RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Nilsen writes: "After weeks of speculation about whether special counsel Robert Mueller would testify before Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff have announced Mueller will appear in front of their committees in July."

Special counsel Robert Mueller testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee July 26, 2007, when he was FBI director. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)
Special counsel Robert Mueller testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee July 26, 2007, when he was FBI director. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)


Special Counsel Robert Mueller Has Agreed to Testify in Front of Congress

By Ella Nilsen, Vox

26 June 19


Mueller will testify before two House committees on July 17.

fter weeks of speculation about whether special counsel Robert Mueller would testify before Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff have announced Mueller will appear in front of their committees in July.

On Tuesday night, Nadler announced Mueller had agreed to testify, after his committee and the House Permanent Select Committee issued subpoenas. Mueller will testify in open session on July 17, according to the chairs.

�We look forward to hearing his testimony, as do all Americans,� Schiff and Nadler�s statement reads. �Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia�s attack on our democracy, the Trump campaigns acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates� obstruction of the investigation into that attack.�

But don�t expect too many bombshells from the special counsel�s testimony. Mueller has been very clear about what he will and will not talk about publicly in front of Congress: He will talk about what is already in his report on Russia�s meddling in the 2016 election and President Donald Trump�s alleged obstruction. He won�t talk about what he thinks about how Attorney General William Barr handled the report�s rollout, or anything else not in the report�s 448 pages.

�The report is my testimony,� Mueller said in a rare public statement last month. �I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.�

House Democrats want Mueller to give more information. They are deeply suspicious of the way Barr and the Trump administration handled the Mueller report rollout this spring and want to hear Mueller�s side of the story. But Mueller, seemingly afraid of politicizing the report and his role in it, has clearly said he has no desire to speak on it.

Democrats had hoped Mueller would willingly agree to testify in front of Congress, but House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler also floated the option of subpoenaing the special counsel last month if Trump tried to claim executive privilege to block it. �We will subpoena him if we have to,� Nadler reiterated in a CNN interview earlier this month.

Given the fact Mueller said his decision not to testify was his and his alone, committee chairs were hesitant to take the step of subpoenaing him, but eventually chose to. Mueller was easier to persuade than Trump administration officials, many of whom have chosen to ignore Democratic subpoenas.

Even if Mueller can�t speak to anything beyond the report, Democrats believe his testimony will be valuable as they slowly and methodically mount their campaign of investigations against Trump. Whether it will ultimately lead to impeachment is another question entirely � one House Democrats don�t appear any closer to tackling.

Mueller believes Congress should hold Trump accountable

Twice � once in his report and once in his public statement � Mueller has said he believes Congress is the body that should decide whether Trump obstructed justice by attempting to stop the investigations into his 2016 campaign.

Even with plenty of evidence, Mueller explained why his team did not charge Trump for obstructing justice, saying long-standing Department of Justice policy prevented him from indicting a sitting president. And as Vox�s Andrew Prokop wrote, Mueller went a step further, concluding he couldn�t even state whether Trump had broken the law because �it would be unfair to the president, because the fact that he can�t be charged means he can�t clear his name with an acquittal at trial.�

Mueller instead punted a fix to Congress. After examining Congress� role through the lens of separation of powers in the US Constitution and past court cases, Mueller concluded in his report that lawmakers are the ones with the authority to act in cases in which a president may have committed obstruction of justice.

�With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President�s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,� Mueller�s report reads.

He added this critical line: �The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President�s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.�

Mueller wrote that no person � not even the president of the United States � is above the law, and that the US Constitution doesn�t �categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice.� DOJ precedent effectively prevented Mueller from charging a sitting president but, as Prokop wrote, Mueller�s decision to investigate and lay out the potential for crimes and still not come to a conclusion one way or another sets another precedent for future presidents to act above the law � especially if they have confidence a politically split Congress won�t do anything about it.

Congress�s next steps will be critical because Mueller�s report explicitly states, �while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.�

Many Democrats viewed this as tantamount to an invitation to the House Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment inquiry � something House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants have been hesitant to wade into. The Democratic leader has instead advocated for her party to continue investigating the president, even as a growing number of her caucus calls for an inquiry to be opened.

The number of calls for an inquiry grew even more after Mueller�s public statement. Even if he is simply talking about the already known conclusions of his report, there�s the potential to cause even more Democrats to back an inquiry.

The drumbeat on an impeachment inquiry is growing steadily, but whatever House Democrats do, it is a decision now out of Mueller�s hands.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+29 # indian weaver 2013-11-05 09:33
F*ck the Coast Guard. Now they can pollute the rivers, streams and shorelines of their transport routes, just like the energy industry destroys the ground, aquifers and rivers with their spills. Just what we needed: another source of despicable behavior by the government because spills and accidents will happen, and the f*cking Coast Guard will be responsible. And in their wisdom, witness BP in the Gulf, these tragic deathly messes will never be cleaned up. Such is the price of a culture based on greed and arrogance, from government, Armed Forces and Energy Industry to death and destruction near you courtesy of these assassins.
 
 
+17 # Adoregon 2013-11-05 10:43
Uh, not too fracking bright.
NTFB.
 
 
+20 # Vardoz 2013-11-05 11:12
The way corporations are treating our environment is totally irresponsible and they simply don't give a damn because they are just to stupid. It takes a sense of responsibility to make wise decisions and corporations have a bad track record across the world. We live in a finite world that is already filled to the limit with life killing poison.
 
