JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.GET SAVED NOW- CALL ON JESUS TODAY.THE ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WHOLE EARTH - NO OTHER.
1 COR 15:23-JESUS THE FIRST FRUITS-CHRISTIANS RAPTURED TO JESUS-FIRST FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT-23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.ROMANS 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.(THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE)
OTHER GAY-HEAT-LIBERAL HYPOCRACY NEWS IN THE LAST WEEK
https://israndjer.blogspot.com/2019/07/pride-month-reveals-perverted-depravity.html
https://israndjer.blogspot.com/2019/07/ubbearable-heat-wave-hits-north.html
https://israndjer.blogspot.com/2019/07/hypocrite-liberals-protest-for-illegel.html
OTHER GAY-HEAT-LIBERAL HYPOCRACY NEWS IN THE LAST WEEK
https://israndjer.blogspot.com/2019/07/pride-month-reveals-perverted-depravity.html
https://israndjer.blogspot.com/2019/07/ubbearable-heat-wave-hits-north.html
https://israndjer.blogspot.com/2019/07/hypocrite-liberals-protest-for-illegel.html
ISAIAH 5:20-21,24-25
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
25 Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
1 TIMOTHY 1:9
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
ROMANS 3:13-14
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 TIMOTHY 3:13
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
JEREMIAH 17:9
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
THE LIBERALS ARE SO SCARED THAT THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT WEDNESDAY WHEN TRUMP HATER ROBERT MUELLER. GOES TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS REPORT. THE LIBERAL SEWER RATS ARE SO SELF DELUDED. THEY THINK JUST CAUSE MUELLER ANSWERS QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS REPORT. TRUMP WILL BE PROVED OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANERS. THE LIBERALS ARE IN THEIR CRY ROOMS WITH EVERY THEOROPY GOING. PRAYING TO SATAN TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK MUELLER WEDNESDAY. BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS WILL BACK FIRE ON THEIR HEADS. AND THE LIBERALS WILL BE THE ONES THAT WILL BE IMPEACHED BY JAIL SENTENCES IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THE REPUBLICANS KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK. AND THE QUESTIONS WILL BE ABOUT HOW THIS FRAUD WITCH HUNT STARTED BY A FRAUD DOSSIER. THAT THE LIBERALS AND HITLARY 2ND CLINTON PAID BIG BUCKS FOR AND DREAMED UP WITH THEIR RUSSIAN AGENTS AND CLINTON LOVER STEELE AND THE OHRS. AND FUZION. THE LIBERAL MENTAL CASES ARE SO SELF DELUDED THEY THINK THEY CAN PROVE THAT TRUMP COMMITED CRIMES. ANALYSTS ARE SAYING THE REASON MUELLER CHANGED THE QUESTION DATE FROM JULY 17TH TO JULY 24TH. IS BECAUSE IN SECRET MUELLER AND THE LIBERAL MENTAL CASES WERE COLLUDING TOGETHER TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS THAT WILL MAKE TRUMP LOOK LIKE A CRIMINAL. WHEN ITS SETTLED A LONG TIME AGO. TRUMMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE INNOCENT OF ALL COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA. AND ANY OTHER CRIMINAL CHARGES. BUT YOU CAN NOT GET THAT THREW BRAIN DEAD-LIBERALS THAT ARE SO SELF DELUDED. THEY BELIEVE THEIR OWN LIES. AND BELIEVE. THEY CAN STILL SCHEME UP A WAY TO IMPEACH DONALD JOHN TRUMPY. THE LIBERAL SPIN DOCTORS AND THE MEDIA ARE REALLY ON HIGH ALERT SCARED MODE. AND WILL BE SAYING ANYTHING UNTILL WEDNESDAY. TO TRY TO GET THE AMERICANS AGAINST TRUMP. BUT I GOT NEWS FOR THE LIBERALS INSTEAD OF LOCK JUST HER CLINTON UP. THE NEW CHANT WILL BE. LOCK THEM ALL UP. THE LIBERALS THAT ALL COLLUDED WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS AND TRYED TO DO A COUP AGAINST TRUMP BY TREASONOUS MEANS. STARTING WITH THE QUEEN SEWER RAT OF THE LIBERAL TRUMP HATERS HITLARY 2ND CLINTON, JAMES COMEY, LISA PAGE, AND HER ADULTEROUS LOVE BIRD PETER STRZOK, CHRISTOFER STEELE, JOHN BRENNAN, JAMES (CLAP ON CLAP OFF) THE CLAPPER, ROD ROSENSTEIN, NELLIE AND BRUCE OHR, FUZION GPS, ANDREW MCCABE, JAMES BAKER THE LEAKER-ONE OF MANY IN THIS FRAUD TREASONOUS WITCH HUNT AGAINST TRUMP.AND ALL THE FAKE NEWS LEFT MEDIA, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, CTV, AND ALL THE OTHER LEFT WING RETARD LOSER SEWER RAT FAKE NEWS TRUMP HATER LIBERAL MEDIA AND HOLLYWOOD OF COURSE.
