Which Questions Would You Ask Mueller?

[LordBrownTrout]

Why are you so stupid?

Are you talking to me, trouser trout?

To mueller, tx. Haha

 

[georgephillip]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Possibly because the Grifter/Grafter-in-Chief was too timid to sit down for an interview under oath?

Mueller still managed to provide congress with a road map to impeachment in spite of his life-long Republican instincts.

The Scope and Results of the Mueller Report | emptywheel

"The Mueller Report does not purport to tell us what happened — that would be a violation of the regulations establishing the Special Counsel. It only describes the prosecutorial and declination decisions. The scope of those decisions includes:

• Who criminally conspired in two Russian election interference efforts (just one American was charged, but he did not know he was helping Russians troll the US)
• Whether Trump’s associates were agents of a foreign power in violation of FARA or 18 USC 951, including whether they were agents of Ukraine (as Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were before the election), Israel (as lots of evidence suggested George Papadopoulos might have been), Turkey (as Mike Flynn admitted he had been during and for a short while after the election), as well as Russia
• Whether Trump’s associates conspired with Russia in some way; Mueller’s review included a quid pro quo, but his prosecutorial decisions did not include things unrelated to Russia’s election interference (which might, for example, include pure graft, including during the Transition period or related to the inauguration)

• Which of Trump’s associates got charged with lying (Flynn, Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone), were ruled by a judge to have lied (Paul Manafort), and which lied but were not charged (at least three others, including KT McFarland) in an effort to obstruct the investigation
• Whether accepting a meeting offering dirt as part of the Russian government’s assistance to Trump or optimizing WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by Russia to help Trump’s campaign amount to accepting illegal donations from foreigners
• Whether Trump’s numerous efforts to undermine the investigation amount to obstruction"

 

[jc456]

Why did you ignore the real interference dossier?

 

[jc456]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Possibly because the Grifter/Grafter-in-Chief was too timid to sit down for an interview under oath?

Mueller still managed to provide congress with a road map to impeachment in spite of his life-long Republican instincts.

The Scope and Results of the Mueller Report | emptywheel

"The Mueller Report does not purport to tell us what happened — that would be a violation of the regulations establishing the Special Counsel. It only describes the prosecutorial and declination decisions. The scope of those decisions includes:

• Who criminally conspired in two Russian election interference efforts (just one American was charged, but he did not know he was helping Russians troll the US)
• Whether Trump’s associates were agents of a foreign power in violation of FARA or 18 USC 951, including whether they were agents of Ukraine (as Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were before the election), Israel (as lots of evidence suggested George Papadopoulos might have been), Turkey (as Mike Flynn admitted he had been during and for a short while after the election), as well as Russia
• Whether Trump’s associates conspired with Russia in some way; Mueller’s review included a quid pro quo, but his prosecutorial decisions did not include things unrelated to Russia’s election interference (which might, for example, include pure graft, including during the Transition period or related to the inauguration)

• Which of Trump’s associates got charged with lying (Flynn, Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone), were ruled by a judge to have lied (Paul Manafort), and which lied but were not charged (at least three others, including KT McFarland) in an effort to obstruct the investigation
• Whether accepting a meeting offering dirt as part of the Russian government’s assistance to Trump or optimizing WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by Russia to help Trump’s campaign amount to accepting illegal donations from foreigners
• Whether Trump’s numerous efforts to undermine the investigation amount to obstruction"

There was no crime to discuss

 

[georgephillip]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

I'd ask him how come he sucked Obama's ass for 8 years letting all manner of crimes go.

I'd ask him how come he sucked Obama's ass for 8 years letting all manner of crimes go.

How does Obama's crimes absolve Trump from his rampant criminality?

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[georgephillip]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Possibly because the Grifter/Grafter-in-Chief was too timid to sit down for an interview under oath?

Mueller still managed to provide congress with a road map to impeachment in spite of his life-long Republican instincts.

