Comment: Republicans hammered away at the perceived legal deviations in Mueller Report:

To Texas Republican John Ratcliffe, Mueller had no legal basis to list potential crimes without bringing charges, and no right to say that Trump was not exonerated, as the former investigator told committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) earlier.

"It's not in special counsel regulations...it's not in the principles of federal prosecution," Ratcliffe said, "because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or exonerate him."

"It clearly says 'write a report about decisions reached.' Nowhere in here does it say 'write a report about decisions that weren't reached,'" Ratcliffe thundered. "You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided!"

By doing so, Ratcliffe concluded "you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes."

In keeping with his reputation as a man of few words, Mueller remained mostly silent during Ratcliffe's grilling.

Mueller threw a bone to the Democrats, complaining that Trump wanted to fire him, though he never did:

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller told a House Judiciary Committee hearing that President Donald Trump wanted him fired once his investigation shifted towards alleged obstruction of justice.

Testifying before the committee on Wednesday, Mueller declined to tell Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Florida) why exactly Trump wanted him sacked, but pointed to his report which said "substantial evidence indicates" that Trump's efforts to remove him were connected with the obstruction investigation.

"That's what it says in the report, yes. I stand by the report," Mueller told Deutch

During the hearing, Democrats pressed Mueller to reveal more on the behind-the-scenes actions Trump was allegedly taking to boot Mueller from the investigation, including his supposed 2017 instruction to former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire the special counsel. Trump denied telling McGahn to fire Mueller, calling the story a product of the "fake news media."

Trump, in the meantime, continued to slam the Mueller investigation and called for investigating them:

The president launched the attack in a string of tweets on Wednesday morning.

"Why didn't Robert Mueller & his band of 18 Angry Democrats spend any time investigating Crooked Hillary Clinton, Lyin' & Leakin' James Comey, Lisa Page and her Psycho lover, Peter [Strzok], Andy McCabe, the beautiful Ohr family, Fusion GPS, and many more, including HIMSELF...?" President Trump said, referring to a series of high profile figures in Mueller's Russia collusion investigation.

"Democrats and others can illegally fabricate a crime, try pinning it on a very innocent President, and when he fights back ... they call It Obstruction? Wrong!" the president continued, adding "Why didn't Robert Mueller investigate the investigators?"

President Trump also said he did not believe that Mueller's lawyer should be allowed to assist him with his congressional testimony, stating"It was NEVER agreed that Robert Mueller could use one of his many Democrat Never Trumper lawyers to sit next to him and help him with his answers."

Mueller looked tired and even confused during his testimony, leaving some on social media speculating that he did not actually write the report. It was also noted that his answers were far more sharp and clear when answering questions posed by Democrats, as opposed to Republican committee members. His standard answer to many questions was "I direct you to the report.", when wanting to avoid the question.






UPDATES: Thursday 25th July @ 15:32

RT reports how Mueller's sluggish testimony that was supposed to bring new light to the apparent Russiagate drama quickly became a "disaster" for the Democrats:

Mueller was not the clear and confident prosecutor Democrats had been expecting, but instead struggled to answer questions and even forgot some key details from his report into disproven "collusion" between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

While Mueller reiterated that his investigation "did not establish" collusion, he also contradicted Trump's claims that his final report amounted to a "total exoneration." Yet, despite repeated prodding, Mueller didn't offer Democrats any new information or analysis and didn't seem able to easily rebuff attacks from Republicans.

One Republican tweeter thanked the Democratic party for having "destroyed Mueller's credibility in front of the entire nation."

Another mused that Mueller's performance was so bad that Democrats might start blaming his "incompetence" for his failure to prove collusion between Trump and Russia.

Yet, despite his sluggishness, Mueller was, however, able to debunk a few persisting conspiracy theories. He told Democrats point blank that the Trump administration did not curtail his investigation in any way - and confirmed that his team found no evidence that Russia was in possession of compromising information (or "kompromat") on Trump. "Another plank of the conspiracy theory destroyed," tweeted reporter Aaron Mate.

When desperate Democrats attempted to tee Mueller up to pin Trump for obstruction of justice or to push the former special counsel into hinting at support for impeachment, Mueller refused to be led, preferring not to veer very far from his previous public comments.

