At 5:40 AM, I was doing two things. I was eating breakfast (Corn Chex, cherries, sausage links, and apple juice). More important, I was watching Jerry Nadler [D-NY] give his opening statement to the House Judiciary committee. I am including the complete video below. So far, it’s not completely unproductive and the Democrats are doing a more professional job than I expected. The Republicans are demonstrating their PhD in Bullshitology.
It’s easy to ignore a witnesses’ opening statement, but Mueller’s may have provided the Rosetta stone to his thinking on whether the president committed obstruction of justice.
A few minutes after he delivered a statement in his hallmark anodyne tone, Mueller was asked a series of questions by Nadler, D-N.Y.
“Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?” Nadler asked.
“Well, I would say you – the statement would be that you would not indict and you would not indict, because under the OLC opinion, a sitting president cannot be indicted,” Mueller responded. “It’d be unconstitutional.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NBC News>
Of course, the Reich is up to their normal obfuscation.
Mueller is allowing the Republicans to mischaracterize aspects of his investigation without responding, which could have the result of furthering a narrative that will reach millions of Fox viewers and other consumers of right-wing media.
The former special counsel notably did not push back when:
- Jim Jordan said the FBI “spied” on the Trump campaign, and suggested that Joseph Mifsud (the Maltese professor who told Papadopoulos the Russians had dirt on Clinton) was a U.S. agent, not a Russian agent.
- Ratcliffe (and later Rep. Buck) argued that Mueller did not follow the special counsel regulations by not making a decision on obstruction and that it was improper for Mueller to say the president had not been exonerated.
- Gaetz suggested the Russia investigation might have been the result of a set-up of the Trump campaign by Russian intelligence.
- Gohmert said Mueller hired people who didn’t like Trump, and that FBI agent Peter Strzok “hated Trump.”
All of these assertions are either false or debatable and are designed to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NBC News>
Here is the video.
We’ll have to see how people react to it.
RESIST!!
16 Responses to “The Mueller Hearings”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It’s a start:
I hope that’s the real Jesus he’s talking to. Republican Supply-Side Jesus would eat him alive for that.
I would expect the Democrats on this committee to do a very professional job myself.I understand bothe Democrats and Republicans practiced separately in mock hearings earlier this week.
Ken Buck is on the committee? And was allowed to speak? OMFG. And of course he is not the only one. But they certainly went full circus. Too bad there’s no lion to bite their heads off.
P. S. – FRESH? OREGON? CHERRIES? I’m SO jealous!
While they’re in season, I get a 2 lb. bag every week, but to make you REALLY jealous, I express my appreciation for WWWendy by giving her a 2 lb. bag every week too.
Well, you certainly succeeded. Arrrgh! (But I’m glad you’re spoiling WWWendy. She deserves it.)
Watched it from start to finish.
While the D’s asked good questions towards Mr. Mueller, the R’s were downright obnoxious, in their line of questioning to him. Their strategy was to knock Mueller down for his investigation.
I was going to use your quote, Tom, but you beat me to it! lol
*Jerry Nadler – “The Special Counsel did not exonerate the President of obstruction”.
I watched the start of the Schiff/Nunes portion. Schiff laid out the case very well, imho, and Muller agreed. I stopped watching as soon as the first few words left the sphincter of Nunes, who immediately showed that he must have graduated with honors from the Bullshitology program!
Nunes was quoting Sean Hannity, word for word. Here’s an article with a side-by-side clip with sound to prove it.
Been watching it ever since I got up. Like everyone has pointed out the Democrats are acting very profession and with real respect.
Each time they turn it over to one of the repugs it irritates me seeing how they are trying to belittle or play down Mr. Mueller’s report. Like Gene mentioned these repugs don’t seem to give a hoot about who puts into our elections.
I’m wondering what other cases/investigations are still going on that Mr Mueller states he can’t answer that question due to other investigations?
Was hoping to hear some new news that they would be able to use against tRump.
Otherwise we’ll be listening to the idiot tRump’s broken record going on forever about how nothing was found, no conclusion.
Reich-wingers will put all sorts of spin on these hearings to make their side look good. All that matters is getting the truth out.
Jerry Nadler – “The Special Counsel did not exonerate the President of obstruction”. That was the headline here too, but more as it came from Mueller’s answers.
Now what, Mr. Nadler? When will you start impeachment procedures?
Assuming that we keep the House in 2020, I think it’s time to replace Pelosi with a speaker more open to progressive ideas. Her resistance to opening a formal impeachment inquiry makes the Party look weak an ineffective.
Thanks and hugs to all.
There was a joint press conference at which she appeared to be softening, although she’s far from all in yet.
I’d LOVE to have someone rub my nose in this, but I suspect she’s appearing conciliatory to run out the clock on impeachment.