Old Lardass liked what Ratcliffe did

Ratcliffe gets a reward.

Ratcliffe smirked and tried to land a blow against Mueller during the Judiciary Committee hearing.  Who else pleased Himself ?

President Donald Trump’s just-announced nominee to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence had already drawn national attention earlier this week, when he delivered an aggressive diatribe against former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, had zeroed in on one of the key lines from Mueller’s report on Russian election interference, possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself.

[...]

During Mueller’s first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Ratcliffe said he agreed with Mueller’s conclusions that Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election were “sweeping and systematic.”

But he tore into Mueller for including the asterisk in his report that explicitly said Trump was not exonerated.

“Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked Mueller.

The former special counsel responded, “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

Ratcliffe shot back: “You can’t find it, because – I’ll tell you why – it doesn’t exist.”

[...]

“You managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis.”

Trump shouldn’t be above the law, Ratcliffe added, “but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where volume two of this report puts him.”

  CNBC

Just listen to his audition for the job:

 

Mueller didn’t get a chance to reply to Ratcliffe — instead the tightly controlled hearing shifted to another Democratic member’s line of questioning.

[...]

The director of national intelligence oversees the government’s intelligence agencies, coordinates the country’s global information-gathering operation and frequently briefs the president on threats each morning.

Coats stepped into the role in March 2017, but how long he would remain was a constant source of speculation because of his many differences with Trump over foreign policy. Coats has publicly broken with the president on several critical fronts, including during public testimony before the Senate on North Korea, Iran and Syria.

Earlier this year, Coats told a Senate panel that North Korea was not likely to give up its nuclear weapons, Iran was not yet seeking a nuclear weapon and the Islamic State terrorist group remained a forceful presence in Iraq and Syria.

  Politico

I'm sure Ratcliffe will assure us otherwise.

Ratcliffe met privately with Trump at the White House on July 19 to discuss his interest in the job, The New York Times reported, citing unidentified administration officials.

Five days before Mueller's testimony. He knew what he had to do.

In fact, Judiciary Committee Republicans gave Ratcliffe an early chance to question the former special counsel next after the panel’s ranking member by skipping over several more senior members.

Because they knew Trump wouldn't be able to sit through more than fifteen minutes?  The party of obvious whores.

UPDATE:



I didn't know the admin gave a shit about legally.  His Lardship, in particular, thinks Article II of the Constitution says he can do anything he wants.

Opting to go silent on the Mueller hearings

I must admit I'm surprised his first tweets today weren't about the "witch hunt" and how ruined the Democrats are.  There were plenty of GOP blows in the first hearing that I expected him to keep banging on about. Maybe he's being told to shut up about it, and he'll burst out again shortly.  We've seen that happen.  Or could it simply be that Fox & Friends isn't talking about it since these last tweets?








...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Clarification - sort of - regarding the statute of limitations running out for Trump

From an earlier post:

Quigley also noted that a second term for Trump, which would surpass the statute of limitations on his crimes, would essentially put the president above the law. Mueller said he wouldn't characterize it that way. But it's effect is right, and Quigley noted that this is why we have to pursue other avenues - i.e., impeachment.

When asked the question about the statute of limitations running out while Trump is in office on a second term, leaving him free from legal action, Mueller responded, "I don't know about that."  And then he added he isn't certain he can see that possibility.

In this All the President's Lawyers podcast, Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, talks about the issue thusly:

Mariotti: Tolling a statute of limitations is  essentially when a statute of limitations is paused for a particular period of time.   [...]    Sometimes there are exceptions that toll that.  For example, if  the wrongdoer has hidden certain aspects of their criminal activity, that can toll the statute for a period of time.   [...]  Mueller, rightfully, I think, answered at first, "I don't know."  I think that's the right answer, because the issue's never come up; it's never been considered by a court, and who the heck knows what a court would do with that?  [...]  But I think Mueller, in the end, also is reflecting the fact -- at a certain point at the end, he said it couldn't be, and that's probably because there's a notice issue to a defendant.  If I was representing Trump or someone in that situation, what I would be arguing is he could not possibly know that he could be prosecuted many years later and that this tolling would take place.

Barro:  [...] In this instance, we're talking about these are actions the president took in 2017 and 2018 that could have conceivably been obstruction of justice; it could also apply to actions the president took in 2016 related to those hush payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.  So, if the president didn't leave office until 2025, and that was more than five years after the criminal act, you'd basically have to make an argument that the statute of limitations didn't apply because the presidency was protecting him from indictment. [...] But, I guess your contention is that you would have had to tell the president while he's still in office that it's your intention to indict him later in order to create that notice?