Webb: Questions for Robert Mueller-By David Webb, opinion contributor — 07/16/19 07:03 PM EDT
I know it is a take from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and close to what Democrats have been saying for months. For you Bueller fans who feel slighted, remember that imitation is the greatest form of flattery.The delayed testimony before the House Oversight and Reform and House Judiciary committees gives you time to digest the questions and there is still time to review the Mueller report, if so inclined. It is possible the former special counsel Robert Mueller who testifies will be the one who wants to be invited to the Martha’s Vineyard parties and asked to speak at Harvard. It’s possible that the Mueller who wants to walk away from 22 months, millions of dollars spent and nothing of presidential level consequence in his plea deals and convictions says little and references his report. We’ve seen that play before.Who asks the questions also matters. Too often politicians pontificate and play to their donors and their base regardless of party. They don’t follow a line of questioning the way a prosecutor or defense attorney would. There are times to continue the line of questioning and there are times to pivot.In Michael Isikoff’s book, “Russian Roulette,” he explains that Christopher Steele’s own business partner didn’t believe the information in his reports was accurate. Likewise, Clinton vendor Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS couldn’t use Steele’s increasingly outrageous reports because they weren’t sourced or documented. Instead, to get the Steele info in play, they gave it to the FBI and then briefed national security reporters about the info to stir the pot, including the tip that the FBI was investigating the info. Isikoff took the bait and wrote one of the first stories at Yahoo News. CIA Director John Brennan called then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to download info and encouraged Reid to politicize the Russia-Trump connection in October.Imagine that. The CIA director politicizing unverified information that originated with the Clinton campaign. This information turned out to be false.Two days later, Reid penned a letter to Comey demanding an investigation into Trump. Most information in Reid’s letter was sourced to public news reports, but one issue alluding to Carter Page — reporting falsely that he met with a high Kremlin official — was not public. It came from Brennan or the Clinton campaign or law firm Perkins Coie. At that point, Brennan was directly coordinating campaign messaging. Since the subject was the obsession of the nation’s law enforcement institutions, intelligence agencies and national press corps, and the info was put into national circulation by the Clinton campaign and Steele Dossier, determining the original source and accuracy of that dossier should have been the first step of a thorough investigation.There is no indication such an inquiry occurred in the Mueller report. Mueller assumed the accuracy of the report, started with it, and investigated Trump. He should have started with the dossier info and tested it first.They all seem to feel the need to speak but in many cases some should not. Republican or Democrat here are some key questions.Since the Steele Dossier reported contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, the truth and accuracy of the dossier should have been an important part of your investigation. Explain everything you did to investigate the accuracy of the Steele Dossier and if not, why not? The accuracy is not discussed in your report, why not? Mueller’s mandate was to look at Trump’s Russia collusion. The obvious follow-up question is why did you prosecute Paul Manafort for completely unrelated matters from a decade back? Were you aware that the Eastern District of Virginia had essentially declined that same case? Why didn’t you decide the question of obstruction? Wasn’t that your job? Wasn’t that why you were hired as special counsel? Were you concerned about the fallout from being “the guy who cleared Trump?”Isn’t it true that you spoke to Attorney General William Barr the day after your letter to him? Didn’t he specifically ask if you thought anything about the summary was inaccurate? Didn’t you say “no?”Don’t you agree that on a declination it is Department of Justice policy to not then attack the investigation subject with all kinds of negative facts? Shouldn’t the case be declined with nothing more said? You have been a prosecutor for years. Have you ever exonerated anyone on a declination? For example, on a bank robbery investigation would you say “I’m clearing the alleged robber?” because the next day you might come across a video of him robbing the bank.What facts merited a 400-plus page report if not for political reasons? Digest these questions and come up with your own in a reasonable form. We will see if the donkey and pony show happens in Congress next week.Webb is host of “The David Webb Show” on SiriusXM Patriot 125, host of “Reality Check with David Webb” on Fox Nation, a Fox News contributor and a frequent television commentator. His column appears twice a month in The Hill.
Lisa Page Transcripts Reveal Huge Preferences For Clinton During Email Scandal Investigation-The Lisa Page transcripts reveal how politics corrupted the two critical investigations that influenced the 2016 election: the Clinton email scandal and the investigation into the Trump-Russia hoax.By Adam Mill-March 19, 2019
Did the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice use their awesome powers to interfere in the 2016 election? The recent release of the Lisa Page transcripts takes us one step closer to understanding how politics corrupted the two critical investigations that influenced the 2016 election: the Clinton email scandal and the investigation into the Trump-Russia hoax.Page, an FBI lawyer at the time who served directly under the now-disgraced former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, clearly revealed herself as an early Russia hoax true believer on a team of “saviors” blind to the bigger picture in both investigations. Let’s take a closer look at some of the key revelations in her testimony to Congress and their chilling warnings about the integrity of future American elections.The Fix Was In-“Midyear Exam,” the code name for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information using a private server and email address, formally closed on July 5, 2016, with a public announcement by James Comey, then the FBI director. Page confirmed there was little question about the outcome from early in the investigation.Readers recall President Obama’s 2015 “60 Minutes” interview in which he articulated a pre-conclusion hauntingly similar to the July 5, 2016, final announcement exonerating Clinton. Obama suggested that Clinton had made a “mistake,” and never intended to violate the law. It, therefore, comes as no surprise that Page told Congress, “Every single person on the team, whether FBI or [sic] knew far earlier than July that we were not going to be able to make out sufficient evidence to charge a crime.”While Comey claimed he did not coordinate the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton with the political appointees in the Department of Justice, Page contradicted this assertion. Among the Department of Justice attorneys overseeing the Clinton-email investigation: John Carlin. He is the notorious DOJ attorney who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about