Mueller burned us

[boston bean]

I am more and more starting to believe that he isn’t some principled man unfettered by political bias.

His still working for Barr and in doing so, makes it obvious that he is not willing to stand up and speak truth to the American public. That is cause for concern.

I was willing to give him great benefits of the doubt. His report and his actions are starting to make me feel quite differently about him.

I guess we shall see.

[Siwsan]

1. He needs to decide where his loyalty belongs - with a corrupt DOJ or the nation, as a whole

I hold out hope that he's waiting for the optimum moment, which might not come until he is, again, a private citizen. Hopefully that will be very soon. Otherwise, it might be too late.

[boston bean]

2. It is also the drips coming out that weren't in the report that is also causing me suspicion.

[Nuggets]

47. Which particular drips?

Like the sternly worded letter supposedly from Mueller to Trump?

[Joe941]

4. He might be waiting for 2020 election...

The truth is the election is a long way off in political time. Anything said now will be long forgotten in 2020. He might me able to stick it to trump by waiting until 2020 election is much closer.

[Nuggets]

46. Or he might be waiting to stick it to Dems

by finally testifying or getting an un-redacted the report which ends up have nothing in it .

The fact that Dems placed all their hopes on this Republican and swore there was collusion written in those pages will be hung around our necks like an albatross.

[exboyfil]

56. That is more likely

I have thought this from day one. Mueller knows he has to answer to history, but he has carefully worked to minimize the Trump criminality in whatever way that he can with history in mind. I thought all the sweetheart deals that only involved process crimes and not the underlying original illegality should have been a strong hint.

[Nuggets]

61. Yes, Why is Flynn off the hook?

What super info did he have to get this no consequences deal?

It doesn’t make sense. Neither does the perpetual cheerleading here. The excuses and continued efforts to paint Mueller (as well as all the previous FBI members)!as so trustworthy without reason, in fact flying in the face of reason.

[lunasun]

101. Or might be waiting for 2020 election...so they can say any testimony would cause

interference and voter bias so close to an election and use Comey as an example of how wrong that would be

*see SCOTUS 02/16

[EffieBlack]

3. I see we've moved from last week's Pelosi bashing to several OPs going after Mueller today

Methinks this is not a coincidence.

[boston bean]

5. What does that mean? I am some Russian trump bot?

Nice personal attack you got going on there.

[EffieBlack]

8. It means what I said in plain English

Last edited Sun May 19, 2019, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

What you choose to infer is on you.

[boston bean]

10. "Methinks" is plain English?

[EffieBlack]

11. It was plain enough for you to understand it.

Perhaps you don’t know what “plain” means.

[boston bean]

12. Perhaps you don't.

[Nictuku]

23. It means exactly what I thought it meant

me·thinks
/miˈTHiNGks/
verb archaic•humorous
verb: methinks; 3rd person present: methinkses; past tense: methought; past participle: methought; gerund or present participle: methinksing

it seems to me.
"life has been rather hard on her, methinks"

[boston bean]

25. Can you also google "Englidh"?

[tymorial]

58. That was clearly a typo but you knew that.

Attacking someone on a clear spelling error it's quite passive aggressive.

[Jakes Progress]

98. When that's all you've got

and lack any real defense or principle, attack the grammar. You know. As in "He mistyped, so obviously everything he says is wrong?"

[Nictuku]

27. Why would I?

... that clearly was a typo. (I can read typo-ease) now that is a made up word, but you know what I mean, right?

[boston bean]

33. I guess if one is going to say someone must not understand plain English they may type

Plain English.

[Jakes Progress]

99. Your OP may have had a point, but

this nit picking over typos just reduces your argument to silliness.

Think about it. Why demean a point you wanted to make with childish nyah nyah.

Defend you point and stop attacking keystrokes.

[boston bean]

100. That's your conclusion after reading the sub thread?

[Jakes Progress]

103. Yep. And now your argument is down to emojis.

No better way to say that you have no foundational argument.