The media's talking heads chimed in too, with Fox News' Chris Wallace saying the first of two hearings had been a "disaster for Democrats." A similar assessment was found on anti-Trump MSNBC, with Chuck Todd commenting that "on optics, this was a disaster."

The White House itself quickly came out with a statement calling the hearing an "epic embarrassment" for Democrats.

An Op-Ed from RT provides more details:

Mueller's testimony was a major anti-climax. Will Democrats finally realize he won't save them?

Democrats expected Russiagate fireworks from former special counsel Robert Mueller's long-awaited testimony on Capitol Hill, but were once again disappointed, witnessing only the last fizzles of a dying conspiracy theory.

Many in the media had massively hyped Mueller's appearance, believing that his confident and clear testimony would make for must-watch television. Yet, when the messiah finally appeared, he struggled to answer questions, constantly asked committee members to repeat themselves - and bumbled through the answers he did give (which were not particularly interesting and shed little new light on the Russiagate debacle).

Watching the hearing was like watching paint dry - on a wall you've painted one-hundred times before. Democrats must finally be realizing that Mueller will never reveal himself to be the Trump-slaying superman they'd hoped for

Better things to do?

"It's outside my purview," "I can't get into it," "I refer again to the report." Those were Robert Mueller's go-to answers throughout Wednesday's hearing, during which it was absolutely clear that he had no interest in being there.

[...]

Of course, his reluctance was no surprise; the investigator had previously admitted he did not want to testify and believed that his 450-page report should have been regarded as his only testimony.

'No collusion' deja-vu

In his opening statement, Mueller confirmed (yet again) that his "extensive investigation" completed over two years "did not establish" that members of the 2016 Trump campaign conspired with Russia to steal the presidential election. "I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today," he said.

[...]

Not charged, but not exonerated?

[...]

The issue of Trump's claimed exoneration became one of the more interesting moments of an otherwise dull hearing, when Texas Republican John Ratcliffe asked Mueller if the US Department of Justice had any policy that allows him to say that a person who is not charged is also "not exonerated."

When asked if he could think of an example, besides Trump, where "an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined," Mueller could not think of any, saying this was a "unique situation."

Forgetful Mueller

It wasn't simply that Mueller was seemingly disinterested in the whole charade; the stranger discovery of the day was that on many occasions during questioning, he appeared to have trouble recalling some basic facts from his report. Granted, the entire report is hundreds of pages long - no one could be expected to recall it all in crystal-clear detail - but Mueller's grasp of certain elements left a lot to be desired.

On one occasion, he was unable to recall who'd provided one of the most reported-on and dramatic quotes in its pages (Trump's alleged response to Mueller's own appointment: "This is the end of my presidency. I'm f*cked.")

It wasn't just report-specific facts that Mueller failed to recall, either; he couldn't even remember, when asked, which president had first appointed him to the position of US attorney general. It's only a matter of time before Trump starts calling him 'Sleepy Robert' on Twitter.

Collusion or conspiracy?

So shaky was he on some of the details, committee members inadvertently caught Mueller contradicting pieces of the report in his spoken testimony. Asked by Georgia Republican Doug Collins if "collusion and conspiracy" are "synonymous terms," in the "colloquial context," Mueller said no.

Yet, in his report - as Collins swiftly pointed out - he stated that "even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy."

Rebuffing Democrats' efforts

It was back to the question of obstruction of justice when Democrat Hakeem Jeffries of New York began questioning Mueller, pressuring him to agree that Trump had committed obstruction. On Twitter, many excitedly claimed that Jeffries was masterfully "establishing" that the "three elements" of an obstruction of justice charge were present - but he failed spectacularly when Mueller ultimately responded: "I'm not supportive of that analytical charge."

[...]

Trump takes the well-earned opportunity to slam the Democrats:

US President Donald Trump slammed former special counsel Robert Mueller's long-awaited House testimony, reserving his harshest words for the Democrats who "knew it was a hoax" - and the media who enabled them.

"Robert Mueller did a poor job, but in all fairness to him, he had nothing to work with," Trump told reporters on the White House lawn on Wednesday following the disastrous hearing. "The performance was obviously not very good, he had a lot of problems. But what he showed more than anything else is that this whole thing has been three years of embarrassment and waste of time for our country."

"Everybody knew it was a hoax, especially the Democrats," the president continued, savaging the probe that "destroyed people's lives" over "a total witch hunt" and predicting electoral catastrophe for the party. "I think they've hurt themselves very badly for 2020."

