I tend to jump to conclusions when this shit comes up. So I am going to withhold judgement until tomorrow.
I will say that I am struggling to understand Nadler and Pelosi’s strategy here. Maybe I will be surprised tomorrow. Maybe not. But come 2020, we not only need a new president but new leadership across the board.
ArroGanT thaT LibTards wanT Mueller tO LiE. No obsTruction! No Collusion!
The Jersey Giants, according to my BIL, who is a big fan.
Could be that Mueller is more concerned about Republicans’ nonsense and grandstanding more than the Democrats’ putting him on the spot with “out of bounds” questions. I don’t expect any more out of Mueller tomorrow than we already know. But I doubt that the Meadows-Collins-Jordan Troika will get to to scandalize Mueller or his report either.
That said, it’s likely that this actually limits GOP plans for the hearing more than Democrats. That’s true, in part, because Democrats have already been planning really milquetoast questions, assuming that having Mueller read directly from his report will be sufficient to generate new outrage over Trump’s actions. But it’s also true because most of the things Republicans want to emphasize — the role of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the Steele dossier, the FBI’s use of informants, Carter Page’s FISA application — are mostly outside the scope of the report. About half the questions Chuck Ross suggested, for example, would be outside the scope of the report (while I situated my questions more closely in existing public documents, probably half of mine would be deemed to go beyond the report as well).
And there’s no point in disparaging Nadler. He really doesn’t have any credible means of enforcement to rely on. And I doubt anyone else could do better under the circumstances.
Thanks for the most sane and realistic post I read so far.
Marcy Wheeler thinks this is a good thing, and notes that it’s at Mueller’s behest.
I hope somebody on those committees has been listening to Preet Bharara and Anne Milgram’s Cafe Insider podcast. They had a great discussion about what questions are most likely to illicit a useful response from Mueller.
REPOSTED FROM ANOTHER THREAD:
Here are some questions for Mueller focused on the obstruction issue and what his conclusions mean at a high level:
Q1-1: You say four times in the Report that you determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. You rely in large part on the OLC memo which says a sitting POTUS should not face indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting POTUS b/c it would undermine the capacity to perform constitutionally assigned functions and violate the separation of powers. Can you confirm that? (Y/N).
Q1-2: If, yes, did you feel compelled to give us a lengthy discussion of the OLC memo b/c the POTUS’ conduct did meet the threshold to be charged for the Federal crime of obstruction of justice?
Q1-3: Process Question: What was the sequence of the investigative and charging analysis process? Did your investigative team compile evidence first, determine if conduct met the elements required to charge individuals with federal crimes, and then your team applied the OLC memo analysis where it concerned the potential liability of the sitting POTUS?
Q1-4 Based on your investigative and charging analysis process, if there had not been evidence to meet the elements of the Federal crime of obstruction of justice, would you have even had to discuss the OLC memo and the ability to charge the POTUS with federal crimes in such detail?
Q2: You also said on Vol 2, page 1, “apart from OLCs constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” Your footnote cites the impeachment article of the US Constitution. (Art 1 Sec. 2 clause 4; Sec. 3, Cl 6).
Q2-1: Is it your view that impeachment should come first before a criminal prosecution? If so, can Vol II of your report be properly read as an impeachment referral? If not, why not?
Q2-2: If so, is that because you concluded that the President’s conduct met the elements to potentially be charged with the federal crime of obstruction of justice?
Q3: You highlight on Vol 2, Pg 1-2, that the OLC Memo recognizes that despite the POTUS’ immunity from being charged for Federal crimes while in office, he does not have immunity after he leaves office. Your basis for investigating him was to preserve evidence for future decision makers.
Q3-1: Is one purpose of investigating, preserving and presenting evidence for future decision makers to enable them to make a charging decision if they see fit?
Q3-2: Is one purpose of investigating, preserving and presenting evidence is to enable Congress to consider impeachment?
Q3-3: In your interpretation of the OLC memo, does conduct by a sitting POTUS that meets the elements of the Federal crime of obstruction of justice require you to make a referral to Congress?
If you find evidence of Federal crimes, do you have the option not to inform Congress?
Why did you inform Congress if not to alert us that Federal crimes may have been committed by a sitting POTUS and that Congress should consider it?
Q4: The most widely quoted passage of your report says the following (Vol 2, Pg 2):
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report doesnot concludethat the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Q4-1: In plain English, is your investigative conclusion that the POTUS’ conduct met the elements of the Federal crime of obstruction of justice? Note: that is separate from whether you had the authority to charge him. We accept your reliance on the OLC memo, however flawed, as the basis for your conclusions on that issue.
Q4-2: You said, ‘If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state’. Is a fair interpretation of that sentence that the POTUS might have committed obstruction of justice? Is that statement intended to signal to Congress that it should consider the facts you uncovered and make a determination?
Q4-3: You said, ‘The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred,’ Is a fair interpretation of that sentence that the POTUS might have committed obstruction of justice? If so, is it your view that Congress has the right to consider this report as a referral for possible impeachment proceedings?
Q4-4: You said, ‘Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’, Is a fair interpretation of that sentence that the POTUS’ conduct met the elements of the federal crime of obstruction of justice, but per the OLC memo, the charging decision must be made by Congress while he remains in office, or prosecutors after he leaves office?
Ya beat me to it. 
Today’s dems (or should it be toady dems?) typically punt on 2nd down.
