The more I listen to Robert Mueller, the less respect I have for him. He has become a corrupt politician and has disgraced his career. There has been talk of Mueller being subpoenaed to testify before Congress. Nadler insists that Mueller wants to testify- privately.
“He is willing to make an opening statement, but he wants to testify in private,” Nadler said. “We’re saying we think it’s important for the American people to hear from him and to hear his answers to questions about the report.”
So do I. More than ever.
It is said that Barr and Mueller are old friends. If so, it is a curious relationship. Mueller has crossed Barr multiple times now.
Mueller apparently had discussions with Barr prior to the release of the report. Barr issued a statement about the report summarizing the findings. Barr was under no obligation to release the report but release it he did, with minor redactions. Once the report was released Barr was assailed non-stop by democrats as a liar. Pressure built on Mueller to make a statement. He did that the other day and went out before the press and lied.
But Mueller did not mince words on his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”
Mueller explained longstanding Justice Department policy, which states that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.
“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller explained, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”
Swiftly a statement was issued jointly by Barr and Mueller spokespersons disagreeing with what Mueller has said in his statement.
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.
Then Barr calmly added that Mueller could indeed have brought charges if he had a case.
Mueller is peddling bullsh*t and Barr is having none of it. But here’s a really critical point, and it’s a point that has long irritated the living crap out of me:
“The use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed,” Barr said in an interview with CBS.
Russian disinformation paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC was used to mobilize America’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies against an American Presidential candidate. Let’s remember that when FBI lawyer Lisa Page feared that Trump might be elected, disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok said
“No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it”
Denying that there was a conspiracy against Trump is laughable, and Barr is on it despite plodding into headwinds:
But Barr, in an interview with CBS News that aired Friday, said he has more questions than answers at this point in the probe.
“Like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on,” Barr said, referring to the origins of the Russia probe. “And I assumed I’d get answers when I went in, and I have not gotten answers that are at all satisfactory.”
He added: “In fact, I probably have more questions and some of the facts that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”
Barr did not elaborate further on his findings, but added: “Things are just not jibing.”
Let’s get some answers. By all means let’s get some answers. Let’s start with Robert Mueller. Make him testify. Part 1 of the Mueller Report dealt with Russian collusion and conspiracy. Mueller concluded there realistically was none of either. Part 2 dealt with the possibility of obstruction of justice by Donald Trump over a crime he did not commit. So let’s have Muller answer some questions:
“Mr. Mueller, when did you determine there was no collusion or conspiracy?”
“Mr. Mueller, if you were operating under the presumption that you could not indict a sitting President for collusion what was the point of undertaking Part 2 of your investigation? Was it to provide democrats with a road map for impeachment?”
“Mr. Mueller, was a road map for impeachment to aid democrats part of your directive from Mr. Rosenstein in the Scope Memo?”
“Mr. Mueller, can you please explain how you came to choose so many ardent Trump haters to be on your team? Can you explain the justification for adding a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation to your team?”
“Mr. Mueller, why would you choose someone with such a dodgy past as Andrew Weissman to be on your team?”
“Mr. Mueller, you said in your statement that you could not indict the President based on the OLC opinion but AG Barr said you did not reach a conclusion irrespective of the OLC opinion. Who is lying?”
When Mueller wrote
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
It may be that Mueller knew that his potential obstruction case is garbage. Devin Nunes is pushing for release of all background source information, and it is well wort noting that at least some of the information has been altered:
The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee sent out a tweet critical of Mueller after federal prosecutors, in compliance with an order from a federal judge, released the transcript of a voicemail former Trump lawyer John Dowd left for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s lawyer Rob Kelner shortly after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
Mueller referenced parts of the Nov. 22, 2017, voicemail in his final report about how Dowd asks for a “heads up” if Flynn knew information that “implicates” Trump after Flynn dropped from a joint defense agreement with the president. But, as a Twitter user points out, parts of the transcript that were left out, including Dowd saying his request was “not only for the president, but for the country,” he was not asking for confidential information, and he did not appear to be certain that Flynn had decided to cooperate with Mueller’s team.
“This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It’s all a fraud…,” Nunes tweeted in reply.
Barr had asserted that the DOJ had a different take on the analysis than did Mueller:
Barr told CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford that the Department of Justice determined “many of the instances” Mueller found “would not amount to obstruction” as a matter of law.
“[W]e didn’t agree with … a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the Department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers, and so we applied what we thought was the right law,” he explained.