widespread illegal and unconstitutional spying on Americans that so troubled the court and the National Security Agency that the NSA supposedly shut down the powerful surveillance program to remove the temptation from bureaucrats.Readers remember that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok, McCabe, and others began working on Comey’s speech exonerating Clinton long before she even submitted to an investigative interview. Page told Congress that the DOJ set the standard by which Clinton could be held criminally liable as “intentional” because a “gross negligence” standard (in the DOJ’s view) would be unconstitutionally vague. The DOJ simply redefined the FBI’s burden of proof too high to reach any other outcome.The DoJ Meddled with FBI Techniques-Page told Congress that the DOJ meddled in the Clinton investigation over the FBI’s objection. She and other agents sought to interview Clinton in a two-on-two arrangement. Instead, both sides were allowed to bring a host of participants and observers. This allowed Clinton to get her story straight, in real time, with other fact witnesses.Page testified that she felt the FBI lacked the leverage to restrict the Clinton team. When asked whether Clinton could have been prevented from bringing people to assist her if she had been required to appear before a grand jury, Page acknowledged that in such a situation Clinton would have been forced to answer questions without any assistance, including a lawyer.For some time, the DOJ was criticized for not allowing the FBI to use grand jury subpoenas to compel testimony in the Clinton email probe. Page said she and “everyone” in the FBI objected to the format that allowed Clinton to appear with other fact witnesses, but that somebody in the DOJ directed otherwise. Page did not know who, which means that the person who exercised this authority has so far escaped public accountability.Page also objected to the government bringing several of its representatives. She and the rest of the FBI favored a standard two-on-two format preferred in interviews. She felt the large contingent of government participants made the government appear to have “loaded for bear or guns blazing,” with an army of agents and lawyers.Look Ma, No Leaks!-Rep. Sheila Jackson (D-TX) asked Page a series of questions suggesting if Page or Strzok really wanted to stop Trump from getting elected, it would have been as simple as leaking the existence of the FBI investigation. Jackson argued that the absence of FBI leaks about the investigation proved that Page and Strzok set aside their personal feelings about candidate Trump to investigate dispassionately.This is wrong. As fellow Federalist writer Margot Cleveland identified in her own research, the existence of the investigation not only leaked, but the FBI felt the need to also leak the absence of any clear evidence linking Trump to Russia.At least two FBI officials are or have been investigated for leaking to the press during the 2016 election cycle: McCabe and former General Counsel James Baker. McCabe is believed to have leaked information confirming an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Baker is believed to have leaked something to David Corn, who was among the first reporters to break Trump-Russia collusion stories prior to the election. Corn denies using Baker as a source for the pre-election Trump-Russia dossier story.Nevertheless, Jackson has something of a point. There were Trump-Russia collusion leaks in the run-up to the election but these arguably happened in spite of, not because of, the FBI. Indeed, Democrats were outraged by the perceived double standard at the publicity surrounding the Clinton investigation versus the relative discretion that the Trump campaign received in the Russia investigation. Ironically, it was this outrage that led to a call for the very inspector general investigation that revealed the Strzok-Page texts with pro-Clinton bias.It’s Only Bias If You Disagree with Me-In her testimony Page repeatedly congratulated herself on her lack of bias, arguing that prioritizing the Trump-Russia collusion scandal over the Clinton scandal was the logical outcome of weighing the seriousness of the two allegations. She said, “And with respect to how threatening that would be––again, if it were true––the notion that there might be more emails that have not previously been seen that existed on Hillary Clinton’s email server just simply don’t even enter into the realm of the same room of seriousness.”Page and the FBI generally missed the point of the Clinton scandal. The most serious problem with Clinton’s mishandling of the emails was not the leak of potentially classified information but that the whole purpose of the email server in the first place may have been to hide a large-scale influence-for-sale operation from a cabinet post. The voting public had an interest in knowing whether the same operation would be scaled up to the U.S. presidency. This is why the Midyear Exam investigation was arguably more critical to the future of the republic than the Russia investigation.Did Page ever see any political bias in the FBI? Her answer revealed everything. The only bias she perceived was anti-Clinton sentiment. She revealed, “I am aware of senior FBI officials talking to subordinate FBI officials on the Hillary Clinton investigative team who unquestionably had anti-Hillary sentiment, but who also said: ‘You have to get her…. We’re counting on you.'”These officials, Sandy Kable and Randy Coleman, had an early role in the Clinton email investigation but at the time they made these statements “were no longer in a position of authority over the Clinton investigation.” This leaves one to wonder whether the FBI policed anti-Clinton bias in the investigation but not pro-Clinton, anti-Trump bias.Similarly, Page saw no indication her anti-Trump bias influenced the Trump-Russia investigation. In her mind, FBI agents frequently despise targets because of their criminal behavior. Her enmity towards Trump was no different than that she might feel towards a child molester or another target of an FBI investigation.Obviously, if an FBI agent hates a target because of the suspected crime and it later turns out that the crime never happened, one expects that enmity to evaporate. If, as in the case of Page, the enmity starts with Trump’s boorish but not illegal behavior, her enmity will persist whether or not the facts bear out the Russia collusion hoax. Thus, there’s a huge difference between an agent being passionate about fighting crime by investigating a target and an agent wanting to use a criminal investigation to get a target.The good news for America is that the Page transcripts indicate the anti-Trump FBI agents appear to have drunk the Russian collusion Kool-Aid but didn’t brew it. In contrast to senior DOJ attorney Bruce Ohr, who pushed the Trump-Russia theory that his own wife was paid to work on, the FBI seems to take some pains to prevent its work on the Russia-collusion case from affecting the election. This is why former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found it necessary to send an October 31, 2016, open letter to the FBI accusing the FBI of sitting on “explosive” information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump and the Russian government.Adam Mill is a pen name. He works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. Adam has contributed to The Federalist, American Greatness, and The Daily Caller.