 
+8 # indian weaver 2013-11-05 11:23
Corporations are founded upon greed. These masters of the universe are not exactly stupid but they are ignorant. Otherwise their lives wouldn't be founded upon Greed and Arrogance.
 
 
+17 # jwb110 2013-11-05 11:32
Once they remove it by ship, then what do they do with it? Isn't that an important part of the question to be asked.
 
 
+3 # Old Man 2013-11-05 18:30
Quoting jwb110:
Once they remove it by ship, then what do they do with it? Isn't that an important part of the question to be asked.


They'll take this Fracking waste and dump it in the ocean and watch them say it not harmful sea life or humans.
 
 
+10 # motamanx 2013-11-05 11:39
 
 
+7 # MylesJ 2013-11-05 11:56
When they made that decision two years ago Origin Oil was not yet cleaning up fracking waste. The decision should be based on current technology, not who had the contracts several years ago.
 
 
+2 # Walter J Smith 2013-11-05 12:26
If you want to comment, the official rule making portal does not open.

It automatically resets and will not open at all.

Maybe it is too busy, but that is like saying the ACA rollout website was too busy.
 
 
+6 # Walter J Smith 2013-11-05 12:32
Of course they want to transport radioactive waste water by barge.

Not only is that cheaper transport; when it spills, it cannot be recovered!

Talk about cheap transport!

The barge captains will be getting commissions based upon who can turn their transporting activities around the fastest.

So the game will soon enough degenerate into who can pump the radioactive wastewater out of their barge while it is being pumped into their barge.

Why not dump it into the harbor?

Who cares where they dump it -- who, that is, among the corporate citizens who pull the strings that tell our elected puppets what to think, do, and say? And how much time to spend on each activity. And where to do, say, & think it.
 
 
+4 # indian weaver 2013-11-05 15:21
Here we have typical fascist collusion in industry between "government" and industry. How did these energy companies buy the Coast Guard to do their dirty work? How many Coast Guard corrupt criminals are on the take on this. We are paying the Coast Guard to help industry, right? Where do government and industry separate? The don't anymore. They are one in the same. Don't pay taxes, as starters, unless you want to be a co-conspirator in crimes against the planet with a government that deserves to die, asap. Actually, must die, not just "deserve to die".
 
 
+12 # karenvista 2013-11-05 15:25
Well, it will be coming to states like Texas and Louisiana who are owned by the oil industry and the waste will (if it makes it) dumped here.

They say that they will pump it back into the ground (to pollute our remaining aquifers) but that won't necessarily be the case.

The city of San Angelo in west Texas is already drinking radioactive tap water.

I have a friend who was a truck driver hauling waste water from fracking wells and he quit after he was told to dump it in a lake. He also said that people who cleaned the tanks died in some operations because they were made to clean the inside of tanks without safety equipment, so it is dangerous material.

I wouldn't put it past them to dump fracking fluid in the waterways. After all, they are corporations, they won't be regulated according to what we read above. They will "self-report" and maintain records in case some environmental group uncovers a major catastrophe and there are questions that "may" need to be answered afterwards, when nothing can be done to ameliorate the disaster.

If states approve fracking they should be required to dispose of all byproducts of the fracking process within their state boundaries. This is another example of the producer offloading the external costs onto unsuspecting members of the public.

This is disgusting!
 
 
0 # Glen 2013-11-06 07:22
karenvista, do you think the MAFIA will take over the disposal? They pretty much control all the landfill in Louisiana. I don't know about Texas. Recycling is a joke pretty much everywhere, too, in that materials are carted off and dumped, rather than actually recycled. Barges have helped in that effort also.

Those fracking barges will slide through the intercoastal waterway and across bays, going where?
 
 
+7 # Akeel1701 2013-11-05 15:34
An accident waiting to happen

why not just put it into the Frakking CEO's swimming pools?
 
 
+11 # damitch 2013-11-05 16:30
Where is the waste water going? How will it be disposed of when it gets there? How can it be treated/deconta minated if you don't know whats in it? Lots of questions that should be answered but probably never will be. The Republicans are always crying about leaving a debt to our grandchildren, but never worry about leaving them clean air, water and land.
 
 
+2 # itchyvet 2013-11-05 21:44
WOW ! Absolutely incredible, excellent example of the idiodicy of U.S. Government Departments and their slavish sycophant behavior.
On the other hand, a slow leak in said barge would solve the problem of disposal, allowing it to leak out, whilst allegedly on it's way to dump location, then on arrival they're empty, (funny that ) then turn around for another load.
I read recently, that the biggest issue facing the World, and in particular the U.S. is the availability of good quality fresh water. I can now see the reasons why this will be. On one hand, we have good water being contaminated after it's been used for fracking, water sources being contaminated by fracking activeties, it comes as no surprise, good water will be in short supply.
 
 
+5 # soularddave 2013-11-06 00:31
I have no doubt that shipping this dangerous liquid by barge is the safest method of transport, but it begs the question of "safer for whom?". Its spreading the risk around; externalizing the cost of the whole fracking operation.

Spreading the risk to whom? I drink water from the Mississippi. Do I voluntarily accept the risk?

Hell NO! What would I do if my drinking water is laced with these mysterious compounds and radioactivity? The whole treatment plant would be polluted! Everyone in my City would be put at risk.
 
 
+1 # Podrushka 2013-11-07 07:21
Go ahead and study the minutia,it is business as usual and we all know the outcome. Can any "policy" wonks do the right thing and reject these hair-brain schemes? Bad idea and i don't need a two year study to know it.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN