Joe diGenova: Five questions the Dems won’t ask Mueller
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Congressional Democrats are hauling former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in for questioning before a joint session of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in two weeks – but not because they’re interested in revealing the truth about the Russia collusion hoax.
The Democrats are expecting to use Mueller as a political prop, just as they’ve done with Michael Cohen, John Dean, and many others.
By forcing Mueller to testify, however, House Democrats are also giving their GOP colleagues an opportunity to cross-examine the witness with crucial questions that have never been answered about the two-year witch hunt into non-existent Russian collusion.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}TRUMP CALLS MUELLER TESTIMONY A 'DIVERSION,' SAYS 'SCANDAL IS ON THE OTHER SIDE'
Since the Democrats will undoubtedly devote their time exclusively to questions intended to trick Mueller into contradicting the clear conclusions in his report – that there was no collusion and no basis for obstruction of justice charges – it will fall to the Republican members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to query Mueller about the lingering questions that the report did not address.
When did investigators conclude that there was no collusion?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}By now, most taxpayers are well aware that the Mueller investigation wasn’t quick or cheap. In fact, the probe cost at least $25 million – a staggering price tag for a political hit job that lasted for nearly two whole years. Following the investigation’s conclusion, some have alleged that Mueller’s team may have determined as early as late-2017 that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Was it truly necessary for Mueller, therefore, to wait so long before disclosing his findings to the public? Why did Mueller go so far beyond the scope of his collusion probe, spending many months investigating nonsensical claims that President Trump obstructed justice, especially when the underlying activity couldn’t even be prosecuted without demonstrating intent to obstruct justice? Why did he keep the entire country in suspense, including the president of the United States, if he clearly knew that Donald Trump was not working with the Russians?
Did Mueller destroy evidence?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Last year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report that contained even more troubling revelations – messages that FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had exchanged on their government-issued cell phones during their time on the Mueller team had been mysteriously erased.
Who made the decision to delete these messages? Was Mueller aware of the fact that the phones would be wiped? Why did no one at the DOJ attempt to preserve this vital information?
To what extent did the Office of Special Counsel rely on information produced by the FBI’s spying on the Trump campaign?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}The origins of the Russia investigation remain shrouded in mystery – American voters still don’t know much about who first proposed the idea of investigating Donald Trump and why. We do, however, know that Robert Mueller’s appointment was preceded by a secretive FBI counterintelligence investigation targeting the Trump campaign.
This question is absolutely critical to understanding the context of Mueller’s findings. The American people deserve to know why the FBI spied on the Trump campaign, especially if actors within President Obama’s DOJ intended to use the probe for partisan purposes, such as destroying Trump’s candidacy, and later, his presidency.
Why did Mueller fail reach any conclusions concerning whether the president obstructed justice?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Mueller’s 448-page report contained two parts: the first volume clears President Trump and his campaign of any collusion with the Russian government, and the second volume is a lengthy yet inconclusive assessment of whether the president obstructed justice.
Instead of rendering a conclusion on the obstruction allegations one way or the other, which is the job of a prosecutor, Mueller inexplicably punted the question to Attorney General William Barr, who, along with then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, determined conclusively that there was insufficient evidence to pursue any claims of obstruction.
In his post-report press conference, Mueller then expressed vaguely-worded concerns about Barr’s “characterization” of the report that gave the Democrats an opening to accuse Barr of conducting a “cover-up” for President Trump. While Mueller attempted to justify the lack of a conclusion on obstruction in his report by arguing that the Justice Department can’t indict a sitting president, the guidelines he cited would not have prevented him from directly expressing in the report that his team concluded that obstruction charges could be pursued against the president of the United States if not for that limitation. Barr himself made this clear when he told CBS News that Mueller “could have reached a decision about whether it was criminal activity,” but that “he had his reasons for not doing it.”
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}If Mueller truly believed that President Trump had obstructed justice, he could have easily said exactly that in his report. Was he just trying to point the Democrats towards a new impeachment strategy because he knew that his report was going to demolish their collusion fantasy?
How many of Mueller’s agents were rabid partisans determined to take down President Trump?
The text messages exchanged between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former bureau attorney Lisa Page – both of whom served on Mueller’s team after previously working on the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign – speaks volumes. In the eyes of at least some of Mueller’s investigators, the Russia probe was expressly intended to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after his obvious anti-Trump bias became public knowledge, but 13 other investigators with extensive ties to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton remained with the Special Counsel’s Office for the duration of the witch hunt. How many of those Democrat investigators were personally and/or politically opposed to President Trump, and to what extent did their political views influence the investigation? What steps did Mueller take to prevent the political bias within his team from influencing the course of the investigation?
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Moreover, why did Mueller allow Andrew Weissmann to mischaracterize statements from key individuals, including Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, in the report? What was the purpose of truncating their quotations and taking their remarks out of context?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}These are just some of the many questions that Mueller needs to answer when he testifies before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. The Democrats certainly won’t ask them, though, so it will be up to the Republicans to get to the bottom of what really happened during his infamous investigation.