A shame since I thought the OP might lead somewhere. Oh well. Maybe someone else will make your point more maturely.

[boston bean]

104. You are funny!

[Jakes Progress]

106. So, what do you mean funny?

You think I'm here for your amusement? Like I'm a clown.

(Sorry. You just reminded me of Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas".)

Actually, I am quite the amusing character. I think it comes from my being able to see through the bullshit that people use when they are backed into a corner and refuse to admit they just popped off. So they throw up a bunch of smoke to brass it out, refusing to admit their error.

Again. Your OP had merit. Why crap all over your own thoughts?

[boston bean]

108. LOL

[irisblue]

24. "pelosi bashing? " you think that is a good way to phrase that?

[Fullduplexxx]

28. You'll have to ask effieblack it's their term

[KPN]

34. It was a set up. Gotta watch out for that.

ps -- just commenting as an innocent bystander.

[EffieBlack]

82. Someone set him/her up by getting them to say they were bashing Pelosi?

Wow. They must be pretty clever to trick someone into doing that...

[USALiberal]

19. Lol, paranoid much? Nt

[EffieBlack]

21. Nope. Just perceptive.

[LiberalLovinLug]

88. yup. Perceptive. Never wavering support for Mueller. Just like Comey and Rosenstein?

When Obama re-instated Bush's Republican FBI director Comey you were fine with that I assume. Reaching across the aisle in yet another hopeless attempt to show how darned post-partisan Dems can be.

Then you probably reacted with shock and horror when he threw out a false flag on the fake email scandal ten days before the election. Or did you stand by your "good" Republican still through that? Kept your faith in him, just like Mueller?

Then the story of how Comey kept notes and detailed how Trump demanded a loyalty oath from him, and refused. So Comey was fired. And was once again dusted off and put on a pedestal by a lot of Dems. Especially with him going on talk shows spilling the beans and the evil Orange turd coming after him on Twitter.


Then there's Rosenstein. He was exalted early for apponting Mueller (a Repubilcan of course) and saying he'd not interfere with the investigation, and would not stop it. The angrier and more abusive Trump got with him, the more some Dems were fooled into thinking he's also one of the "good guys", acting so professional and non-partisan.

Now Rod's back in the bad books for backing Barr's whitewash of the report. Along side reports of letters to Trump reassuring him that he'd make sure that everything turned out good for him.

No Republican is allowed anywhere NEAR a position of power anymore unless they swear an oath to the party before country, whether literally or not. And that includes protecting even the most vile disgusting excuse for a human being if he's an official and also a member of the REPUBLICAN party. From the President on down.


Its astonishing how easily some Democrats can get fooled. Riding rollercoasters up and down, up and down. Maybe because WE WANT TO BELIEVE" like The X Files, Mulder...that there is good in everyone, somewhere. Nobel ideals, but historical reality shows us that we simply cannot trust any Republican. At least now, in this highly partisan environment.

Mueller lives by Ronnies 11th commandment. He made sure that, even though there was enough circumstantial evidence, even hard evidence, he didn't totally exonerate him (he hardly could with what was gathered) but he did not "harm" another Republican either. Especially a Republican President. He handed it off to another good Republican, Barr, to finish off the job.

[Nuggets]

107. Right.

There is good reason to not trust Mueller.
His not wanting to appear partisan and the fawning over other supposed straight arrows who ended up being arrows shaped like accordions.


It’s wise to be cautious with them.


For all we know the GOP has begun helping moles get elected as Democrats. It’s the kind of thing Scientologists did with the IRS and Clearwater police department to keep hem from getting busted. We are dealing with a cult after all.

[Nuggets]

48. There are very good reasons not to trust Mueller.

For one he was appointed by Rod Rosenstein who was also called honest and “about to be fired” according to numerous articles.

Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe all called straight arrows who would show no political bias. All turned out to be crooked arrows filled with political bias.

Perhaps some caution on trusting Republicans is in order.

[watoos]

6. I have faith in Mueller,

We only got to see what Barr allowed us to see about his report.

We never got to see his summaries.

Congress never got to see the grand jury testimony where all of the dirt is.

If anyone is burning us it is Democrats who are allowing Republicans to hide the real Mueller report and allowing Republicans to ignore subpoenas.

Democrats need to step up to the plate, Mueller already batted. Waiting isn't an option, debates start this fall and elections in February.

[boston bean]

7. The summaries were released.

You dont’t find it important to know Flynn was attempting to obstruct justice with Matt Gaetz?

[watoos]

36. Mueller's executive summaries were never released,

This is the best I can do, (computer illiterate) here is an excerpt from the NY Times, written by Mark Mazzetti, and Michael Schmidt,

During the call, according to Mr. Barr, the special counsel pressed again for Mr. Barr to immediately make public the executive summaries to provide a more accurate picture of the conclusions of the Mueller report. Mr. Barr said he was disinclined to put out the report in “piecemeal” fashion.

In the weeks that followed, Mr. Barr repeatedly and publicly made veiled criticisms of Mr. Mueller and his team. Asked during congressional testimony in early April whether the Mueller investigation had been a “witch hunt,” he demurred. On April 18, hours before the report’s release, he gave a news conference during which he said he disagreed with Mr. Mueller’s legal reasoning on the obstruction of justice issue. He also went out of his way to explain how Mr. Trump’s behavior — when put in context — was understandable.

At this point, weeks after Mr. Mueller delivered his report, all the public had seen of his work was what Mr. Barr had summarized in his four-page letter.

On Wednesday, Mr. Barr was clearly peeved, even defiant, at the criticism that his actions had played a distorting role in molding the narrative of the Mueller report in a way that benefited his boss.

He called the controversy “mind-bendingly bizarre” because he always intended to release a fuller version of the report.

I repeat, Barr never released Mueller's executive summary.

[boston bean]

59. Yes they were released.

Here you can read them:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/05/02/read-mueller-report-summaries/

[EffieBlack]

13. People need to stop jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information

and assuming that if they’re not privy to information, it doesn’t exist.

We don’t yet have the whole story, so I’m reserving judgment.

[MLAA]

32. +1.

I have faith in Nancy, Chuck and Jerry. I see things building step by step. I think Mueller team’s recent interaction with The judge resulting in Judge’s request for unredacted report as well as Amash speaking out as steps that things are moving in a very well planned manner. We will see what more Mueller chooses to do, for now he has declined every opportunity to support Barr. I believe that speaks volumes, but we will see.

[Grasswire2]

43. Jumping to a conclusion about BostonBean's intent is okay, though?

Just asking.

[Nuggets]

50. Apparently so.

I find it interesting how we’re never to question Mueller’s integrity on here.

Certain politicians shall not be vetted and neither shall the person all are depending on to get these insane people out of office.


He can’t indict excuse is baloney AFAIC because the Republicans stated a president could be indict while they went after Clinton.

Since it is just a policy and certainly not against the law to indict Trump he could very well indict. Same for Jr .
Mueller chose not to.
He’s choosing to help an obviously corrupt individual to stay in a powerful office and there is
no excuse for that.

[USALiberal]

60. Lol, like you jumped to yours?? Classic! Nt

[Honeycombe8]

9. I don't think his actions were unprincipled, but I agree that he burned us.

It was a huge disappointment.

Bill Maher asked former U S Atty Preet Bharara if another prosecutor/counsel could have looked at that same evidence and come to a different judgment on what it means? Preet quickly responded, "Yes."

In the end, it was his judgment call that did the country a disservice. He could have reasonably come to a different conclusion, but failed to do so. On both aiding & abetting Russian interference in our democracy and obstruction of justice.

[CaptainTruth]

15. I guess our society has conditioned us to expect instant gratification in all things.

"His still working for Barr and in doing so, makes it obvious that he is not willing to stand up and speak truth to the American public."

Obvious? Really? It makes far more sense for Mueller to testify as a private citizen, not a DOJ employee.

Why might Mueller still be at the DOJ? Well, he just oversaw an exstensive 2 year investigation that generated something like 800 pages of evidence & it takes a while to wrap up something of that magnitude & make sure it's in good hands at the DOJ (not hands controlled by Barr, who might just destroy it all to hide it). Plus, I believe Mueller cares about the 12 unknown cases he handed off, I'm sure he doesn't want Barr to just shut those down & destroy the evidence.

If only Mueller had been working the register at Arby's ... he could have just taken off his apron, walked out, & testified for Congress the next day. Unfortunately, the reality is more complicated than that.

The only way I will ever say "Mueller burned us" is if he testifies to Congress & repeats Barr's lies, contradicting his own report.

[EffieBlack]

20. Thank you for the truth-telling

And I suspect that most of the people complaining about Mueller and the Dems supposedly not making enough sacrifices have done little more for the cause than look away from the tv long enough to write another outraged post on DU telling the world what the people in the arena AREN’T doing to their satisfaction - and wouldn’t for even one second ever consider walking off of their job or make any other sacrifice to help achieve the ends they’re calling for from others.

[watoos]

37. Contradicting the redacted report,

we don't have a copy of Mueller's report, we don't have a copy of Mueller's executive summaries of his report, we don't have copies of the grand jury testimony. That's the fault of House Democrats that we don't have Mueller's full report.

[StarfishSaver]

42. "the fault of House Democrats that we don't have Mueller's full report."

No, it's not.

The Democrats have subpoenaed the support and doing what they need to do to enforce the subpoena, I taking the steps required to issue a legal and enforceable contempt citation.

What exactly to do think they should be doing to obtain and release the report that they're not doing?

Please be specific.

Thanks.

[watoos]

54. Open an impeachment hearing

Immediately tell Barr to release to Congress the grand jury testimony. Barr even stated he would release grand jury documents.
File contempt charges with the courts requesting they be expedited because of the election.

[StarfishSaver]

63. Sounds good. But

Opening an impeachment inquiry won't grant Congress any authority to order Barr to release the grand jury materials.
This has to be ordered by a court. And while a court can order the release of grand jury materials to an impeachment inquiry, it can also order their release to proceedings other than and preliminary to an impeachment inquiry, such as oversight hearings.

And, even then, a judge is not required to order a release of these materials to any proceeding, be it an impeachment hearing or something else.

And an election in 18 months is not sufficient cause for a judge to expedite a proceeding

[Nuggets]

57. Instant gratification?

The FBI has known about this since 2015!
And there actions throughout this entire investigation have been questionable.

The first quiet warning of the Russian operation came in September 2015, when an agent from the FBI's Washington Field Office notified the Democratic National Committee that Russian hackers had compromised at least one DNC computer. It was the FBI's first direct contact with the DNC: a message left for a low-level computer technician, who did not return the FBI's call.
"They left a phone message at the help desk of the DNC," Podesta said. "They didn't treat it with the kind of seriousness, I think, that it deserved."

It’s not that complicated. Plus our FBI has already helped a rapist get seated in the SCOTUS with their
“investigation” of Kavanaugh.

[LisaM]

93. If I got a voicemail saying it was the FBI, I would tend to not believe it.

That is still unbelievable to me. "Hello, this is the FBI, not sure who I'm speaking to, but you may have been hacked. Bye!" Clunk.

Yeah, that sounds real.

The FBI should have shown up in person, with proper ID, and taken it right to the top. The fact that they didn't pretty much set the stage for everything that was to come.

[Glimmer of Hope]

16. Did you see his "snitty" letter to Barr or the letter signed by hundreds of former prosecutors who

would prosecute Trump based on Mueller's report?

[StarfishSaver]

22. Did you actually read the prosecutors' letter?

They didn't say they would prosecute Trump based on Mueller's report or that Mueller should have indicted him.

