Month: July 2019

Meanwhile in Bizarroworld, the GOPers find a “smoking gun”

by digby

Oh puhleeze:

The Justice Department’s internal review of the Russia investigation is zeroing in on transcripts of recordings made by at least one government source who met with former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos overseas in 2016, specifically looking at why certain “exculpatory” material from them was not presented in subsequent applications for surveillance warrants, according to two sources familiar with the review.

The sources also said the review is taking a closer look at the actual start date of the original FBI investigation into potential collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians, as some allege the probe began earlier than thought. Both components are considered key in the review currently being led by Attorney General Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney from Connecticut John Durham — an effort sure to draw more attention in the coming weeks and months now that Robert Mueller’s testimony is in the rearview.

The recordings in question pertain to conversations between government sources and Papadopoulos, which were memorialized in transcripts. One source told Fox News that Barr and Durham are reviewing why the material was left out of applications to surveil another former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.

“I think it’s the smoking gun,” the source said.

By all accounts Durham is a straight shooter. But then everyone said that about Barr too so we shouldn’t take the establishment’s word for it.

But this is utter nonsense according to the SSCI report which said that the FBI was 100% justified in looking into all this nonsense when they did. But I’m sure the alternate narrative, led by Trump’s henchman Bill Barr, will be considered the gospel truth by at least 40% of the voting population.

Just remember — these same people were apoplectic over emails. Anyone who buys into their hypocritical bullshit is a useful idiot at best — and a total hack at worst. I think we can expect all GOP officials to be the latter.

,

Nadler tells a judge that they are contemplating impeachment

by digby

This may not seem like much but it’s a step:

Here's @RepJerryNadler saying during a news conference that the House Judiciary Committee has filed a petition in federal court announcing they are fact-gathering with eye toward possibly recommending articles of impeachment pic.twitter.com/vzXMT5r0Zc— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 26, 2019

The people need to keep up the pressure on their representatives. They are all going home for the August recess and they will be available to their constituents. If you have the ability to go and see them or contact their local offices to demand an impeachment inquiry, now is the time to do it.

.

My Salon column this morning:

Now that a couple of days have passed and we’ve all had a chance to digest the testimony of special counsel Robert Mueller and shake off the media’s predictable theatre criticism and sports analysis, it’s easy to see that the man’s focus in the investigation was on the Russian sabotage of America’s electoral system rather than Trump abusing his power to cover it up. And after the Senate Select Intelligence Committee released its report on the same subject on Thursday, it’s easy to see why.

Mueller obviously didn’t want to get into the obstruction case with the committee and for understandable reasons. He was hamstrung from the beginning with that ruling by the Office of Legal Counsel that holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted and the infuriating precedent James Comey set when he foolishly went outside established Department of Justice guidelines to discuss his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton in the infamous email case. Mueller and his team know very well that the president obstructed justice but since they couldn’t indict him they undoubtedly felt that boldly asserting Trump had committed crimes would be seen in the same light.

The Judiciary Committee did what they could but those charges, being in that prosecutorial legal and ethical gray area, made that hearing only marginally fruitful. And, in any case, it was clear that Mueller was far more concerned with the issues raised in the second hearing before the House Intelligence Committee. And that’s because the national security implications are extremely serious.

Mueller reiterated the findings of all the intelligence agencies that have said the Russians interfered in the 2016 election on Donald Trump’s behalf. And he alluded to the classified counterintelligence investigation that was outside his narrow criminal purview during a line of questioning with Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Il:

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Individuals can be subject to blackmail if they lie about their interactions with foreign countries, correct?

MUELLER: True.

I’ve written about this issue as it pertains to former national security adviser Michael Flynn before, intrigued by the very real possibility that Trump was being blackmailed or unwittingly compromised in exactly the same way as his former national security adviser had been when he lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador.

