what is this line of questioning on campaign donations? does that mean all the investigations before that has investigators donating to a party are tainted ? Makes no sense. How does it matter what party they belong if they do their job. focus on where they did not do their job rather than their donations !
We had three different objectives in the room today. 1. Democrats wanted to get in their statements using evidence from the report but also tying in as much other damaging things as they could about Trump even if it was related to other cases and outside the purvue of Mueller. Yet they wanted to be heard and wanted the other cases and media stories to be heard in context with Mueller's report. They did this to give them ammunition to carry on further investigations and/or indictment. Mueller wouldn't bite and didn't discuss much of anything outside of the report. 2. Republicans wanted to tarnish the report, tried to show bias, wanted to lend credence to Barr's investigation and brought up all kinds of things to this. They even tried to scold Mueller for not abiding by a directive to the Special Counsel during the Clinton administration. They did all this in a predictable effort to defend the President and Barr's investigation. Mueller didn't bite on that either. 3. Mueller was there to only confirm what was written in the report, and not to take any political side. So there were three different objectives in the room going on at the same time. It was several hours of dissonance. Now the two political parties will try and spin the information in order to further their own goals and thwart those of the opposite political party. I understand why all of the parties acted the way they did. I guess maybe most of it is a necessary evil. It was funny that when Escobar from Texas talked about impeachment and then asked Mueller what constitutional processes outside of prosecution he was referring. Mueller said, "I think I heard you mention one." But he wouldn't specifically name it when pressed further. I think that's as close as we can get to any insight as to what he believes should be done.
Mueller clearly wasn't familiar with more than the top-level conclusions from his report, and (like others) I question how involved he was in the investigation now. The narrative going forward will likely be that 17 angry Democrats conducted the investigation. I assume Democrats wanted him to read lines from his report today in an attempt to harvest soundbites, but they shot themselves in the foot.
Chris Wallace: 'This has been a disaster for the Democrats' and 'for the reputation of Robert Mueller' "I think this has been a disaster for the Democrats, and I think it’s been a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller," Wallace told anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. "[He] doesn’t seem to know things that are in the report. "He’s been attacked a number of times, and you would think that almost anybody else would have defended his own integrity, the integrity of the investigation," Wallace continued. "Over and over, Mueller just sits silent and lets the attacks from the Republicans to sweep over him and says nothing." "I think it does raise questions about the degree to which he actually was in charge of and in control of this report, because he doesn’t seem very much in control or charge of what the final report was. I should say whether he was in charge of the investigation, because he doesn’t seem in charge of what the report actually says," he added.
Come on now, it's not like any of us could remember 448 pages without an iPad and search feature while being broadcast live on all major channels for 3 hours straight. He did a decent job and stayed as non-partisan as I've seen anyone in a long time. I respect him and his work but I don't think anyone came out winners here.
You are correct and AG Barr publicly stated that he would give Mueller as much or as little cover as he wanted. Mueller eventually said he did not want to testify. Jerry Nadler issued a subpoena. At that point, Mueller could have asked AG Barr for the cover of the DOJ to get out of this - but Mueller did have to ASK for it. He apparently did not and here we are. So nobody should feel sorry for Robert Mueller here. He is only in this place because he has chosen to be.
I honestly still have not learned anything new from either side. Trump obstructed justice and there were Democrats on the investigative team. Mueller also did not want to stray from his already reported report.
Sounds like all biases have been confirmed for everyone so far. I only heard a little bit of the beginning. I was surprised that Mueller was more nervous than I'd expected, and more forthcoming than I was expecting. But, I don't expect anything much will come of it aside from a bunch of sound and fury. Let's say Mueller wasn't much involved in the writing of the report and it was mostly the work of the 17 angry democrats. So what? He's still the boss of the organization and the 17 angry democrats all work in the special counsel's office. My company's CEO doesn't close any sales, make any marketing material, design any product, or collect on any invoice, but he's still the boss and still responsible for everything we do. The report is just as legit with Mueller writing every single word or no word at all. Is this really the narrative Republicans are going with now?
It would be extremely difficult for a younger person to remember all of the details contained in the report (which was clearly drafted by committee). I get why Mueller was resistant to testifying.
I totally get and am sympathetic with his inability to memorize the report. However, given the importance of the document and the time spent on it, the sponsor of the report should have a command of it or shouldn't put his name on it. There are a number of trial lawyers who have to memorize as complicated fact patterns to try major cases.
I disagree in part. The reason why the report is so significant is because Meuller had such a reputation for integrity and calling it like it is and therefore couldn't (or maybe "shouldn't was more accurate) be dismissed as partisan bs by either party. If Meuller has really lost a step and was just a figurehead, then I don't think the report carries the same weight. Can't have it both ways. If his reputation gave it credibility then if one believes his role was less than expected, the report loses some of its power.
In the end, all the GOP can really do is attack their character. All of sudden the party of law and order got soft.... imagine if this was Clinton instead.
It is a form of cross-examination. It is pretty easy for good expert witnesses and fact witnesses to tell one side of a story persuasively. It is through the crucible of cross-examination (which these politicians are not very good at) that one learns how well it holds up. (in fairness, sometimes the truth gets trampled during cross depending on the effectiveness of the questioner or the weaknesses of the witnesses. Here, Mueller does not appear prepared to defend the report).
It sounds like most of those commenting on his retention of minutiae in the report have never conducted a large investigation nor prepared a large report in their lifetime.