“The bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes,” Barr added. “He did not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and his conclusion was he wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either.”
Barr went on to say it is up to Mueller if he wants to testify before Congress, but he did say he does not think the line Mueller drew about sticking to his report is “the proper line.”
Inquiring minds want to know. No wonder Mueller doesn’t want to testify in public. Let Mueller testify.
In public.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
More than 1,000 bipartisan former prosecutors have signed their names on a petition maintaining that if Trump weren’t president of the United States, he would have been indicted on multiple charges for obstruction of justice.
But according to Dr. John, the obstruction case is garbage.
If those 1000 prosecutors were only as smart as Dr. John …
@Gary Miller:
How do you know they are “bipartisan?” And how “bipartisan” is it for them to even comment on a report that is 99.% unredacted that they do not have access to? The report that is available to certain members of Nadler’s committee has two full, and seven partial, sentences redacted and those deal with things that Barr is not allowed to make public, by law. Things like the FISC records. Maybe their statement alone is symbolic of why they are “former” federal prosecutors.
Let’s put Mueller under oath and have him questioned about why he made Andrew Weissman his second in command or why he put someone who was a Clinton Foundation legal counsel on his team.
@Gary Miller: We really dont care if its 1 million unethical ambulance chasers on the moronic petition. They were not involved in 1 iota of the investigation, obviously do not understand article 2 powers, maybe we should begin a petition to see how many attorneys would disbar the team that wrote the report and its exoneration conclusion statements.
Disbar Mueller for destruction of evidence with FBI text messages.
Weissmans impeachment team, you wont find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
@kitt:
Of course, Kitt! Those 1000 prosecutors simply don’t have the brainpower you do. They don’t understand Article 2.
If they only had a chance to receive your expert consultation before they wrote this:
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
If all of them only had your phone number, kitt …
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1
@kitt:
Yet I notice that you have no qualms about pontificating endlessly on the report. Do you understand “article 2 powers” better than federal prosecutors?
Why has nobody done so already? Just a guess: Lawyers probably know more about the law than you do, and there are not many who would readily sign on to such a petition. You should get one started and see what happens.
@Gary Miller: You are correct they dont even have my very limited understanding. How many of these 1000 were referred to remedial ethic classes by a judge?
Judge Hanen said The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material,” Hanen wrote. “In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.
I would simply have them write a line by line explaination of their inderstanding of Article 2 and their opinion as to why it does not apply, then send it to the Bar association for review.
@kitt:
Why don’t you get off your butt and find the answer instead of performing groundless, possibly libelous speculation? It should be a matter of public record.
@kitt:
This is the Right’s approach to facts, in a nutshell.
If a person with expertise disagrees with you on something which you, a person with no expertise, hold as an article of faith, the person with expertise must be wrong.
@kitt:
“Judge Hanen said The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material,” Hanen wrote. “In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.”
You’re referring to a statement that Judge Hanen made in 2016. It has nothing to do with the Mueller report. Do you even realize that, kitt?
@Gary Miller: Yes, it is an example of the attorneys that you cite with pride.
None of the Dopes on that petition had anything to do with the investigation either!
@Michael:
Oppressors always claim to be, or reference, a “person of expertise” when demanding all others follow their ideology. You are either ignorant of, or blinded by, your partisan identity to not see that. And what’s amazing is how subjective and opinionated this statement:
Huh? If Trump can be charged, then charge him! This is just conjecture. They don’t have anything to charge him on, and they know it.
This “petition” is so g*ddamn weak of an argument/tactic that I can’t believe you two idiots don’t understand how it makes you look, to support it.
@Gary Miller:
“Experts” also said Clinton, had she not been Secretary of State and running for office, would have faces criminal charges for the email scandal.
But yes, use a 80s-style “as seen on tv” selling testimonial method meant to dupe the masses by saying “more than a 1000” random Democrats/allies agree to keep pushing a hoax because they lost an election.
And Gary, Michael…don’t think because you’re ganging up kitt and others here that you actually have a cogent argument. My 10-year-old could mop the floor with the highly emotional, partisan identity arguments you’re both projecting into a small conservative blog.
Interesting that the petition is led by De Niro, an actor with ZERO expertise in politics. He’s merely a shill for your party because people “like” him, so if he loves/hates something, they will too.
“F*ck Trump” – Bob DeNiro
That’s the Left’s approach to facts, in a nutshell. Nothing more than childish hate.