Krishnamoorthi said, “Flynn’s false statements could pose a national security risk because the Russians knew the falsity of those statements” and Mueller replied that there are many elements of the FBI that are looking at different aspects of that issue.”

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Currently?

MUELLER: Currently

KRISHNAMOORTHI: As you noted in volume two of your report, Donald Trump repeated five times in one press conference, Mr. Mueller, in 2016, “I have nothing to do with Russia.” Of course Michael Cohen said Donald Trump was not being truthful, because at this time Trump was attempting to build Trump Tower Moscow. Your report does not address whether Donald Trump was compromised in any way because of any potential false statements that he made about Trump Tower Moscow, correct?

MUELLER: I think that’s right — I think that’s right.

Trump had to fire Flynn for possibly being compromised under these exact circumstances — only Trump’s lies were much more consequential. And, as we know, Trump’s behavior toward the Russian president is downright sycophantic.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., drilled down a little more:

SCHIFF: The need to act in an ethical manner is not just a moral one, but when people act unethically it also exposes them to compromise, particularly in dealing with foreign powers, is that true?

MUELLER: True.

SCHIFF: Because when someone acts unethically in connection with a foreign partner, that foreign partner can expose their wrongdoing and extort them.

MUELLER: True.

SCHIFF: And that conduct — that unethical conduct can be of a financial nature if you have a financial motive or elicit business dealing, am I right?

MUELLER: Yes.

SCHIFF: It could also just involve deception. If you are lying about something that can be exposed, then you can be blackmailed.

MUELLER: Also true.

Mueller’s mandate didn’t include this line of inquiry which is apparently still being investigated by the FBI counterintelligence division. (Or, at least it was. Trump’s henchman Bill Barr may have closed it down by now.) But it didn’t take any kind of super-spy to see that Trump’s behavior toward Vladimir Putin, particularly at that shameful summit in Helsinki, is abnormal, even for him.

Nobody asked Mueller about Helsinki. But one imagines that with all he knew, that had to have been an especially unnerving spectacle.

Immediately after the hearing Republicans blocked two bipartisan election security bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance. On Thursday, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked two more, one to require a paper ballot back-up and the other to fund the Election Assistance Commission saying that Democrats wanted to give themselves a “political benefit” which is actually true. They would like the benefit of free and fair elections.

At this point, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Donald Trump isn’t the only politician willing to accept foreign interference in our elections. The entire Republican Party now welcomes it as well.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the first volume of its report on the 2016 election interference Thursday and it contained a fairly shocking revelation. The election systems in all 50 states were targeted, a far bigger attack than we knew and apparently something that went almost completely undetected at the time. The report says that they did nothing with the information they gleaned but darkly suggest that its possible they may have been collecting information for a future date. This is, apparently, fine with President Trump and the Republican leadership.

Former solicitor general Walter Dellinger appeared on All In with Chris Hayes on Thursday night and made the important point that not all crimes are impeachable offenses, “nor does it need to be a technical violation of federal criminal code.” But he noted that a president who consciously fails to defend the US against a foreign military intelligence attack for his political benefit is surely impeachable. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is convinced that the best course for dealing with Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors is not to impeach but to beat him fair and square at the ballot box.

Considering all we have learned from both the Mueller Report and the SSCI about Russian election interference and sabotage, as well as the continued unwillingness of the president and Republicans to do anything about it, that seems willfully naive.

Conviction, not division
by Tom Sullivan

Fresh eyes sometimes see more clearly than those accustomed to the view. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota shared her view of her role at Netroots Nation earlier this month. She is not the child of immigrants, as most of us are, but an immigrant herself, a Somali refugee of war. Omar means to represent her lived experience in Congress for others who share adopting a new homeland.

