In late June 2019, Robert Mueller III received the following letter from the US House Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence:
On June 25, 2019, , House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has agreed to testify pursuant to a subpoena before both the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee in open session on Wednesday, July 17, 2019 [now July 24, 2019].
In announcing the testimony, Nadler and Schiff released the following joint statement:
“Pursuant to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence tonight, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has agreed to testify before both Committees on July 17 [now July 24] in open session.
“Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia’s attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign’s acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates' obstruction of the investigation into that attack.
“We look forward to hearing his testimony, as do all Americans.”
In a letter to Mueller accompanying each Committee’s subpoena, the Chairmen wrote:
June 25, 2019
The Hon. Robert S. Mueller III
Special Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Special Counsel Mueller:
Attached please find subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to compel your testimony on July 17, 2019. Over the course of discussions about your appearance before Congress, we have consistently communicated our Committees’ intention to issue these subpoenas, if necessary, and we now understand it is necessary to do so.
We further understand that there are certain sensitivities associated with your open testimony. In particular, the Special Counsel’s Office referred several criminal investigations to other offices at the Department of Justice, and certain matters are ongoing. Your office, moreover, admirably limited public comment while the Special Counsel’s Office’s work was ongoing. You have also explained that you prefer for the Special Counsel’s Office’s written work to speak for itself.
Nevertheless, the American public deserves to hear directly from you about your investigation and conclusions. We will work with you to address legitimate concerns about preserving the integrity of your work, but we expect that you will appear before our Committees as scheduled.
Sincerely,
_________________________ _________________________
Jerrold Nadler Adam Schiff
Chairman Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Undoubtedly, there will be gave-to-gavel TV coverage, but the NY Fishwrap has provided a very good set of 19 questions that likely be asked, in some form, by the members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in same-day sessions tomorrow. This blogger apologizes for the enormity of the task to consider answers to these hypothetical questions that bring some focus to the 400-plus pages in the report that Mueller and his team created after their lengthy investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible obstruction of justice committed by the LK (Lyin' King) during the investigation. If this is a (fair & balanced) reflection of our democracy, so be it.
[x NY Fiwhwrap]
19 Questions We Have For Mueller Ahead Of His Testimony Before Congress
By Sharon LaFraniere
TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the following piece of writing
Were Robert S. Mueller III ever to tell the inside story of his investigation, much of America would most likely come to a standstill to hear what he had to say. There is virtually no chance that will happen when he testifies for about five hours before two congressional committees this week. It took weeks of negotiations just to persuade him to show up. He has already said that his testimony won’t go beyond what is in the 448-page report he delivered, and he urged people to read it.
But even members of Congress admit that they have only skimmed it. And even if all Mr. Mueller does is quote from his report, his words will be carefully analyzed, from the points he chooses to highlight to the inflections of his voice. Before the hearings, we pose some of the many lingering questions about his two-year investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and whether President Trump obstructed justice by trying to interfere with it, along with what we know or not about the answers.
Q1 Why didn’t you subpoena the president?
THE CONTEXT
The Mueller report says his prosecutors did not want to delay the investigation at a late stage with a subpoena fight that could drag on. They also thought they had “substantial” information from other witnesses that allowed them to assess the president’s actions. Nonetheless, not subpoenaing Mr. Trump was one of Mr. Mueller’s most controversial decisions because it arguably allowed the president to evade hard questions without real political damage.
Read Appendix C-2 of the report »
Q2 Do you believe President Trump cooperated with your investigation?
THE CONTEXT
After more than a year of negotiations, the president refused to be questioned by prosecutors. He also refused to answer any questions related to allegations of obstruction of justice or to the presidential transition period. He submitted written replies to questions, but they revealed little.
Read Vol. 2, Page 13 of the report »
Read Appendix C-1 of the report »
Q3 Do you think the president was candid in his responses?
THE CONTEXT
The prosecutors asked Mr. Trump more than 65 written questions, including follow-ups. Although he has professed to have the “world’s greatest memory,” Mr. Trump said more than 30 times that he had no recollection. For instance, he said he did not recall any communications with Roger J. Stone Jr., a friend and former campaign adviser now facing criminal charges, in the six months preceding the election. When prosecutors complained that his answers were “inadequate,” they were rebuffed.
