• NewsReal #26: Globalization vs Nationalism - The Hidden Causes of The Yellow Vest Protests in France
• Behind the Headlines: Perfidious Albion: If Russia is a Rogue State, What is the UK?

• Tiananmen Redux? West Pushing Baba Beijing to Send PLA Into Hong Kong
• Is Hong Kong the new epicenter of the Empire's smear campaign against China?
• Beijing slams Britain and US over 'gross interference' in Hong Kong protests
• Democrazis: Western extremists storm Hong Kong parliament, vandalize and occupy building

• "Miscarriage of justice": Cuba slams lawsuits against state-owned firms - EU & Canada agree
• Cuba snubs Trump's anti-socialist crusade with massive constitution vote
• One more Iranian cog needed to get EU's INSTEX payment device working - if ever

Former special counsel Robert Mueller refused to answer questions Wednesday regarding the so-called Steele dossier, the opposition research document Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign commissioned in 2016, which contained allegations about Donald Trump's ties to Russia.

In a tense exchange with Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., Mueller disputed the assertion by Republicans on the committee that the dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, was the basis for an FBI investigation that would eventually be incorporated into the special counsel's probe.

"You had two years to investigate," Steube said. "Not once did you deem it worth to investigate how an 'unverified' document that was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition of a political campaign. Did you do any investigation into that — "

"I do not accept your characterization of what occurred," Mueller replied.

Trump has long asserted that the dossier was the basis for what he has described as a "witch hunt" against him.

Questioning Mueller at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Lesko (R-Arizona) ridiculed the notion that President Donald Trump impeded the former special counsel's investigation.

"Were you ever fired Mr Mueller?" she asked, to which Mueller replied "No."

"Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered?" she continued. Mueller replied "Yes."

From there, Lesko chose a peculiar angle of attack to cast doubt on the second half of Mueller's 440-page report. Outlining 10 potential cases of obstruction by the president, the report's second half quotes mainstream media exposes more than 150 times to piece together an image of a president scrambling to prevent Mueller from doing his job.

"Rather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents, I think you relied a lot on media," she said. "I'd like to know how many times you cited the Washington Post in your report."

"Volume two is mostly regurgitated press stories," she said. "Honestly, there's almost nothing in volume two that I couldn't already hear or know simply by having a $50 cable news subscription."

Lesko was mocked by Democrats and the anti-Trump crowd for her line of questioning.

"My understanding of it was [I was] not applying for the job, I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job," Mueller, who had been FBI head for 12 years up to 2013, told the House Judiciary Committee.

This contradicts Trump's claim that he had turned down Mueller's request to hold the post again. The US president first tweeted it in May, and recently reiterated during a press conference with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan that Mueller "wanted the job of FBI director and he didn't get it."

[...]
Democrats, on the other hand, pressed Mueller to admit that the decision not to charge Trump was driven primarily by adherence to the so-called OLC Opinion, and not by Trump's innocence.

The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) first determined in 1973 that a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime, as then-President Richard Nixon faced impeachment for his involvement in the Watergate scandal. In short, it stated that a president would need to be removed from office before charges could be brought.

"The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination," the office wrote.

The office reiterated its position in a 2000 memo, stating that the 1973 opinion was still "the best interpretation of the constitution." Though not enshrined in US law, the OLC opinion represents long-standing Justice Department policy, and is seen as binding for federal officials.

At several points during Wednesday's hearing, Mueller told Democrats that his team was aware "from the outset" that Trump would ultimately not be charged with a crime while in office, triggering accusations of "fishing" from Republicans. Mueller did say that Trump could be potentially charged once out of office, a scenario that some Democrats would no doubt be eager to see play out.

Though Mueller told lawmakers on Wednesday that the OLC opinion was the only obstacle to indictment, the former prosecutor has made contradictory claims before. In a joint statement with Attorney General William Barr in May, Mueller said that the decision not to prosecute Trump was also motivated by other legal factors. Republicans have already pounced on Mueller for his apparent misstatements.