Pushing back against xenophobic attacks from the acting president and his rally faithful, Omar writes how strange it was to find that besides being immigrant, being black and Muslim in her adopted country carried stigmas:

But the beauty of this country is not that our democracy is perfect. It’s that embedded in our Constitution and democratic institutions are the tools to make it better. It was in the diverse community of Minneapolis — the very community that welcomed me home with open arms after Mr. Trump’s attacks against me last week — where I learned the true value of democracy. I started attending political caucuses with my grandfather, who cherished democracy as only someone who has experienced its absence could. I soon recognized that the only way to ensure that everyone in my community had a voice was by participating in the democratic process.

Today, that basic promise is under threat. Our democratic institutions have been weaponized. The Trump administration has sought to restrict people from exercising their voting rights. It has sought to undermine the basic checks and balances of our Constitution by not respecting subpoenas from Congress. And the president has used overtly racist rhetoric to strike fear and division in communities of color and religious minorities across the country.

Driving wedges between people is a staple for a certain kind of politician. They are good listeners, but not with good intent. They listen carefully to voters not for what might be done to make their lives better, but for what knots their guts. Specifically, who riles them and why? Find that wedge, weaponize it, drive it deeper between communities and twist. Hug the flag and hate your neighbor is textbook politics for demagogues like the one in the Oval Office.

Omar’s community reacted to his attacks on her with cheers:

Congresswoman Omar just arrived back in the Twin Cities. pic.twitter.com/ZiFqWnDJgQ— Tom Hauser (@thauserkstp) July 18, 2019

The politics of division elected a super sack of personality disorders president of the United States in 2016. Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s House testimony this week punctuated how badly that compromised this country both at home and abroad.

A heavily redacted Senate Intelligence committee report released on Thursday concludes Russians “had attempted to intrude” in election systems “in all 50 states.” (Note: Much of this activity involved scanning of computers, not direct hacking.) Wedded firmly to the politics of division, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday blocked a House-passed bill that would authorize $775 million to beef up state election systems.” No more funding is needed, GOP leaders argued.

This country’s democracy is in grave danger of losing itself in trying to be great “again.” Omar counters:

The only way to push back is to be unequivocal about our values. It is not enough to condemn Mr. Trump’s racism. We must affirmatively confront racist policies — whether the caging of immigrant children at the border or the banning of Muslim immigrants or the allowing of segregation in public housing. It is not enough to condemn the corruption and self-dealing of this administration. We must support policies that unmistakably improve working people’s lives, including by strengthening collective bargaining, raising the minimum wage and pursuing a universal jobs guarantee.

The consequences of this fight will not just be felt here at home but around the world. Right-wing nationalism in Hungary, Russia, France, Britain and elsewhere is on the march in ways not seen in decades. America has been a beacon of democratic ideals for the world. If we succumb to the fever of right-wing nationalism, it will have consequences far beyond our borders.

The proudest moments in our history — from the Emancipation Proclamation to the civil rights movement to the struggle against fascism — have come when we fight to protect and expand basic democratic rights. Today, democracy is under attack once again. It’s time to respond with the kind of conviction that has made America great before.

Conviction, not division. A government of laws applied unequally by class is at the root of some of our divisions. A few convictions of another kind might have a salutary effect on strengthening our nation of laws.

In a Dictatorship, Journalism’s A Piece o’ Cake 

by tristero

All you gotta do is repeat what the Leader sez. Who gives a shite if it’s true?

Select, copy, paste, tweet. And at 5, it’s off to the bar to knock back a microbrew or six with your liberal pals and tell them that it’s the job of journalists to objectively report both sides.  And don’t fucking bogart those cheese sticks, pal, got it?

by digby

At first glance, there was nothing unusual about President Trump’s introduction Tuesday at Turning Point USA’s student summit. In many ways, it mirrored the production style that has become synonymous with Trump’s campaign rallies.

Following a 12-minute video illustrating Trump’s rise to the presidency, music blared as the president’s name flashed across a giant screen in a bold shade of red. Trump took the stage and soaked in the raucous cheers from hundreds of young supporters packed inside the Marriott Marquis in Washington.