Read Appendix C-1 of the report »
Q4 If Mr. Trump were an ordinary citizen, would you have found that there was sufficient evidence to charge him with obstruction of justice?
THE CONTEXT
This is probably the most burning question for Mr. Mueller, but good luck getting him to answer it. His report cites a 2000 opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which states that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged. Given that, the prosecutors never analyzed whether the evidence against Mr. Trump amounted to a prosecutable case. Still, one would assume the team discussed it, at least informally.
Q5 If Mr. Trump were an ordinary citizen, would you have found that there was sufficient evidence to charge him with obstruction of justice?
THE CONTEXT
This is probably the most burning question for Mr. Mueller, but good luck getting him to answer it. His report cites a 2000 opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which states that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged. Given that, the prosecutors never analyzed whether the evidence against Mr. Trump amounted to a prosecutable case. Still, one would assume the team discussed it, at least informally.
Q6 Did you intend for your report to serve as a referral for Congress for possible impeachment proceedings?
THE CONTEXT
The report says that accusing the president of a crime would not only inhibit the president’s ability to govern, but could “potentially pre-empt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” A footnote cites the Constitution’s impeachment clauses. One interpretation is Mr. Mueller felt it was his job to gather evidence, and Congress’s job to decide whether and how to hold Mr. Trump accountable.
Read Vol. 2, Page 1 of the report »
Q7 Mr. Barr has at points cast Mr. Trump’s actions in a seemingly benign light, saying the president was “frustrated” by what he saw as an unjustified investigation that was hobbling his presidency. Do you agree with him? Do you feel he has accurately described your investigation to the public?
THE CONTEXT
Critics claim that Mr. Barr has glossed over the president’s efforts to interfere with the special counsel’s work and downplayed the seriousness of the evidence against him. During a 10-minute address at the Justice Department in May — his only public comments about the inquiry so far — Mr. Mueller stressed the gravity of allegations of obstruction of justice.
Q8 During your investigation, did you see any evidence to support Mr. Barr’s suspicions that federal investigators bent rules to go after Trump?
THE CONTEXT
Mr. Barr is pushing forward with his review of the origins of the Russia investigation. He has said he wants to know how “the bogus narrative” began “that Trump was essentially in cahoots with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election.” Mr. Mueller presumably knows something about how it began because he inherited the inquiry, though it had already been underway for nearly 10 months. His report notes investigators had already collected “substantial evidence” by the time he was appointed in May 2017.
Q9 What did you write in the first letter you sent to Mr. Barr, and what did you tell him when you met?
THE CONTEXT
Before Mr. Barr released his report, Mr. Mueller met twice with the attorney general and wrote him two letters. One has been made public, and it makes clear that Mr. Mueller wanted Mr. Barr to release executive summaries of his report. But in his news conference, Mr. Mueller declined to criticize Mr. Barr for not doing so, saying that he believed the attorney general had acted in good faith and was grateful that he ultimately released almost the entire report.
Q10 Do you have any regrets about the makeup of your team? Did you leave the door open to President Trump’s accusations that the team was biased by including too many prosecutors who were registered Democrats or had given to Democratic causes?
THE CONTEXT
President Trump repeatedly mocked the special counsel’s team as angry Democrats. Before he was nominated as attorney general, Mr. Barr said that he would have preferred “more balance on this group.” At his news conference, Mr. Mueller praised his F.B.I. agents and prosecutors as people “of the highest integrity” who conducted the investigation in a fair and independent manner.
Q11 At what point in your investigation did your team decide that you would not make a judgment about whether the president had obstructed justice?
Q12 Mr. Barr has said that at that point you should have “pulled up” — meaning, stopped investigating the president. How do you respond to that criticism?
THE CONTEXT
The report notes that a president is not immune from criminal prosecution once he leaves office, nor are others who might have conspired to obstruct justice. During his brief appearance in May, Mr. Mueller also noted that the special counsel regulations specifically authorized him to investigate obstruction of justice.
Read Vol. 2, Page 1 of the report »
Q13 Your report noted the importance of preserving evidence of possible obstruction of justice by the president. For what purpose? Were you contemplating possible prosecution of the president by future prosecutors, once he left office?
Read Vol. 2, Page 2 of the report »
Q14 Were you surprised that Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein decided that the evidence against the president did not amount to a prosecutable case? Were you surprised by how quickly they decided?