The Scope and Results of the Mueller Report | emptywheel

"The Mueller Report does not purport to tell us what happened — that would be a violation of the regulations establishing the Special Counsel. It only describes the prosecutorial and declination decisions. The scope of those decisions includes:

• Who criminally conspired in two Russian election interference efforts (just one American was charged, but he did not know he was helping Russians troll the US)
• Whether Trump’s associates were agents of a foreign power in violation of FARA or 18 USC 951, including whether they were agents of Ukraine (as Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were before the election), Israel (as lots of evidence suggested George Papadopoulos might have been), Turkey (as Mike Flynn admitted he had been during and for a short while after the election), as well as Russia
• Whether Trump’s associates conspired with Russia in some way; Mueller’s review included a quid pro quo, but his prosecutorial decisions did not include things unrelated to Russia’s election interference (which might, for example, include pure graft, including during the Transition period or related to the inauguration)

• Which of Trump’s associates got charged with lying (Flynn, Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone), were ruled by a judge to have lied (Paul Manafort), and which lied but were not charged (at least three others, including KT McFarland) in an effort to obstruct the investigation
• Whether accepting a meeting offering dirt as part of the Russian government’s assistance to Trump or optimizing WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by Russia to help Trump’s campaign amount to accepting illegal donations from foreigners
• Whether Trump’s numerous efforts to undermine the investigation amount to obstruction"

There was no crime to discuss

There was no crime to discuss

Who told you that?

 

[jc456]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Possibly because the Grifter/Grafter-in-Chief was too timid to sit down for an interview under oath?

Mueller still managed to provide congress with a road map to impeachment in spite of his life-long Republican instincts.

The Scope and Results of the Mueller Report | emptywheel

"The Mueller Report does not purport to tell us what happened — that would be a violation of the regulations establishing the Special Counsel. It only describes the prosecutorial and declination decisions. The scope of those decisions includes:

• Who criminally conspired in two Russian election interference efforts (just one American was charged, but he did not know he was helping Russians troll the US)
• Whether Trump’s associates were agents of a foreign power in violation of FARA or 18 USC 951, including whether they were agents of Ukraine (as Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were before the election), Israel (as lots of evidence suggested George Papadopoulos might have been), Turkey (as Mike Flynn admitted he had been during and for a short while after the election), as well as Russia
• Whether Trump’s associates conspired with Russia in some way; Mueller’s review included a quid pro quo, but his prosecutorial decisions did not include things unrelated to Russia’s election interference (which might, for example, include pure graft, including during the Transition period or related to the inauguration)

• Which of Trump’s associates got charged with lying (Flynn, Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone), were ruled by a judge to have lied (Paul Manafort), and which lied but were not charged (at least three others, including KT McFarland) in an effort to obstruct the investigation
• Whether accepting a meeting offering dirt as part of the Russian government’s assistance to Trump or optimizing WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by Russia to help Trump’s campaign amount to accepting illegal donations from foreigners
• Whether Trump’s numerous efforts to undermine the investigation amount to obstruction"

There was no crime to discuss

There was no crime to discuss

Who told you that?

Mueller, in his report. If you disagree, point the crime out

 

[georgephillip]

Why did you ignore the real interference dossier?

Crossfire Hurricane?

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

"WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark...."

"The facts, had they surfaced, might have devastated the Trump campaign: Mr. Trump’s future national security adviser was under investigation, as was his campaign chairman.

"One adviser appeared to have Russian intelligence contacts.

"Another was suspected of being a Russian agent himself.

"In the Clinton case, Mr. Comey has said he erred on the side of transparency.

"But in the face of questions from Congress about the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. declined to tip its hand.

"And when The New York Times tried to assess the state of the investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case."

 

[Indeependent]

I’s ask Mueller how much he received in free meals, laundering clothes and transportation.
Then I’d make him pay it back.

 

[jc456]

Why did you ignore the real interference dossier?

Crossfire Hurricane?

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

"WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark...."

"The facts, had they surfaced, might have devastated the Trump campaign: Mr. Trump’s future national security adviser was under investigation, as was his campaign chairman.

"One adviser appeared to have Russian intelligence contacts.

"Another was suspected of being a Russian agent himself.

"In the Clinton case, Mr. Comey has said he erred on the side of transparency.

"But in the face of questions from Congress about the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. declined to tip its hand.