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point’s outspoken founder and executive director, was on his left. But the image on the screen to Trump’s right — captured in dozens of photos and videos from the event — is less familiar.

The image almost resembles the official seal of the president, but a closer examination reveals alterations that seem to poke fun at the president’s golfing penchant and accusations that he has ties to Russia. Neither the White House nor Turning Point knows how it got there or who created it.

The Turning Point spokesman said the team was made up of staff from his organization and from the hotel. On Wednesday evening, he was still working to determine who, exactly, was responsible.

“Somewhere there was a breakdown. I think it was as simple as a rushed move throwing up an image, and it was the wrong one,” the spokesman said, adding it was unfortunate that the faux seal drew attention away from the event’s star-studded lineup of conservative speakers. “It was an A/V mistake . . . it certainly wasn’t our intention.”

I’m sure it wasn’t.

What would video of Kavanaugh’s hearing prep reveal?

by Spocko

I just watched the NBC video from 1992 of Trump and Epstein at a party talking and laughing with cheerleaders.  I wondered, “What other videos that seemed innocuous at the time, are now dangerous to people in power?” Video of conversations that didn’t seem important at the time could now be evidence of a decision made, an action taken, a personal connection verified or proof of a lie.

In the face of videos of horrible crimes like child rape, we forget that sometimes plan old videos of powerful men and their enablers talking and planning actions they consider normal can be used against them.

I was reminded of these kind of videos following the This American Life episode “The Wannabes.” It was about democratic candidates on the road in Iowa preparing for the debate. The show described how Julián Castro and team spent days doing debate prep.  You know what else is like debate prep? Senate confirmation hearing prep.

The show covered the process:

Ira Glass
Some candidates just end up getting five minutes. So you have limited time, and you have no idea what they’re going to ask you about. And so you have to prepare perfect, pithy answers for every imaginable question.

Ira Glass: To figure out how to fit everything in, basically, Castro answers the same question over–
Julian Castro: “I grew up with a grandmother that had diabetes.”
Ira Glass: –and over–
Julian Castro:  “I grew up with a grandmother who had diabetes.”
Ira Glass:–and over–

Ira Glass:  They spend hours doing this. It’s tedium chewing over how to best fill those precious eight minutes they’re going to get.   Link to video of audio clip.

The campaign staff and communications director figure out what questions might be asked, the candidate gives an answer and everyone evaluates it. Is it pithy? Does it have key messages? Will it connect with people? They record the answers and play them back to see if it works. If not, they start over with an answer that works.

Preparing for senate confirmation hearing involves the same process, with the added weight that what is said will be under oath. Multiple papers have described the hearing prep for Kavanaugh. Seung Min Kim and Josh Dawsey of The Washington Post wrote a piece Inside the GOP’s effort to save the Kavanaugh nomination describing the dozens of people involved. The names of some lawyers, politicians, spokespeople and White house staff were listed, but there must have also been interns, personal assistants and audio visual staff involved.

That leads me to conclude that there are probably video recordings of Kavanaugh preparing for his confirmation hearing.
They could contain evidence that Kavanaugh is a serial liar. Evidence of that is important. During the hearing Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas goes to great pains to point out that if they find out Kavanaugh was a serial liar they shouldn’t confirm.

It doesn’t matter which lies Kavanaugh tells, it’s that he lied. And he lied during confirmation hearings. 

I watched the hearings and read a lot of analysis of them.  Eric Alterman wrote a piece for The Nation where he said, “would-be Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly perjured himself.” He links to fact checking stories in The New York Times and Washington Post. The Boston Globe comes right out and says, “Make no mistake: Brett Kavanaugh’s a liar.”  But most papers, and the senators involved during the hearing, were very careful to not call him a liar.

Watching Kavanaugh answering a question about the meanings of words made it clear that he rehearsed his answers. Calling Kavanaugh a liar under oath would involve demonstrating he knew the truth and decided to lie.