Mariotti:  Well, I just think that nothing like that is clearly established in law, and there's an issue as to whether or not notice is given to people that if you commit a crime, you have liability years later. [...] Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general, made the argument on my podcast months ago [...] but I think that, not only has no court ever gone this direction because they've never considered the issue, I think that there would be huge notice problems to someone. Typically, statute of limitations, exceptions and tolling of statute of limitations are either set forth clearly in a statute, or they're due to some action or misconduct on the part of the person themselves.  Here, being president is not itself misconduct.  I haven't looked at the issue carefully.  It would take a lot of legal research, but I think there would certainly be arguments that Trump could make that he did not have sufficient notice.

I think we have to get used to the idea that Trump may never face justice for his crimes.  Unless the Southern District of New York gets him for money laundering, and that would not surprise me.  It also would not surprise me if something very drastic happens and Trump never leaves office until he dies, at which point, Ivanka would be our president.  The question is, if that happens, will we rise up and rebel?

If Trump does leave office in the next two or six years and is replaced by a legitimate democratic president and Congress, there will be a horrendous amount of work to be done to make new laws that prohibit this nightmare's recurrence.  Norms will not cut it from here on out.  And with the Roberts Court, maybe laws won't either.  Our days of reckoning are upon us.  They were bound to arrive.

In defense of Mueller's testimony

Josh Barro interviewed Renato Mariotti on All the President's Lawyers immediately after Mueller's testimony.

UPDATE:  Mariotti discusses Mueller's testimony on his own podcast On Topic.

What happened?

Also, he said numerous times that this was a special case, because it involved the president.  I think there's much too much deference being paid to the office.  To the point that we have a mobster in the White House who wants to stay there (or put a family member there), and nobody who can is willing to put him out.




A couple of Republicans made sure to note that it could be possible Steele was taken in by Russian disinformation.  No Democrat touched the subject. And Barr's DOJ is now investigating - gee, I wonder what their conclusion will be.  We're essentially left with the idea that the Steele reports have been discredited.  I don't know the truth behind any of these claims, but I do think a once useful and credible intelligence source will not be providing US agencies any more help.


Except he did say unequivocally that this was no witch hunt.  He was clear about that.  Trumpaloes are going to lie forever and ever amen.  No matter what Mueller had said, they would do that.  But, that first hearing did leave lots of room for them to claim vindication.  Party the Dems fault and partly Mueller's.  (But Mueller had no political dog in this non-witch hunt.)



Sarah is right, and that's why I've been saying that the Dems are making a huge mistake if they're hanging their impeachment decision on the Mueller report and obstruction of justice charges.



Sad, but true.

Cock in Chief

It better not be.  But let him go ahead and get too cocky.

Harsh, Michael, harsh.



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Adam Schiff's excellent opening statement

The Criminal in Chief (re)tweeted throughout the hearingsd

Make that the first hearing.  (The one where the Democrats showed poorly, and the Republicans looked strong.)  

Don't ask me why he pinned that tweet to the top of his Twitter accuont.  Just so he could call Schiff a name, I suspect.

Funny, he hasn't tweeted about the second hearing other than this one tweet about the very beginning where Mueller made his opening statement.

That is so rich.

I assume he's referring to his immediate previous (re)tweet:



So you don't have to click, this is where Mueller corrected something from the first hearing where Ted Lieu said Mueller didn't charge Trump because of the OLC rule that a sitting president can't be indicted.  He says the correct way to say it is, "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president commited a crime."

The rest of his retweets are from the first hearing.









He'll live off that first hearing.

Mueller testimony

Eric Swalwell (D) presented a slide of the convicted Trump cabal liars:



Asked by Swalwell if the investigation was hampered by encryption and deletion of electronic messages, Mueller replied, "True."  He also agreed that other info protected by attorney-client privilege hampered the investigation.  He won't discuss whether he wanted to subpoena or interview Junior, but he will say he wanted to interview Senior.  Does this indicate there's still an investigation out there that includes Junior? Perhaps a counterintelligence investigation?  That may explain why it seems Junior got off.  Maybe he's not clear yet.  Maybe that's one of the aspects that Mueller's team passed off to another office.*

Will Hurd (R) mimicked Justin Amash's performance in an earlier Congressional hearing in that he actually asked questions designed to get information about intelligence and counterintelligence and what we can do to prevent Russia from interfering again, which is ostensibly why this committee is having this hearing.  Kudos to one more Republican.  Hopefully, he won't be driven out of the Party because of it, as Amash was.  Looking back, I see Hurd has been cross-ways with Trump before:  on the border wall, and on reopening some agencies Trump shut down.

