?

The first question I would like to hear asked is:

Mr. Mueller, President Trump says that your report states that there was no collusion with Russia and no obstruction of justice by him or his campaign. Do you agree that that is what your report says?

Could you summarize for us all of the illegal activity that your office uncovered that was committed by members of the Trump White house and the Trump campaign team?

Did you uncover any evidence of criminal activity that qualifies as impeachable offenses?

You guys are sweet but those really are questions Congress can answer.

Quote
deckeda
You guys are sweet but those really are questions Congress can answer.

Yes, but the reality is that it would have more impact on the electorate if they hear Mueller himself answer the question I noted.

Oh. He'd answer?

Quote
deckeda
Oh. He'd answer?

I don't see why he wouldn't. He said he would stick within the four corners of his report and that question seems to be one he could answer while staying within those four corners; i.e., the conclusions Trump is claiming are either implied by his report or not. That seems pretty straightforward.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2019 07:38PM by Ted King.

I don't see Mueller being afraid of ANYONE. He's been in combat. He's faced down actual murderous mobsters. I expect the only fear he has is being imprecise.

Quote
Ted King
?

The first question I would like to hear asked is:

Mr. Mueller, President Trump says that your report states that there was no collusion with Russia and no obstruction of justice by him or his campaign. Do you agree that that is what your report says?

"I have no position on the president's claims, but let me refer you to pages XX and XY of the investigation's report, which state: ........................................."

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
hal
Could you summarize for us all of the illegal activity that your office uncovered that was committed by members of the Trump White house and the Trump campaign team?

Did you uncover any evidence of criminal activity that qualifies as impeachable offenses?

"It would be a waste of the committee's time for me to re-compile all of the evidence listed in the report and associated court filings, and it would introduce the possibility that I would err where the report is accurate and vetted. All illegal activity provable in a court of law, with a defendant who can be indicted, has been pursued in grand jury investigations and court proceedings. Not all illegal activity can be proved in court, and Department policy forbids us from publicizing criminal accusations that cannot be pursued at trial.

Determination of whether any criminal activity qualified as impeachable is a task wholly assigned to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, and I have no opinion on the matter."

(Look how much time I'm saving you all!)

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
Ted King
?

The first question I would like to hear asked is:

Mr. Mueller, President Trump says that your report states that there was no collusion with Russia and no obstruction of justice by him or his campaign. Do you agree that that is what your report says?

"I have no position on the president's claims, but let me refer you to pages XX and XY of the investigation's report, which state: ........................................."

That would be a disingenuous response. There is nothing in professional ethics that would constrain him from saying whether or not a claim that there is a particular conclusion in his report is indeed a conclusion he drew in his report.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
Ted King
?

The first question I would like to hear asked is:

Mr. Mueller, President Trump says that your report states that there was no collusion with Russia and no obstruction of justice by him or his campaign. Do you agree that that is what your report says?

"I have no position on the president's claims, but let me refer you to pages XX and XY of the investigation's report, which state: ........................................."

That would be a disingenuous response. There is nothing in professional ethics that would constrain him from saying whether or not a claim that there is a particular conclusion in his report is indeed a conclusion he drew in his report.

That's not what you asked - what you asked was for him to evaluate the president's statement. I suspect that difference matters to Mueller when it come to considering the ethics of answering. He has no desire to take up the mantle of Trump antagonist in this fight - I think he believes that would weaken the report, and he's probably not wrong.

I think he will try to keep his answers as politically neutral as possible by dodging questions like yours and pointing to where the report says that inadequate evidence was found to indict anyone for criminal conspiracy (not the same as saying no evidence was found), and on the obstruction question re-emphasizing the Mueller Logic Triangle of Inference:

1. If an investigation concludes that sufficient evidence exists to charge someone criminally, the only way to make that conclusion public is an indictment*;
2. Justice Department prohibits prevents the indictment of a sitting president, making it procedurally impossible for any investigation to announce a conclusion that would require the president's indictment; and
3. The Constitution contains a process for addressing concerns about presidential criminal behavior which are not so constrained.

* the reasoning here being that the accused party's only legitimate path to exoneration from an accusation of this type is our judicial process, and it is unfair to announce an accusation of this severity while depriving the accused of the opportunity to defend themselves in court.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs

That's not what you asked - what you asked was for him to evaluate the president's statement. I suspect that difference matters to Mueller when it come to considering the ethics of answering. He has no desire to take up the mantle of Trump antagonist in this fight - I think he believes that would weaken the report, and he's probably not wrong.

I'm sure he would prefer to frame his answers in as politically neutral a matter as possible. But, ironically, not answering my question would be a political calculation on his part, not an ethical one. He might not like the reality of it, but not answering the question is just as politically loaded as answering the question. He's a witness before a Congressional committee, his ethical responsibility is to answer their questions honestly as long as doing so does not violate a law (e.g., privacy or national security).

But, so okay, we give him a nod toward not making the question so overtly politically aimed at Trump making the claims. They could just ask, "In your report did you conclude that there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?" Then all he has to do is say that there is no legal definition of collusion as a crime so he didn't draw any legal conclusions about whether or not there was collusion. And they could just ask him, "Did you come to the conclusion that there was no obstruction of justice? And he can then go into as much detail as he wants about how he didn't come to a decision to indict conclusion in his report. Then ask him, "Doesn't that logically imply that you didn't come to a conclusion that there was no obstruction of justice?"

I'll admit, though, that this isn't a good question to begin the inquiry with Mueller. Better to start out with questions that aren't so overtly slaps at Trump. It may be a good one to end the hearings, though. I hope it comes up at some point. I think it would be good for people to hear Mueller say that what Trump is saying is not true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2019 04:05PM by Ted King.