this.
1677
@Scott F
It could also be smart if the Dems would choose no more than 5 of their committee members, on each committee, to ask questions, and have the other Dem members cede their 5 minutes to those 5 people. That would help the questioning flow in a better way and allow for follow up questions from the same person.
No they they will do that.
104
@Scott F. Absolutely agree 100%. The general public’s eyes will start to glaze over when they try to follow the double negative logic or 2-3 part questions even if their eyes were initially riveted on Mr. Mueller’s testimony.
60
@Scott F. Absolutely agree 100%. The general public’s eyes will start to glaze over when they try to follow the double negative logic or 2-3 part questions even if their eyes were initially riveted on Mr. Mueller’s testimony.
7
In my experience, that expression found in U.S. courtrooms "Those who labor here seek only the truth" is hogwash. Agendas supercede any search for and revelation of the truth. For the truth to have a welcomed bearing on human affairs, whoever controls the narrative first determines if it fits the agenda.
What is this country's agenda? My first guess is schizophrenia. Working on the second.
1
Here is exactly how Dir. Mueller will answer each of these 3 questions:
Ans.1: "That is outside of the report & the report speaks for itself. See Vol. I, p. 2."
Ans.2: ‘Please read Vol. 2. "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the Pres. clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts & the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the Pres.’s actions & intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the Pres. committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’ Please refer to Vol. II, p. 2."
Ans.3: "The evidence we obtained about the Pres.’s actions & intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the Pres. clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts & the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the Pres. committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. See Vol. II, p.182."
The rest of the time will be devoted to Dems grandstanding & Reps hammering the reports favorable findings home.
This is political theater, not an investigation.
Shame on Dems!
1
A simple question based on a Watergate Hearings query by Senator Howard Baker.
Did the president commit any crimes and if so, when were they committed?
4
Phrasing is important to box him in:
“Mr. Mueller, if you were to state, ‘We found no collusion,’ would you be committing perjury?”
“If you were to state, ‘We found no evidence of obstruction,’ would you be committing perjury?”
4
Mr. Mueller: your report states that you could not find evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russians and the Trump campaign. Based on that, can you then categorically state that no conspiracy existed at all?
1
The trust for the United States of America has dwindled to almost nothing.
So, what does it come down to? Who do we trust - William Barr or Robert Mueller?
Please let us find out with clarification. The people in this country deserve to know.
1
I don't think the ballgame would end if Mueller answered "No" to all three yes/no questions.
That testimony might make the dozens of Americans who don't already love or hate Trump realize that he's a liar, but Fox News et al. will simply say, "You can't prove a negative," and stand pat with that.
It would be good if Mueller directly contradicted Trump's bald-faced lie that the report provided him "complete and total exoneration", but it does not get us any further down the field.
Congress still needs to take what is there and do something with it.
1
I'll save you a bunch of mental effort:
Q1. Did your report find that there was no collusion?
A1. Collusion is not a legally defined term.
Q2. Did your report find that there was no obstruction?
A2. This report was not chartered to reach a conclusion about obstruction of justice. From a constitutional point of view, only Congress can determine if a crime was committed with respect to obstruction of justice. This report attempts to lay out the facts as we found them.
Q3. Did your report give the president complete and total exoneration?
A3. This report was not missioned to conclude on the president's guilt, nor exoneration. This report provides facts. Per the US Constitution, the authority to make a judgment on the basis of the facts in the report is assigned to Congress.
If that's the ballgame, I already know who won.
The first question asked should be, "Mr.Mueller, what have you found that the President does not want us to know about?"
2
“ . . . the opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office, but he could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity.”
I'm of the opinion that I don't have to pay my parking tickets, but it's not backed up by any substantive law.
Can I go now, Your Honor? I'm double-parked . . .
Hooray Katyal! It’s just that simple. Thank you.
2
@Neal Katyal, don't you have Nancy Pelosi's phone number on speed dial? You should send her this paragraph, some of us have been asking for it but she and her "brain trust" have been dodging this in artful ways,
"here is no higher duty for Congress than to investigate and act when such a report lands on your desk. Those who say “oh, a Senate supermajority will never convict Trump” have it backward. That’s a feature, not a bug — our Constitution allows the House to investigate without the worry that its investigation will be twisted for political ends that would force the removal of an innocent president. The members of the House have a duty to act, even if the Senate won’t convict, because they are setting the standards for future presidents and because impeachment hearings will crystallize the nation’s attention on the actual events, as opposed to spin from the president and his attorney general."
2
What about the effect of the DOJ letter just released limiting Mueller?
No one ever seems to write about the threats Mueller might have received, if only by speculation.
Given this apparent criminal administration, it's more than likely.
4
Mr. Mueller is now a hostile witness. He really doesn’t want to be there, and it’s clear that he sees the hearings as just partisan showboating so he will double down on his refusal to say anything helpful or hurtful to either party’s agenda. He won’t answer those three questions with any clarity, if he answers them at all. Democrats will grandstand with self-serving opening comments that drone on and waste precious time, while Republicans will yell and cause chaos to distract, all while Robert Mueller sits there in disgust as the children around him squabble. The American public will be too busy watching inane YouTube videos to tune in, so the needle will not move one way or another, but I believe that if it does, it will move in Trump’s favor. That’s how far this country has fallen.
1
I'm not overly optimistic about Mueller's testimony. For one thing, why didn't he find indictable obstructive acts? He refused to consider it because it was against DOJ policy.
My God man, you were the Director of the FBI, you were an officer during the Vietnam War, you were a DOJ prosecutor, and now you are in your mid 70s and you are staring the devil in his eyes. You have to do what is right, not what is administratively correct. You have to defend your country.
Will he do it? Everyone says know. I can't imagine being in his position not expressing my true thought and feelings. One can be clinical your judgment, but at the end of the day you need to make a moral evaluation in defense of American society. If he truly thinks Trump is clean, which sounds impossible, then say that. But I just see how anyone could really believe that, even the shameful political hacks on the other side of the aisle.
3
Other questions: 1) Why did you say that indicting a US President would be unconstitutional? Was that based solely on DOJ rulings?
2) Would a subpoena to the President be unconstitutional.
3) Were you hampered or frustrated by the president or his son not sitting down for an interview?
4) Have Barr's comments and communications adequately characterized your report and clarified what you thought was your task and mandate?
2
Sorry, but those three questions are nothing but silly rhetorical pandering to folks that want another smear against Trump, who himself is notable for foolish rhetorical smears. Almost three years since the Clinton inspired "collusion" frame-up fell apart when inspected closely, the Democrats are still digging thru the ashes hoping to find a glowing ember with which they can blow a feint whisper of smoke. But from a legal perspective, the case is over.
No one in America is going to change their mind after Mueller's testimony. A few may dig into their existing positions a bit harder. So what. Multiple independent polls show that only one in five voting age Americans favor impeachment.
The cranks on the left will never give up, but for folks whose lives are not centered on cultivating a permenant personal state of hysterical outrage, this issue is a dead horse for which no amount of beating while bring back life.
But have fun hyper-ventilating anyway. It's hilarious to watch.
The whole problem is that, under our system, the President of the United States IS above the law. Previously to this president’s election either no one had figured that out, or been disrespectful enough of our system to then take advantage of it. Previous presidents were kept in check by respect for rules, custom, ethics and the possibility of shame. None of those apply to Donald Trump. He has exposed the flaw in our system. When the office of the president is occupied by an amoral and shameless narcissist he can trump all the investigations, talk, and inadequate appeals to decency of the opposition. Complicit party legislators and the politicization of the justice department seals the deal. The system itself is inadequate to the problem and the only hope we have of avoiding our gradual descent to fascism is fixing the governmental system itself so that future presidents cannot flaunt the best interests of the American people for 4 years, using to their advantage the difficulties and costs of impeachment. Maybe something like the parliamentary system would be the answer, what is going on now is certainly destined to lead us all to disaster.
3
Trump and Barr, both royal liars, the latter fully intent in protecting Trump's iniquities, seem really afraid of the true report from Mueller, indicting Trump of wrong doing and obstructing justice, and covering up Putin's distinct interference in the 2016 presidential elections. One question remains: once Mueller re-confirms Trump's culpability, what are we going to do about it?
Neal K. Katyal expresses himself clearer than anyone who writes or appears on TV. Mr K knows how to prioritize issues and never seems to let the noise blur his vision even when trump is at his lying worst.
Keep it up Mr K. You are keeping the rest of us on track.
5
Good questions, but barr is not the OLC so the answer is still going to be that he, Mueller, cannot publicly give an opinion.
Mueller is right. It is up to the House of Representatives to investigate a criminal president.
Let’s hope Mueller does speak. As I listen to tonight’s news he has received a letter from the justice dept. basically telling Mueller to say almost “nothing” regarding his report. So, we have Republicans in Congress who are cowards, afraid to even speak out against Trump’s racists remarks. Now we have Mueller, a decorated war veteran and man distinguished by years of wonderful service to our nation and what will his response be ... Republican coward or share what needs to be made public for the sake of our nation? Coward or hero? It is so discouraging the Republicans are afraid of a man who can’t remember which foot his bone spur was on as a reason for exemption to military service. Is there any courage left among any Republicans for the sake of our country?
3
Mueller won't speak the plain words that are needed. He's already let us down on that and he isn't going to fix it. Even if he tried to fix it, it is probably too late. He pretends to be objective but he has his own strongly held opinion, which is that it is up to Congress, and he is going to stubbornly stick to that and he thinks that by silence he will force Congress to act. It's too bad. It is pigheaded and egotistical in its own way and does not meet the nation's desperate need. And he doesn't have to listen to Barr if he doesn't want to. He is 74 years old, a former Marin, FBI man, etc., etc., and with all eyes on him. Barr can't do anything to him. If he listens to Barr it will be a choice he will have made. He could just as well tell Barr to kiss off...unless the Putin-Trump machine has threatened his family, or something like that, which is certainly possible. But the bottom line is: he is not going to fix the problem that he unwittingly created and has continued to accept.
1
Whether or not the Democrats ever get to the crimes Mueller's report so clearly outlines, what must be made clearly is Trump's disqualification for office on ethical grounds. It's simple: Democrats must force the country to decide if Trump is morally fit for office. If the majority can vote for Trump then there are no moral values that any longer define the nation. Every single day for the next 400 Trump's vile racism, mendacity, misogyny, and ethical depravity must be the principal issue. Sure, there's plenty of policy on health care, jobs, wages, and no we're not crazy socialists---that's just more lies. But can you, American Voter, believe in your heart that Donald Trump is fit to lead this nation? To answer yes makes you complicit in evil. This article acts as if the law is the same as ethical judgment---and that must not be confused.
Its not about what Mueller says.....its about what Trump apologists hear. They will hear all the things they want to hear and nothing else. Its almost a useless exercise. Trump is their moral compass and everything else is to be disdained. Be prepared for a lot of out-of-context cut and paste spinning of facts.
Your observation and conclusions are logical. With that said, one would hope that a Captain in the Marines and army platoon leader with as strong a set of ethical, moral and patriotic values as Mueller and his clear focus on truth, justice and defense of freedom and the Constitution, will recognize that in the twinkling of an eye, he can fulfill God's call to save America from being taken over by what I believe is a clear and ongoing attack by the Russians and what is in my opinion a gangster agent working on behalf of those who's aims are harmful to our nation, its institutions, principles, and aspirations. Let us hope Mueller has a hero within him we haven't seen yet.
In my opinion Mueller can turn the tide of the war upon our nation by dark forces and enemies of our democratic republic.
This will be either be his finest hour or he will succumb to the pressure of a those who I personally believe to be the worst sort of liars who have been appointed to the DOJ and other cabinet positions. If the latter be true, then this is indeed the darkest hour for our nation and it will be incumbent on every American to re-read the Declaration of Independence with great seriousness of intent in my opinion.
Director Mueller, Captain Mueller is a proven patriot and it is within his power to turn the tides of the war against our nation that is underway at this very hour in my opinion.
2
Hopefully some Democrats will read this op-ed and heed the authors advice. Assuming they ask the questions about collusion and obstruction, and Mueller answers in the affirmative, what then?
Will the House of Representatives finally have the internal fortification to start the impeachment process? That remains to be seen.
Gut feeling says no, they'll just waffle along and hope we voters elect a Democrat in 2020.
What a mess!
1
This is very thing gruel. Kind of embarrassing.
> First, did your report find there was no collusion?
There is no such crime as "collusion"
> Second, did your report find there was no obstruction?
In our systems of law, a negative does not have to be proven.
> Third, did your report give the president complete and total exoneration?
Essentially, irrelevant. See -- proving a negative.
As always, Mr. K is spot on. Will the Dems read this and follow his lead or grand stand and drop the ball (i.e., will we have another “bucket of chicken” moment). I have ZERO confidence In the Dems to be effective. They simply aren’t.
I understand the political landscape. And how important it is to control the house (yes, I’ve already ceded the WH and Senate). But it’s their duty to move forward with impeachment.
If/when the senate doesn’t convict and Dems lose the house (tbd), it will absolutely be game over. But at that point, the ashes of democracy will sit squarely with the republicans.
We shouldn’t fool ourselves. This is an experiment. All great democracies fail. Its not a question of if, but when.
Dems/Nancy: do your job. And stop being afraid of your own shadows.
None of this seems to matter. The truth here is that nothing will change. Heck, there's a high chance DJT might even get re-elected. Reality can be depressing, but this particular situation is downright frightening. Sigh, I'm going to bed.
