Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE MAN WHO headed the probe investigating Russian meddling in the US election, Robert Mueller, will testify before Congress today as Democrats seek his insight into whether Donald Trump committed a crime.
Three months after releasing the final report on his two-year investigation into the 2016 presidential election, much of the American public remains unclear about special counsel Mueller’s findings on whether Trump criminally obstructed justice and whether his campaign colluded with Russians.
The expected six hours or more of questioning will be broadcast live nationally.
With Trump declaring he was “exonerated” by the investigation and Democrats saying it supplied ample evidence for impeachment, Mueller will answer questions for the first time in front of two separate, Democrat-run committees in the House of Representatives.
It remains unclear whether Mueller, who has resisted testifying, will go beyond the conclusions presented in his report, which was attacked by Trump and his allies to claim the investigation was a politically charged witch hunt that found nothing of substance.
Earlier today, Trump tweeted: “So Robert Mueller has now asked for his long time Never Trumper lawyer to sit beside him and help with answers. What’s this all about? His lawyer represented the ‘basement server guy’ who got off free in the Crooked Hillary case. This should NOT be allowed. Rigged Witch Hunt!”
“Highly conflicted Robert Mueller should not be given another bite at the apple. In the end it will be bad for him and the phony Democrats in Congress who have done nothing but waste time on this ridiculous Witch Hunt,” Trump had already tweeted on Monday.
Democrats meanwhile hoped Mueller would make clear to the public why he did not bring charges despite the evidence outlined in the 448-page report.
“There was enough corruption and criminality in the Trump campaign and Administration to fill a 448-page report. Every American deserves to know the crimes and corruption exposed in the Mueller Report,” said Democratic representative Ted Lieu.
Mueller’s report documents extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, including attempts to cooperate or collude, neither of which is a specific crime.
Mueller ruled in the end that there was not enough evidence to recommend charges of criminal conspiracy, the main legal charge he could make use of.
The veteran prosecutor and former FBI director also laid out in detail 10 instances when Trump allegedly tried to obstruct the investigation.
But he said he was prevented from recommending charges against Trump because Justice Department rules prohibited him from lodging criminal charges against a sitting president.
That left it to Congress to determine whether Trump committed a crime, and a minority of Democrats are pressing for the House to impeach the president.
Mueller, who has testified before Congress 88 times since 1990, has already signaled that he does not want to deeply discuss the investigation.
“Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report,” he said in May, as he announced the closure of the special counsel investigation.
“The work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Expect loads of distraction tweets later.
@DJ François: They have been happening. You can include Epstein in the distraction tweets also
@DJ François: or a rocket fired at something Iranian.
@DJ François: I’m waiting for the ” next” drone attack from Iran.
@Paul Furey: distraction from what?! This whole Mueller testimony is the distraction from the fact that: 1) There is no collusion; 2) There is no solid evidence of Kremlin sponsored election meddling; 3) There is no solid evidence of obstruction of justice.
@Jack Simpson: point 2 is definitely untrue. All of this stems from Kremlin meddling.
At last the snowflakes get their day in the sun. Be careful what you wish for…
@Tom McHugh: It’s Mueller who is testifying, not Lord Snowflake Trump.
@Tom McHugh: só edgey bro
@Graham Wilson: Trump 2020
All he’s gonna do is repeat what’s in the report and Trumpy and the Trumpettes are gonna lie about it.
Not sure why he has been so reluctant to testify or go beyond the report. His findings were not clear and have left a lot of questions. His job was to provide answers and it seems more than a little arrogant for him to say at the end of it… ‘sure figure it out yourselves’. He owes it to both sides to be clear and unequivocal today and bring a conclusion either way. If he is guilty then make it clear and let the Dems do what they must. If he is innocent then Trump deserves to have him say that publicly, tweet about it and gloat.
@Kevin O’Donnell: but it does seem like our just a campaign to taint (similar to trump’s email server attack on Clinton, essentially blaming Benghazi on it). Democrats like it because it gives them a tiny glimmer of using impeached president in their campaign, but it comes across as a distraction, not a valid political argument.
@Renton Burke: perhaps. So put it to bed. There was definitely enough to undertake an investigation but to leave it swinging in the wind isn’t useful.
@Kevin O’Donnell: if he gave definitive answers, it would put Russiagate to bed and prove that it was a hoax. A lot of people don’t want that to happen and would rather the circus continue.
@Jack Simpson: you think he (Mueller) wants to keep it alive? I doubt it. I imagine he’s sick of it. So regardless of whether ‘a lot of other people’ want the circus to continue, he alone has the power to deal with that definitely today.
