RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/robert-mueller-says-trump-could-be-charged-with-obstruction-after-he-leaves-office/

ABC News

✔ @ABC”Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Robert Mueller: “Yes.”

“You could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?””Yes.” https://abcn.ws/2XWIELc  #MuellerHearings

During Wednesday congressional testimony, former special counsel Robert Mueller told lawmakers that President Trump could in fact be charged with obstruction of justice, but only after he leaves office.

“Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Republican representative Ken Buck asked Mueller during the latter’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.

“Yes,” Mueller responded simply.

“You believe you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” the Colorado Republican asked.

“Yes,” Mueller answered. “The OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion says that the prosecutor, while he cannot bring a charge against a sitting president, nonetheless can continue the investigation to see if there are any other persons who might be drawn into the conspiracy.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/pundits-fry-robert-mueller-for-shaky-performance/

Political pundits on both sides of the aisle criticized former special counsel Robert Mueller for appearing unprepared during his Wednesday congressional testimony, and questioned the utility of the hearing given Mueller’s refusal to speak to information not included in his final report.

Liberal CNN commentator Chris Cillizza called Mueller’s performance “shaky,” citing his repeated requests for clarification and repetition from lawmakers, as well as an apparent contradiction in his testimony, which occurred when he was asked if collusion was, in effect, a colloquial synonym for criminal conspiracy. Mueller answered that question in the affirmative in his report but testified Wednesday that the words were not synonymous before reverting back to the answer provided in his report.

Cilizza writes:

If Democrats hoped that Mueller would easily bat away Republican attacks — on him and on his report — they have been sorely disappointed in the opening moments of his testimony. Mueller seemingly contradicted himself (and the report) when he told Doug Collins, the ranking Republican member on the committee, that collusion and conspiracy were not the same thing.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/robert-mueller-reiterates-the-report-is-my-testimony-calls-demand-for-a-prosecutor-to-testify-unusual/

In his opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning, special counsel Robert Mueller again stated that he would not comment on aspects of his investigation into Russian election interference that were not included in his final report, and noted that it is “unusual” to compel a prosecutor to testify about an investigation.

“I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. As I said on May 29: the report is my testimony. And I will stay within that text,” Mueller said in his opening statement. “And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and to the Department’s standards that govern it.”

Mueller held a press conference in May to announce that he was stepping down as special counsel following a nearly two-year investigation. During the press conference, Mueller made clear that he would not provide any information related to the investigation that was not included in the report, prompting congressional Republicans and allies of the president to question the utility of his testifying before Congress.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/with-collusion-collapse-public-loses-interest-in-mueller-theatrics/

Democrats are at the point where continuing to press the Mueller probe hurts them more than it hurts the president.

Dear Sir, The public does not care.

If the Trump Justice Department were to write a letter in response to House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff’s Tuesday night tirade, that’s what it would say.

Well, okay, not exactly. I’m sure there’d be the obligatory “with due respect” throat clearing and whatever else decorum demands when camouflaging a flip of the middle finger. Make no mistake, though: The bird has been flipped.

The night before former special counsel Robert Mueller’s much anticipated (and certain to be disappointing) appearance before two congressional committees, Chairman Schiff fired off a letter to protest limitations the Justice Department, at Mueller’s request, has imposed on his testimony.

In essence, DOJ has ordered Mueller not to provide testimony outside the four corners of his report. This suits Mueller just fine since he does not want to testify at all. He made that clear in his May 29 press statement, attempting to foreclose a possible subpoena by insisting that he would have nothing to add to the two-volume, 448-page tome.

Further, he gave Democrats what, from their perspective, is the best spin that could be put on the obstruction aspect of his probe: He had not “exonerated” the president, even though he neither found crimes, nor even considered whether crimes had occurred — the prosecutor’s peculiar interpretation of Justice Department guidance that forbids indictment of a sitting president.

He was trying to tell them: This is as good as it gets. I am not going to say I would have indicted him if not for the guidance.

But Democrats cannot leave well enough alone. They hope against hope that Mueller will break down — that Schiff, a former prosecutor, will have a Perry Mason moment, in which Mueller throws up his hands and confesses that, yes, if he could, he would throw the book at Trump.