For me, my white, elderly, uneducated, Midwestern father is a kind of barometer. He did not vote for Trump, whom he thinks is foolish, but in conversation, he recently told me that he thinks Democrats are unfairly harassing him over the Russia thing. Why? Because, he says, the Mueller report found no evidence of any wrongdoing. And that's from someone who doesn't watch Fox News.
The false impression that the Mueller report actually cleared Trump is far and wide. And because people think the case is closed, and that the Democrats therefore are making political hay out of nothing, it allows them to dismiss a lot of other criticisms of Trump as just so much politicking. Congress needs to fix this dangerous mess. And so does Mueller.
2
@Mr.Bantree
His supporters (Trump) are a a reflection of fear and resentment? Really? I voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was a terrible pick , I would have voted for Bernie Sanders.
There was no fear or resentment on my part.
I think that the American people need to hear Mueller say that he could not indict a sitting president even if he had evidence of a crime. Hence, here is the question that I think needs to be asked:
Donald Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters, okay?" If President Donald Trump committed a federal offense of shooting and killing a postal worker on Fifth Avenue, could he be indicted while in office or would he need to be impeached and removed from office before being indicted?
I think that I know how Mueller will answer, and it will help clear up as to why Trump was not indicted on obstruction.
3
Watching Trump today meeting with the leader of Pakistan Mr. Khan ,Trump mused he could wipe Afghanistan off the face of the earth in one week if he wanted to. Assuming the military would not launch nukes vs a civilian population even if Trump tweeted they do so it is terrifying that Trump entertains using weapons of mass destruction using the term if I wanted to . We have a demented toddler with nuke weapons and loose grip on reality and McConnell would not impeach him to get tax cuts for the donor class. What ever it take we need to remove this clear and present danger to the world.
4
I want someone to specifically answer the question: if, as Trump himself has claimed, he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and kill them, is he immune from arrest and charge so long as he sits in the White House? Does the DOJ state that a President can in fact commit murder with impunity? If so, the Constitution is at fault OR, more likely in my opinion, the DOJ has misstated the law and Constitutional principles and its policy is wrong and must be changed.
3
Question for Mueller:
"Why did you conclude your investigation without having President Trump answer even a single question under oath?"
I would hope that every Democrat on this committee would simply ask and repeat these same 3 questions throughout the hearing. Nothing else matters.
Don't editorialize. Don't lecture. Don't posture.
Just ask these 3 questions.
1
I would also add, did you consider the OLC opinion when deciding whether or not to pursue charges against the POTUS. If that answer is yes the AG Barr is proven to have lied to U.S.
1
The general upbringing of the average American as opposed to the generation that participated in the Watergate scandal is indicative of the apathy and abject cowardice of today’s Americans. The fear to only hold their own counsel and not criticize directly what is being committed in our name for fear of peers possible censure both nationally and internationally, to not stand up with the singular moral courage of conviction of saying what a criminal this President is for the general good of the country is such a malaise that this republic is doomed.
The rank cowardice of Americans has firmly set a precedence for fear by governance which, if not immediately corrected now for the sake of the nation will eventually destroy it.
4
Yes....in a nutshell. Barr has given you permission to declare the president guilty or innocent of obstruction charges. Even with the gag order that the Justice Dept has given Mueller to "stay within the report" , Barr has just extended toe report with his own commentary.
And we need to hear Mueller state clearly that there was clear collusion, but not conspiracy by a narrow interpretation of conspiracy.
2
Full disclosure Mr. Katyal: you drafted the DOJ guidelines telling Special Prosecutors not to indict a sitting president while in office. You did that back in 1999 while serving in the Clinton Administration.
It would be surprising if Mueller answered this question at the Wednesday hearings: “ The DOJ guidelines prevented you from considering an indictment of President Trump and this implies to average Americans that the president is above the law.?”
Mueller could reasonably answer: “ Neal Katyal determined for the DOJ that I can’t indict a sitting president.”
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Katyal.
"I’ve addressed many large audiences recently and asked for a show of hands on how many have read the Mueller report. The response is always under 1 percent"
Trump supporters don't care about facts, preferring to "go with their gut" and follow a renegade Chief Executive who will do anything, say anything if it benefits him. A criminal resides in the White House, defiling the Presidency more each day.
I recall watching the watergate hearings which I believe changed many minds about President Nixon. Once the facts about Trumps criminal activities are shown in living color, no one in their right mind would exonerate this President.
I pray Mueller is more of a patriot than a partisan lackey.
2
I think we have at least two senior administration figures guilty of obstruction of justice. First, Donald Trump, whose obstruction is manifest in the narrative for volume 2. Second, is the attorney general William Barr, who has tried to kill the report through various transparent attempts, including his four page white wash to the public which was imprinted upon the public consciousness for several weeks before the actual report was issued. In a just world both Trump and Barr would be impeached. We shall see. My only hope is that both will gone in 2021.
The problem is not Mr. Mueller, the report, the AG, or even the president. The problem is the American public, and the Congress they've chosen to represent them.
I read key paragraphs of the report as soon as it was presented to the American public. Just the parts I read were clear and convincing evidence of a crime - or at the very least, the need for a Congressional investigation. Indeed, Mr. Mueller came just short of writing in his report, "I found multiple cases of misconduct by the president that Congress needs to investigate."
No one wants to read the report. The American public doesn't want to read it - it's easier to huddle in our respective camps: "He's a criminal!" vs. "Complete vindication!!"
Members of Congress don't want to read the report, because if you're a Democrat you'll see the need to impeach, and that could damage you politically. If you're a Republican, the exact same thing is true - look at Representative Amash.
So, let's all just ignore two years of top notch investigating by the best investigating team in the world, because everyone already had their minds made up before the investigation had even begun.
"Most people don't want the truth - they want to be told that what they believe is the truth."
I hope Mr Mueller takes Barr’s letter as seriously as Barr took his report. He should take Barr word for word, then take him to school. And as precise and understanding when he answers questions. And wouldn’t it be even better if he said something in the line such as “No the report did not draw the conclusion that Barr did , actually the truth of the matter is ...... “ this I dream of.
1
I've been an attorney for the U.S. Government, in a civil servant role, for more than a decade. The DOJ is, essentially, the law firm of the U.S. Government, with grunts like me serving -- proudly and apolitically -- as in-house counsel to the varying agencies. In light of the DOJ's position with regard to Mueller's testimony, I want to pitch this question: Who is the client here???
(I have my own grunt-informed opinions, but I wonder what others think....)
The Democrats have refused to impeach. So what difference does this make? If there is no political will/courage to stand up and fight, then why should anyone care what Mueller has to say? Waste of time imo. Just something for the taking heads to chatter about.
Directions for medicine bottles, meal and snack containers are written for comprehension of a 12 year old reading level. Prepare news anchors to dissect these hearings slowly, using small words.
Those three simple questions for Mr. Mueller plus one large lament: Why in the world didn't you question the principal target, in person and under oath?
1
Amazing, that Mr. Katyal, with his credentials, would suggest that the question of "collusion" was a relevant legal concept in Mueller's report when it was expressly excluded. But, that's partisanship for you. It doesn't matter what Trump said either. We can, in fact, read the report.
And we can read that the report stated that it did not completely exonerate Trump. Clearly it bothers the prof. greatly that Trump claims it showed no collusion and no obstruction. How is it relevant? Failure to find total exoneration (if it's even really possible) is not synonymous with "high crimes and misdemeanors," nor reason for waste more time and money. Guilt until proven innocent (for the opposition, anyway) is not the standard, even if you hate the pres. And that's really what the article and hearing is about. An expression of hatred.
I neither supported Trump (or Clinton) or voted for him. But, the phony charges, the disgusting personal attacks of the Kavanaugh hearing, the attacks and attempts on virtually all of Trump's nominations, the wasted two years of investigation, all of the antics and continued frenzy of the "resistance" makes me, and I think all the actual independents I know, hope that Trump is re-elected. Not b/c we like him, but the resistance is worse than he is. Much worse.
@DHEisenberg I'm an independent and you've totally lost me on this reasoning. The resistance is worse than Trump? He's ignorant, in over his head and dangerous, he displays it daily. He tells provable lies on a daily basis, is that a foundation of good leadership you can support?
Just reading the report of his behavior left me incredulous, he makes up his own facts, acts in irrational ways often, and he has the nuclear codes.
Then there's Kasmir and Afghanistan just this week. Good God.
Let’s not forget that the American public has yet to see, has been denied, and may never see the full, un-redacted report. We don’t know, and may forever be denied full review of the grand jury testimony. (It’s arguable whether GJ testimony can be released).
Until we do, there is one additional question: what in h-e-double toothpicks are Trump & Co. working so feverishly, so devilishly, and so deceitfully hard to hide?
Here is what Mueller needs to be asked first:
"Please clarify your view that you cannot indict a sitting President. Are you saying that even if you had found clear and convincing evidence that the President of the United States committed a crime such as murder, you believe you are legally forbidden to do anything about it except write a report detailing evidence of that crime, no matter how heinous or treasonous that crime was? Please explain to the American people this belief you have that even if a sitting President commits the crime of murder -- either before or after his election - and a special prosecutor unearths clear evidence of that crime - that you believe that President should be above the law? Please tell the American why you believe that no matter how serious the crime, you believe the President cannot be indicted. Who in the Trump administration told you that?
And please state for the record: yes or no, are you coming before Congress and telling us that even if you had unearthed clear evidence that the President had committed murder, you would absolutely refuse to indict him?"
This needs to be understood by the American people. Mueller has claimed he may not indict Trump under any circumstances. Let's see if he really stands by those principles, or if he just knows that a fellow Republican's crimes can be excused as long as he thinks the American people won't be outraged about it.
Mueller's claims that he can't indict Trump should be examined.
Have to agree, brilliant piece. Simple. Focused. No hyperbole. And that is what gives it's statements their power. Nice work!!!
What I want to know: Did William Barr ask Mueller to shut down the investigation? That's what I would like to know. Too much of a coincident that Mueller wraps it up one month after Barr's confirmation with 14 court cases still open!
Thank you for repeatedly and correctly referring to Barr as “Mr. Barr.” I couldn’t help but notice the recent calculated campaign by Congressional Republicans to confer undeserved gravitas to Mr. Barr by bizarrely referring to him as “General Barr.” Never before have I heard of an Attorney General referred to as “General.” Enough of them did it that it clearly wasn’t an error, but rather a subtle plan by them to subconsciously conflate Barr with the military, probably so that their authoritarian supporters would be more likely to blindly believe him and his partisan nonsense. I will listen this week to see if they continue this absurdity, or if they have dropped it because it didn’t catch on.
Well, it won't be heard by most people. Just like most people did not read the report. Those listening to the Mueller testimony tomorrow will be those Democrats who want to find something against the President. The majority, even Democrats will not listen to the report.
The people that like trump will never believe anything negative about trump. It's all just politics as usual in Washington. A few Democrats will get up in arms and profess all of trump's crimes, but nothing will happen as a result.
1
@esp 9 Million more voted for Democratic candidates in 2018. We are the MAJORITY!
1
@Fred Trump
The majority doesn't count in the United States. I think you know that. It's just the electoral college. Oh, yes, gerrymandering, voter restriction, Citizen's United, the Supreme Court and the media.
So forget about the majority.
The Democrats may be in the majority, but only when they attract independents.
No one reads Bob Mueller's report except Donald Trump-hating lawyers who hope to parse its words into some kind of criminal indictment. But they can't.
Even Bob Mueller and his gang found no facts to charge anyone in the Trump campaign of doing anything illegal with the Russian government. Even they found no evidence that Donald Trump was trying to obstruct the investigation for any reason other than to remove a cloud of suspicion over his presidency.
Face it -- after four years of trying no one has found evidence to support a criminal charge against Donald Trump. Any impeachment would be political. The Senate would, and rightly so, hear the case starting in the morning and return a verdict of not guilty by lunch.
3
@John Smithson Impeachment is political. Trump campaign had 200 meetings with Russians, nothing to see here?
Fred Trump, impeachment is supposed to be for high crimes and misdemeanors, like treason and bribery. Not because members in the House disagree with a president's politics.
Bob Mueller turned his investigation political with his focus on obstruction. Shame on him for that.
As for people in the Trump campaign meeting with Russians, so what? That's not illegal. In fact, it's encouraged.
Some of the meetings were arranged by the Obama administration to allow foreign ambassadors access to the candidates for president.
1
Democrats need One questioner: aprosecutor able to pry the truth from Mueller. A tough questioner to stay on message. Otherwise, the preening peacocks of Congress will see the circus spin out of control. The result? The Republic will be lost in 2020.
Trump, Giuliani and Barr have trashed the work of the Special Counsel and his team on an industrial scale.
Will he let that stand or tell Americans the truth? He can't have it both ways.
Mueller already answered those questions. He was quite clear on what his role was and what he was duty-bound to answer directly and what he was prohibited by law in answering. Based on that, the answers people are looking for would most likely need to be addressed by someone other than him.
I would add the first question to be asked: "If it weren't for the DOJ rule that prohibited you from making a decision and recommendation concerning Obstruction of Justice, would you have found Trump guilty of Obstruction of Justice?'
4
@Jean A Prosecutor, Special or otherwise, cannot find anyone guilty of any crime.
Don't presume that the American booboisie has even the beginnings of an ability to cope with the implications of Mueller's report on 45. Because they don't. Most people I know, even those who tout their higher educational achievements under the GI Bill, are not invested in the doings of the Federal government. Fakebook, family issues and money-making preoccupy them, you see. No engagement is possible when one's existence is predicated upon drooling and gurgling at other people's social media posts.
10
I remain puzzled by Mueller's failure to indict several key operators in the campaign for both conspiracy and obstruction. While the DOJ memo may have stood in the way of indicting the President, I see no reason why others such as Don Jr. could not have been indicted and tried for conspiracy..