"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice ...We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report."

They weren't criticizing or second-guessing Mueller at all nor did they say that they would have handled this particular case any differently than Mueller did, given the restrictions he was working under. This letter was a challenge, not to Mueller, but to Barr and the OLC restriction.

[Beringia]

17. He strikes me as a bookworm

Got all the information, but that is as far as he goes. He doesn't have a horse in the race. I have been waiting for Daniel Ellsberg to speak up on his twitter but nothing. We need a new hero in this drama.

[watoos]

38. Yeah, a decorated Vietnam war veteran book worm.

I am guessing you don't know Mueller's Vietnam war history? I'm guessing that punks like Barr and Trump don't scare him one bit.

[Beringia]

62. Well I don't think he has ever spoken out against the Vietnam war

which was a terrible war for nothing. He may be brave in combat, but that does not mean he wants to bring Trump to justice. Interestingly I read some comments by conservatives, and they discount his Vietnam service.

[pnwmom]

39. He's a non-partisan, and he gave the evidence for prosecution to the body the Constitution

gave the power of impeachment, and he mentioned impeachment more than 20 times.

It isn't his job to have a horse in the race.

[Nuggets]

51. You have no idea if he's non partisan.

Same was said of Comey, McCabe and Rosenstein obviously not true.

His job is law enforcement, he failed miserably

[stopdiggin]

67. Don't think so

He gave his "report" to the A.G. (which as I understand it was what was required) .. NOT to the "body that has the power of impeachment." That body (congress) still doesn't have the full unredacted report.

Not weighing in on Mueller (I've said my piece in the past). Just correcting a misstatement.

[pnwmom]

78. He was following the law that required him to submit a report to the AG

of his decisions whether or not to prosecute.

In the report he said he was preserving the evidence so that it could be used either in impeachment or after he left office, in a criminal trial.

[NewJeffCT]

89. The law required Barr to hand over the full report

to Congress. Neal Katyal wrote the SCO regulations in the late 90s and knows them better than anyone - According to him, the regulations were designed to get the information to Congress so nothing like what Barr is doing could happen.

[stopdiggin]

90. then what about Mueller

I'm not sure if everyone agrees on that interpretation (I've heard otherwise). But, if so .. Mueller would certainly be aware that Barr was flouting those regulations/requirements wouldn't he?

[NewJeffCT]

92. Yes I'm sure he does

However, Mueller is a 'chain of command' type of guy and he is likely is leaving it up to his superiors and Congress to duke it out.

From what I heard, even the letter he sent to Barr saying he disagreed with Barr's summary was a huge deal - one legal analyst with a US attorney background said it was the equivalent of Mueller standing in front of the DoJ and setting himself on fire.

[Funtatlaguy]

18. He has one unique opportunity to take down Trump.

Will he do so?
He can avoid going to the committee.
He can go and basically say nothing.
Or he can go and openly answer all questions.

[FakeNoose]

109. He can also leak the full report

... in such a way that nobody would know it came from him.

Just sayin'



FWIW - I do believe the report will be leaked. Not sure when, but hopefully SOON!

[Quackers]

26. I still believe Mueller is doing his duty for the country.

He’s avoiding giving either side the idea of siding with the other and sticking with what he can/is allowed to do by law. For that, he gets thrown under the bus by both sides. I believe he is an honorable person.

[EffieBlack]

29. Some people are upset that Democratic leaders don't behave like a left wing version of Trump

They want them to appeal to and do the bidding ONLY of the furthest end of the base. Remember how pissed they were at President Obama every time he behaved as if he thought he Was president of the entire United States and not just left wing of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

And this expectation and outrage is not limited to Democratic leaders. Now they are furious at Robert Mueller because he’s not behaving like a Democratic version of William Barr.

[pnwmom]

40. Right. They don't understand or believe in the concept of non-partisanship,

with regard to the justice system (or anywhere else).