The Hill's Morning Report — Mueller Time: Dems, GOP ready questions for high-stakes testimony-By Alexis Simendinger and Al Weaver - 07/22/19 06:41 AM EDT
Welcome to The Hill’s Morning Report. Happy Monday! Our newsletter gets you up to speed on the most important developments in politics and policy, plus trends to watch. Co-creators are Alexis Simendinger and Al Weaver (CLICK HERE to subscribe!). On Twitter, find us at @asimendinger and @alweaver22.After months in the making, former special counsel Robert Mueller is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on Wednesday as House Democrats say they hope his appearance spurs committees’ ongoing probes of President Trump.Although Mueller has he won’t go beyond the four corners of his 448-page report, House Democrats are expected to shine a spotlight on its most untoward and unpleasant aspects as they try to move the ball in their investigation of Trump. Meanwhile, House Republicans are expected to defend the president and question the origins of Mueller’s 22-month investigation. It is also likely that they will invoke Mueller’s finding that there was no collusion among Trump, his campaign associates and Russians.Morgan Chalfant looks at 10 questions that lawmakers on the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees could pose to the former special counsel. Among them: Whether he would have charged Trump if it weren’t for the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Why his office wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr objecting to his four-page memo detailing the report’s main conclusions.Whether the investigation exonerated Trump on the questions of collusion and obstruction of justice. The Hill: Key numbers to know for Mueller's testimony.James Comey: What I would ask Robert Mueller.Mueller’s appearance will be time-limited as his team negotiated constraints for the former special counsel with each panel. He is slated to testify before the House Judiciary Committee for three hours and before the House Intelligence Committee for two hours. It is unlikely that all lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee will be able to ask questions due to the time limit.With Mueller set to testify and comply with a subpoena more than three months after his report was released, House Democrats are defending the looming testimony and do not believe that the country has moved past the report in the meantime. In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nalder (D-N.Y.) noted that most people did not read the full report, necessitating Mueller to speak about it publicly.“The country has not moved on. The president and the attorney general have lied to the American people about what was in the Mueller report,” Nadler said. “That it found no collusion — that was not true. That it found no obstruction — that is not true.”“People don’t read a 448-page report, and I believe that when people hear what was in the Mueller report then we’ll be in a position to begin holding the president accountable and to make this less of a lawless administration,” he added. The president, who labeled the investigation “bullshit” during a campaign rally in North Carolina last week, told reporters on Friday that he will not be watching Mueller’s appearance on Wednesday, redirecting the conversation to the House’s vote last week on impeachment. The House voted 332-95 against launching impeachment proceedings, although Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) have vowed to continue the push to impeach the president (The Hill).Republicans agree with Trump and are hopeful to make the president’s case at the hearings. As Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a top ally of Trump who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told The New York Times, “We are going to re-elect the president.”The New York Times: In 88 trips to Capitol Hill, Mueller grew weary of partisanship.The Washington Post: Hostile witness or Democrats’ hero? Mueller’s past appearances before Congress offer clues.Politico: Democrats to face off against a reluctant Mueller.The Hill: Rudy Giuliani: Mueller should not testify before Congress.Axios: Mueller's day on the Hill.Jonathan Turley: What to expect when Mueller testifies: Not much.The New York Times: Mueller hearings on Wednesday present make-or-break moment for Democrats.
This week: Mueller dominates chaotic week on Capitol Hill-By Jordain Carney and Juliegrace Brufke - 07/22/19 06:00 AM EDT
All eyes will be on special counsel Robert Mueller this week as he delivers his first public testimony since wrapping up his two-year investigation into 2016 Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign. Anticipation over Mueller's Wednesday testimony comes as Congress is facing a jam-packed week as lawmakers wind down their work ahead of the August recess. The House is set to leave town on Friday; the Senate is scheduled to leave next week. But Mueller's first hearing, and any potential fallout from his testimony, is dominating chatter around Washington even as lawmakers have other looming deadlines, including wrapping up budget talks. Mueller, who is appearing under subpoena, is slated to testify before the House Judiciary Committee for three hours followed by two hours of questioning before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. He has said he will not discuss anything outside of the details of his report, but that’s expected to do little to stem the flow of questions as lawmakers try to push him to shed new light and answer long debated questions about his investigation. Democrats are expected to grill Mueller on potential obstruction by the administration during his investigation into Russian interference during the highly anticipated hearings.Top Democrats said it’s necessary to give the American people answers on the 448-report, arguing they feel it was initially misrepresented by Attorney General Bill Barr, who they argue spun its content in favor of the president."I think there's a lot of he can shed light on in terms of the course of his investigation, a number of the decisions that were made in terms of specific prosecutorial matters, some of the factual allegations he makes on the report," House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Hill shortly after the hearings were announced. "But also things that are beyond the report that involve other witnesses, other relevant issues. We know very little, for example, about the role of the counterintelligence investigation that was taking place contemporaneous with the criminal probe,” he continued.Schiff said Sunday he believes the president could still be indicted.“It’s been clear from Bob Mueller that he felt and the Justice Department feels bound by the Office of Legal Counsel opinion you can’t indict a sitting president. [Trump] is essentially an unindicted co-conspirator,” he said during an appearance on Face the Nation. “... In my point of view, he should be indicted. It’s the view of the Justice Department in that indictment that Donald Trump coordinated the legal scheme. He’s not above the law.”Democrats are expected to press Mueller on whether or not he would have charged Trump with obstruction of justice in the absence of an OLC opinion from the Justice Department that says a sitting president can’t be indicted.They’ll also likely try to get Mueller to weigh in on the party’s ongoing debate about whether or not to start impeachment proceedings against Trump.Mueller, during a nine-minute public statement on his findings did not mention impeachment but said the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing”Though Democratic leadership was able to squash a bid to impeach Trump last week, the issue is far from over with several new lawmakers endorsing starting impeachment proceedings. Reps. Al Green (D-Texas) and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who have been in the middle of the impeachment fight, are pledging to move forward with their impeachment later this year. Republicans — who have argued that bringing Mueller in testify is a political ploy by Democrats and an unnecessary move after he already released the report — are expected to inquire into alleged FBI misconduct during the Russia investigation.“I think he wrote the report as critical of the president as he could be and almost anything we ask him now is going to cast it in a better light,” said Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), a member of the Intelligence Committee. “I think we have a real opportunity here.”Trump told reporters on Friday that he won’t be watching Mueller’s testimony. Though Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman (R-S.C.) has asked Mueller if he wants to testify, there are no expectations that the former special counsel will make a repeat performance before the Senate.
