Weâre going to need a new drinking game.
âI understand that Mr. Mueller doesnât want it to become a media circus if he decides to testify, but the American public has a right to hear directly from him,â Kennedy said in a statement. âHis investigation cost the American taxpayers more than $25 million. They donât want a filtered version of his testimony spun by members of Congress with partisan agendas.â
Money quote right there! Amash was only the beginning. Reality is starting to seep into the awareness of a growing number of Congressional Republicans. Theyâre realizing their careers as public servants depend on it.
And those who are already considered odd ducks are the only ones, yet, ready to say this outloud.
Interesting thing for him to say on the same day this came out âŚ
"Mueller drew up obstruction indictment against Trump, Michael Wolff book says"
The Guardian indicates it has reviewed documents. I certainly canât vouch for authenticity. Mueller spokesperson denies.
Michael Wolff has a new scoop out from his upcoming book saying that Mueller did draft an indictment of Trump on obstruction but didnât ultimately go there. If you put 2 + 2 together it would suggest that Mueller was turned down by Rosenstein based on the OLC memo. Peter Carr, the OSC spokesman, has denied it and has said âthe documents do not existâ. Oh really? Did they exist at one time but are now shredded? Did Mueller never draft but had a discussion w/Rosenstein on the matter, expressed his views in favor of impeachment and was rebuffed? Or, did the topic or idea never come up? Given that Mueller centers his decision to punt to Congress on the OLC memo, itâs inconceivable to me that it didnât come up with Rosenstein and later Barr. So, I think Wolff has the broad outlines of the story right and Carr is doing his now typical lying by parsing.
This is one of the reasons why Mueller may want to testify at least partially in private. I think Mueller should testify multiple times and Nadler should inform him as such. If Mueller acknowledges that he will come whenever called, Nadler could agree to a public opening statement and private questioning provided that public opening statement actually says something informative and doesnât include 15 hedges. We expect the truth.
ââI understand that Mr. Mueller doesnât want it to become a media circus if he decides to testifyâŚâ
ââŚso I decided that the best way to undermine, delay or even scuttle his testimony would be to demand that it be done in precisely the manner he doesnât want it to beâŚand then visit upon him everything he fears coming out of it being done that way. Wait 'till you hear the soundbites I have prepared claiming that Mueller compromised the entire investigation by politiciziing it with his testimonyâŚâ
I know the boo-birds will descend on this oneâŚbut I also know that cover is the name of the game for politicians.
And with Trump guarding his affairs like a, well⌠guilty man, why would people believe that what Trump is so afraid of will not come out?
Muellerâs team apparently denies this and Faux News has been running wild with misleading headlines and commentary about the situation, so Iâd be careful with that alleged factoid until we have better proof.
It will all come out. Just a question of when. Late November 2020, after his re-election, is a bit too lateâŚ
Could be Sen. Kennedy wants face time to shore up his base, OR it could be the internal polls are devastating and it is every man for himself. Time will tell.
RE: They donât want a filtered version of his testimony spun by members of Congress with partisan agendas.
But Barrâs filtered version is okay?
You make a good point. I was trying to think of what Kennedyâs stance really meant. My guess was that he thinks that Mueller would actually exonerate him, just as Barr suggested. Your take is better.
Well, and itâs also fun (and infuriating) watching Kennedy project and spin to deflect from a âfiltered version of [the Mueller Report] spun byâ William Barr and his âpartisan agendaâ.
Baby step by baby step the Rethugs are speaking out in different ways. Itâs starting, theyâre no longer in lock step.
Or C) The Senators and Congresscritters are sitting on significantly more detailed info, via leakers and classified briefings, than we are aware of.
And the scale of whatâs behind the curtain is of such significance that thereâs a real struggle on all sides of the best way to move forward. If youâre a Republican, do you just dump and pray? Or do you let things dribble out, which takes time, but might avoid the explosion.
If youâre a Dem, do you launch impeachment now? What if you canât get through legitimate means what youâve already gotten on the side? Do you burn various sources and potentially âoutâ them? Do you wait on impeachment until you know that you have a copy of the pee tape thatâs not traceable back to Eminâs dad?
With this Kennedy, I smell a rat. They might think that Mueller will hold back in public testimony more than he might in private. There has to be some nefarious motive.
Itâs about time. The one involving a shot every time Trump says something outrageoush tyrnsh outttt to be a mishnake ⌠I mean tishmake ⌠moose steak ⌠bad hic idea (thud)
MaybeâŚsomewhat tongue in cheek and cynical on my part. The reality is, the one question we want a âYesâ to from Mueller is one that he will probably refuse to answer with a âYesâ and the GOP and MSM will treat that as exoneration.
âBut for the DOJ/OLC policy prohibiting indictment of a sitting president, would Trumpâs actions have given rise to obstruction charges?â
or perhaps stated in another way âWould the same set of facts have resulted in obstruction charges against anyone but the POTUS?â
Something along those lines anyway. I think Mueller will, unfortunately, say he canât answer that, at which point the crowing about exoneration will begin anew.
If youâre implying that we should not trust anything Kennedy says, I am with you. Iâm simply interested in WHY he felt he had to say anything at allâŚ