[GemDigger]

31. Did you read the Mueller report?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955249-Report.html

[StarfishSaver]

35. I doubt that most of the people who are criticizing in - on the right and left - have even read it

[watoos]

41. If your neighbor tells you he is moving away in a week,

and 2 days later you see him knocking the teeth out of his wife and kids, no need to call the cops right? He will soon be gone, moved to another town, out of your hair.

Trump deserves way more than just being voted out of office.

[StarfishSaver]

45. And when the cops come and arrest him without doing any investigation

take him to jail, question him without a lawyer and then beat a confession out of him, and a jury convicts him because everyone knows he's guilty and, by God, he sure deserved it, don't get mad when the appellate court throws out the verdict and orders him released and blame them for being soft and cowardly.

We have processes and rules for a reason. And they aren't just to be used when convenient but ignored when we're angry and anxious.

[Blues Heron]

55. I'm not sure you understand that we're in an emergency right now

Delaying, and talk of delaying, only helps the thugs and the orange anus

[StarfishSaver]

65. "Emergencies" aren't justification for ignoring the law.

Unless you're Trump ...

[TommyCelt]

85. THIS

nt

[shockey80]

44. Mueller hasn't burned us yet. He may still come forward and fix his mistake.

What he did made things worse that's for sure. When you indict someone, make it fucking clear so assholes like Barr can't twist your indictment.

[stopdiggin]

70. HE DIDN'T !!

He DIDN'T indict !!!

[madville]

49. I'm beginning to think that House Democrats don't really want him to testify

but they can't publicly say that. Something is odd here, reports are now saying it may not be until June or later. There are also reports that Republicans want him to testify. You have to remember that he was never on "our side" and that this is the man that helped sell WMDs in Irag as a terrorism threat to US soil back in 2003 as FBI Director.

[empedocles]

52. Mueller has been consistently been well thought out and way ahead of the

hot opinions of the given day. Even the barr redacted manipulated Report has been a Mueller gold mine for the pursuit of justice.

We all would like to see all this trump stuff move ahead at the greatest practical speed; but we should learn from experience. The Dems have only had a few months to get up to speed, and start moving forward.

[Neoma]

53. He has other investigations going.

It is in our best interest that he follows through on those.

[JI7]

64. it's not Mueller that is the problem

[Hekate]

66. Christ on a Trailer Hitch, people. How many of you have READ THE REPORT? Start THERE.

The ball is out of Mueller's court and in YOURS. The ball is out of Mueller's court and in the HOUSE and SENATE.

STOP POSTING THAT MUELLER IS NOT DOING HIS JOB AND START DOING YOURS.

[boston bean]

68. Oh,excuse me. Has he testified and I didn't see it.

[SunSeeker]

97. LOL

[StarfishSaver]

69. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

And that job is more than railing online about who's not doing what soon enough.

[Hekate]

71. Free &/or cheap! Read it here! Accept no substitutes!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212109872

[JustAnotherGen]

72. I've read the report

Purchased a searchable copy via WaPo on Amazon.

The "there" is there. As far as I'm concerned - every redaction leads back to Trump.

the most obvious question that hasn't been asked:

Me Mueller - who ordered you to stop your investigation?


The answer is not in the report.

[UniteFightBack]

73. He did was he was supposed to....however, others are not and he should of seen that coming a mile

away. But here's the thing...Mueller knows he will eventually testify where he will tell the truth...he will get his say.

[Locutusofborg]

74. If the Mueller Report is good enough for Justin Amash (R-MI)

One of the most far right members of Congress (founding member of the Freedom Caucus, Chair of the Liberty Caucus, member, 2nd Amendment caucus) to read the redacted report and come out for impeachment, its good enough for me.

[Blues Heron]

75. Yes

First one is always the hardest. Then flip two more, a trickle becomes a flood, next thing you know... We could have this done in a couple of weeks.