17
@TH And just how did you decide Don jr was part of a conspiracy?
I am not an attorney and I have the highest respect for Mr. Katyal. But I am worried that the Republicans can ask questions, modified from Mr. Katyal's suggestions, which would make the testimony look like this:
Question: First, did your report prove there was collusion?
Mueller: No.
Question: Second, did your report prove there was obstruction?
Mueller: No.
Question: Third, did your report prove that the president was guilty of any particular crime?
Mueller: No.
I am confident that Trump has committed both intent to conspire as well as obstruction of justice, but I sure hope Mueller's testimony doesn't play out like this.
18
the Democrats in the House of Representatives refuse to take responsibility for their power and their ability to bring forth checks and balances. They want to 70 year old retired director give them the permission to go ahead and impeach Trump which is something that we have more than ample information to do so. This is a big wake-up call for the Democrats because they're not going to get the exact perfect answer from Robert Mueller they're never going to get that so come on Democrats do you have the courage in the nerve to do the right thing or Nancy Pelosi are you going to be timid and trajectory and fail to impeach Trump?
6
@dbw75 - I can’t decide if Pelosi is timid, or if she is a strict adherent to the belief that there is an power class in America that is simply above the law. Either way, I fully anticipated this would happen, as soon as she finagled her way back into the speakership. Her behavior as speaker during the Iraq War made it clear that she will never hold a president accountable, and that she views impeachment as a political tactic, not a Constitutional duty. Her behavior in the next two weeks will finally determine if she is unfit for the speakership.
3
the Democrats in the House of Representatives refuse to take responsibility for their power and their ability to bring forth checks and balances. They want to 70 year old retired director give them the permission to go ahead and impeach Trump which is something that we have more than ample information to do so. This is a big wake-up call for the Democrats because they're not going to get the exact perfect answer from Robert Mueller they're never going to get that so come on Democrats do you have the courage in the nerve to do the right thing or Nancy Pelosi are you going to be timid and trajectory and fail to impeach Trump?
3
I hope all the committee members read this and take a copy of it to the hearing room with them. No grandstanding, no long winded speeches. Just a few questions like these and the American public, even those in the “base”, should get a clear picture of how guilty Trump is and what he is guilty of. The next step should be impeachment proceedings.
6
Excellent piece. These are simple, direct questions that invite an unambiguous answer from Mueller. A good litigator knows these are the sort of questions you ask a witness. But this is not a courtroom but a political forum, and I’m not sure politicians will have the moral courage to keep the hearing a search for truth instead of using as it is an opportunity to pontificate. I’m afraid the answer to the crucial questions will be drowned in a sea of irrelevant questions or speeches made in the guise of questions.
I hope my fears are unfounded. And I certainly hope the commentators and pundits will focus on what’s important. Not everyone is going to watch the hearing, and even many who do are going to remember what some commentator said rather than what they heard from Mr. Mueller with their own ears. Look at the way the media initially responded to the original report and to Mr. Mueller’s first public statement. It took days before many figured out the import of Mueller’s words - that is, what was most damaging to Trump. But thank you, Mr. Kaytal, for trying. If it were just you and Mr. Mueller, I would feel a lot more confident.
7
The notion that the House of Representatives, comprised of politicians dependant on the approval of their constituents could or would evaluate the evidence in a law enforcement rather than political context is I suggest risible.
In fact, the Constitutional standard for impeachment, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is so vague that the Due Process clause would prevent its use as a basis for any criminal prosecution.
Not only that, if successful impeachment would result in a Pence White House and arouse latent Republicans to action enhancing the prospect of another Republican victory.
Since Trump won the electoral vote in 2016 by a total of fewer than 80,000 votes in the three "firewall" states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the election process is the more realistic path to victory a year from now.
3
@Sam
Seems to me* that it would be mixing apples and oranges: the Constitutional remedy for misconduct in office results in removal from office, no more and no less. There is no appellate court, and there is no jail time. Criminal prosecution may follow once out of office, and that is where the Due Process clause would come in, but that prosecution would be based on very detailed and specific laws, not the admitted vagueries of the Constitutional standard for removal from office.
* I am not a lawyer. I don't even watch lawyers on TV, let alone play one.
1
My only interest is preventing a repeat of 2016.
I referenced the Due Process Clause to take issue with the author's notion that the Impeachment process was in some sense comparable to a legal process.
The fact remains that if Democrats want to deal with the issue realistically; rather than install Pence in the Whitehouse, the realistic approach would be to win the 2020 election.
@Sam
I concur completely. Let's prevent that repeat. Winning the election next year is the way to go. Unless the impeachment process can concurrently take out Pence (unlikely), there's no point in going down that path.
1
The issue is not about Mueller answering which questions. The report is out already ("old news"). The issue is what Democrats are going to do with it. It seems that Trump's bullying has been very successful.
Mueller will say what he already did in his report. That was his job. A well-done job. He even pointed out that he could not have indicted a sitting president because of DOJ guidelines. Mueller was working for the DOJ. Congress is not.
Now Democrats have a new fresh opportunity because Mueller is again in the spotlight. I hope they do not miss it. This time. Again.
10
@Aurace Rengifo
"He even pointed out that he could not have indicted a sitting president because of DOJ guidelines..."
This is what needs to be examined by the Democrats. Is Mueller really claiming that even if he had eyewitness and forensic evidence that Trump committed murder, he could not indict him? Is Mueller relying on "DOJ guidelines"? Or is Mueller a hypocrite who knows full well Trump committed a crime but hopes to get away with not indicting the President for it using a lame excuse because he hopes the American people won't be as outraged at Mueller giving Trump a free pass on treason and obstruction of justice as he would if Mueller gave Trump a free pass on murder.
Mueller was hired and paid by the American people to indict the President if he committed a crime. Mueller wasn't hired to substitute his own judgement about what crime Trump should be immune from being indicted for and what crime - murder - that the hypocrite Mueller would no doubt insist on prosecuting.
That isn't ethical behavior. It is situational ethics that Mueller is using to help the Republican Party that he has supported his entire career.
Mr.Mueller will quote liberally from the report-that is what he has indicated.I would ask just one question-Mr.Mueller,why did you conclude the report with the words,”if we had found no obstruction of justice we would have said so”. Why did you not say, “We found obstruction of justice and are saying that”? That would clarify the conclusion.
10
When Barr's four page was first read in public, I remember he explicitly stated that our investigation didn't rely on the statute that a sitting president can't be indicted, we went beyond that.
Barr clearly meant to imply that even without the constriction of that statute, if a sitting president could be indicted like anyone else, Mueller still wouldn't have indicted Trump on obstruction for lack of evidence. Mueller seems to have refuted this both in the report and in his brief public remarks.
As much as possible, questioners need to get Mueller to clearly articulate how the actual evidence of obstruction clearly falls into the realm of debate of this evidence constituting high crimes and misdemeanors independent of the indicting a sitting president issue.
5
Mr. Mueller, I have noticed a lot of ongoing matters in your report, did Mr. Barr order you to end the investigation before you were done?
Mr. Mueller many current and former federal investigators have signed a letter saying the evidence in your report is sufficient to charge obstruction if it weren't for the person accused being president, do you agree or were the all wrong?
Mr. Mueller when Paul Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik a great deal of internal polling data why was that not collusion? Did that data help the IRA target it's social media efforts?
13
The chatter about going beyond the four corners of the report offers tacit legitimacy to the Trump administration's theme that there is/was nothing there. That, in and of itself, starting with the Barr letter, was the fundamental lie. Katyal is absolutely correct.
7
I pray that Mr. Mueller has the courage to tell what he knows and to not hide due to fear of something (of which we do not know). But whatever this real or imagined fear is shouldn’t stop his honesty or truth as he testifies before congress. It is time for Americans to hear the unfettered truth from him.
Our forefathers did not cower in fear and that is why we have had a great nation. They were brave and did what was the right thing to do. Without truth (which is slipping away from us one twitter at a time) what nation will we become?
9
I am bit confused by what I belive Mueller said , after reading the report. Yes, I did whatever was made available to the public.
Mueller cleared the president of collusion. That indicates that he did investigate if there was any evidence for collusion.
But then Mueller refused to clear the president of of obstruction of justice on grounds that a sitting president cannot, may not , be indicted.
Why then did he investigate if Trump had colluded , knowing fully well that if Trump had colluded he could not be indicted.
3
@Indian Diner
Mueller explicitly did not clear the President of collusion. He didn't examine collusion as it doesn't exist as a legal concept. There was damning evidence of support from Russia and a willingness to use that support. This may very well fit our understanding of the colloquial collusion term.
Mueller simply established that was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy, which has a much higher bar. Worse yet, despite the high bar for conspiracy, there was substantial circumstantial evidence, just not enough to indict.
In light of insufficient evidence and the obstructive behaviour of Manafort, the obstruction question gains even greater weight. Here, Mueller finds sufficient evidence of obstruction which he lays out in his report but argues that he cannot indict a sitting President, leaving it to Congress.
14
@EvdM
I do not know if you read the report. It clears the president of collusion. I give Mueller the benefit of doubt that he did a thorough investigation of whether Trump participated in collusion. Why did Mueller investigate Trump for collusion if knew that the offense cannot lead to indictment. he used that metric for obstruction of justice.
2
@Indian Diner Collusion isn't a legal concept. It's a term of art. It doesn't mean anything. There is no law against collusion. There is no law for collusion. It is not a subject of law. Donald Trump and the Republican party have been shouting about collusion for precisely that reason. It's a red herring.
6
All the rhetoric sounds like a broken record at this point. We have all heard the same questions asked and answered too many times. Will the Mueller answers change any aspect of the current situation? Think not, the train will keep going down the same track.
2
Mr. Katyal makes this claim: “Mr. Barr did not mention that Mr. Mueller said that he would have cleared the president of obstruction if the facts so showed.”
FOR THE RECORD: Mr. Katyal has forgotten that Barr actually did admit that Mueller said this. It’s on page three of Barr’s letter in the section addressing questions about obstruction.
It happens to be about the only piece of truth in Barr’s letter.
Why did Barr include it? I wondered that myself when he released the letter. I concluded that he did so for a reason. Nothing got into that letter by accident and certainly nothing incriminating.
So why did he include it? Probably because he knew if he didn’t the media would seize on Mueller’s statement and use it to define the investigation’s narrative.
By including it I n an ocean of supposedly exculpatory material Barr succeeded in confusing the public about Mueller’s findings. Barr succeeded, alas.
6
The three questions suggested for Congress by Neal Katyal for Robert Mueller are enough to start. Even more important are the follow-up questions about whether William Barr ever told Mueller that he could have reached a decision about collusion and about Donald Trump’s criminality.
Mr. Katyal is absolutely right that the hand-wringing by some Democrats who worry about the lack of supportive votes for impeachment in Mitch McConnell’s Senate is premature and irrelevant.
We have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that the performance by Robert Mueller, once Mr. Barr became Attorney General, was disappointing.
Mr. Mueller let the country down by imposing an artificial deadline on finishing his work, by not giving enough respect to the fact that the counterintelligence aspect – with Donald Trump at the center – was properly driving the inquiry and by giving far, far too much respect to the political biases of William Barr.
It is not too late, if Congress fulfills its oversight duties under the Constitution and forces Robert Mueller to do his duty.
5
What the 99% of Americans, who have not read the report, need to SEE and HEAR are: 1) Mr. Mueller raising his hand to swear to tell the truth, etc., and 2) to hear, as drily as only he can, Mr. Mueller just reading from his report, like scripture.
The Republicans in the Judiciary Committee will fall all over themselves in posing 'Gotcha' questions, not for the truth, but for inclusion in Fox shows and Trump campaign videos. Mr. Mueller must see through those.
4
We also need to know what, if any, parts of Mr. Mueller's investigation were quashed by the AG, and why there seems not to have been any investigation of the Trump Organization or of the national security problems created by a president who hopes to make a lot of money by pleasing Putin and other dictators.
9
The questions I want answered have to do with what Whitaker, and then Barr did to curtail either the Mueller investigation itself, or the redacted portions labeled ongoing investigations.
The problem is, of course, that the AG is a Trump stooge, and will do everything he can to throw shade on the DOJ coverup by citing ongoing investigations while simultaneously doing everything in his power to shut them down.
Mueller’s statement that he won’t answer questions outside of the report itself shows that he will be a reluctant, if not hostile witness. He has stated that he won’t answer questions asking about what he would do if the President weren’t in office. He has stated that, as a prosecutor, it would be unfair to publicly charge a person with crimes that he would not be able to refute in a court of law.
Given that Mueller, somewhat obliquely, referred to impeachment as the Constitutional remedy for presidential transgressions, I would ask why the DOJ will not ask the judge presiding over the grand jury to unredact the grand jury portions of the report. In fact, if the only legal/Constitutional remedy to the sitting president conundrum is for the House to bring articles of impeachment, then why have they not been provided with the unredacted report in order for them to do their job?
I would also ask if, since the report was given to Barr, if Mr. Mueller has observed any activity in the Executive branch that might merit further investigation as obstruction of justice.
6
Let us hope Robert S. Mueller III is capable of being more than a repeating automaton: "The report speaks for itself" "The report speaks for itself".
Surely he must feel the gravitas of the situation.
Surely he must want to avoid misinterpretation of two years of work on behalf of his country—despite distortion and spin by Trump's attorney general and despite the recent Justice Department memo "warning him" and smacking of witness tampering.
26
@srwdm - He should do nothing but say, "the report".
Pelosi doesn't want to gamble on impeaching. She doesn't seem to want to do anything except squabble with fellow Democrats and find a nice bottle of wine and chocolates for PM Trudeau. What more do the Democrats need to impeach? What could Mueller say that is not already in his report? Perhaps KellyAnne Conway can join Mr. Mueller and present flash cards with pictures to help explain what Mueller already wrote.
The Democrats need to understand times have changed, and in particular for Robert Mueller. A patriotic soldier hero he may have been as well as a faithful public servant within the FBI and Justice Department. But now he is showing the conservatism/reluctance to risk of an older man with his human concerns such as a future life/career of accrual of wealth as an established/acceptance within elite law firms that he must consider. He is very bright and knows that Barr/Trump want to completely muzzle him regarding his special investigation findings. Yet wrote the Justice Department anyway basically asking them for instructions on how they wish to muzzle him in testimony to Congress. The Democrats would do well to quickly abandon their fondest hopes of Mr. Mueller saying anything to them that will endanger Mr. Mueller's future or those who have made it clear he is to say nothing that will embarrass the current administration. Reality is often a very difficult pill to swallow, but a prescription the Democrats need to recognize. Wish I were wrong....
7
"First, did your report find there was no collusion?"
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter."
Second, did your report find there was no obstruction?
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter"
Third, did your report give the president complete and total exoneration?
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter"
I really do not believe Mueller will provide a smoking gun or any other clear advice to Congress. The problem with all of this is that the DOJ threshold is not the same as that for impeachment. The DOJ will not indict a sitting President which means the report will always be inconclusive on the question of criminal culpability of the President. The Special Counsel knows the President cannot be indicted which colors the investigation. But that is different than what the House faces in regards to whether to institute impeachment proceedings.
People are dreaming if anyone thinks this will magically clear the air and tell the House what to do next. The House needs to assess whether there is enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors other than obstruction. The Senate is not going to impeach just on obstruction, especially if the crime that was obstructed was found to not even be a crime.
3
@Scott Werden Here. Fixed it for you:
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter."
Congress: Please read to us the section of the report that speaks on that matter.
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter."
Congress: Please read to us the section of the report that speaks on that matter.
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter."
Congress: Please read to us the section of the report that speaks on that matter.
P.S. The Senate doesn't "impeach." The House does that, if it will. The Senate tries the case with the Chief Justice sitting "on the bench" and conducting the trial. It is possible of course, even likely, that the Republican Senate will not convict the President. That does not mean that the House shouldn't make him answerable to his crimes. Our nation is a nation of laws until/unless the House refuses to do its duty. Then, all bets are off as to future presidential law breaking.
26
@Scott Werden Here. Fixed it for you:
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter."
Congress: Please read to us the section of the report that speaks on that matter.
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter."
Congress: Please read to us the section of the report that speaks on that matter.
Mueller: "The report speaks for itself on that matter."
Congress: Please read to us the section of the report that speaks on that matter.
This will be a debacle for these Democrats, an otherwise essential cause in the hands of losers. They should’ve stopped with those aerial shots confirming Trump’s lies about the showing at his Inauguration. Pictures were way more effective than perseveration, after all. Just look at the rest of the world. Those who’ve emulated him only offer a cheap imitation, just as his detractors questioning Mueller will become irrelevant.
@Orbis Deo -- you sound like you're trying to convince yourself. No one else outside the Trump bubble believes anything he says, nor anything his supporter say (or chant).
@Orbis Deo
We are just getting started.
Fox does not make our decisions.
We will persevere until American values are restored. Many people are disgusted by government of the cruelest for the cruelest. Most of us would rather give someone a hand up instead of a smack in the face.
Written in French in the Declaration of Independence. " Inialienable rights ".
That is a French word.
Inalienable. In 1776.
It is not unalienable.
No way. it did not exist at that time
Jefferson could only use it because it was from Frecnh philosophy. Montesuieu.
And Jefferson was not such an accomplished schollar. He was just an amateur of French philosophy. he never wortoe anything of any seriousness or importance.
The US constitution was just created by a patch work of European philosophy of the law. Mostly french.
1
@JPH
Arguing philosophy based on irrational geopolitical lines is very amusing. As if being French or Antarctican decides how a person thinks.
There is evidence that people tend to do and think the same things, continents apart.
The Declaration is a committee document. Jefferson, didn't have to be a scholar, Adams was. Most of the delegates had offered opinions and advise in the months preceding. Did Jefferson's ghost kick you?
4
@JPH : Clearly you haven't followed Jefferson's career closely. He was justifiably proud of the Virginia State of Religious Freedom. And his intent was to write a condemnation of slavery into the declaration of independence, but was forced to remove the language in order to assure the continued participation of several of the southern states/"colonies" in the "rebellion." A hypocrite he may have been in some ways (such as owning slaves, but then so did about ten of his presidential successors). But he is recognized for his intellectual contributions to the new nation, however offended you might be that many things he wrote included worthy ideas from Europe.
@genocidegoodcompassiongbad Culture and education are not geopolitical lines.
Linguistics and philosophy have history .
It has nothing to do with Jefferson's ghost who indeed is in the fetishism of the Constitution for Americans . Or in the Declaration of Independence .In 1776. But paid for by France in 1781.
Most Americans are not even able to understand these words " inalienable rights " .And that they are given by God , not the law .Contradiction that still plagues the religious base of this nation today.
In god we trust. We know where this is written and what kind of god it is. Jefferson was making his with nails .
The President is not a lawyer, but Neal Katyal is a lawyer, and his sly manipulation of the law and his trick questions tarnish his profession. No, it's not cute, so stop smirking.
Katyal knows perfectly well that in our legal tradition it is the prosecution's burden to prove that the accused has committed the crime or other illegal act. So "finding that there was no collusion" is an improper question.
For the same reason, it was never Mueller's job to prove that there was no collusion. His duty was to determine whether there was enough evidence to bring a charge of obstruction. In similar circumstances, two or three previous special prosecutors have concluded that Presidents broke the law. If Mueller did not do so, it is because he determined that the evidence was not sufficient to bring charges.
The third question doubles down on the previous two. But it is even more sly because it doesn't even specify exoneration from WHAT. From the charge of not controlling his tongue? From the charge of making his enemies stampede like a herd of demented beasts?
Folks, it's over. You had a lot riding on this horse, but it didn't come in for you. The rest of the country knows that, even if you don't, and you are sorely trying their patience by trying to trick or bully Mueller into saying something he never said and never meant.
6
@Ian Maitland Collusion is not a thing. It's a term of art. It has nothing to do with the law. There is no law for collusion. There is no law against collusion. It's a red herring.
I trust the reputation of Mr. Katyal. He has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States and won on more than one occasion . He is the former Solicitor General of the United States. His bona fides are impeccable and his references are stellar.
After name checking on Google I am impressed with your qualifications sir, but they really don't surpass those of Mr. Katyal. He was Solicitor General of the United States. You are a chartered accountant who stood for congress in Minnesota's 4th Congressional district. Your qualifications far outstrip mine, but they do not outstrip his, and I find your insistence on talking about collusion risible considering that you are a member of the bar. You know better, yet you persist in low innuendo and misleading rhetoric.
Risible indeed.
@Ian Maitland
I don't think that Nunes should disrespect Mr. Mueller. His usual abuse of witnesses only exposes republican weakness
@Ian Maitland i am not a lawyer and maybe yes you’re right, the Mueller horse is tired... but one day you’ll realize the horse you were riding on was far more rotten than the one we were on. When you’ll have to own that and face what you have done to your country defending this presidency ( just because the economy is doing well) ...we’ll be watching your excuses from the behind the fence.
The man understands how to communicate. Hopefully the Dems will read this piece. They just make everything so complicated.
6
Brilliant!
"But now we get to something interesting — the asterisk. Mr. Mueller’s testimony will occur under a greatly changed circumstance from when the report was finished. The attorney general has recently said, referring to Mr. Mueller, 'I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision' about obstruction, and further said that 'the opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office, but he could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity.'
"That compels Congress to ask Mr. Mueller two final questions: 'First, when you were serving as special counsel, did Mr. Barr ever tell you that you could reach a decision about Mr. Trump’s criminality? Second, since Mr. Barr has now said that department policy allows you to reach a decision as to whether it was criminal activity, please do so. No one knows the facts better than you. We need you to.' "
Barr has fully given Mueller the microphone on this.
This editorial also points out the question of why Barr misled America about what Mueller had said. Barr gave a spin job, about which some of Mueller's team members expressed concern in real time. So final essential question to Mueller: Based on how your report was summarized by AG Barr, does AG Barr appear to have accepted the role of the President's personal attorney?
11
According to the Justice Department, Mueller cannot answer those three questions per a letter which was addressed to him today. Bill Barr is once again trying to obstruct justice and I will be surprised if he doesn't succeed.
20
An important aspect to consider:
—Fear of Trump—
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly stated that she worries Trump will not give up power if he loses in 2020.
And I'm sure she would also worry that Trump would not give up power even if convicted by the Senate.
Speaker Pelosi, stop being afraid of Trump. Stop worrying about end-games and calculations and backlashes. Don't you realize how energizing and galvanizing it is to do what is right and what the Constitution requires of you? The Articles of Impeachment will be loud and clear and publicly sounded.
You may just be surprised at the energy and benefits and uniting of your caucus as we prepare for November 2020.
16
I have a question for Mr. Mueller. Why wasn't jr subpoenaed?
Mueller's mandate as special counsel was to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
The private citizen who invited Russians to Trump Tower, AFTER the Trump campaign had been briefed by the FBI about Russian interference (and lied about it afterwards), wasn't even subpoenaed.
All the principals at the meeting, save the Russian lawyer, were interviewed. Kushner talked to Mueller voluntarily, and therefore wasn't subpoenaed.
I sure hope it gets asked, and answered.
16
I'm still not seeing ANYONE asking the right questions about the report. What I'm seeing on the Democratic side so far is essentially "OK, there was no conspiracy with the Russians... let's try to get him on obstruction then! So let's ask these questions about obstruction of justice..." This by itself means that the Democrats have bought the "no collusion" interpretation for the face value. What they should have been asking is "You haven't been able to prove the conspiracy, or charge anyone with it. Was that because you have concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that no conspiracy took place (doesn't sound like it)? Or was it THE DIRECT RESULT of the obstruction of justice? All the refusals to cooperate; all the deleted messages; pardons dangled before witnesses; Paul Manafort's decision to spend a few years in a comfortable US prison, rather than testify, tell the truth and see his entire family die rather painful death by Russian-made poison?
Talking about the conspiracy of justice alone is pointless. If you allow them to sell the notion to the public that there was never any underlying crime, the public will never fully buy the notion that the obstruction charge justifies an impeachment by itself. I know that's not how it works legally - but we are not talking "legally" here. The republicans in the senate will have an easy time ignoring it, because, again, the court of public opinion will, sadly, give them a pass if that "obstruction" line is all you got.
16
@Leonid Andreev
If I may continue the narrative, the masses will also surely never hold Trump responsible for "crimes" the Democrats never "charged" him with via impeachment.
Most of us are familiar with the maxim, "Innocent until proven guilty", truer for some more than others in our country.
But when the guy isn't even charged, well heck then they just didn't have any evidence, or SURELY they would have, right? "I mean they got to, right?"
Trump must have been telling the truth (choke) all along; just a bunch of fake news made up by the liberal media and the deep state!
"NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, AND NO IMPEACHMENT"
If Pelosi doesn't grab the ball and run with it, this being the last chance to capture the momentum, educate the public, and charge him, I'm afraid we may all be spending the rest of our lives in a country we no longer recognize.
May we state this over and over again—
"The members of the House have a duty to act, even if the Senate won’t convict".
And yes, "impeachment hearings will crystallize the nation’s attention on the actual events, as opposed to spin from the president and his attorney general."
24
KATYAL, Unfortunately, misapplied the term "collusion" to a question of criminality. There is NO crime of "collusion," but there are most definitely laws that forbid collaboration coordination and conspiracy among parties who obstruct justice. But the questions are all about nouns. Verbs are also pertinent, meaning, for example, Did Trump collaborate, coordinate, conspire illegally, which resulted in having obstructed justice? The writer did fall victim to Trump's brainwashing with his incessant repetitions of "collusion." I'm betting that there's going to be members of the House Posse comprised of women of color, who have already prepared questions to ask Mueller. Specifically, will Alexandria Ocasio Cortez ask Mueller the three essential questions: Mr. Mueller, do you believe that Trump acted to collaborate, coordinate, and/or conspire illegally to obstruct justice? That would be rich irony. Making it even richer would be having Ilhan Omar ask Trump the very same question. Followed by the two other members of the Posse of 4.
7
Terrific piece! Looking forward to the testimony!
3
About obstruction, I would simply ask him the hypothetical that if Trump wasn't the president, would he have indicted him for obstruction. Isn't that the gist of it?
10
"So what accounts for the vast discrepancy between what the report says and the way the American public has received it?"
American public opinion isn't monolithic. There are some who have long been convinced of Trump's wrongdoing based on the evidence presented in the report. There are others who believe that God meant Trump to be president, and that is all that matters to them. And then there are those who are barely coping with the process of living and wish that politicians will sort out their own problems without involving them. Meanwhile, Mueller investigated Trump believing that a sitting president could not be indicted. And the Speaker believes that a president should not be impeached unless there is overwhelming bipartisan support for the process. Given this, everyone other than Trump is on tenterhooks. And Trump is seizing the opportunity to brazenly lie that "there was no collusion, no obstruction and total vinidication." The fact is the Special Counsel law the way it is currently formulated did not anticipate the brazen contempt for the law and the truth that it is now confronted with.
16
If the past few months and the first democratic debate are indicative of the way these hearings will go, the democratic congressional officials will trip over themselves in a rush to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. (Sighs)
8
Does not ease my mind that the Justice Department just tried to influence Mueller’s testimony by writing a formal letter to persuade him to stay within the bounds of the report. That hardly seems legal in itself. But what to do with a “Justice Department” that appears evermore to act politically and not in commitment to law? Also, when the bombshell that Pelosi is waiting for does not materialize, what will she do?
7
John F. Thurn, if you read the Justice Department's letter to Bob Mueller you will see that the letter was written to answer questions raised by Bob Mueller in a July 10 letter to the Department. Of course they are going to answer his questions.
4
Muler was appointed by the Justice Department and his work product is owned by the Justice Department. That's the way it works.
4
@John Smithson: Democrats need to stop hoping Mueller will be the hero which he has no intention of being. He did his job as an effective, cold blooded lawyer within a proscription of legally damaging the current presidency. Period. Laws were obviously broken, but as usual with the law, it only theoretically protects the public.
2
Mr. Katyal is off the wrong foot with his very first question on collusion, the answer to which is that the report did not look at collusion. Quoting verbatim from the report ".. we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion."" The report goes on to say that collusion and coordination do not have specific definitions under federal criminal law. So, the very likely answer to Mr. Katyal's first question will be a legalese one, that will lose most people.
The Mueller report looked at whether there was a conspiracy, and did not find any. The report DID find 11 instances of obstruction, so Mr. Katyal's second question is germane. However, while obstruction would be considered a criminal offense, the fact that there was no crime to cover weakens the argument that Trump's obstructions were designed to hide underlying crimes. Trump as an ordinary citizen may be convicted by a court of law for obstruction, but most ordinary people don't think that Trump's actions, while clearly wrong, amount to "high crimes".
Democrats need to hold the hearing, then move on. If they want to get rid of Trump, they need to beat him in the court of public election, rather than impeachment. But as was pointed out in an opinion piece yesterday in the New York Times and the NPR poll published today, voters are even less in agreement with the current candidates' far left positions than of their dislike of Trump.
7
@RBSF
Yes, collusion under the law is not the right first question.
However, the rest of the argument is weak due the numerous contacts between the campaign and the Russians which are listed in the Report. The fact that Trump would not testify gives credence to the charges and the many attempts to obstruct are enough for impeachment.
As an ordinary person who reads a lot, I believe the contacts with the Russians and the obvious cozy relationship between Putin and Trump reflect traitorous intent and this President is dangerous to this Country.
While the public may be caught up, right now, in the media spotlight washing over the AOC coalition which has only a 22% favorability rating, this will pass as more damaging info is revealed about the malfeasance of the man elected.
The Democrats JUST need the right person to carry that message as the damming evidence comes to light. One person that might be a candidate for that job could be Mayor Pete or maybe Michael Bennett?
3
@Blanche White: As a professionally trained historian/political scientist one of truisms I have discovered over the years is that the full truths/facts of any contentious historical event/matter will probably take at least twenty to twenty five years. Perhaps our evolving digital age may shorten that "formula." But much investigation and the retirements and deaths of involved individuals in positions of power are necessary to avoid recriminations to those doing the "deep digging" that is allowed by powerful interests who often are assisted by legal personnel trained to contort the law in favor of their clients. Courage is a rare commodity among leaders today, for whom a professional career protection is justified by claims of reflecting the wishes of those in their electorate.
1
These are three excellent questions. And I am certain if they are asked, Mueller will evade answering them in a way that incriminates Trump. And even if Mueller's answers do appear to incriminate Trump, I don't think it matters. Why? I have no sense at all that I live in anything beyond a fully corrupt corporate oligarchy. That's how I see the United States in 2019. Forgive me if I am too cynical, but despite all of their rhetoric to the contrary, I don't see any difference among any of our elite corporate or political class. I see them as all intertwined, all protecting each other's assets (be they financial or sense of privilege). Despite their passionate (but inevitably pointless) Apocalyptic arguing night after night on billionaire-backed cable television (how many times can the world be said to ending in one day?), I don't think anything will change as long as the billionaires that run everything are kept happy. And while I have no doubt that people like Elizabeth Warren are sincere in invention, I don't even think she understands the utter horror this free-trade consumption-based, service-sector economy has become. And I certainly do not see things going back to the post-WWII prosperity of 1940-1975, ever, no matter who is elected. Nope. It's not going to happen. Sad, because it does not bode well for the future of the United States as I come to understand it.
8
Warren is probably your best chance. And growing the economy as debt relief is not going to cut it anymore like it did in the post war period. These are facts for the whole world, not just USA. Although I do agree with most of your points, and feel similarly disarmed.
1
What's the point? If he was going to say something incriminating about Trump it would have been in his report. He won't. And even if he did, Pelosi has made clear that she won't impeach a Republican president no matter what he does.
3
@Observer Well, how about observing it in two days and THEN telling us "what's the point" negative Nancy.
There are moments in history whee right is more than anything. Neville Chamberlain failed. Leon Jaworski passed. My bet is Mueller fails. Tragic. If it were me, and most brave patriots I think would agree, the situation merits one choice: go all in with truth. His Vietnam war record is meaningless if he makes the wrong call.
20
Let's hope Mueller is forthcoming and clear, and doesn't hide behind the complex and coded language he used in his only press conference. His refusal to use clear language that the president is a criminal led me to wonder if he is truly a law and order guy, or if he is, at heart, a Republican who refuses to see what has happened to his party, and what it is doing to the country.
To me, a truly neutral law and order investigator would be appalled at what he uncovered and anxious to correct the record. Let's hope Mueller steps up.
24
Very well said.
I hope our elected Democrats read it
10
I do fear that Mr. Mueller will answer, "As I have stated in my report", more often than one of Oprah's guests says, "As I have written in my new book (title mention again)..."
11
The question is whether Mr. Mueller would answer these three questions. That’s the entire ball of wax.
11
Valuable as they are, I don't believe Prof. Katyal's suggestions reflect the full scope of the American people's interest in Mr. Mueller's Report.
He will only be testifying for a few hours, so it is crucial that the available time not be squandered by grandstanding members of the Committee asking boring and inane questions.
Here are the essential questions that Mr. Mueller must be pressed to answer regardless of his possible reluctance to do so:
What did his investigators uncover about Trump’s tax cheating?
Was it trivial or flagrant?
What happened in the Moscow hotel room?
What is the story about his hair and orange color?
The bone spurs? Were they fake or real?
His relationship with the Deutsche Bank. Why were there no limits to his borrowing or his failure to repay them?
His visits to the dressing rooms of teenage beauty contestants.
What did Mr. Mueller’s people find out about it?
Violations of the Mann Act. When and where did they occur?
What is it that Putin has on him that the American people would like to know?
His non-stop lying and shaky mental condition. What did secret government studies and research reveal about them?
What are his true feelings about abortion and dark-skinned people as revealed by the investigation?
How rich is he really?
There’s a lot more, but these will do until we get to his impeachment.
7
Hope springs eternal, but change, not so much.
6
Mr. Katyal will make a superb attorney general when Trump is kicked out of office by the electorate in 2020. The SDNY will indict and convict DT for his financial shenanigans once we tell him "your'e fired." I am not convinced that the House should go ahead and impeach based on the Mueller report alone, but they should open an inquiry into the matter.
14
@sleepdoc
Funny. I bet you are still angry about Congress not getting the unredacted Mueller Report. Do you realize that Katyal is the guy who wrote the regs for Clinton under the Special Counsel law that say that the report goes to the AG, and not Congress?
Brilliant! I hope those Dems who will be questioning Mueller read this article and adopt its questions
6
Given Mueller's timidity to date, plus his long friendship with Barr, I think it is a mistake to expect anything from him, even to get him to read parts of his report.
7
Impeaching and failing to remove him from office means Trump wins in 2020. Thinking otherwise is dreaming.
4
@QED An Impeacment Inquiry could start now and not even be complete until 2021...Not even come to a vote until then....There is so much to investigate it could take 2+ years to get to the bottom of all the dirty deals and criminal activities...in Congress..
I hope the Members of Congress will ask those three questions as concisely and wisely as you have.
8
Mueller had ample opportunity to talk directly and straight to the American people about Trump’s criminality in his report. He did not. And he stood mute as Barr and Trump perverted the essence of his report. Why would anyone now expect him to act differently when he (reluctantly) testifies? I fear a big nothing from all this.
17
This will be nothing but Kabuki theatre - not that it is distinguishable in this way from any other Congressional hearings.
I hope Mueller simply takes out a well-thumbed dog-eared copy of the report and answers every question by reading from the appropriate passage
"First" Question - Mueller will proby correct Mr. Katyal: I "applied the framework of conspiracy law", and not the concept of "collusion", because collusion "is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law." (vol 1 pg 2)
Thus: "We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (Ibid)
"Second" Question: "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. (Vol 2 pg 8)
I could go on... but you get the gist. Alas, like everyone else I will tune in to see the fireworks but only expecting a damp drizzle.
11
@SteveRR
You have already said what has to be said: Mr. Mueller has to correct Mr. Katyal and he has answered all questions clearly. My guess: His testimony will be reading the quotes you have mentioned loud - and then looking to the audience with a "can´t you read?" look.
There is to add the one and only relevant question at the end of any criminal investigation worlwide this law professor of Georgetown did NOT ask:
"Did we get enough evidence to prove a crime to the court so that a verdict is going to be sufficiently likely" ("Court" is "Congress" here.)
To indict when it´s plain to see at the end of the investigation that evidence will never sufficient to prove the crime so the court will be bound to make an "in dubio pro reo" decision at least is the most foolish thing any prosecutor can do. It´s work for nothing, a personal blunder in public, the image of the institution is damaged, the accused is laughing on him, he is seen as a toothless tiger by his "usual clients" then, superiors are angry and in worst case he might be subject to an investigation for persecution of an innocent.
So even if questions 2 and 3 have to be answered by no -as it already is the case- then there is still a vast distance to a verdict. This is were the work has to start. When it has to end because there is nothing else than this you´d better close the folder.
It looks that Mr. Katyal has never learned these simple basics of this job.
Mr. Mueller definitely has. His report reveals it.
Muller said nothing when Barr/Trump twisted the meaning of the report.
Mueller again will say nothing, and history will condemn his complicity.
9
The Democrats wanted an investigation and they got it, on terms they were happy with. Nothing actionable came of it. Now they want to endlessly rehash the “evidence”, as if by repetition, something new will arise. It won’t, but that doesn’t stop them. Next, they want to impeach the President even though their own leadership warns that conviction is highly unlikely. Still, they persist in this pointless, vindictive crusade. I get that Trump is thoroughly unlikeable, but enough, already. Go ahead and impeach him, but understand that failure to convict will likely guarantee his re-election.
3
One concern is that Mr. Mueller will be testifying when millions of Americans are at work. When they hear him will be after dinner through the lens of whatever news platform they use. If it’s Mr. Trump’s base they will hear if filtered through an extreme right wing lens with a post hoc Barr spin. How convincing will that be?
Secondly, nothing will convince many simply because they’ve heard Mr. Trump’s lies about the Mueller report and his team.
What would’ve been convincing to some (not to all) is if allies of the former, e.g., Hicks, McGahn, Priebus, Pecker et al testified under oath as fact witnesses and told the stories of his crimes.
This apparently will not happen-the obstruction of justice continues in plain site.
6
Hire real attorneys to ask the questions. No grandstanding.
15
@Becky
Get Kamala Harris to ask questions...She is al lifetime prosecutor and former Attorney General of California who does not suffer fools gladly..
1
Nadler is an attorney, as are most of the members of his Committee. Weren't the tens of attorneys that spent two years digging thru Hillary's frame-up collusion hoax enough? This is political theatre from which nothing will emenate except hot air and faux angst. When Mueller won't come up with something new and juicy maybe the Dems should have the "squad" call him a racist? That's the usual default tactic when reason and persuasion fail (which they almost always do with that crowd.)
Sorry! Democrats should act with prudence and never lose sight of the all-important and overriding goal: Donald Trump and his departure from office on January 20, 2021. All political decisions, including the decision regarding impeachment, must align with that goal. A law professor's ringing clarities have the resonance of principle, but in the end, that is likely to prove a costly indulgence for the party -- and the nation.
2
@bert And the best way to defeat Trump is with an Impeachment Inquiry and live, under oath testimony from hundreds of witnesses detailing all the shady meetings, the crimes, the cover ups, the Obstruction of Justice...
5
The justice Department has tried to muzzle Mueller with a letter of instruction today. In my humble opinion the letter is illegal and a clear case of tampering with a witness. The JD is acting in a criminal manner and clearly displays the fraudulent Attorney General and his pro Trump allegiance. Tragic for America.
15
Question for Neal Katyal:
How can the statute of limitations be changed so that a sitting president cannot let it run out and, therefore, not be charged -- not even with a prior sealed indictment -- after leaving office?
Tom Friedman read over 5000 comments on his piece from last week.
I'm hoping that Neal Katyal is reading these comments.
2
Mr. Mueller...I have what I hope is a simple question for you to answer. Please, a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.
Mr. Mueller, in any part of your investigatory document did you state that there was ‘no collusion’?
When he answers, “No,” it will be so much harder for Trump to chant his standard two words.
326
@Bruce STASIUK
Mueller could answer NO to that dozens of times.
BUT Trump would still claim the report “totally exonerated him” - “no collusion.”
10
@Bruce STASIUK Sigh. Our system operates on the presumption of innocence. It is never a prosecutor's job to prove anyone innocent. A prosecutor either finds enough evidence to bring charges, or doesn't find such evidence.