THE CONTEXT
The special counsel’s investigation lasted nearly two years. Mr. Mueller delivered his 448-page report on March 22. Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein reached their decision two days later. On the other hand, they had a running start: Mr. Mueller had kept Mr. Rosenstein abreast of developments throughout the inquiry, and Mr. Barr had also been briefed after being sworn in as attorney general.
Q15 Of the 11 episodes involving possible obstruction of justice by the president, which did you consider the most troubling and why?
THE CONTEXT
The Democrats will certainly try to get Mr. Mueller to recount the president’s most questionable behavior. The report suggests that four episodes were particularly problematic: ordering the White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II to have the Justice Department fire Mr. Mueller; pushing Mr. McGahn to deny that he had directed him to oust Mr. Mueller; dangling the possibility of a pardon for his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was fighting criminal charges filed by Mr. Mueller; trying to force Attorney General Jeff Sessions, through an intermediary, to drastically limit Mr. Mueller’s investigation.
Read Vol. 2, Page 113 of the report »
Read Vol. 2, Page 122 of the report »
Read Vol. 2, Page 90 of the report »
Q16 A number of witnesses had either encrypted or deleted electronic communications relevant to the investigation, including Steve Bannon and Erik Prince, who apparently deleted dozens of text messages they shared. Was it possible to recover these communications and if so, why didn’t the special counsel’s office make a greater effort to do so?
Read Vol. 1, Page 156 of the report »
Q17 Do you believe you got to the bottom of whether the Trump campaign coordinated with WikiLeaks on releasing the emails that Russia stole from Democrats? Would such interactions have been legal? Ethical?
THE CONTEXT
At an April 18 news conference, Mr. Barr said that the special counsel “did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials” by WikiLeaks. Nonetheless, if any Trump campaign associates worked with WikiLeaks to release documents stolen by Russia, even in a legal fashion, it would raise ethical questions and could hurt Mr. Trump politically.
Q18 How many witnesses refused to cooperate? Who among them was particularly important to the investigation? To what extent did this hamper your work?
THE CONTEXT
Among other obstacles, the report noted that numerous witnesses lived abroad, and documents could not be obtained.
Read Vol. 1, Page 10 of the report »
Q19 Did Donald Trump Jr. refuse to testify, citing his right not to incriminate himself?
THE CONTEXT
The report references the president’s oldest son 164 times, but the information does not seem to be drawn from any interview of him by prosecutors. One sentence mentioning Donald Trump Jr. was heavily redacted to protect grand jury secrecy. Mr. Mueller will likely refuse to answer this question for the same reason the information is redacted from the report.
Read Vol. 2, Page 105 of the report » ###
(The article was produced by Mikayla Bouchard and Rebecca Lieberman. with Nicholas Fandos, Adam Goldman, Mark Mazzetti, Charlie Savage, Michael S. Schmidt and Noah Weiland contributed reporting.)
[Sharon LaFraniere is an investigative reporter at The New York Times and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for national reporting on Donald Trump’s connections with Russia. LaFraniere began writing for The Times in 2003, covering southern Africa for the international department. She moved from Johannesburg to Beijing in early 2008 to report on China. For the past four years, she has been based in New York. Before joining The Times, LaFraniere was a reporter and editor at The Washington Post for 20 years. Her last assignment was at its Moscow bureau, where from 1998 to 2003 she covered the Russian region, including war zones in Chechnya and Afghanistan. LaFraniere received The Gerald Loeb Award in 2013 for international reporting, the Michael Kelly Award in 2006 for her coverage of women in sub-Saharan Africa and the Overseas Press Club Award for business reporting in 1999. She received a BA magna cum laude with honors (comparative literature) from Brown University (RI) and an MS (journalism) from Northwestern.University (IL).]
Copyright © 2019 The New York Times Company
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves
No comments:
Post a Comment
☛ STOP!!! Read the following BEFORE posting a Comment!
Include your e-mail address with your comment or your comment will be deleted by default. Your e-mail address will be DELETED before the comment is posted to this blog. Comments to entries in this blog are moderated by the blogger. Violators of this rule can KMA (Kiss My A-Double-Crooked-Letter) as this blogger's late maternal grandmother would say. No e-mail address (to be verified AND then deleted by the blogger) within the comment, no posting. That is the (fair & balanced) rule for comments to this blog.