[StarfishSaver]

77. Yep.

One step at a time. And it will be much more effective if people think it was THEIR idea and not something forced on them by Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi has the grit and the ego to gently guide people to her desired direction while not appearing that it was all her idea.

Anyone who doesn't understand this should study how FDR gradually shifted public opinion from isolationism to intervening in World War Ii. Even though he knew it was right and necessary, he just didn't bully the public into going along. He gradually eased them into it without many people even knowing he was doing it.

Pelosi is following his playbook.

[Honeycombe8]

84. Reminder: Jeff Flake (AZ) "spoke up." They ended his career.

It depends on the politicians' constituents. If they're Trumpers, the politician knows he won't get re-elected. So there's a reason to speak up, whatever it may be. Make a lot of money from a book, like Flake did? Run for something else? Already got a cushy job lined up, so it'd help if he'd speak out against Trump to show he doesn't support corruption? He thinks the end of Trump is near, so he wants to go on the record as being on the ethical side?

[Locutusofborg]

76. Mueller still has to prosecute Roger Stone

He is not about to say anything publicly that will jeopardize that prosecution. The Stone trial isn’t until the Fall.
For that reason alone, Mueller’s testimony in congressional hearings may be less than illuminating. If the Democrats want complete openness from Mueller, they should wait until Roger Stone’s trial is over.

[former9thward]

79. Mueller is not concerned about the Stone prosecution.

Stone was not charged with anything that happened in 2016. He was charged with process crimes which occurred as a result of the investigation (lying, obstruction). Mueller is no more worried about the Stone case than he was about the other prosecutions of process crimes.

[StarfishSaver]

80. Has Mueller discussed his personal opinions and priorities with you?

[Locutusofborg]

81. Who said he was worried?

Having an upcoming trial impacts what a prosecutor can say in answering questions. The stumbling block in negotiations with Mueller for his testimony appears to be his absolute refusal to take a political position on his investigation, one way or the other.
“When he was FBI director, Robert Mueller operated on the principle that it was best to limit interactions with Congress in order to protect the agency from partisanship.

“Only go when it is unavoidable,” wrote Andrew McCabe, a former deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in his book “The Threat,” about Mr. Mueller’s attitude toward journeys to Capitol Hill. “Minimize your exposure time, don’t get too close to fissile material, keep something in between you and the danger.”—Wall Street Journal

[FrankBooth]

83. Asinine nonsense

NM

[ecstatic]

86. He did. And yet we're still waiting for Mueller to testify,

and for the full unredacted Mueller report to come out. There's already enough to impeach barr & trump. Let's use what we can from the report, but ffs, it's time to use everything else we know and act. Mueller is not going to be the knight in shining armor that people fantasize about, and he's damn sure not going to do congress' job for them.

[the_sly_pig]

87. Sewing the seeds of doubt....

One man and his group is not going to make or break the country. The fact is there may be more Pharisees in the country than thinkers.

Harry Reid placated Republicans for years. The world is changing and not for the better.

[Nitram]

91. I say, Old Bean, you seem to underestimate the work Mueller did and the evidence he gave us.

Now it's up to Congress and the American people. Mueller can't do it on his own.

[Locutusofborg]

95. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA)

Salud Carbajal, Democratic Representative of California’s 24th District

After obtaining his master’s degree, Carbajal served eight years in the United States Marine Corps Reserves, including active duty service during the 1991 Gulf War, while also working in various roles with several Santa Barbara-based non-profit organizations and in local government. Carbajal was a member of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's Red to Blue Program, which offers financial, communications, grassroots, and strategic support to candidates across the country. He ran on the issues of supporting middle class families, veterans affairs, and retirement solvency.

[SunSeeker]

96. I agree, boston bean.

It's looking like it more and more each day.

[BlueJac]

102. He has been a disappointment for sure...

typical Republican.

[Bettie]

105. My guess is that he has a big money gig lined up

after this is over.

The condition being that he doesn't say a single word about it and he's set for life.

He's a lifelong Republican and that's how it works.