Has anyone ever proved YOU didn't collude with the Russians? No? Then how can you say, in reference to yourself, "no collusion"?
2
@Tom - He didn't prove anyone innocent. He said there wasn't enough evidence to convict. That's not the same.
10
1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth. So perhaps it's not surprising that very few Americans have actually read the report or understand what it actually says. Without someone spelling out the contents of the report on TV in very simple and clear language, the public is never going to understand what's actually in the report. That's really at the core of Mueller's failing here, he assumed too much of the average American citizen. Please spell it out for us Robert Mueller, as if you were talking to a 12 year old.
387
@JuJu. Nobody read the Starr report or had it explained to them as if they were 12 year olds. And the same goes for Jaworski's road map. And yet Clinton was impeached and Nixon was forced to resign.
The reason Trump hasn't been impeached is not because the rest of the country isn't as smart as you. Clinton lied to the grand jury. Nixon erased a tape. Those are clear and straightforward criminal acts. By contrast, the many intelligent Americans out there, such as you, should understand that the election tampering case and the obstruction case against Trump involve a complex web of allegations which, even if they seem to be amply proven, are far more intricate than one lie or one erased tape, so that they are not particularly well-suited to an impeachment trial.
16
@michjas The "12 yo" line is just the best! It's true about the average population not knowing if the sun revolves around the earth or in reverse. This is scary in supposedly a very educated country. Let's hope that the Mueller Hearing will enlighten those 12 yo as well as the remainder of the county who never took the time to even just read the minimum about the obstruction of justice bullet points.
16
@irishezs
Most Americans are either glued to their electronic devices or are bogged down by making ends meet, so they do not have the time required to read a 440 page report, let alone a redacted report. There was no reason that the report could have been summarized on each charge in plain, simple language that all could read and understand and added to the end of the redacted 440 pages.
I can only conclude that we, the public, will not be given the opportunity to read this report in plain English, only legal mumbo jumbo. Only Mueller can explain it, as Barr and Rosenstein have reasons to keep it from the general public's understanding.
19
I have absolutely no hope that Mueller's testimony will shed light on how utterly unfit Trump is to be our President. Barr, Graham, McConnell and the rest of them will reframe, lie, and obstruct the truth.
The Democrats don't have the unity and discipline to put up a good fight.
We can vote, but there's an electoral college problem, (where Wisconson tips the scales) voter obstruction, and voter apathy.
So I'm just sitting here being frustrated -every single day- that my government is so paralyzed and/or greedy...and there's nothing gonna change, folks.
13
And, for all the reasons you list in your last paragraph, it’s only going to get worse.
1
@valeria
I agree with you! Isn't it grand?
1
Mueller is portrayed as strong and brave, a war hero that has no fear.
But, that's not what he's shown us. Mueller is weak. Maybe in the past he was more courageous, or had some brave moments, but that's not he's acting now.
Mueller, there's great discrepancy in your report. Be clear, did Trump obstruct justice or not? Was he or his administration working in coordination with Russia or not? If he wasn't President, did Trump do things that were criminal, or not?
The future of our Democracy is at risk. Stop your game of silence. Speak up and tell us what you know.
Act strong and fearless!
29
@John Doe If Trump ordered Muller to be fired and he wasnt fired (think that is clear) - im pretty sure our Democracy isnt at risk if he stays in office. The investigation wasnt cut short. Mueller ended the investigation on his own and trying to seize on some technical interpretation of the law, rather than what's real isnt actually going to place the country at risk. Now if he had deleted 30,000 (or even 30) emails and hid pertinent information from investigators- that would be more concerning. Say he took his phones and smashed them - so that investigators couldnt investigate - that would be worrying. In this case- no information was denied- .
3
@John DoeI agree, he seems weak. He already told some journalist that he is not going to go out of the scope that the criminal barr has set for him. How dare he not ? The future of this country is at stake and that is not hyperbole
3
@John DoeI agree, he seems weak. He already told some journalists that he is not going to go out of the scope the bar has sat for him. How dare he not ? The future of this country is at stake and that is not hyperbole
Approximately as big as "committing federal crimes while in office" is committing federal crimes to get elected to office. A system that rewards cheating will have more people cheating more dramatically in the future.
27
Honestly answering these three questions likely will make clear Barr and Trump have consistently misrepresented the findings of this two year investigation and report.
7
@Stephen
I wish that were true. I'm not expecting anything good from Mueller. He's given us nothing at all so far. He's actually given a dangerous and illegitimate "president" a free pass.
2
if there is one question that could actually trump Trump and it would be interesting to know why for Collusion Robert Mueller did not subpoena Donald Trump and Trump organization private flight plans that must be filed and kept with the FAA, if you would want to know exactly how close, how many times the Trump private jet either landed in or close to Russia during the 2000's it would be thru the flight plans, you could land your plane at any hangar outside of Russia and a car could meet you, also Mr. Mueller why did you not interview Vanessa Trump, even though she was Jr's estranged wife,certain conversations held during Trump gatherings would have been valuable and it is highly probable that spousal privilege could have been waived specifically since many of those conversations would have occurred while Mr. Trump was simply a candidate, spousal privilege would only be between Vanessa and Don Jr. as for the rest of the writing by Mr. Katyal, you can have no better legal analysis than by this experienced solicitor. now the attorney general's office seems to want to block Mr. Mueller from discussing anything other than what is in the report and not what might be under further investigation. I still say the answer to collusion is in the flight plans.
3
Three simple questions! Release of the executive summaries prepared by the Mueller team would be illuminating!
4
If Congress asks the questions correctly, Mueller can quote chapter and verse of his report but in simpler language, and he can bury Donald Trump. And in some way he must want to, after being called a criminal and having the process he so scrupulously followed be called a witch hunt. Go Robert!
10
@Cathlynn Groh
"and he can bury Donald Trump."
With what? More political garbage and lies.
No collusion.
No obstruction.
Trump will be re-elected in a landslide and you'd better get used to the idea.
These are the right questions, and we, or most of us, know the answers to them. We have a criminal in the White House, and several more in the administration. That a substantial portion of the population doesn’t care is astounding and anxiety producing. I hope this will change after Thursday, but Trump’s supporters, in the public and in Congress, seem impervious to anything resembling evidence or reason. Intellectually, I understand their position because they cannot retain power on the basis of philosophy or ideas. None appeal to more than a slim minority. But emotionally, I am flummoxed by the Republican willingness to trash ideals they once would have supported, their willingness to trash the planet, their willingness to do nothing to address the income inequality that is killing many members of their party.
12
There is only one question that is important: If you brought your evidence to a grand jury, outlined in section II of your report, what do you believe is the probability that the perpetrator would have been indicted.
5
With volume 2, a first year law student could secure indictment. It’s all there! So...
9
He’s already been strong armed by Barr. It will take courage, and that’s just what we need.
6
I would rephrase question 2: "Did your report find evidence of obstruction of justice that would justify an indictment of Mr. Trump were he not the president?"
That is the essential question.
15
Mr. Mueller let us down the first time he spoke on national television. He knew Barr lied after the report came out and Mueller should have called him on that, and after Trump kept saying no obstruction, no collusion. Mueller is told to stay within the boundaries of his report, and we know what that means. What is he afraid of?
5
As an aside, I always find it perplexing, in regard to how controversial the topic of impeachment is. Because let's suppose that Bill Clinton had been impeached and removed from office. Who would have become president? Al Gore. And now, let's suppose that Donald Trump will be impeached and removed from office. Who would become president? Mike Pence. With my point being that the party in control of the executive branch... retains control of the executive branch. And this is why I personally believe that impeachment should be easy when wrongdoing is apparent, rather than hard. And I think that both of these presidents are/were deserving of removal from office.
4
Ask Mueller about the evidence he found about "collusion".
(He did find evidence, but reported that there was not enough to get beyond reasonable doubt.)
Ask why he did not follow up more strongly the evidence of collusion. Why not more subpoenas? Why cut short the investigation? What should Congress do to followup?
2
Muller is not going to lie so when he is confronted with a direct question, he will have to answer it. His body language, facial expression, and the way he answers, will tell us a lot about the facts how he sees them.
It is the reaction we have from his answers that will guide us to the next action, which is the impeachment of Donald Trump. We will not get this reaction from reading the report.
8
Trying to pin Mueller down is admirable. But he ducked for a reason and that reason hasn't changed.
Mueller knows that Congress can charge Trump with obstruction. But he also knows that unlike Watergate, where the obstruction was the president's involvement in a political burglary, here the obstruction is trying to stymy an investigation into Russia gate that was on shaky ground from the beginning.
The public couldn't countenance their president being involved in a common crime. But Trump has characterized Russia gate and the collusion allegations as a political witch hunt from the beginning and unless Mueller has some bombshells to drop it appears that Trump can emerge with public opinion on his side.
The public knows little about the actual evidence in the DNC "hack" and Mueller knows that if pushed to reveal what he really knows that it would explain why there was no collusion/conspiracy charge.
The DNC "hack" is suspect. The allegation that Russians gave Clinton material to Assange is speculation and the FBI never did their own forensics test of DNC servers. Sloppy police work got swept away by an avalanche of media frenzy.
But that was then. These maters are now before federal judges and they expect evidence, not speculation. And Muller is before congress, under oath. He's hoping the GOP members will be no better prepared to question him than the Democrats are.
Suddenly everyone has an interest in letting the Mueller report speak for itself. And for good reason.
2
A lightning bolt of clarity. Thank you, Mr. Katyal.
3
Let's be honest about this. Barr didn't 'mislead'; he flat out lied. And the delay in releasing the report was merely designed to play into this. I actually did bother to read the report; it was widely available online within hours of its release. And it completely demolishes Barr's claims. Completely. and if you can't indict a sitting president, then George Washington might as well have accepted the crown offered him.
31
The punt from mueller to congress was for congress to take the information in the report and begin the impeachment process. I believe.
3
I think better questions are:
Did the investigation discover collusion by the president?
Did the investigation discover obstruction by the president?
A positive answer to a positive question would brings more powerful clarity.
2
Those questions are certainly a good starting and ending point, for those with attention spans even too short for TV. In between, I hope the get Mueller to talk about what topics he did not investigate; what witnesses he did not obtain testimony from; what documents he did not request or receive. The untold story of this investigation is how narrow it was.
5
The DOJ has warned Mueller to stay in his lane. The fix is in. This will be much ado about nothing. One more disappointment. I’m done hoping justice will prevail.
20
It makes no difference whether the Mueller report totally exonerated the president. The Justice Department reviewed the evidence the report presented and determine it did not support charges of obstruction. It wasn't just Attorney General Barr's option. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is the person who lunched the Mueller investigation, concurred, as did other senior Justice Department officials.
4
I'd like to hear the answer to this question too:
Did Sessions, Barr or Whitaker in any way affect the investigation (including affect the funding)? Or did they in any way restrict or modify the report?
10
@Nonamepls This is the central question. On my observations, Mueller was forced to end the investigation prematurely.
2
Thanks for this. The NYT ran a piece earlier that had 19 questions, none of which asked the most important one:
#1: Did you exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice?
The answer of course is no, as the report clearly indicates.
9
@David Doney Then why even bother to pose the question?
@Peter
Because Trump claimed he was exonerated fully and Mueller on record saying he wasn't will be a helpful excerpt for a quick video pointing out how often Trump lies about everything.
If a President publicly asks for a foreign government's help getting elected, his team works with that foreign power, and an investigation shows they did, what more does it take to attempt to remove the President?
And if the Democrats aren't going there for political reasons, aren't they as cynically calculating at the nation's expense as the GOP?
17
I started out thinking that an impeachment by the House would be a divisive and 'wrong' action, mainly because it would certainly, inevitably fail in McConnell's Senate.
However, I'm coming around to Mr. Katyal's point of view. I'm beginning to believe that impeachment by the House, and the subsequent investigation, then a trial in the Senate would be a -good- thing for the country's future.
Even though McConnell's Senate would certainly fail to find Trump guilty (despite any or all evidence, which wouldn't matter a bit no matter what it was...) it would force the attention of the country and the world onto Trump's actions -- and, no less importantly -- it would spotlight Russia's interference unmistakeably. An impeachment trial by the Senate would force every Senator to go on the record indelibly, with the evidence also on the public record... no hiding, no deflection, no ducking and excusing. Such knowledge is important for the coming 2020 election.
And ultimately, I'm beginning to believe that impeachment by the House should happen, even despite the certainty that the McConnell Senate would never, no matter what, convict Trump, because it is the Constitutional duty of the Congress to do so.
If we gloss over, and fail to take action when credible evidence of lawbreaking by a president, both as candidate and as president exists, then we invite lawbreaking and foreign interference in *every* future election.
We ignore this real evidence at our Constitution's peril.
132
@Jim Brokaw McConnell's power in an impeachment trial would be less than normal because the Chief Justice presides.
4
@Jim Brokaw. You nailed it. An up or down vote IS very important just to get the senators vote on record, especially if Mueller’s testimony is compelling. Many will face re-election in 2020 and it is high time they are forced out of hiding in the shadows and show a spine. I would love to see a TV ad by a McConnell opponent depicting him as complicit in harboring a “fugitive” from justice.
10
@Jim Brokaw Progress is always good. What is this American ideology to always go backwards ?
Justice is not only to condemn. You are still British in philosophy, having won your independence and your constitution by and with French ideas and power and money.
1
The Democrats should keep the focus on impeachment all through Trump's campaign efforts. Keeping the pressure on will force him to defend himself, which will mean more and more lies; maybe about things that were not even in the report. Democrats should still present their issues and keep things constructive, but take turns in a round-robin kind of way that constantly states reasons for impeachment and provides dark information about his weak character.