Out of interest, what had trump’s team done *for* the Russians since he became president? Unfortunately, I’ve read the redacted version, and it’s just innuendo and weak association (and I was looking for good evidence). At most, it was Russian intelligence running Facebook campaigns to the already converted right wing, but nothing on the Kissinger scale.
@Renton Burke: He has tried multiple times to remove the Sanctions on Russian Oligarchs but the Congress stopped him. He has only done little to help Russia because both Democrats and Republicans are at least united in seeing Russia as a regional threat.
Here’s a question Mr. Mueller. How did you end up hiring Andrew Weissman as your lead attorney, a man who has very close ties to Hilary Clinton, working for her foundation, making political donations and even attending her election night party? It’s akin to Mueller hiring Rudy Guiliani to prosecute Hilary. Truly bizarre.
@Shane Dignam: They could also ask if he gave stand down orders to Acosta during the prosecution of Jeffery Epstein.
Just as a bit of background history you understand.
@Mick Byrne: interesting. Does the head of the FBI have authority over DOJ attorneys?
@Shane Dignam: wasn’t he already in the DOJ when appointed to the investigation?
@Mick Byrne: Oh don’t worry I know all about it. It was in Obama’s time in office and his AG would have had to clear Epstein’s deal. Acosta said that he was given the order as Epstein was an Intel operative. I doubt this will come up today though as it’s off topic.
@Dave O’Keeffe: He was, but that hardly matters. Anybody with a clear bias towards a candidate, which he has considering his friendship, work history and history of donations to the Clinton’s, should not ever be selected to prosecute the opposing candidate. He should have been recused.
@Shane Dignam: not when you figure out how american system is actually set up – the partisan lines and punch and judy show are not how all the legal cases operate – they don’t actually say ok we have a case to follow against a democrat now lets find out only the republican lawyers to work that – it would be like the police saying ok Trump is in power and Republican – only republicans can do police work and investigations – thats just nonsense
@Shane Dignam: you know all about it but you’ve failed to answer my question.
@Shane Dignam: Also, your flat out lying about Epstein’s deal. Obama wasn’t in office.
@Shane Dignam: Weissman was working for Trump’s DOJ when he was transfer to the special counsel team. In fact he was the Head of the criminal fraud section of the DOJ. Now, tell us this, did he have a prior working relationship with Mueller? Before you make something up, he worked as both special counsel and general counsel in the FBI under Mueller. Maybe, just maybe Mueller knows him and knows what value he can contribute.
@Dave O’Keeffe: Actually Dave, the very first thing I did was answer your question. Go back and look again.
As for Epstein’s deal, he was sentenced in June 2008, Obama was in office for 6 months at that stage. His A.G. would have known everything about this case and the deal would have to have been cleared by said A.G.
@Shane Dignam: Obama was sworn in on 20 Jan 2009.
@Bryan Yelahw: My apologies, genuine mistake. My point in any case was not about Obama (sorry Barack), it was that it wasn’t Acosta who decided to make a deal, it came from the AG, and they most likely got it from someone higher up. The question is if Acosta is accusing Epstein of working for Intel, why isn’t there a resultant shit storm in the media. Surely that’s one of the stories of the year/decade. Child trafficker is an Intel op, where’s the outrage?
@Dave Hammond: So you don’t find it in any way strange or coincidental that there wasn’t one Republican Prosecutor on his team, out of 12 or 16 or whatever it was? I find it bizarre and beyond coincidence. Mueller and Weissman are clearly not stupid or misinformed about their staff. They knew exactly what they were doing. You can believe it was all by complete chance that they were all dems chosen, but we’ll have to agree to disagree if you do.
@Dave O’Keeffe: Maybe he does know him, but there’s no way he didn’t know and understand the depth of his relationship with the Clinton’s. It’s even on his CV. That should have been an immediate red flag for Mueller.
@Shane Dignam: “maybe he does know him” see? It’s stuff like that that means I have to ask you a question and also provide pointers for your answer instead of letting you answer from your own head. What else in on his cv? Years of working closely with one Robert Mueller III. Did it not occur to you that Mueller, as he testified to today, didn’t take political allegiance into consideration when hiring? Instead he chose based on qualification and ability. Shouldn’t that be the criteria? PS you rightly fu(ked yourself on that Obama bit, fair play. You brought it up, now you’re saying it wasn’t important. So which higher up are you referring to? Remember, the head of the FBI answers to the AG and that the FBI don’t do prosecution or plea deals, that’s strictly DOJ
And obstruction.
@Dave Thomas: Yeah that’s the bug issue
The whole Russiagate saga was a hoax. The Mueller testimony is just a distraction.
Oh boy, that will be fun… let’s hope the democrats grow a pair and ask the right questions…
have your say