John Ratcliffe (R), who was also on the previous committee and very aggressive there, declined to ask any questions, and tried to look gracious by thanking Mueller, acting like he respects the man.  Even Devin Nunes has been respectful (while his opening statement as Ranking Member was highly critical of the Dems and generally disparaged the Mueller report).

Republicans on both committees brought up the idea that Konstantin Kilimnik, whom Manafort provided polling data to and is characterized in the report as a Russian agent, is actually connected to US intelligence.  That has surely come out before, but I don't recall hearing it (although I may have and just forgot).  Mueller won't comment.  I wonder, if this is true, whether Manafort would have known that, or if he were being played as part of the intelligence scheme/investigation that was already underway when the Special Counsel was appointed.

Peter Welch (D) read out a list of evidence of conspiracy in the Mueller report, which Republicans have been repeatedly saying the report found no evidence of.

Welch asks if accepting information and help from foreign countries is now going to be the new normal.  Mueller says he hopes not, but "I fear it is."  In fact, Trump has said he'd accept it again.

Patrick Maloney (D) asks why Mueller didn't subpoena the president.  He answers they negotiated for over a year to get an interview, but finally, having had no success, they didn't want to subpoena because of the "necessity of expediting the end of the investigation," and that a subpoena would drag it out.  He says the written responses "were not as useful."  Incomplete, inadequate, imprecise, etc.  Maloney asks why it stopped being vital to get the president's interview, something Mueller had claimed when asking for a face-to-face.  Maloney wonders if Mueller didn't think he needed it in the end.  Did you have sufficient evidence without it to show the president's intent to obstruct?  "We had to make a balanced decision....We didn't do the interview because of the length of time it would take," is all Mueller would admit to.

Val Demings (D) asks if they asked all the questions of the president they wanted to, and Mueller says no.  He says he "can't get into" what he thinks of Trump's credibility.  Trump's incomplete answers included those related to the Trump Moscow Project, and he didn't answer follow-up questions.  In fact, there were several questions he didn't answer.  Mueller finally admits that "generally" the president's answers were not always truthful.  And Demings says she finds the fact that Trump was allowed to get away with that "a disgrace" to US law inforcement.

Adam Schiff ends the hearing by asking if Mueller agrees it's unethical to accept help from a foreign government, to which Mueller replies, "And a crime, given certain circumstances."  Schiff's closing comments are much like his opening statement.  "We must take any action necessary to protect the country while [Trump] is in office."  He gave some specifics about what Mueller didn't investigate because it was outside Mueller's purview, so what "we [Congress] must find out."  I think that indicates at the least that they're continuing with various investigations, not necessarily that he thinks they should impeach, although he did mention that as an option.

This was certainly a better showing for the Democrats than the Judiciary Committee hearing.

*  I went back over  Mike Quigley's questioning because Mueller said something was "subject to investigation," but I'd missed what it was.  In fact, it was about Junior.  After establishing Mueller's and the US Intel community's belief that Wikileaks is a "hostile intelligence service," Quigley showed this slide...

...and asked Mueller's reaction.  "Problematic is an understatement...in terms of some  hope, or some boost, to what is and should be illegal activity," he responded.  Then Quigley quotes from the report about Junior having direct contact with Wikileaks during the campaign period.

"On October 16, Wikileaks sent another direct message to Trump Jr. asking 'you guys' to help disseminate a link alleging candidate Clinton had advocated a drone to attack Julian Assange.  Trump Jr responded back he 'had already done so.'  Same question.  Is this behavior, at the very least, disturbing?"  Mueller responds, "Disturbing, and also subject to investigation."

I'd say that's pretty indicative that Junior is still under investigation.  And he's not president.  I wonder who's handling it.  SDNY maybe.

UPDATE:

Mueller testimony

The Intel Committee hearing has begun.  Chairman Adam Schiff's opening statement is a clear indictment of Trump's ambition, lies, and "disloyalty to country."  He's holding back nothing.  If you haven't heard it, check it out.  He should have a copy hand delivered to Nancy Pelosi.

In Mueller's opening statement, he seems to be saying he'll comply with Barr's letter to him limiting what he can say.  Based on his statements, I'm assuming most of his refusals to answer certain questions is because there are still counterintelligence investigations ongoing in those avenues.