I am still waiting for the sternly worded letter that Pelosi and Nadler are considering. No, actually, they are waiting for the proper moment to think about raising the issue of whether to debate the possibility of whether or not to draft an outline about a potential debate which might consider whether or not to even consider discussing the drafting of a sternly worded letter. If they allow that thought cross their minds.
What is almost as embarrassing as having trump as our president is the spinelessness continually exhibited by Dems on the Hill. The GOP may be a party of corrupt, lying, cheating hippo-critter-like sycophantic trump supporters (looking at you, Senators Rubio and Graham) but they show absolutely no fear of criticism or bad press. They simply double down. In the Dems’ case, the threat of a shadow crossing their path is sufficient to keep them from even crossing the street.
No, just skeptical and not a little fatalistic. Who knows, maybe we’ll get lucky and Mueller may let his guard down and say something that bodes further ill for Trump or Jr. But I doubt it, Mueller is too smart and experienced. Luck, good or bad may have more to do with the outcome than planning or rhetorical finesse.
when i first heard about this letter, the thing got me was that the DOJ is not allowing mueller to discuss his methods, and techniques that lead to his conclusions…saying its “presidential Privilege”…
Until Nadler and the house challenges this whole privilege shit in court this is all BS…
Yes. Also, I am not sure on this but I think one of the biggest pieces the Ds want in their pocket, before impeachment is declared, is Mueller’s testimony. I am unsure of WHY they want or need it, since they have the report. However they have been stymied on every other front, the grand jury testimony and unredacted versions, and every single other witness. So, they get Mueller on record, have the late summer congressional Hiatus, and come back afterwards to begin impeachment. If they then REALLY drag it out they can hopefully eat up a lot of the election cycle with impeachment hanging over Chump’s head and weighing on Senate Rs campaigns.
The only other slow-walking I would find permissable would be, even this fall might be too early to use impeachment as an R Campaign Wrecker and it needs to be used closer to Jan 1. I don’t like it, I don’t want that, but if D leadership has determined their play is to use impeachment as a wrecking ball for the 2020 elections…they need to launch it when they need to launch it. I don’t see them TELLING US the plan as a deal breaker. They need to confide with Ds WHAT IS HAPPENING or folks can’t get onboard and support them. Who cares if it tips our hands or let’s Rs see the strategy. They can probably guess.
So that’s my take. As horrible and long as the process is, the Ds feel launching impeachment earlier than this fall or even Jan 1 was going to allow the likelihood that it would conclude too early. Whether it was devastating to Chump or only a very large irritant…if he survives it he will have too much time to regroup and the usual U.S. short term memory will kick in.
If that is not the plan, and after the recess we don’t see huge movement or at least Pelosi coming clean and telling the D base what the plan is…I will be howling along with everyone else.
When did they ever worry about rules unless they serve their purposes?
The only party that will try to follow the rules will be ours.
The first thing to realize is that Nadler and Pelosi are pursuing two different and conflicting goals. Nadler wants to start impeachment inquiries now. Pelosi doesn’t. Nadler isn’t willing to break with her on this, because its a fight that guarantees both sides lose. (Nadler won’t convince her, and won’t get the votes…today. But it will mortally wound Pelosi for rest of her term).
So by bringing Mueller to publicly testify, he is attempting to whip up support for impeachment inquiries in both the House and the public…by keeping it “alive”. He believes, probably correctly, that if he can eventually get a majority of Dems to back his goal, Pelosi will relent.
But I seriously doubt that this point that Pelois is going to relent easily. Or that she is going to stay neutral in the background. But that’s just my opinion.
Meadowlands, home of fine football and possibly Jimmy Hoffa.
Somewhere I was listening last night (Rachel maybe?) someone said the Dems found out the Repubs had done a practice hearing so the Dems decided they should do one too. Really? It took them that long to make that decision? They should have been doing this for weeks so that absolutely (or almost absolutely) no time would be wasted on asking stupid questions or grandstanding.
And there’s no point in disparaging Nadler. He really doesn’t have any credible means of enforcement to rely on. And I doubt anyone else could do better under the circumstances.
True, but after Mueller disappoints tomorrow, the country’s future will be in the hands of Congress. Will they start issuing and enforcing subpoenas, vote for an impeachment inquiry or get in line and wait 15 months, hoping for victory? I’m looking for a profile in courage. Maybe I watch too many movies but someone has to lead us out of this.
Meadowlands, home of fine football and possibly Jimmy Hoffa.
In one of the end zones, if I remember correctly from the gossip at the time.
Because he is the only option that realistically have right now, until the courts make some rulings on rejected subpoenas and criminal contempt motions.
I doubt you will see that happen. Because I don’t think Pelosi will ever be behind impeachment until such imaginary time happens where a majority of Dems AND republicans back such a move.
Pelosi is an institutionalist at her core. She loves the House fiercely, and is a master tactician with its rules. But being an institutionalist means she sees launching an impeachment without that sort of support as being anti institutions, shaking things up too much, if you will. And she sees that as high risk, something she doesn’t want to do in a General Election season.
So I seriously doubt we will ever see Pelosi publicly making statements backing opening of an impeachment inquiry. The best we could hope for is some angst filled statement about reluctantly having to move to start the inquiry because the majority demand it. (and she would do that, if the numbers I outlined were ever there).
A certain segment of America definitely is, and it’s represented by the however many engaged TPMers there are. In MSM with the exception of overexcited MSNBC talkers? Not so much.