Here is where video of the preparation and rehearsal could be important. It could be proof of Kavanaugh’s understanding of the phrases ralphing, boofing, Devil’s Triangle and Renate Alumnus Club as they meant to him and others at the time, followed by him willfully answering with something else which he did not believe to be true.

Multiple people probably coached Kavanaugh on his answers. We know White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, deputy press secretary Raj Shah and communications director Bill Shine were all involved. Shine’s presence was noteworthy, considering he was ousted from his previous job at Fox News in part due to his handling of sexual harassment claims at the company.

This American Life documented what thousands of politicians go through to prepare for a debate. I’m going to speculate how the Q&A for early prep sessions went, based on my experiences prepping  people for press conferences, TV and radio shows, financial conference calls and presentations. Then I’ll link to video of the actual answers given by Kavanaugh during the hearings.

Senator Whitehouse’s stand-in: What did your friends mean when they talked about oofing?

Kavanaugh’s possible first answer during prep: Anal sex. Look, it was a joke. We were 16 year-old guys at an all boy’s high school. We accused the other guys of doing it all the time. We didn’t actually do it. I certainly didn’t do it. I can’t believe they are really going to ask me these questions!

Possibly Sara Huckabee Sanders: They are trying to make the narrative about you being a drunk rapist. We don’t want you to give any answers that talks about sex, booze or memory loss. So, what else could boofing mean that involves teasing your buddies and involving butts? How about farting? That would be consistent with the time and would probably get a laugh. Now answer the question again, only this time say it involves flatulence. And be sure to bring up that you were 16.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): “Judge, have you — I don’t know if it’s ‘boufed’ or ‘boofed’ — how do you pronounce that?”

Kavanaugh: “That refers to flatulence. We were 16.”

The self-fulfilling prophecy of Village journalism

by digby

The Columbia Journalism Review’s MSNBC “public editor” weighs in on Chuck Todd:

AFTER FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL Robert Mueller’ testified before the House Judiciary Committee this morning, Chuck Todd managed to demonstrate, with uncharacteristic brevity, his basic misunderstanding of the requirements of his job:

On substance, Democrats got what they wanted: that Mueller didn’t charge Pres. Trump because of the OLC guidance, that he could be indicted after he leaves office, among other things. But on optics, this was a disaster. #MuellerHearings

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) July 24, 2019

Todd’s focus on the “entertainment” aspect of politics coverage is often in evidence—for example, in his own recent performance as moderator in the Democratic presidential debate. He managed to talk more than all but three of the candidates, even as he demanded that they keep their own answers brief.

For Chuck Todd all the political world’s a stage, and he’s the star.

And it’s not just Todd. Other MSNBC anchors reacted to the Mueller hearings similarly, finding fault with the Democrats’, and Mueller’s, lack of pizazz as performers. Brian Williams referred to “the caffeine gap” in the Judiciary Committee’s questioning. I can’t help pointing out that excessive concern with caffeinated pizzazz can warp a journalist’s judgement pretty severely, and is best avoided.

At a moment of particular gravity for the country, with the sitting president credibly accused of obstructing justice, and many of his campaign staff and associates under investigation and indictment, may I suggest that if you, a journalist, are bored with the politics of this—if you are demanding somehow to be entertained, right now—you’re not doing your job.

Politics isn’t entertainment, it is not a performance to be critiqued. Reporting on national politics is a public trust of solemn importance that affects hundreds of millions of people.

It took a former US Attorney and acting head of the DEA, Chuck Rosenberg, to drag MSNBC back to reality, after Williams’s remarks. “There’s a difference between ‘exciting’ and ‘important,’ he said. “There are things that are exciting that are not important; there are things that are important that are not particularly exciting.”