14
@Robert Armstrong
As utterly loathsome as find Trump and the Republicans who will not dare cross him, I don't think anymore news about Trump's weak character has any meaning anymore. For some perverse reason, his supporters see him not as an existential threat to American democracy but merely a lovable rascal with a bad Twitter habit.
I agree with Nancy Pelosi here. Trump and the Republicans need to be drubbed into a stupor in 2020 and repudiated decisively politically. I'm with you concerning impeachment. It is warranted, the facts demand it and the process merits deep consideration. But that is only one of two choices for driving this traitor out of the White House. The other is a thundering defeat at the ballot box. I also want to hear Democrats roar disapproval of Trump's platform of hate. This is no time to mince words or parse political advantages.
2
The three questions approach is ineffective. Mueller is a prosecutor. And he didn't recommend prosecution or impeachment, nor did he rule it out. Trump is a prospective defendant and the fact of the matter is that his prosecutor did not recommend that he be charged.
Trump has distorted Mueller's findings and has taken the outcome as a victory. But the questioning of Mueller isn't about p[roving Trump's misinterpretation. It's about Trump's impeachment. And if Mueller is asked just one question, it should be: Which of his findings could justify impeachment.
3
@michjas I hear you soundly, but Mr. Mueller's response would simply be that such a question is not for him to answer as it is Congress' decision about what constitutes grounds for impeachment... and the questioning is then back to square one.
This is a very frustrating situation. Republicans and Democrats alike know the truth of the matter here, but we have to play the Socratic method game in order to extract a useful answer. Mueller's reluctance would be useful if he were a judge, mindful of how overreach and loose words can be misapplied, but while his findings were as clear as he thinks he could have made them, the American public has long since lost their sense of subtlety. Mueller needs to state the obvious... and he won't. I will be shocked if the Democrats can overcome the effects of withholding the report for weeks and mischaracterizing its findings by Barr by use of a reluctant witness.
2
It will be enough if Mueller just reads his report.....aloud before the TV cameras.
If there’s any time left, then and only then call for Qs from Committee members.
Let what the public will recall from this moment be the very words of the report in Mueller’s own voice.
4
All 400 pages? Not going to happen.
The House will not start impeachment hearings because the Senate will never convict...
But...
The House passes bill after bill knowing the Senate won’t even vote on them.
What this says about the House is left as an exercise for the reader.
Mueller’s testimony could be critical - but only if the House has the courage to act on it. What are the odds, given what they have done to date?
22
The fact that Barr has stated, while served as AG, that Mueller was permitted to reach a conclusion is overlooked, and important.
Of course, had Mueller reached an (adverse) conclusion, Barr would have probably blocked it as being violative of the OLC policy.
17
@Truth has no side
Barr's response to that hypothetical is irrelevant.
If Mueller had enough evidence to indict, he should have said so in his report. Let Barr contradict him on it, and let Barr bring up the OLC policy.
Since Mueller wasn't even working for the DOJ, Barr had no power over him. Mueller was free to do what he thought was right, within the confines of Rosenstein's mandate letter. Nothing in there states he can't indict people.
1
@Truth has no side
Very astute comment. Not that you need my opinion.
Even Mueller, with his experience and, by all accounts, stellar reputation for adhering to the rule of law and not seeking any spotlight and being ethical, probably knew...in the end....that he could not properly complete the investigation because he could not beat the roadblocks from Trump and the DOJ, especially Barr, and, of course, that NOT A LAW OLC/DOJ memo/policy. And, let's not forget the tenure of Whitaker (kind of the Scaramucci of the Acting AGs) who did not do anything other than be a placeholder, and Rosenstein who was supposedly hoodwinked into writing the "yes, fire Comey" memo.
It's very disheartening.
6
@Viv
With all due respect, the Special Counsel was under the power and supervision of the DOJ.
It's a bit different from back when Ken Starr was an Independent Counsel.
7
What strikes me as very unusual about this whole drama is how Barr has tried to minimize a report written by a trusted investigator, one with plenty of experience and one who was acknowledged to be a person of great integrity. I have rarely seen such undermining of an appointed investigator at this level except by one other administration: Nixon's and we know what happened to Nixon in the end.
Barr is clearly not working for America. He is Trump's man through and through. Nothing Barr says about Mueller's report should be trusted. Perhaps Barr should be brought before same committee after Mueller testifies to answer questions about his own conduct after the report was made. I, for one, find it hard to believe that Mueller was saying that there was no collusion and no other criminal activity or dishonesty beyond the norm being carried out by Trump and his campaign.
7/22/2019 11:05pm
55
@hen3ry
Nixon's investigators came to vastly different conclusions than Mueller did in his report.
Barr did not minimize Mueller's report. Mueller failed to come to definitive conclusions, in stark violation of Rosenstein's mandate letter. Barr therefore had to conclude what Mueller failed to state.
Either way, Mueller has the opportunity to speak for himself, and say if the OLC opinion prevented him from indicting Trump or his associates.
2
@Viv And yet, Nixon tried to fire the special investigator thereby precipitating the Saturday Night Massacre. And yet, Mueller was not allowed to recommend indictment because, according to "recent" tradition, a sitting president (as long as this person is Republican) cannot be charged. Mueller may have decided, in the interest of keeping the discourse "civil" not to recommend indictment because there wasn't overwhelming evidence. Yet another example of how a rich and famous person is treated with kid gloves while the rest of us get no such benefits of the doubt.
7
@Viv Mueller already said it in his report.
6
Since a sitting president cannot be either indicted or convicted of a crime, and the senate would not convict and remove the President if impeached, the hearings and impeachment can be for only 2 purposes: to collect evidence for a post-presidency criminal trial, or political to influence the 2020 election. And since the House seems to be powerless in enforcing its subpoenas, the investigation's utility for post presidency prosecution is minimal.
Which leaves an impeachment investigation with only one purpose: political, to influence the election. It stinks mightily, but the alternative is to turn a blind eye.
4
@Mel
No. An impeachment inquiry would likely lay the grounds for an impeachment due to high crimes....even if not convicted in McConnell's Senate. During Nixon's impeachment, the public was not convinced until AFTER the inquiry as they became convinced by the testimony of witnesses.
11
@Susan. The public was only convinced after they heard the TAPES.
@Mel "Since a sitting president cannot be either indicted or convicted of a crime"
In other words, he literally COULD stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone.
Lovely.
There is one very simple question that must be asked:
"Was there anything other than the Justice Department's policy to not charge a sitting president that stayed your hand from recommending that Donald Trump be charged with obstruction of justice, and if so, what were those things?"
This is not a hypothetical question, but a clear question about what factors stayed Mueller's hand. He can't dodge it as a hypothetical.
31
That Democratic leadership has failed to educate the public about what an impeachment inquiry does and does not entail constitutes political malpractice.
As soon as the redacted report was released, House leadership and party chairs should have held a press conference.
Imagine if each speaker read a single paragraph of the report—one that contradicted the false Trump/Barr narrative. No opinions, no partisan screeching; just facts. Every network but Fox would have covered it.
Mueller will not save us, just as his report couldn’t.
An inquiry does not necessitate articles of impeachment, let alone acquittal. It would afford the apex of legal standing in the courts, public hearings and more evidence.
If public support is (miraculously) unchanged, Dems could announce the grounds for impeachment, cite lack of public support, and call it a day.
Speaker Pelosi appears more afraid to narrowly lose a close election after pursuing impeachment than narrowly losing an election with depressed Dem turnout without impeachment.
When in doubt, always do your job.
10
Mr. Mueller should answer every question either with a yes or with a no. That way, there will be no ambiguity about his testimony.
7
The more I hear people talk about Mueller's work ethic, his adherence to the rules, his not wanting to be a public voice etc., the more unlikely it is that Meuller will be heroic and save our country from a devious, democracy destroying Trump administration. I don't know if he's been threatened by Barr or others in law enforcement but to be so reticent to speak up and explain all that he put in the investigation report is just wrong and unpatriotic. Maybe it's such widespread corruption, and so many people are involved in wrong-doing, that there is no hope for bringing them all to justice. I so hope that is not the situation.
11
I've taken the trouble to look into this, and as far as I've been able to determine, Mr. Mueller shies away from assisting politicians in the furtherance of their personal and their parties' political aims.
I think we should embrace and celebrate Mr. Mueller for this posture, as well as hope that more public servants with his level of integrity will appear on the scene.
6
I was only 13 but I watched as much of the Watergate hearings as I could. I'd be far less enthralled with the whole process this time around because by the time it gets to this stage, they're all out of surprises. Mueller is literally the least likely and last best hope for giving us something nobody's heard yet. If he doesn't rattle the Republican collective conscience, Dems should walk straight away from impeachment.
2
Don't get your hopes up, Mueller is the establishment, the deep state, interested in preserving the status quo and nothing more. I think he will appear visibly irked at being questioned. Does Barr's warning (threat?) to stay within the four borders of the report come with the possibility of legal action against him?
8
Here are a better three questions:
1. Did you find that anyone in the Trump Campaign conspired with the Russian government or their affiliates in any of the Russians' illegal activities targeting the election?
2. Did you find that the president committed obstruction of justice or any other crime?
3. Did you investigate the conspiracy among the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, foreign agent Christopher Steele, and senior officials in the Russian government to affect the outcome of the American election by feeding US intelligence agencies manufactured dirt on Donald Trump?
We already know that the answers to the first two questions are both "no," based on the Mueller Report, but it never hurts to repeat what all the former Obama officials are trying to cover up. And speaking of Obama Administration cover-ups, we can pretty sure the answer to question three is also "no," and Mueller will claim that it was beyond his mandate. Fair enough, but that means that the Justice Department should fully investigate it.
The bottom line is we know that the Trump Campaign did not conspire with Russian officials and the Clinton Campaign did. The only question left is whether the collusion among the Democrats, a foreign spy, and the senior Russians is illegal or just a disturbing, but somehow legal, example of a willingness to work with our adversaries for political gain.
7
@Charles
It's interesting that to date 1024 former DOJ prosecutors who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system, have concluded that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
Maybe you didn't actually read the report but instead read Barr's 3 1/2 page summary.
18
@Charles
I have one question for you and it's a rhetorical one. Did you read the report? Obviously not or you wouldn't be saying the the report cleared the president of obstruction. In fact, over a thousand federal prosecutors have said the president would be indicted for obstruction if he wasn't the sitting president.
14
@Charles,
The answer to your question #3 lies with the RNC. They funded the dossier creation.
2
Barr, in another article is already trying to hem Mueller in, perhaps realizing that he left the door wide open for Mueller to use the word criminality.
Barr is beneath contempt and has shown his colors in two administrations, but has been particularly obsequious to Trump.
Mueller has developed a reputation for being a straight shooter and staying in the lines. I think he will do that, and I am hopeful he will color vividly and with crystal clarity between those lines.
I believe he is disgusted by how Barr has manipulated this report, and this is his chance. He has absolutely nothing to lose by being utterly candid and straightforward.
We are counting on you Mr. Mueller to bring life to these for the nation.
40
@Equilibrium
Mueller will let you down! Again!
Mueller is a life-long Republican. He may not love Trump, but he is loyal the members of his party -- and I think it's obvious. He deliberately made it nearly impossible for Democrats to impeach Trump. He didn't even bother to convene a Grand Jury or to subpoena Trump to testify. He let Trump off the hook.
4
@Equilibrium
...life to these pages...
One possible outcome of Wednesday's proceedings is the GOP questioners' berating Mueller for his alleged conflicts of interest and bias, and the Dems berating him for refusing to do more than simply read portions of the report into the record.
It'll sell some cable airtime on a midweek summer morning, but it's hard to imagine that it will advance the ball for either side in any significant way.
5
Mueller ineffectively distributes his report to America via telegraph. Trump and Barr distort it daily for months on television and broadband with the help of Rupert Murdoch's monopolistic cable and press presence. Trump, Barr & Murdoch have no compunction about publicizing lies or misleading the public, and so owns Mr. Mueller's report because Mueller will not stray from a system designed for 1980.
Mueller may feel righteous about working within the system and in reliance on the system– but it won't do in the age of internet and cable.
I mean no disrespect to a smart and honorable man who has certainly considered his options. But his actions are appropriate to an earlier world. His boss and Trump are working him like a tethered goat.
29
Once again the Democrats are waiting for their deus ex machina in the form of Robert Mueller to fly in and save them. Not going to happen. In the end Mueller is a company man who is not going to step out of the box Barr wants him in. It's up to the Dems to take up where the report led and impeach. The fact that the Senate won't convict is irrelevant. Do the right thing.
32
I agree on all points. Not impeaching makes the Democratic leadership look weak, and it's an abandonment of their duty, and as pointed out sets a very bad standard for future Presidents. This instance highlights the need to change that DOJ policy, since now we have an openly unlawful POTUS. Mr. Mueller's reluctance to just state the obvious, and Barr's intentional misreading, and laughable qualifier "in our judgement" demand the need for clarification to the public.
34
The purpose of Congressional hearings is to EDUCATE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
There is a precedent for that.
On June 17, 1972, the Watergate burglary was committed.
In November 1972, Nixon won a second term with a 520 to 17 Electoral College majority.
In 1973, the Watergate hearings started and the American population was OVERWHELMINGLY against impeachment.
By early 1974, after the American people heard the evidence provided in the Watergate hearings, the majority of the American public was FOR impeachment.
Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, rather then being impeached by the House, tried by the Senate, convicted, and removed from office.