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
25 Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
1 TIMOTHY 1:9
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
ROMANS 3:13-14
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 TIMOTHY 3:13
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
JEREMIAH 17:9
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
THE LIBERALS ARE SO SCARED THAT THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT WEDNESDAY WHEN TRUMP HATER ROBERT MUELLER. GOES TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS REPORT. THE LIBERAL SEWER RATS ARE SO SELF DELUDED. THEY THINK JUST CAUSE MUELLER ANSWERS QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS REPORT. TRUMP WILL BE PROVED OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANERS. THE LIBERALS ARE IN THEIR CRY ROOMS WITH EVERY THEOROPY GOING. PRAYING TO SATAN TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK MUELLER WEDNESDAY. BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS WILL BACK FIRE ON THEIR HEADS. AND THE LIBERALS WILL BE THE ONES THAT WILL BE IMPEACHED BY JAIL SENTENCES IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THE REPUBLICANS KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK. AND THE QUESTIONS WILL BE ABOUT HOW THIS FRAUD WITCH HUNT STARTED BY A FRAUD DOSSIER. THAT THE LIBERALS AND HITLARY 2ND CLINTON PAID BIG BUCKS FOR AND DREAMED UP WITH THEIR RUSSIAN AGENTS AND CLINTON LOVER STEELE AND THE OHRS. AND FUZION. THE LIBERAL MENTAL CASES ARE SO SELF DELUDED THEY THINK THEY CAN PROVE THAT TRUMP COMMITED CRIMES. ANALYSTS ARE SAYING THE REASON MUELLER CHANGED THE QUESTION DATE FROM JULY 17TH TO JULY 24TH. IS BECAUSE IN SECRET MUELLER AND THE LIBERAL MENTAL CASES WERE COLLUDING TOGETHER TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS THAT WILL MAKE TRUMP LOOK LIKE A CRIMINAL. WHEN ITS SETTLED A LONG TIME AGO. TRUMMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE INNOCENT OF ALL COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA. AND ANY OTHER CRIMINAL CHARGES. BUT YOU CAN NOT GET THAT THREW BRAIN DEAD-LIBERALS THAT ARE SO SELF DELUDED. THEY BELIEVE THEIR OWN LIES. AND BELIEVE. THEY CAN STILL SCHEME UP A WAY TO IMPEACH DONALD JOHN TRUMPY. THE LIBERAL SPIN DOCTORS AND THE MEDIA ARE REALLY ON HIGH ALERT SCARED MODE. AND WILL BE SAYING ANYTHING UNTILL WEDNESDAY. TO TRY TO GET THE AMERICANS AGAINST TRUMP. BUT I GOT NEWS FOR THE LIBERALS INSTEAD OF LOCK JUST HER CLINTON UP. THE NEW CHANT WILL BE. LOCK THEM ALL UP. THE LIBERALS THAT ALL COLLUDED WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS AND TRYED TO DO A COUP AGAINST TRUMP BY TREASONOUS MEANS. STARTING WITH THE QUEEN SEWER RAT OF THE LIBERAL TRUMP HATERS HITLARY 2ND CLINTON, JAMES COMEY, LISA PAGE, AND HER ADULTEROUS LOVE BIRD PETER STRZOK, CHRISTOFER STEELE, JOHN BRENNAN, JAMES (CLAP ON CLAP OFF) THE CLAPPER, ROD ROSENSTEIN, NELLIE AND BRUCE OHR, FUZION GPS, ANDREW MCCABE, JAMES BAKER THE LEAKER-ONE OF MANY IN THIS FRAUD TREASONOUS WITCH HUNT AGAINST TRUMP.AND ALL THE FAKE NEWS LEFT MEDIA, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, CTV, AND ALL THE OTHER LEFT WING RETARD LOSER SEWER RAT FAKE NEWS TRUMP HATER LIBERAL MEDIA AND HOLLYWOOD OF COURSE.