"And when The New York Times tried to assess the state of the investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case."

Interview Steele

 

[georgephillip]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Possibly because the Grifter/Grafter-in-Chief was too timid to sit down for an interview under oath?

Mueller still managed to provide congress with a road map to impeachment in spite of his life-long Republican instincts.

The Scope and Results of the Mueller Report | emptywheel

"The Mueller Report does not purport to tell us what happened — that would be a violation of the regulations establishing the Special Counsel. It only describes the prosecutorial and declination decisions. The scope of those decisions includes:

• Who criminally conspired in two Russian election interference efforts (just one American was charged, but he did not know he was helping Russians troll the US)
• Whether Trump’s associates were agents of a foreign power in violation of FARA or 18 USC 951, including whether they were agents of Ukraine (as Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were before the election), Israel (as lots of evidence suggested George Papadopoulos might have been), Turkey (as Mike Flynn admitted he had been during and for a short while after the election), as well as Russia
• Whether Trump’s associates conspired with Russia in some way; Mueller’s review included a quid pro quo, but his prosecutorial decisions did not include things unrelated to Russia’s election interference (which might, for example, include pure graft, including during the Transition period or related to the inauguration)

• Which of Trump’s associates got charged with lying (Flynn, Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone), were ruled by a judge to have lied (Paul Manafort), and which lied but were not charged (at least three others, including KT McFarland) in an effort to obstruct the investigation
• Whether accepting a meeting offering dirt as part of the Russian government’s assistance to Trump or optimizing WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by Russia to help Trump’s campaign amount to accepting illegal donations from foreigners
• Whether Trump’s numerous efforts to undermine the investigation amount to obstruction"

There was no crime to discuss

There was no crime to discuss

Who told you that?

Mueller, in his report. If you disagree, point the crime out

Mueller, in his report. If you disagree, point the crime out

"The joint statement, which had 417 signers by early afternoon, rebuts Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the evidence of potential obstruction uncovered by special counsel Robert Mueller was 'not sufficient' to establish that Trump committed a crime.

"The joint statement, which had 417 signers by early afternoon, rebuts Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the evidence of potential obstruction uncovered by special counsel Robert Mueller was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime."

Hundreds of former prosecutors say evidence against Trump supports charges

 

[boedicca]

I should ask him whether he was a tree-frog.

10 points to whomever gets the reference without searching for it.

 

[jc456]

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Assuming there are NO grifters and grafters running the Executive Branch, why did it take so long to come up with nothing?

Possibly because the Grifter/Grafter-in-Chief was too timid to sit down for an interview under oath?

Mueller still managed to provide congress with a road map to impeachment in spite of his life-long Republican instincts.

The Scope and Results of the Mueller Report | emptywheel

"The Mueller Report does not purport to tell us what happened — that would be a violation of the regulations establishing the Special Counsel. It only describes the prosecutorial and declination decisions. The scope of those decisions includes:

• Who criminally conspired in two Russian election interference efforts (just one American was charged, but he did not know he was helping Russians troll the US)
• Whether Trump’s associates were agents of a foreign power in violation of FARA or 18 USC 951, including whether they were agents of Ukraine (as Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were before the election), Israel (as lots of evidence suggested George Papadopoulos might have been), Turkey (as Mike Flynn admitted he had been during and for a short while after the election), as well as Russia
• Whether Trump’s associates conspired with Russia in some way; Mueller’s review included a quid pro quo, but his prosecutorial decisions did not include things unrelated to Russia’s election interference (which might, for example, include pure graft, including during the Transition period or related to the inauguration)

• Which of Trump’s associates got charged with lying (Flynn, Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone), were ruled by a judge to have lied (Paul Manafort), and which lied but were not charged (at least three others, including KT McFarland) in an effort to obstruct the investigation
• Whether accepting a meeting offering dirt as part of the Russian government’s assistance to Trump or optimizing WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by Russia to help Trump’s campaign amount to accepting illegal donations from foreigners
• Whether Trump’s numerous efforts to undermine the investigation amount to obstruction"

There was no crime to discuss

There was no crime to discuss

Who told you that?