By making the evidence in the Mueller report public, on tv, so that people see and hear it, whether Trump is impeached or not, people will take that evidence into consideration when they vote on November 3, 2020.
53
One more question, and the most important-
Would you have indicted Donald Trump if the DOJ policy prohibiting indicting a sitting President did not exist?
24
@T
I agree, but Mueller will never answer that question because it is hypothetical.
The question outlined in the Op-Ed, of whether or not there was criminality has a far greater chance of being answered.
Lets hope lots of Dems on the committee's read this column.
17
@T. Hundreds of current and former DOJ prosecutors have stated publicly that they would do so. Doesn’t that count for anything? Given that, any notion of a “Deep State” involving that many prosecutors, really stretches the credibility of those espousing it. Frankly, it’s preposterous!
1
The only person who needs to read this is Mr. Mueller and then the only person who needs to act as a man of conscience and as a patriot is Mr. Mueller.
42
@Mark
He won't. He'll act as a life-long, loyal Republican.
1
Neal Katyal was on The Last Word last week and raised all of these issues and posited the three questions he has written in this article. The beauty of his approach and thinking is the simplicity of the questions and knowing how Mueller has testified previously (88 times on Capitol Hill). Mueller will stay within the four corners of the report and its up to Congress to keep their questions within those parameters. The Judiciary Committee would have been well served by having Mr. Katyal or a staff attorney ask the questions in lieu of each member asking their version of the same questions. This will either go well or really bad.
25
If the dem's can put their egos aside and collectively ask sequential questions, build a case, and eliminate wiggle room answers, they may get Mueller to divulge.
I am not hopeful.
10
I don't trust Mueller. He's not naive. He had to know exactly what handing the report over to Barr would lead to, and he should have been more plainspoken and clear in his statement, not the not not style he chose instead. He also so narrowly limited the investigation, apparently ignoring the money trail, that the whole thing seems now just another delay tactic in our ongoing slide toward one-man democracy... Where are our heroes?
16
@sue denim Well, Mr. Mueller is a Marine. He might come through and surprise us all.
I can't wait to find out all about that "back channel" to the Russians that Jared and Don jr. were so busy trying to "open up."
Trump thinks that he, as President, sits atop some vast personal empire when he is really just the highest PUBLIC SERVANT.
18
@Moehoward
I would contend that Trump thinks the public are his servants.
A fourth, pivotal yes-no question for Mr. Mueller: In the absence of the DOJ’ s Office of Legal Counsel opinion stating that a sitting President cannot be indicted, would you have actually sought the indictment of President Trump? (With good fortune, the witness would explicate in detail the obvious follow up inquiry:Why?)
9
After the release of the report, I eagerly awaited a hearing featuring Mr. Mueller. That was mid April. About three months ago. I now have three questions of my own.
1) Since the Democratic leadership has clearly stated it has no plans to impeach Trump, what is the point of having Mr. Mueller testify?
2) After almost three months of total silence about Mr. Mueller’s report and a promise from its author that he has nothing new to add, what is the nature of the media’s interest in the hearing?
3) Will Mr. Mueller’s testimony change one single mind?
6
@Richard Frank
#1: point of having him testify is to clear up the obfuscation and lies by Barr and Trump
#2: The media and the American people were not satisfied with Barr's assessment and don't trust his honesty. Most citizens have not read the report and if they did, would not understand the legal issues. But most all of the public is hoping for more understanding
#3: This depends upon the testimony, but to assume that an honest statement by Mueller, even if constrained will definitely clear up some of the mis-statements but Barr and Trump. If that happens, then many minds will change
10
The simple answers must NOT be that simple as many Ivy League graduates are still debating what I, a lowly laywoman saw from Trump the candidate when he had such glee in referring people to Wikileaks, which I never actually read (I don't think he did either. He didn't have to, as he, obviously, got the cliff notes to use for campaigning.) as they were illegally obtained. There was definitely collusion when Junior is happy to meet with the Russians, who outright say "as their way of supporting your father's candidacy. Obstruction is just as obvious, with Trump's interview with Lester Holt, and when he meets with Russians in the Oval Office overjoyed with his ridding of James Comey, thinking it rids him of the pressure related to Russia. Total exoneration was always Trump's biggest lie, allowed him by his new A.G. Barr. Trump and many others are guilty of treasonous behaviors towards these not-so United States. Justice must be served. The rule of law has to triumph or our democracy is done for. The day of reckoning will come.
54
From your lips, Mr. Katyal, to our representatives' ears. I'm not holding my breath.
17
Great questions that cut to the chase. I would preface the questions with, "Is it true...."
I would ask if Mr. Mueller had enough time to complete his investigation after Mr. Barr became AG. I am convinced--though I have no proof--that Mueller was told to "wrap things up." Since Mueller must stay in the confines of the report, perhaps the individual asking this question can refer to the time elapsed that is clearly outlined in the report.
I would like to ask him to tell us what, in the report, would have been clearer if he had brought Mr. Trump in to testify in person.
4
@KH It’s fine. The report clearly states at least 10 instances of obstruction by Trump. Conspiracy aside, it also demonstrates collusion with the Russians. Mueller needs to enumerate these facts, clearly snd succinctly.
1
Mr. Katyal wants to solicit the correct answers. Unfortunately, the three great questions wouldn't change any minds of Trump supporters or Republican senators and congressmen. So truthfulness or morality aren't the factors, what side of the divide you are matters. Another spectacle that is of no consequence for us to watch.
6
@Jack We don’t care about Trump supporters or Republicans. A handful of Independents will do nicely.
3
Nothing the Dems ask will change the finding that there was no evidence of Russian collusion, which was the main inquiry. And the justice department has already found that trump's actions as described in the report do not amount to obstruction.
7
@R.P.
"Collusion" was not the point of the investigation.
The Justice Dept. is currently acting as the Presidential Counsel.
28
@R.P. Balderdash! This is GOP propaganda. Mueller's report didn't say they didn't find any evidence of collusion. They evaluated it based upon charging a conspiracy, which is the applicable legal statute.
The evidence they found did not rise to the level of being charged as a conspiracy. However, given the lies they were told, the inability to question witnesses not in the country and the Trump campaign members lying, using communication apps that destroy messages and made them unavailable, it was possible having those things available would have shed more light on the findings or perhaps seen them in a different light. I've paraphrased here, but it's in the report. Try reading it. Even the Executive Summaries.
The GOP is counting on it the fact you won't.
5
Yes. Yes it was. Mueller was given near infinite resources to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and collusion with members of the Trump Campaign. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia...
All signals from Mueller indicate Mueller will choose to subordinate himself to William Barr rather than act in the best interests of his country.
Mueller could do more than any other single person in this country to improve the chances of our country surviving Trump’s attack on our democracy. If he chose to do so.
It does not appear he will.
84
I read the Mueller Report and the Barr letter. The Barr letter did not misrepresent the Report. The Report found no evidence of collusion and punted on the question of obstruction of justice. Barr and other career lawyers at DOJ determined that obstruction could not be proven on the facts set forth in the Report, properly in my view. Despite all the hyperventilating about "The Rule of Law" during this whole Russia investigation farce, it is important to understand that the obstruction statutes are so vaguely worded, and open to such a wide range of possible interpretation (particularly on determining such inherently ambiguous concepts as "corrupt intent"), that they are a standing invitation to abuse by aggressive prosecutors (and partisan commentators). They -- like many other criminal statutes that are virtual blank checks for prosecutors -- represent the real threat to The Rule of Law. Let's move on.
5
@JMM 1000+ former fed prosecutors from both sides of the aisle disagree.
The report absolutely does not say there was no evidence of "collusion". There was evidence, it did not rise to the level of charging a conspiracy. Which may have been affected by these facts: they were lied to by Trump campaign members, couldn't compel interviews of people not in the US, and if not for the Campaign people using apps that destroyed messages.
Read the Executive Summaries and quit passing around GOP propaganda. This kind of message is exactly why Mueller has to testify.
7
@JMM: "The Barr letter did not misrepresent the Report."
Try again.
" ... on March 27, three days after Attorney General William Barr cleared President Trump of criminal wrongdoing in a misleading and incomplete summary of Mr. Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation, the special counsel felt compelled to protest. In a letter made public on Wednesday, just as Mr. Barr was preparing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the American public got its first glimpse of how the special counsel thinks and speaks about his work.
Mr. Mueller’s tone and tenor are remarkable — and a sharp rebuke to Mr. Barr."
Read the coverage of the letter that Mueller sent to Barr, and the letter itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/barr-mueller-letter.html
@JMM Another liar. The report’s conclusion dealt with conspiracy, not collusion.
1
I hope the Republicans don’t harass and try to discredit Mueller.
Regardless of political persuasions, half of that report was about Russian interference. We’re all on the same side - America’s - and GOP leaders need to show Mueller, the messenger, respect.
The world is watching, Putin’s watching, and I for one don’t want to be embarrassed for my country.
39
This isn’t about what Mueller wants to do, this is what he is obligated to do to as part of the job he accepted as Special Counsel. The reality is that most people are busy with their own lives and do not have time to read a four hundred page report. Additionally, most in the the general public do not have the legal expertise to understand the nuances, legal distinctions, and definitions in Mueller’s/the report’s language. We “the people” deserve honest, clear statements about what Mueller and his staff found in the investigation and how they view next steps. The questions asked should be direct and clear and Mueller’s answers should be clear and unambiguous. This is about what the public needs, not what Mueller wants.
44
I am in the 1% who have read Mr. Mueller's report, or at least 96% as my Kindle notes. I will have finished it by the time Mr. Mueller testifies this week. Not being a lawyer, I don't fully understand all I read. However, I am impressed with the amount of work done by the Special Council, the different ways and multiple times he discovered Trump tried to derail the investigation, the disgusting behavior of him and his associates, and the evenhandedness of Mr. Mueller in the presentation of his findings. In this article, Mr. Katyal presents a handful of questions that when answered by Mr. Mueller based on his report would skewer Trump and, except for his blinded base, would cause our citizenry to demand our sitting president be moved from the White House to the Big House!!!
162
Fat chance.
Mr. Katyal, when you helped to write the DOJ guidelines prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president, did you ever think that prohibition put in jeopardy a fundamental American value: no person is above the law?
32
@JT FLORIDA Mr Katyal wrote the guidelines for the Special Counsel, not the OLC memo that is the basis for the flawed rationale that a sitting President can't be indicted. That was written by Heritage Foundation lawyers during the Bush Administration, intended to be a "get out of jail free card" for future Republican Presidents. As you can plainly see, it has worked as was designed.
40
@Tom: on January 4, 2018, Mr. Katyal was interviewed on NPR’s “ Fresh Air “Program.The interviewer was Terry Gross:
“GROSS: This is FRESH AIR My guest is Neal Katyal. He drafted the regulations defining the powers of the special counsel and the limitations of those powers.”
The key words, “ defining the special powers and the limitations of those powers” is really important.
Any later memos just built upon the work started by Katyal.
3
Each member of Congress who fails to put themselves on the line here should be held in contempt of "we the people" and judged accordingly in the elections of 2020.
Trump's impunity is not the issue.
The central riveting question that penetrates our collective conscience is did Trump commit crimes that would be prosecuted were it not for his status as POTUS?
Surely, Mueller will not whitewash the facts; would he?
No, he resents and finds morally offensive Barr's misinterpretation of well-founded facts and he will provide the lift-off platform for impeachment proceedings to proceed accordingly.
Be that as it may ensue, remember the Dems ought not grandstand in this but be grim, concise, and self-effacing in their questioning to avoid as much as possible the media's spins against them.
It is a make-or-break opportunity for a man of few words to redirect the inquiry we must follow.
I wish him well in this. I see him as an Honest Abe and i love his pointed goal of justice.
He will do us a good turn I feel.
14
@Discernie
I think you're dreaming. By the way did you know he is barred from discussing the redacted portions?
You say: ... " in an era when our leaders have lied about it in the hope that Americans won’t read it, we need simple connect-the-dots questions clearly posed that will correct the record".
Personally, I want the i's dotted and the t's crossed.
Nail it, once and for all time, is my hope.
16
I would only add two questions. 1) Mr. Mueller, please tell us precisely where AG Barr went wrong in his truncated summary of your team's report? What in it was misleadIng?
2) In your report you, Mr Mueller, were eloquent about vast Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential elections and you warned us to take steps to render less harmful the expected similar effort in 2020. Based on the investigation and your years of experience as FBI Director, what practical steps should we take to forestall Russian meddling in 2020?
Note to Democrats. Leave grandstanding to Republicans. Short, crisp questions, please. The future of the Republic depends far less on impeachment than on your self-control.
72
@Frank McNeil But out of respect for his republican superiors, mealy-mouthed Mueller will not answer clearly to any Democratic questioning. He's a kowtowing soldier to the republicans' military industrial cesspool, and always has been. Better off to invest in Raytheon and other corporations' bombing of Iran than expect Mueller to speak truth to power. Aint gonna happen.
One hopes Jerrold Nadler wouldn’t pass out or faint during the hearing, he is 78 years old.
Jerrold fainted during a town hall meeting recently.
2
@Independent voter Mr. Nadler was born in 1947. That would make him 72 years old. I heard he needed a drink of water and then he was fine.
2
Mr. Katyal: The Trump tweet which you reference says in its entirety: "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!"
So if Mr. Mueller wants to be really cagey, and by that I mean Bill Barr cagey, in response to your three questions he may say: "I don't know what Mr. Trump was referring to when he issued this statement. The statement does not refer to my report at all. Maybe he was just expressing his personal opinions. You'll have to ask him what he meant. But if you want to know what my report says, just read it. It speaks for itself."
11