Webb: Questions for Robert Mueller-By David Webb, opinion contributor — 07/16/19 07:03 PM EDT
I know it is a take from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and close to what Democrats have been saying for months. For you Bueller fans who feel slighted, remember that imitation is the greatest form of flattery.The delayed testimony before the House Oversight and Reform and House Judiciary committees gives you time to digest the questions and there is still time to review the Mueller report, if so inclined. It is possible the former special counsel Robert Mueller who testifies will be the one who wants to be invited to the Martha’s Vineyard parties and asked to speak at Harvard. It’s possible that the Mueller who wants to walk away from 22 months, millions of dollars spent and nothing of presidential level consequence in his plea deals and convictions says little and references his report. We’ve seen that play before.Who asks the questions also matters. Too often politicians pontificate and play to their donors and their base regardless of party. They don’t follow a line of questioning the way a prosecutor or defense attorney would. There are times to continue the line of questioning and there are times to pivot.In Michael Isikoff’s book, “Russian Roulette,” he explains that Christopher Steele’s own business partner didn’t believe the information in his reports was accurate. Likewise, Clinton vendor Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS couldn’t use Steele’s increasingly outrageous reports because they weren’t sourced or documented. Instead, to get the Steele info in play, they gave it to the FBI and then briefed national security reporters about the info to stir the pot, including the tip that the FBI was investigating the info. Isikoff took the bait and wrote one of the first stories at Yahoo News. CIA Director John Brennan called then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to download info and encouraged Reid to politicize the Russia-Trump connection in October.Imagine that. The CIA director politicizing unverified information that originated with the Clinton campaign. This information turned out to be false.Two days later, Reid penned a letter to Comey demanding an investigation into Trump. Most information in Reid’s letter was sourced to public news reports, but one issue alluding to Carter Page — reporting falsely that he met with a high Kremlin official — was not public. It came from Brennan or the Clinton campaign or law firm Perkins Coie. At that point, Brennan was directly coordinating campaign messaging. Since the subject was the obsession of the nation’s law enforcement institutions, intelligence agencies and national press corps, and the info was put into national circulation by the Clinton campaign and Steele Dossier, determining the original source and accuracy of that dossier should have been the first step of a thorough investigation.There is no indication such an inquiry occurred in the Mueller report. Mueller assumed the accuracy of the report, started with it, and investigated Trump. He should have started with the dossier info and tested it first.They all seem to feel the need to speak but in many cases some should not. Republican or Democrat here are some key questions.Since the Steele Dossier reported contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, the truth and accuracy of the dossier should have been an important part of your investigation. Explain everything you did to investigate the accuracy of the Steele Dossier and if not, why not? The accuracy is not discussed in your report, why not? Mueller’s mandate was to look at Trump’s Russia collusion. The obvious follow-up question is why did you prosecute Paul Manafort for completely unrelated matters from a decade back? Were you aware that the Eastern District of Virginia had essentially declined that same case? Why didn’t you decide the question of obstruction? Wasn’t that your job? Wasn’t that why you were hired as special counsel? Were you concerned about the fallout from being “the guy who cleared Trump?”Isn’t it true that you spoke to Attorney General William Barr the day after your letter to him? Didn’t he specifically ask if you thought anything about the summary was inaccurate? Didn’t you say “no?”Don’t you agree that on a declination it is Department of Justice policy to not then attack the investigation subject with all kinds of negative facts? Shouldn’t the case be declined with nothing more said? You have been a prosecutor for years. Have you ever exonerated anyone on a declination? For example, on a bank robbery investigation would you say “I’m clearing the alleged robber?” because the next day you might come across a video of him robbing the bank.What facts merited a 400-plus page report if not for political reasons? Digest these questions and come up with your own in a reasonable form. We will see if the donkey and pony show happens in Congress next week.Webb is host of “The David Webb Show” on SiriusXM Patriot 125, host of “Reality Check with David Webb” on Fox Nation, a Fox News contributor and a frequent television commentator. His column appears twice a month in The Hill.
Lisa Page Transcripts Reveal Huge Preferences For Clinton During Email Scandal Investigation-The Lisa Page transcripts reveal how politics corrupted the two critical investigations that influenced the 2016 election: the Clinton email scandal and the investigation into the Trump-Russia hoax.By Adam Mill-March 19, 2019
Did the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice use their awesome powers to interfere in the 2016 election? The recent release of the Lisa Page transcripts takes us one step closer to understanding how politics corrupted the two critical investigations that influenced the 2016 election: the Clinton email scandal and the investigation into the Trump-Russia hoax.Page, an FBI lawyer at the time who served directly under the now-disgraced former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, clearly revealed herself as an early Russia hoax true believer on a team of “saviors” blind to the bigger picture in both investigations. Let’s take a closer look at some of the key revelations in her testimony to Congress and their chilling warnings about the integrity of future American elections.The Fix Was In-“Midyear Exam,” the code name for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information using a private server and email address, formally closed on July 5, 2016, with a public announcement by James Comey, then the FBI director. Page confirmed there was little question about the outcome from early in the investigation.Readers recall President Obama’s 2015 “60 Minutes” interview in which he articulated a pre-conclusion hauntingly similar to the July 5, 2016, final announcement exonerating Clinton. Obama suggested that Clinton had made a “mistake,” and never intended to violate the law. It, therefore, comes as no surprise that Page told Congress, “Every single person on the team, whether FBI or [sic] knew far earlier than July that we were not going to be able to make out sufficient evidence to charge a crime.”While Comey claimed he did not coordinate the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton with the political appointees in the Department of Justice, Page contradicted this assertion. Among the Department of Justice attorneys overseeing the Clinton-email investigation: John Carlin. He is the notorious DOJ attorney who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about