“Perfectly said!” exclaimed Nicole Wallace. “And it’s so important!! And I think it’s shallow analysis, I’m guilty of it, to hone in on the performance aspects of it.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Lock him up

by digby

Trump is totally in denial about the real possibility that he could be indicted after he leaves office, berates a second reporter who asks him about it and calls them "fake news" pic.twitter.com/UvRqZDihKq— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 24, 2019

He is concerned because he’s spent the last three years saying that his political rival should be put in jail. His accomplices and henchmen are still saying it and his followers continue to chant it at the mere mention of her name. He sees it as a real threat.

What he doesn’t understand is that Democrats are concerned about hypocrisy and because they’ve been very vocal about not “going after” a defeated political rival they are highly unlikely to indict Trump for crimes for which they refused to impeach him.

Right now they’re saying it’s “time to move on” and pass some more message bills that will never get signed. The idea that they will go after Trump for any of the crimes of which he’s been accused as a candidate and president is unrealistic. It’s remotely possible that a new crime might get the attention of the New York authorities but I think Democratic voters should be prepared for the fact that if Trump gets away with all this while he’s president, that will be the end of it. They will want to close the book on this episode and pretend it never happened.

I just watched some Democrats in Michigan all say that they don’t care about Trump and they want the Democrats to talk exclusively about their plans to fix the problems in their daily lives. They say, in so many words, that they don’t care about this threat to our democracy and the rule of law. It’s clear that they see the government solely as a tool to offer them material benefits. Civil liberties, corruption or even traitorous behavior are simply of no concern to them. Just like the 1% whom they all claim to disdain, they care about their pocketbooks and only their pocketbooks.

So maybe Pelosi understands Democratic voters in the only states that count better than West Coast irrelevances like myself. All this high-falutin’ talk about human rights, justice, ethics and freedom are silly distractions from what really matters. Money. And that means any energy spent trying to restore our democracy to a place where real progress on social justice can be achieved is probably no going to get a whole lot of attention.

I’m sorry to sound so pessimistic but I made a promise when Trump was elected to try to see things as clearly as possible. I probably fail at that most of the time but I do think it’s important to keep trying.

I hope I’m wrong.

.

The important details of the hearing being overlooked for the drama criticism

by digby

Aside from all the theatrics, or lack thereof, and the “optics”, there was important information gleaned from the Mueller testimony yesterday. I think this re-cap from the Washington Post hits the highlights:

Instead of reading the theater criticism … citizens who missed the cable circus might be better served by reading the transcripts. In his own understated, patrician and old-school way, Mueller undercut so much White House spin and drew attention to how many false statements President Trump has made to the American people. Here are the six most significant quotes from the former special counsel’s six hours in the hot seat – and why they matter:

1) On Russian interference in domestic politics: “They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign.”

The former FBI director, who earned a Purple Heart as a Marine in Vietnam and helped guide law enforcement during the traumatic aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, came out of retirement to investigate the Kremlin’s efforts to sway the 2016 presidential election.

“We have underplayed to a certain extent that aspect of our investigation,” Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee in the afternoon, explaining that Russia’s effort to undermine elections could do “long-term damage to the United States that we need to move quickly to address.”

Mueller said he wrote the first volume of his report to serve as “our living message to those who come after us” so that they “don’t let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years.” And he warned that “many more countries” are developing capabilities to do the same, emboldened by the success of Moscow, as he reiterated the need for “swift” action.

Asked about Trump campaign officials interacting with Russians who offered help to their election efforts, and the failure to report such overtures to the FBI, Mueller said he hopes future campaigns don’t think it’s acceptable to accept assistance from foreign governments. “I hope this is not the new normal,” he said, “but I fear it is.”

From someone who spent 28 years in the CIA’s clandestine service, including in Moscow and running the agency’s Russia operations:

‘Problematic is an understatement’: Mueller comments on Trump’s past WikiLeaks praise

2) On Trump’s past praise for WikiLeaks: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal behavior.”