Here’s the actual statement and petition:
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1
I love the disclaimer:
Keep in mind, we found out the DOJ was rather corrupt, as were the FBI and NSA. Just because “more than a thousand” prosecutors say Trump should be found guilty by the court of public opinion doesn’t mean it’s true. I hope these same petitioners make a petition for those who believe the earth is flat to sign, using their “expertise”. Will be much more that “over a 1000″…
This “petition” is a weak defense and only meant to incite their useful idiots (Gary/Michael/et al) to bark at the majority of non-Left Americans like they have a clue what they are talking about.
The point is, most of us don’t want to live in a country where our government is built on character assassinations lead by entertainers. That’s why Trump won. I didn’t elect De Niro…for anything. It’s also a bit ironic that a super-actor that built their career by playing super-criminals (Godfather, Heat, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, etc) is the one saying “no person is above the law”. Hilarious.
@Nathan Blue:
Your thesis falls apart when the topic is Federal law and the two sides of the debate are represented by Federal prosecutors on the one hand and kitt on the other. Kitt has literally written that she knows more about Federal law than do Federal prosecutors.
Then she must be much smarter and more articulate than you are, because you can’t seem to get the job done yourself.
@Nathan Blue:
Did De Niro sign the petition, claiming to be a Federal prosecutor? No? Then who cares?
@Michael: That’s what we are saying, you idiot. DeNiro has no clout and no “expertise” in this game. It’s meant to distract people from questioning the “list” of petitioners, which is equally weak and non-authoritative.
Your party continues to attempt to steal power without using the actual legal system, though it pretends to. If Trump broke the law, let’s charge him! No? Don’t have anything?
I guess a list of partisan lawyers and an SNL guest will do…
@Michael: And why have none of these brave prosecutors went ahead and charged Trump? Could it be that simply signing a petition to make for a bit of propaganda is all this is about, since there isn’t enough evidence for a case?
So easy to pick this garbage apart…*yawn”.
@Nathan Blue:
If you call what you did in that comment “picking apart” an argument, then you and I are not on the same wavelength.
Mueller has said everything that he is allowed by DoJ policy to say. Even what he has not said speaks volumes. He has carefully underlined that, so that it won’t be missed. His report is clear, and the evidence and testimony supporting his conclusions are waiting to be examined by Congress—the only body having the constitutional authority to act upon it.
The man who obstructed the investigation itself is now openly obstructing Congress’s access to Mueller’s full report, and to the collected underlying evidence and testimony. Because he knows if Congress gets it, the game is up.
@Nathan Blue: Its ok they gang up on me I have them outnumbered in braincells 100 billion to, if they are combined, 1/2 of one.
Mine are also connected by synapses. Glad you hopped in I while posting have only done the dishes, vacuumed, washed the kitchen floor, made lunch, 3 loads of laundry.
@Michael: I accept your concession. Because you couldn’t answer this:
@kitt: If you’re ok with it, kitt. Michael parses words and never, ever actually debates the issue at hand. He’s not here for truth, just to pretend to approximate some semblance of control and power he doesn’t have in his home or work life. That’s pretty apparent.
@Greg: @Greg:
That’s conjecture.
If he can be charged of a crime, he should be. But even you and your party would be disingenuous not to admit the politically-fueled nature of the investigation.
Rule of Law is our aim, always.
After letting Clinton go (had more egregious evidence against her), so she could run for President, but then pretending to be for justice when it comes to Trump…on charges that are the fallout of a now fallaciously-commissioned investigation that was politically motivated, is just bad form.
I’d love to believe you are about “justice” here, Greg. But this whole thing stinks. If the Mueller investigation was fallacious, than any charges of “obstruction” can be viewed as entrapment.
But again, if he can be charged by Congress, then they should. But they are talking Impeachment.
Your party should let it go. They are pissing away any chance they might have had of winning 2020 by continuing with this cowardly pursuit.
@kitt: Indeed, I’ve wasted enough time on these dopes today. Off to the gym!! Thanks, kitt!
Going to catch the Rockies and BlueJays tonight…if it doesn’t rain!
@Nathan Blue: Have a great time, I hope it doesnt rain.
@Nathan Blue:
If you had even glanced briefly at the petition, you wouldn’t have had to ask the question, Professor.
This is title of the petition:
This is the first sentence:
You:
No, because:
You might want to hold off on that victory lap. Maybe you should have brought your daughter along to give you a hand.