widespread illegal and unconstitutional spying on Americans that so troubled the court and the National Security Agency that the NSA supposedly shut down the powerful surveillance program to remove the temptation from bureaucrats.Readers remember that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok, McCabe, and others began working on Comey’s speech exonerating Clinton long before she even submitted to an investigative interview. Page told Congress that the DOJ set the standard by which Clinton could be held criminally liable as “intentional” because a “gross negligence” standard (in the DOJ’s view) would be unconstitutionally vague. The DOJ simply redefined the FBI’s burden of proof too high to reach any other outcome.The DoJ Meddled with FBI Techniques-Page told Congress that the DOJ meddled in the Clinton investigation over the FBI’s objection. She and other agents sought to interview Clinton in a two-on-two arrangement. Instead, both sides were allowed to bring a host of participants and observers. This allowed Clinton to get her story straight, in real time, with other fact witnesses.Page testified that she felt the FBI lacked the leverage to restrict the Clinton team. When asked whether Clinton could have been prevented from bringing people to assist her if she had been required to appear before a grand jury, Page acknowledged that in such a situation Clinton would have been forced to answer questions without any assistance, including a lawyer.For some time, the DOJ was criticized for not allowing the FBI to use grand jury subpoenas to compel testimony in the Clinton email probe. Page said she and “everyone” in the FBI objected to the format that allowed Clinton to appear with other fact witnesses, but that somebody in the DOJ directed otherwise. Page did not know who, which means that the person who exercised this authority has so far escaped public accountability.Page also objected to the government bringing several of its representatives. She and the rest of the FBI favored a standard two-on-two format preferred in interviews. She felt the large contingent of government participants made the government appear to have “loaded for bear or guns blazing,” with an army of agents and lawyers.Look Ma, No Leaks!-Rep. Sheila Jackson (D-TX) asked Page a series of questions suggesting if Page or Strzok really wanted to stop Trump from getting elected, it would have been as simple as leaking the existence of the FBI investigation. Jackson argued that the absence of FBI leaks about the investigation proved that Page and Strzok set aside their personal feelings about candidate Trump to investigate dispassionately.This is wrong. As fellow Federalist writer Margot Cleveland identified in her own research, the existence of the investigation not only leaked, but the FBI felt the need to also leak the absence of any clear evidence linking Trump to Russia.At least two FBI officials are or have been investigated for leaking to the press during the 2016 election cycle: McCabe and former General Counsel James Baker. McCabe is believed to have leaked information confirming an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Baker is believed to have leaked something to David Corn, who was among the first reporters to break Trump-Russia collusion stories prior to the election. Corn denies using Baker as a source for the pre-election Trump-Russia dossier story.Nevertheless, Jackson has something of a point. There were Trump-Russia collusion leaks in the run-up to the election but these arguably happened in spite of, not because of, the FBI. Indeed, Democrats were outraged by the perceived double standard at the publicity surrounding the Clinton investigation versus the relative discretion that the Trump campaign received in the Russia investigation. Ironically, it was this outrage that led to a call for the very inspector general investigation that revealed the Strzok-Page texts with pro-Clinton bias.It’s Only Bias If You Disagree with Me-In her testimony Page repeatedly congratulated herself on her lack of bias, arguing that prioritizing the Trump-Russia collusion scandal over the Clinton scandal was the logical outcome of weighing the seriousness of the two allegations. She said, “And with respect to how threatening that would be––again, if it were true––the notion that there might be more emails that have not previously been seen that existed on Hillary Clinton’s email server just simply don’t even enter into the realm of the same room of seriousness.”Page and the FBI generally missed the point of the Clinton scandal. The most serious problem with Clinton’s mishandling of the emails was not the leak of potentially classified information but that the whole purpose of the email server in the first place may have been to hide a large-scale influence-for-sale operation from a cabinet post. The voting public had an interest in knowing whether the same operation would be scaled up to the U.S. presidency. This is why the Midyear Exam investigation was arguably more critical to the future of the republic than the Russia investigation.Did Page ever see any political bias in the FBI? Her answer revealed everything. The only bias she perceived was anti-Clinton sentiment. She revealed, “I am aware of senior FBI officials talking to subordinate FBI officials on the Hillary Clinton investigative team who unquestionably had anti-Hillary sentiment, but who also said: ‘You have to get her…. We’re counting on you.'”These officials, Sandy Kable and Randy Coleman, had an early role in the Clinton email investigation but at the time they made these statements “were no longer in a position of authority over the Clinton investigation.” This leaves one to wonder whether the FBI policed anti-Clinton bias in the investigation but not pro-Clinton, anti-Trump bias.Similarly, Page saw no indication her anti-Trump bias influenced the Trump-Russia investigation. In her mind, FBI agents frequently despise targets because of their criminal behavior. Her enmity towards Trump was no different than that she might feel towards a child molester or another target of an FBI investigation.Obviously, if an FBI agent hates a target because of the suspected crime and it later turns out that the crime never happened, one expects that enmity to evaporate. If, as in the case of Page, the enmity starts with Trump’s boorish but not illegal behavior, her enmity will persist whether or not the facts bear out the Russia collusion hoax. Thus, there’s a huge difference between an agent being passionate about fighting crime by investigating a target and an agent wanting to use a criminal investigation to get a target.The good news for America is that the Page transcripts indicate the anti-Trump FBI agents appear to have drunk the Russian collusion Kool-Aid but didn’t brew it. In contrast to senior DOJ attorney Bruce Ohr, who pushed the Trump-Russia theory that his own wife was paid to work on, the FBI seems to take some pains to prevent its work on the Russia-collusion case from affecting the election. This is why former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found it necessary to send an October 31, 2016, open letter to the FBI accusing the FBI of sitting on “explosive” information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump and the Russian government.Adam Mill is a pen name. He works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. Adam has contributed to The Federalist, American Greatness, and The Daily Caller.