Mueller was asked if he would say Manafort giving polling data to Kilimnik was a betrayal of our country, and he said he wouldn't agree with that assessment.  Then, he added, "Not that it's not true, but I can't agree with it."  That puts a different light on the previous hearing where Mueller often said he wouldn't characterize something the same way, or didn't agree with an assessment.  He "can't".

Mike Quigley (D) noted that publishing the stolen Clinton emails was illegal, and then asked if Don Jr publishing a link to those emails wasn't essentially republishing.  Mueller answered, "I'm not certain I would agree with that,"  which I was glad to hear.  That's been a concern in other cases where the FBI has gone after people on the internet for merely publishing links to other information that's already been published.

Quigley also noted that a second term for Trump, which would surpass the statute of limitations on his crimes, would essentially put the president above the law.  Mueller said he wouldn't characterize it that way.  But it's effect is right, and Quigley noted that this is why we have to pursue other avenues - i.e., impeachment.

Break time.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Mueller testimony

That is not at all what he said.  He agreed that Trump refused to testify and that, as said in his report, there were instances that made it impossible to get to the truth.  They're just going to keep lying.

Sheila Jackson Lee, Ted Lieu, and other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are telling reporters that they satisfactorily made their point about obstruction of justice.  They might have been better to simply invite reporters to a reading of the report, and not give Republicans the chance to play their angle.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Mueller testifies

Mr. Mueller has concluded his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.  While the Democrats didn't completely blow it, I have no doubt the Republicans are very happy with the results of the event.  There were a few Democrats who claimed the Mueller report made it clear to them that Congress is now going to do their job to hold Trump accountable - which I take to mean the want to recommend impeachment.  Whether Nadler picks up the call remains to be seen.  I think this failure to get anything else out of Mueller, and even to get some comments that he didn't agree with their analyses, will make Nancy Pelosi more adamant there will be no impeachment.

After the hearing, Matt Gaetz says Mueller was "intellectually dissheveled" - and I think they'll be able to hammer that one home.  And he said it was "unequivocally a great day for Republicans."  I think he's right. It seemed to me Mueller was determined not to give any personal opinions about the question of impeachment or second guess the report or the DOJ.  Unfortunately, that allowed the Republicans to seize on what he left unsaid.

In a few minutes, Mueller will sit before the House Oversight Intelligence Committee.  Dems better hope they do better there.

If the Dems are putting their impeachment focus simply on obstruction of justice, and thus the Mueller report, they are making a(nother) huge mistake.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Mueller testifies

Wow.  Mueller says he's not supportive of the analysis that Trump met the three points of obstruction of justice.

And he restressed that under questioning by DemocratTed Lieu.

Dem disaster.

Mueller testifies

At the point of a five-minute recess, I have to say it looks like the Republicans have turned this to their favor.  If it continues in this vein, it will be even more problematic that Nancy Pelosi has prevented the Judiciary Committee from beginning impeachment proceedings before now.  I hope Chairman Nadler is realizing the huge mistake he's made following her direction.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Mueller testifies

Mueller seems old.

The Republicans are behaving as though they have him on the ropes, and it looks like they do.

On the other hand, Steve Chabot, the fourth Republican interrogator, keeps asking about the Steele Dossier, which Mueller keeps telling him is "oustide my purview" and that other investigators are handling it.  He spends his entire five minutes on the subject, which never get any other answer, during which Chabot keeps butchering Natalia Veselnitskaya's name. 

Dem Rep Hank Johnson follows Chabot and gets Mueller back on the subject of obstruction of justice, listing specific charges from the report.

The following Republican, Louie Gohmert, went on the attack, personally.  Mueller denies that he and Comey were "good friends":  "We were business associates....we were friends."  Gohmert attacks Mueller's "credibility".  Mueller says he didn't meet with Trump the day before he was appointed "as a candidate" for the FBI directorship.  This is Trump's claim: Mueller interviewed for the job and didn't get it.  After being attacked about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Mueller finally shows some disgust by his facial expression, but he recovers and doesn't respond in kind.

Ted Deutch (D) asks about obstruction, which the Dems are, reasonably, focused on Volume 2, about obstruction.  Most of Mueller's answers to them are, "I refer you to the report."

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Mueller testifies

Mr. Mueller seems somewhat unsteady, even nervous, which I wasn't expecting.

Republican opener Doug Collins landed a blow, which I'm sure will color all Trump and Republican (and Fox & Friends) commentary: He asked Mueller if collusion and conspiracy are synonymous.  Mueller said no.  Collins then read a statement from the report saying they are largely synonymous.  After some stuttering responses and seeming confusion on Mueller's part, he's forced to say he stands with the report.