Mueller, in his report. If you disagree, point the crime out

Mueller, in his report. If you disagree, point the crime out

"The joint statement, which had 417 signers by early afternoon, rebuts Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the evidence of potential obstruction uncovered by special counsel Robert Mueller was 'not sufficient' to establish that Trump committed a crime.

"The joint statement, which had 417 signers by early afternoon, rebuts Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the evidence of potential obstruction uncovered by special counsel Robert Mueller was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime."

Hundreds of former prosecutors say evidence against Trump supports charges

No charge! Correct? No sealed indictment!

 

[MAGAman]

I'd asked Special Counsel Mueller if he knew it was a bunch of hogwash before he wasted a crapload of money chasing unicorns.

I'd probably would have asked it with more diplomacy...

Then I would have wished I had asked it the way you did.

Or maybe even less diplomatically.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why did you hire a bunch of Hillary donors?

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

There's is only one question at this point that needs to asked of Mueller.

Mr. Mueller, at what point did you know there was no conspiracy involving any American including President Trump or anyone one on his campaign and why did you continue to try to entrap people into perjury charges after you knew there was no conspiracy?

 

[miketx]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

I'd ask him how come he sucked Obama's ass for 8 years letting all manner of crimes go.

I'd ask him how come he sucked Obama's ass for 8 years letting all manner of crimes go.

How does Obama's crimes absolve Trump from his rampant criminality?

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Baiter, the question was what would you ask Mueller. Pull your head off Trumps lap.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Molar. In the chops or in the nuts ?, Choose quick cause both can come at the same time.5-4-3.....

He would destroy you.

 

[georgephillip]

Assuming the grifters and grafters currently running the Executive Branch decide to permit Robert Mueller to testify before Congress, which questions should Democrats or Republican members pose, and which questions would you ask if given the chance?

For example, I've wondered who decided to end Mueller's investigation and why?

What Congress Should Ask Robert Mueller When He Testifies

"11. Many commentators, including highly experienced former federal prosecutors, were surprised by the timing of your end of the investigation while relevant litigation was ongoing and significant actors such as Julian Assange and Roger Stone could still, at least conceivably, flip and cooperate with your investigation, thus potentially yielding new investigations and even prosecutions.

"Please explain fully your reasoning for bringing the investigation to a close when you did."

I would ask what those 14 secret cases were that were spawned by the Mueller report

I would ask what those 14 secret cases were that were spawned by the Mueller report

Obviously, Trump would rather not deal with oversight of any kind.

"Even though Trump avoided a knockout blow from the April 18 Mueller report, the special counsel disclosed more than a dozen active criminal inquiries that will play out for months to come, some possibly into the 2020 election campaign season.

"Details on most of these cases are unclear as they were redacted in the 448-page report.

"Only two were not blacked out: one case versus former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen; and one versus Greg Craig, a former White House counsel in the Obama administration."

Explainer: Probes spawned by Mueller target Trump business, others - Reuters

 

[easyt65]

Which Questions Would You Ask Mueller:

1. Why were you working with DOJ employee Ohr and the Trump-hating foreign spy, who was working for the FBI, on the Dossier Ohr warned everyone was NOT reliable BEFORE the investigation had officially opened and BEFORE you were ever appointed Special Counsel?

2. Ohr warned everyone else Steele was ultra biased and the Dossier was bogus - did he ever tell YOU the same thing while you were working with him and Steele on the Dossier?
--- How about when you interviewed him as part of the official investigation?

3. Why did you NOT recuse yourself due to the existing Conflict of Interest from the fact that you had worked with Ohr and Steele on the Dossier before being appointed Special Counsel?

4. Why didn't you recuse yourself because of the existing Conflicts of Interest that you were the former FBI Director and that you were also Comey's Mentor having to look into 'Obstruction' charges against your protege, or the fact that as former FBI Director you yourself had been called before a secret FISA Court to explain 75 FUSA Court violations by your FBI?

5. Tasked with investigating Russian interference, why did you NOT go back to the start of that interference, to 2014 when Barak Obama 1st learned of it and allowed it to continue for 2 years?

That's a good STARTING 1st 5...