Mueller faulted Trump for previously praising the anti-secrecy group, whose leader Julian Assange now faces federal charges, and which allegedly served as a conduit for the Russians to disseminate hacked emails of Hillary Clinton campaign officials.

Mueller said he agrees with Mike Pompeo’s characterization of WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service.” Trump said “I love WikiLeaks” at a rally in the fall of 2016. His son Don Jr. tweeted a link to stolen documents that Mueller’s report said was provided to him by WikiLeaks in a Twitter direct message.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) asked Mueller whether knowingly accepting foreign assistance is an unethical thing to do. “And a crime, given certain circumstances,” Mueller replied, nodding. “It’s also unpatriotic,” said Schiff. “True,” replied Mueller. 

Mueller reiterates that report does not exonerate President Trump on obstruction of justice

3) Rebutting Trump’s claims of total exoneration: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”

Mueller clarified his position on whether he would have indicted the president if not for the opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that says a sitting president shouldn’t face criminal charges. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” he said.

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller said in his opening statement. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

Asked whether the president, under Justice Department policy, could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice after he leaves office, Mueller kept his answer succinct: “True.”

Mueller says his investigation ‘is not a witch hunt’

4) Finally defending the integrity of his investigation: “It is not a witch hunt.”

For two years, Mueller kept quiet as Trump and his allies impugned him and his team. Even during the news conference in May to announce his resignation as special counsel, Mueller did not offer a full-throated defense of his methods or personnel. On Wednesday, he replied to GOP criticism that some of the career prosecutors on his team previously gave money to Democrats.

“I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years. In those 25 years, I’ve not had occasion once to ask about somebody’s political affiliation,” Mueller said. “It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job seriously and quickly and with integrity.”

Justice Department policy prohibits asking about political views as part of a job interview. Mueller also explained that he moved former FBI official Peter Strzok off his team as soon as he found out about anti-Trump text messages in 2016.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.) accused Mueller of including only “the very worst” information about Trump in his report. “Not true,” he replied, adding that the team “strove to put in exculpatory evidence” about Trump’s conduct.

Mueller says he didn’t subpoena Trump in order to expedite his investigation

5) On why he didn’t subpoena the president: “We decided that we did not want to exercise the subpoena powers because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation.”

The former special counsel conceded that Trump’s written answers to his questions about Russian interference — the president refused to answer any questions about the 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice that his office explored – were “certainly not as useful as the interview would be.”

Despite Trump’s claims that he fully cooperated, Mueller noted that the president’s team stonewalled in negotiations for over a year about a sit-down interview and said he assumed Trump “would fight the subpoena.” Mueller explained that he needed to decide “how much time you are willing to spend in the courts litigating an interview with the president.”

Despite claims that Mueller wanted to drag out his investigation, he made clear that he hoped to get it wrapped up as soon as possible. “The reason we didn’t do the interview was because of the length of time that it would take to resolve the issues attendant to that,” he said.

Trump says Mueller did ‘horrible job’

6) There was a coverup: “A number of people we interviewed in our investigation, it turns out, did lie.”

Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos have each acknowledged that they lied to the FBI. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) asked Mueller whether it was “fair to say” that Trump’s written answers were “not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful.”

“I would say, generally,” Mueller replied.

Mueller acknowledged that he caught many former members of Trump’s team not telling the truth, and this made it harder to investigate what really happened. “That would be accurate,” he said.

“And then,” Schiff said, “they lied to cover it up?”

“Generally, that’s true,” said Mueller.

Trump tweeted as soon as the second hearing ended: “TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE!”

Indeed.

Bill Barr said that the president was justified in “pushing back” (aka lying and obstructing justice) because he was upset that he was being investigated when he didn’t believe any of his behavior was wrong.

Mitch McConnell thinks there’s no need for election security.

Trump is spiking the ball, says none of this matters, and that he’s in the clear.

What happens now? I don’t know.

.