The next Republican, John Ratcliffe, attacks aggressively, telling him he didn't perform his job, while constantly using the word "respectfully".  I wonder how long Mueller will stay in his seeming submissive posture with that kind of questioning.

The third Republican, James Sensenbrenner, repeats Ratcliffe's claim that he didn't perform his job.  What they're talking about is that the charge to the special counsel is that he is expected to write a report with a conclusion regarding prosecution or declination to prosecute.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Mueller testifies

Opening questions & answers, Nadler & Muller: 

The president keeps saying you found no obstruction, that's not correct is it?  No, that is not correct. 

What about exoneration?  Did you exonerate the president?  No.

In fact, you found that he interfered with your investigation, is that correct?  Yes.

Is it true that you tried for a year to get an interview with the president?  Yes.

Did the president refuse to sit for an interview?  Yes.

How much sleep do you think he got last night?

Last night:







This morning:







Seriously?  Why would he do that?  Besides, you've got the highly conflicted Bill Barr doing that.




I wonder why that tweet is unavailable.  What did it say?



I'm sure the Republicans will ask him.  No, wait.  They won't ask.  They'll spend their five minutes saying there's something nefarious about why he didn't.

So why didn't he interview Donald Trump Jr?

And why didn't he interview you?








He won't sleep tonight, either.  I can't wait to see his behavior at his next rally.  Which will be soon, in order to get his fix.



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  Here's the unavailable tweet - at least what has been put up now:





Yes, please.  Let's put Mike Pence on the stand about this.

If you need a link to watch Mueller's testimony:

House Judiciary Committee – LIVE at 8:30am ET on C-SPAN3 (link: https://cs.pn/2lAbnmZ) cs.pn/2lAbnmZ

House Intelligence Committee – LIVE at noon ET on C-SPAN3 (link: https://cs.pn/2lAbn6t) cs.pn/2lAbn6t

Are you ready for tomorrow?

Mueller is.

Robert S. Mueller III’s longtime right-hand aide will appear beside him at the witness table during Wednesday’s hearing with the House Judiciary Committee to assist as needed as the former special counsel answers questions about his investigation, people familiar with the hearing said.

The Judiciary Committee signed off on the unusual arrangement after Mr. Mueller made a last-minute request that the aide, Aaron Zebley, be sworn in as a witness alongside him.

[...]

Mr. Zebley will not be under oath or theoretically allowed to answer lawmakers’ queries. But he can confer privately with Mr. Mueller, 74, if the former special counsel needs assistance or guidance about how to respond.

  NYT

There may actually be points that he's more familiar with than Mueller as well.

Why was it important to put Mueller's age in that paragraph?

It is not uncommon for government witnesses to bring aides along to congressional hearings for that purpose, though in almost all cases the aides sit behind, rather than next to, the witness. Mr. Mueller is being asked to account for two-years worth of investigative details uncovered by a large team of investigators and to do so while avoiding the disclosure of nonpublic information.

It was unclear if Mr. Mueller had made a similar request to the House Intelligence Committee, the panel holding the second of two highly anticipated hearings on Wednesday where Mr. Mueller is scheduled to testify.

Wouldn't it be odd if he didn't?

Mr. Zebley has worked closely with Mr. Mueller for years. He worked alongside Mr. Mueller during his 22-month investigation, served as his chief of staff when Mr. Mueller was F.B.I. director and followed him into private practice at the WilmerHale law firm.

Maybe he's Mueller's support animal.

He filled a similar role on the special counsel’s team, coordinating the team and serving as a go-between with the Justice Department.

Mr. Popkin identified Mr. Zebley as the investigation’s “deputy special counsel” and said he “had day-to-day oversight of the investigations conducted by the office.”

The two panels had previously expected to talk to Mr. Zebley and another former member of the special counsel’s team, James L. Quarles III, in private sessions after the public hearings. But those meetings were canceled after the Justice Department objected.

So what? They're not members of the Justice Department.

Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the last-minute addition of a witness could violate House rules. He called on Democrats to reject the request.

“If Democrats believe it is the special counsel’s responsibility to testify to his report, they have no ground for outsourcing that duty at the expense of our committee’s integrity,” he said.

What's the problem? Nothing. They just live to object to everything, and in general, to make life miserable.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:



Pretty sure Mueller knows that.  Barr knows it, too, so the question is.

..why did he write that letter?