The Hill's Morning Report — Mueller Time: Dems, GOP ready questions for high-stakes testimony-By Alexis Simendinger and Al Weaver - 07/22/19 06:41 AM EDT
Welcome to The Hill’s Morning Report. Happy Monday! Our newsletter gets you up to speed on the most important developments in politics and policy, plus trends to watch. Co-creators are Alexis Simendinger and Al Weaver (CLICK HERE to subscribe!). On Twitter, find us at @asimendinger and @alweaver22.After months in the making, former special counsel Robert Mueller is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on Wednesday as House Democrats say they hope his appearance spurs committees’ ongoing probes of President Trump.Although Mueller has he won’t go beyond the four corners of his 448-page report, House Democrats are expected to shine a spotlight on its most untoward and unpleasant aspects as they try to move the ball in their investigation of Trump. Meanwhile, House Republicans are expected to defend the president and question the origins of Mueller’s 22-month investigation. It is also likely that they will invoke Mueller’s finding that there was no collusion among Trump, his campaign associates and Russians.Morgan Chalfant looks at 10 questions that lawmakers on the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees could pose to the former special counsel. Among them: Whether he would have charged Trump if it weren’t for the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Why his office wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr objecting to his four-page memo detailing the report’s main conclusions.Whether the investigation exonerated Trump on the questions of collusion and obstruction of justice. The Hill: Key numbers to know for Mueller's testimony.James Comey: What I would ask Robert Mueller.Mueller’s appearance will be time-limited as his team negotiated constraints for the former special counsel with each panel. He is slated to testify before the House Judiciary Committee for three hours and before the House Intelligence Committee for two hours. It is unlikely that all lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee will be able to ask questions due to the time limit.With Mueller set to testify and comply with a subpoena more than three months after his report was released, House Democrats are defending the looming testimony and do not believe that the country has moved past the report in the meantime. In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nalder (D-N.Y.) noted that most people did not read the full report, necessitating Mueller to speak about it publicly.“The country has not moved on. The president and the attorney general have lied to the American people about what was in the Mueller report,” Nadler said. “That it found no collusion — that was not true. That it found no obstruction — that is not true.”“People don’t read a 448-page report, and I believe that when people hear what was in the Mueller report then we’ll be in a position to begin holding the president accountable and to make this less of a lawless administration,” he added. The president, who labeled the investigation “bullshit” during a campaign rally in North Carolina last week, told reporters on Friday that he will not be watching Mueller’s appearance on Wednesday, redirecting the conversation to the House’s vote last week on impeachment. The House voted 332-95 against launching impeachment proceedings, although Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) have vowed to continue the push to impeach the president (The Hill).Republicans agree with Trump and are hopeful to make the president’s case at the hearings. As Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a top ally of Trump who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told The New York Times, “We are going to re-elect the president.”The New York Times: In 88 trips to Capitol Hill, Mueller grew weary of partisanship.The Washington Post: Hostile witness or Democrats’ hero? Mueller’s past appearances before Congress offer clues.Politico: Democrats to face off against a reluctant Mueller.The Hill: Rudy Giuliani: Mueller should not testify before Congress.Axios: Mueller's day on the Hill.Jonathan Turley: What to expect when Mueller testifies: Not much.The New York Times: Mueller hearings on Wednesday present make-or-break moment for Democrats.
This week: Mueller dominates chaotic week on Capitol Hill-By Jordain Carney and Juliegrace Brufke - 07/22/19 06:00 AM EDT
All eyes will be on special counsel Robert Mueller this week as he delivers his first public testimony since wrapping up his two-year investigation into 2016 Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign. Anticipation over Mueller's Wednesday testimony comes as Congress is facing a jam-packed week as lawmakers wind down their work ahead of the August recess. The House is set to leave town on Friday; the Senate is scheduled to leave next week. But Mueller's first hearing, and any potential fallout from his testimony, is dominating chatter around Washington even as lawmakers have other looming deadlines, including wrapping up budget talks. Mueller, who is appearing under subpoena, is slated to testify before the House Judiciary Committee for three hours followed by two hours of questioning before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. He has said he will not discuss anything outside of the details of his report, but that’s expected to do little to stem the flow of questions as lawmakers try to push him to shed new light and answer long debated questions about his investigation. Democrats are expected to grill Mueller on potential obstruction by the administration during his investigation into Russian interference during the highly anticipated hearings.Top Democrats said it’s necessary to give the American people answers on the 448-report, arguing they feel it was initially misrepresented by Attorney General Bill Barr, who they argue spun its content in favor of the president."I think there's a lot of he can shed light on in terms of the course of his investigation, a number of the decisions that were made in terms of specific prosecutorial matters, some of the factual allegations he makes on the report," House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Hill shortly after the hearings were announced. "But also things that are beyond the report that involve other witnesses, other relevant issues. We know very little, for example, about the role of the counterintelligence investigation that was taking place contemporaneous with the criminal probe,” he continued.Schiff said Sunday he believes the president could still be indicted.“It’s been clear from Bob Mueller that he felt and the Justice Department feels bound by the Office of Legal Counsel opinion you can’t indict a sitting president. [Trump] is essentially an unindicted co-conspirator,” he said during an appearance on Face the Nation. “... In my point of view, he should be indicted. It’s the view of the Justice Department in that indictment that Donald Trump coordinated the legal scheme. He’s not above the law.”Democrats are expected to press Mueller on whether or not he would have charged Trump with obstruction of justice in the absence of an OLC opinion from the Justice Department that says a sitting president can’t be indicted.They’ll also likely try to get Mueller to weigh in on the party’s ongoing debate about whether or not to start impeachment proceedings against Trump.Mueller, during a nine-minute public statement on his findings did not mention impeachment but said the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing”Though Democratic leadership was able to squash a bid to impeach Trump last week, the issue is far from over with several new lawmakers endorsing starting impeachment proceedings. Reps. Al Green (D-Texas) and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who have been in the middle of the impeachment fight, are pledging to move forward with their impeachment later this year. Republicans — who have argued that bringing Mueller in testify is a political ploy by Democrats and an unnecessary move after he already released the report — are expected to inquire into alleged FBI misconduct during the Russia investigation.“I think he wrote the report as critical of the president as he could be and almost anything we ask him now is going to cast it in a better light,” said Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), a member of the Intelligence Committee. “I think we have a real opportunity here.”Trump told reporters on Friday that he won’t be watching Mueller’s testimony. Though Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman (R-S.C.) has asked Mueller if he wants to testify, there are no expectations that the former special counsel will make a repeat performance before the Senate.
