Mueller at the House Judiciary Committee Hearing Today - Three Points and an Observation

As I type this former FBI Director and Special Counsel Robert Mueller had just completed his first of two hearing today in front of Committees in the House of Representatives by testifying under subpoena in front of the House Judiciary Committee (he later testifies in from to the Intelligence Committee).  Having the day off from the paying job (ironically not because of this) and a long night last night I overslept but did catch the last couple of hours off and on.  From what I've witnessed from both watching the hearing and commentary regarding it here are three points that came out that should be taken into account.

First - Mueller has now said that a President can be indicted once he leaves office.  
   The main reason from the Mueller Report why they didn't bring charges against electoral vote winner Donny was that DOJ had a rule that stated that a sitting President couldn't be indicted.  This left open whether or not a President can be charged if he leaves office.  Rep. Jerry Nadler got Mueller to state, for the record, that he was unable to indict the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago for obstruction because of Office of Legal Counsel decision that a sitting president couldn't be indicted.  This was said by Mueller at his press conference a while back but then Nadler asked if [electoral vote winner Donny] could be indicted once he leaves office.  Mueller replied with one word: "True."

This alone would be something that should be notable.  However, it was later in the hearing that Repub Sen. Ken Buck of Colorado asked if you could charge the President with a crime after he left office.  Mueller said yes.  By stating this again, Mueller basically reaffirms the possibility that the decision of the DOJ not to charge electoral vote winner Donny did not mean he was exonerated and that other investigations can still (and will still) occur.  It also leaves open a chance that leaving office doesn't mean that Donny can get away with it and he could still be charged if the Dept of Justice in the next administration after he leaves office would choose to do so.

While there can be some debate over whether this means the OLC decision was the only reason Donny wasn't charged, this and the fact that Mueller reaffirmed similar things means that the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago wasn't completely exonerated by the Report.

Second - Mueller Didn't Interview with Electoral Vote Winner Donny to Return to work as FBI Director
      One of the things the Mad Fuhrer, his minions, and Repubs in general have tried to throw against the wall in trying to dismiss the Mueller Report is that Donny didn't hire him as FBI Director and that Mueller was probing him in a case of sour grapes.  Donny even tweeted something to that effect this morning as the hearing was getting underway.  Early in the hearing he was asked by Repub Rep Louie Gohmert of Texas if when they met the day before if they discussed FBI Director James Comey's firing.  Mueller interjected immediately that he was not a candidate,  The fact that Mueller preemptively shot that line down is important in that it derails somewhat this theory that Donny has thrown out on twitter.  While the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago will likely continue to throw out that red meat  Mueller saying that without actually being asked while under oath is important.

Third - It Looks Like The Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago and his minions had asked his staff to falsify records.
     In one exchange with Rep.Cedric Richmond (D, LA) it was revealed that Donny and company tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify information and that there was an attempt to get White House Counsel Don McGahan to provide a false written record of information,  In other words, lie to those investigating your side.   

Now anyone with eyes and ears who pays attention knows Donnya nd company seems to obstruct justice in regards to their BS on an almost daily basis (way too many instances to claim).  What makes thids differnet is the fact that,if it were anyone else, there'd be charges and court dates involved but since OLC rules don't allow the Justice Dept to indict a sitting president, he still gets to stay where he is.  It also reiterates Mueller's replay that the Report DID NOT EXONERATE the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago regardless of what the latter tweets. 

With those three points (which likely have been made by others in a batter way) in tow let's tackle an observation I have regarding the Repubs on these committees.

The Repub Congresspeople Seem to Channel Someone who confuses talking too fast with making a good debate point
     Granted I walked in on the middle of Matt Gaets' attempt to show boat to gain the Mad Fuhrer's approval as my starting point but I noticed that  they all seem to channel their inner Ben Shapiro at some point.  Usually they start slow but somewhere get to a point where they try to say a lot of words really fast regarding things that have little to do with what was supposed ot be talked about.  Several of them even seemed to use Ben's phrasing.  It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact these people were elected to guide this country yet seem to want a pat on the hand from Donny more than serving the people they supposedly represent. 

In time I'm sure there will be a lot of things that people find in here that may sway thigs one way or the other.  For now though I think the good of the hearings is more adding some context to what was in the Mueller Report since at over 400 pages many people don't have to time to check it out. 

Woder how the Intelligence hearing will stand out.
    

So Mueller’s Gonna testify Today

Update:  Edited and corrected to include both hearings.

 It's July 24, 2019 and former special counsel Robert Mueller will be testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee followed by a hearing in front of the House Intelligence committee sometime today answering questions related to the Mueller Report regarding possible collusion and obstruction of justice by electoral vote winner Donny and his minions.  While Mueller has said that any testimony will mainly apply to what he’s already said in a previous press conference and what's in the report itself this is still a big deal.

lt is a big deal because while this will mainly cover a lot of ground many already know if they pay attention, the fact that most people haven't read the Mueller  Report (at over 400 pages that’s understandable since it is a commitment to get through it) means this will provide some context and some information that people don't already know, flesh it out so to speak. Regardless of whether or not there are any bombshells revealed in his testimony  this means that we're going to lease get some new context on what was in the report and why he came up with the conclusions he did as well as possibly understand what limits were placed on the investigation itself. 