"The Democrats had nothing, and now they have less than nothing."

"But I know them too well - they'll never give up. They'll go back into the room and they'll try and figure something out," Trump predicted. "This whole thing has been collusion - with the media, with other countries... This has been a disaster for the Democrats."

Democrats have shot themselves in the foot according to reporter Aaron Mate, but he thinks the Russiagate hysteria is far from over:

President Donald Trump's Democratic opponents have shot themselves in the foot by forcing Robert Mueller to testify publicly, not realizing he already done his best to make the probe look credible, journalist Aaron Maté told RT.

The testimony by former special counsel Robert Mueller only further highlighted the flimsiness of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which after more than two years of investigation ultimately turned up no evidence of conspiracy.

"Democrats made a very big mistake in calling this hearing today," Maté said. "They didn't realize the investigation was baseless and that Mueller and his team actually did their best to make this investigation look credible."

"This hearing has been disastrous for the Democrats because Robert Mueller for over two years has been portrayed as a their savior figure."

The journalist noted Mueller's refusal and even seeming inability to answer basic questions about his own probe, including about the notorious research firm Fusion GPS, which helped to kick off the FBI's initial Trump-Russia investigation with the infamous "Steele dossier."

"It was a telling moment when Robert Mueller didn't want to answer the question about Fusion GPS," Maté said, pointing out how the former special counsel repeatedly stated certain subjects "weren't in his purview."

But the "disastrous" hearing, during which Mueller refused to "go along" with obvious efforts to blame Trump for anything potentially impeachable, is unlikely to "stop the Democrats from continuing with this Russiagate business," Mate noted. The question is whether Trump will now be "challenged on his actual policies, not on a now totally debunked conspiracy theory."

Noting what a baseless distraction the whole investigation has been, Ron Paul instead draws our attention to "FBIgate":

The Democrats' dream of impeaching President Trump over the Russiagate scandal has "totally failed," its fate confirmed by special counsel Robert Mueller's disastrous showing in Congress, former congressman Ron Paul told RT.

The utterly anticlimactic hearing saw the ex-special counsel serving up reheated details of his two-year probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, reminding both the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees that there was no proof that members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. "Hopefully, this will end it all, because Mueller did not have any evidence," Paul said.

"I think we should never use the word Russiagate again. I think we ought to use the FBIgate because there was a conspiracy to try to frame Trump."

"If they have impeachment hearings next year, it is going to backfire on them, just as I think this hearing today backfired on the Democrats," Paul said, suggesting that lawmakers should instead investigate the origins of the Russia probe - in particular the Steele dossier, which was partially funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic Party. The document, produced by Fusion GPS, was full of unsubstantiated tales about Trump and helped to kick off the FBI probe, yet when pressed on the key role of the opposition research firm, Mueller didn't even appear to be familiar with the organization.

Both parties have much bigger problems, Paul pointed out, marveling at how Democrats and Republicans are "bosom buddies," marching in lockstep on "more debt, more interference, more involvement overseas, more welfare-ism," yet "they hate each other's guts when it comes to power."

"The empire's broke, the empire's in trouble, yet [both parties] don't want to talk about that."

Comment: Rogue Israel's latest attack on Syria launched from Lebanese airspace, killed civilians

Comment: He's a dead man walking.

Comment: Teresa May is merely a continuation of ponerized politicians and comes on the heels of some particularly effective ones so, in a way, one could be grateful that Theresa May didn't try to 'achieve' more than she actually did. As with any country ruled by the character disturbed, the UK electorate only really have themselves to blame, at least in places like France people are doing what they can to make it known they have had enough.

For now, the UK have Bojo to contend with: Galloway: You'd have to be mad to think Boris Johnson is the answer to Britain's problems

Also check out SOTT radio's:

• 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?

Comment: See also:

• 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

Comment: See also:

• "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

Comment: Other highlights, (or low-lights) depending on your point of view:

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.

Rep. Gaetz had something to say about Mueller's non-answer:


Republican committee member Debbie Lesko pointed out the report's inordinate reliance on media stories

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.

Mueller denied he asked for the top job at the FBI, which Trump immediately contradicted:

"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 pressured Mueller on why he did not recommend charges for the president. RT give an analysis of the reasoning:

[...]
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.