@Michael: You dodge the point, as usual. If there is enough evidence to prosecute Trump, then they should do it. Period. Stitching together a bunch of federal prosecutors to make a propaganda headline led by Robert de Niro is just silly. It’s meant to convict Trump of guilt in the court of public opinion, rather than to proceed with actual legal proceedings. I see it fit your identity narrative, so you swallowed it hook line and sinker. Signing a petition takes no courage at all.
There’s a real legal issue with the Mueller investigation to begin with, and these obstruction charges have been built on the back of it. It’s easy to say that this petition is a politically-motivated smokescreen to divert from the fact that Trump and his administration are going to now investigate the investigation, as they should.
You and your party so just focus on winning the next election, instead of trying to undo the results of the last one. It tells me, as a voter, that your party is not confident in winning the election by the merits of its platform and its candidate alone… And need some kind of trick gimmick to win.
@Nathan Blue:
I don’t think so. You thought you were scoring major points by noting that none of the prosecutors indicted Trump. The only point that was being made was that you hadn’t even bothered visiting the document you were complaining about, let alone read any of it. You brought that up; I addressed it.
At any rate, hundreds of people who know more about Federal prosecutions than you do, and who were appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, say that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
@Nathan Blue:
So? What does courage have to do with anything?
@kitt: they gang up on me
@Nathan Blue:
Can you point out where De Niro leads the petition, as you posted? Hint: he’s not on the petition.
Good work, Nathan.
@Nathan Blue:
Here is the thing; if there was enough evidence, via the Mueller investigation, to show that Trump had violated any law and was guilty of a crime (i.e. obstruction), Mueller could have said that with the caveat that because Trump was a sitting president, he could not be indicted.
Mueller knew, as most Constitutional attorneys know, that he could have found Trump guilty, and at the point Trump left office, Trump could have been indicted then.
But Mueller punted, abdicating his responsibility by forcing Rod Rosenstein and William Barr to make the determination there was no obstruction. Mueller was willing to make a decision on “collusion”, which is really cooperation, which if there was Trump cooperation with a foreign power to affect an election, that is a criminal act and he exonerated Trump from any cooperation with a foreign power, yet refused to make a decision on obstruction. Why make a decision on the first part of the report and not the second part? Because there is no there there. And all of the whining and wailing on the part of Greggie Goebbels, Michael and the other idiot left winger posting here, dos not change that one simple fact.
I have tried and tried and tried to explain to them how the law really works. They substantiate the old adage “There are none so blind that will not see.” The OLC 2000 opinion is just that, an opinion, and opinions are NOT law and can be challenged in a court of law. So they stick their fingers in their ears and go “la, la, la, la, la; I can’t hear you.”
@retire05:
And you were the one lecturing me the other day about not using precise legal terminology.
@Nathan Blue: See parsing again not a thing to do with the subject.
@Michael:
Liar.
@retire05:
Whatever: You were railing about the idea that Mueller had already found Trump to be guilty, and I wrote this:
Your response:
You, the same guy who said this:
…just wrote this:
He could have “found Trump guilty”? You don’t get to lecture me on legalese at this point.
@Nathan Blue:
It’s a testable theory.
It has already been established that the Department of Justice cannot rein in a sitting president. They have no power to indict, which renders statutory law essentially useless for that purpose.
Given that, I believe Congress has a duty to prevent precedents from being established that could essentially immunize the Office of the President from meaningful congressional oversight. If Congress cannot respond to presidential overreach, what’s left to stand between the office of some future president and authoritarian rule? Would we want to have a virtual dictator, with the possibility of a remedy coming only once every four years?
In my view, this is a seriously big deal. I think Congress has an obligation to press the issue, even if it costs democrats the next election. The nation may be at a turning point. Far more may be at stake than the outcome of one election.
I see Michael has removed his response to me calling me a “f*cking piece of sh!t”
It certainly doesn’t take much to yank Michael’s chain, does it? Like all liberals, he has no talent at debate, and only resorts to name calling.
So what do we have here, fellow posters? A self proclaimed “History” teacher in California who gambles with his students and when called out by an adult, resorts to profanity. What a stand up guy Michael is………NOT.
I guess the guy doesn’t realize that Ken Starr proclaimed, in his report, that Bill Clinton was GUILTY on eleven counts and that Mueller could have done the same.
Y’all can deal with him. I frankly don’t think he even belongs on this forum considering his abusive ways, buy hey, it’s not my blog.
@Greg:
You mean like Obama’s abuse of the law when he, and Eric Holder, initiated Fast and Furious? Is that what you mean, Greggie Goebbels?