 Either way this is going to be a bumpy ride. Though electoral vote winner Donny (a/k/a: the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago)  has already said that he has no plans to watch it then said he might watch a little in the same gaggle. What that means is he totally plans to watch the testimony and will likely be tweeting about it all damn day instead of doing his job.

Time will tell what happens as result of Mueller's testimony, It might push the buttons to get people on board to impeach the Mad Fuhrer, it might avoid that but open up new paths for Congress to investigate (Mueller said in his pres conference a while back that while the DOJ couldn't charge a sitting president, congress could).  The abut one thing is for certain this is going to add another twist and turn to the ride that's already bumpy and leading to a long scary year before the 2020 election.

Electoral Vote Winner Donny 's Sunday Tweets at Four Congresswomen

When it comes to the tweets of electoral vote winner Donny (a/k/a: the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago) I try to be careful about commenting on them too deeply. In some instances he shoots off on something whenever the mainstream media isn't focused on him in an attempt to either divert from something bad or make things all about him.  Sadly, more often than not the media starts talking about him and his latest social media cherry bomb (sometimes in regards to something he knows nothings about) rather than the issue at hand.  However, once in a while he comes up with something so beyond the pale that we have to take a look at it.  Here is his latest case in point.

In the early morning hours of Sunday July 14, 2019 the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago decided, for reasons unknown to us, to send out a vile tweet regarding four "Progressive Democratic Congresswomen," which many believe is aimed at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D, MN), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D, MI), Rep, Ayanna Pressley (D, MA) and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D, NY and a/k/a: AOC).  In this tweet he claimed the four came "from countries  whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" and that they were "loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run" before telling them to go back to "the crime infested places from where they came."

All of this before most people even woke up to have breakfast, get ready for whatever was planned for the day and the like.  Almost immediately after the anger in the Mad Fuhrer's tweet kicked in came the reaction where the silence of most of his fellow Repubs was almost as telling as those who pointed out that it was racist, with the exception of Repubs who tried to bend themselves into near pretzel like conditions to claim what electoral vote winner Donny tweeted wasn't racist.  With that in mind, a brief look at the tweet is in order.  This will likely cover ground that's already been covered but it has to be done.

First up is the question of racism- was the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago's tweet at four U.S. Congresswomen of color racist?  In a sane and just world one wouldn't even have to ask this question because it should be obvious that the tweet was hella fucking racist.  The racism here is obvious for several reasons.  One, all of the women are U.S. citizens (which you have to be, either by birth or being naturalized at least seven years previous) with Ocasio Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley all being born in the United States.  Since that makes them from here for all intents and purposes, telling them to go back where they came from is really nothing more than racist code speech intended to rile up the white supremacists and their closet fans that make up a good chunk of his base.  

So, why is he tweeting this?  Some people have suggested it may be a diversion from several things in the news whether it be the Jeffrey Esptein case (remember that Donny at one time claimed to be a friend of his) or to keep people from talking about conditions at the border Trumpcentration camps.  There may be some truth to this in that such a tweet does take some of the oxygen out of the room and force people to take on the tweet itself.  At the same time one has to remember that Donny has long used racism to gain power whether it was using birther rhetoric during the era of President Obama and claiming the country's first black President wasn't born in the U.S. and isn't really president to his frequent retweeting of white nationalist memes, refusal to disavow David Duke, and having his grown sons go on a white nationalist radio show twice before the 2016 election.  During that campaign the question of whether or not Donny was a racist became irrelevant as his willingness to play in that sandbox was just as dangerous as if he were the reincarnation of a segregationist sheriff from the 1950s south. 

However, when placed in context with actions such as getting sued by the Federal Government in the 1970s (along with his father) for refusing to rent to minorities or his continuing to not acknowledge that the five people who became known as the Central Park 5 (and which example he used for an op ed supporting bringing back the death penalty in the early 90s) were innocent of the crimes they were accused of committing despite eventually being exonerated by DNA evidence and the confession of the actual culprit years after they were convicted to the birtherism reveals a lot more about whether the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago may be racist than his so easy to dispute denials (like his claims that he's the least racist person ever). 

Is this merely riling up the base?  Is it an election campaign tactic to get the white supremacist part of his base to come along?  Both?  It's hard to say but it's easy to figure out that all of this may be true and that things are going to get a hell of a lot uglier before the 2020 election. 

In the upcoming print issue I'll dive into a couple of things that weren't really discussed here - including one thing the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago doesn't even get he's right about.    As for comments, I still refuse to right to delete comments that are totally ignorant, hateful (racist/Misogynist/homophobic/anti trans etc) or arguments I believe are in bad faith.