@retire05:
Liar. I called you a “wretched fucking piece of shit,” and I didn’t use an asterisk, because I’m not afraid of words.
@Greg: The only solution is to have Mueller testify he can tell them which obstruction charge there is a solid case for, they can then press for the underlying evidence gathered by the team. Its all there in Trumps twitter feed. Right at their fingertips.Somewhere in the 1.5 million documents provided by team Trump. Somewhere in the hundreds of hours of questioning of team Trump when he ordered them to cooperate.
We just hope it isnt cleverly edited as the phone transcript of the call to Flynns lawyer.
@kitt:
Trump asked McGahn to fire the person who was investigating Trump. McGahn refused. Trump then asked McGahn to write a phony letter asserting that Trump never asked McGahn to fire Mueller.
Trump tried to derail the investigation into himself, and then he tried to get another Federal employee to lie about that attempt.
How are these actions not problematic for you?
Here you go, folks. A clear example of the type of teachers California hires.
@retire05:
I see Michael has removed his response to me calling me a “f*cking piece of sh!t”
Liar. I called you a “wretched fucking piece of shit,” and I didn’t use an asterisk, because I’m not afraid of words.
Reply
9 mins ago
@retire05:
Teachers who know what a direct quote is.
What do you care, anyway? You don’t even believe I’m actually a teacher.
@retire05: You got under his thin skin, he cant find better words in the Websters to express his frustration. Finding better words would require a spark of intelligence, as Nathan said “just to pretend to approximate some semblance of control and power he doesn’t have in his home or work life. That’s pretty apparent.”
A pathetic swaybacked gelding.
@kit:
As I said, liberals don’t debate, they scream at you because logic is not their forte.
Here is an interesting read:
Wait for Greggie Goebbels to disagree with the author of this just as Greggie Goebbels (with his great possession of legal expertise) disagrees with Alan Dershowitz.
When the experts think you’re a failure, there is no doubt left.
@retire05: Interesting article echos what we both have opined, Mueller failed in his assigned task. He could not find enough evidence to conclude any crime was committed. His double speak is only CYA to prevent death threats from the violent left.
It’s important to point out that, aside from the numerous crimes committed by Democrats and a few Republican partners in crime to create the scenario in which the “investigation” was undertaken, Trump has been CLEARED of all accusations associated with the Russian collusion garbage (part 1). We are now to the point where the accusations of crimes are derived from whatever reaction there was or wasn’t to an attempted coup based on Russian-provided lies (part 2).
Yet liberals either can’t see it or don’t mind being lied to.
Concluding there was no crime would have infuriated the Democrats, so Mueller backed away, just like the coward and fellow coupster Comey.
@Gary Miller:
If only you were smart enough to realize that 1,000, 2,000 or 10,000 partisan, whiny, sore loser crybabies biased views don’t mean anything…. if only.
@Greg:
But you need overreach first. You don’t have any.
@retire05:
Assuming that only Democrats would be breaking laws, they developed the “opinion” that the President cannot be indicted. Now they don’t like the idea, although it does allow them to lie about Trump being guilty of something and unindictable when their main problem is not evidence to back up a charge.
@Michael:
No he didn’t. If you would see the actual conversation, you wouldn’t appear so ignorant.
@Deplorable Me, #46:
For a president to openly order subordinates to break the law is overreach. To declare national emergencies solely to circumvent congressional restrictions on arms sales to foreign powers or to evade Congress’s power of the purse strings is overreach. To effectively neutralize congressional oversight is overreach.
How quickly you would change your tune if Bernie Sanders or someone having similar views were to be elected. But it wouldn’t matter in the least, because once precedents extending Executive Office powers and authorities are established, they don’t later retreat back within their former boundaries. That’s the nature of precedents. With Congress having diminished powers, reining in a Unitary Executive becomes even less likely.
@Deplorable Me:
McGahn didn’t testify that Trump asked him to get rid of Mueller? That never happened, DM? Are you about to make an ass out of yourself again, DM?
@Greg:
The only overreach is on the part of the Democrats constantly pursuing false accusations and the lies they make up. Perhaps they should be looking into where the mountain of evidence proving Trump colluded with Russians went to since without that, there would be no subsequent questions.
@Gary Miller:
I suggest instead of being a stupid parrot of liberal talking points, you read what the request actually was.
@Greg: Do you think Mueller should testify to answer why he edits transcripts in his report?