Should HR hire Mueller to write a report for them?

[haymarket]

It is obvious after today that there is going to be an epic battle coming up about the Mueller Report and who will be able to read it unedited and unreacted and untouched. I have one simple solution.

The House of Representatives can hire Robert Mueller to write a report for them on grounds of impeachment.

Problem solved.

 

[Mycroft]

It is obvious after today that there is going to be an epic battle coming up about the Mueller Report and who will be able to read it unedited and unreacted and untouched. I have one simple solution.

The House of Representatives can hire Robert Mueller to write a report for them on grounds of impeachment.

Problem solved.

He cannot write a report for them that includes anything that he found in his investigation. That information belongs to the DOJ and the AG decides who gets what.

 

[apdst]

It is obvious after today that there is going to be an epic battle coming up about the Mueller Report and who will be able to read it unedited and unreacted and untouched. I have one simple solution.

The House of Representatives can hire Robert Mueller to write a report for them on grounds of impeachment.

Problem solved.

So...a bribe? Yeah! Let's...hope...they...do! :lamo

 

[haymarket]

He cannot write a report for them that includes anything that he found in his investigation. That information belongs to the DOJ and the AG decides who gets what.

Do you have evidence to present that prohibits Mueller from writing about his own experiences?

 

[haymarket]

So...a bribe? Yeah! Let's...hope...they...do! :lamo

Actually it is called part of capitalism - the exchange of labor for money between two willing parties.

 

[Cardinal]

It is obvious after today that there is going to be an epic battle coming up about the Mueller Report and who will be able to read it unedited and unreacted and untouched. I have one simple solution.

The House of Representatives can hire Robert Mueller to write a report for them on grounds of impeachment.

Problem solved.

There’s probably an ethics problem with paying him, but I can’t see the issue with calling him to testify anyway.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you have evidence to present that prohibits Mueller from writing about his own experiences?

Oh...he can talk about his "experiences" all he wants. He just cannot reveal anything that he found in the investigation.

But I don't think the Dems are all that interested in his experiences.

 

[Mycroft]

There’s probably an ethics problem with paying him, but I can’t see the issue with calling him to testify anyway.

They can call him to testify, but he cannot tell them anything about his report or the investigation unless the AG authorizes it.

 

[haymarket]

There’s probably an ethics problem with paying him, but I can’t see the issue with calling him to testify anyway.

What would be the ethics problem? Lets say a publisher hired Meuller to write a book about his experiences in the Special Counsel office. Could he do that? I see no ethics problem unless he signed an exclusive non disclosure agreement with the AG office.

 

[haymarket]

They can call him to testify, but he cannot tell them anything about his report or the investigation unless the AG authorizes it.

Where are you getting these pontifications from?

 

[haymarket]

Oh...he can talk about his "experiences" all he wants. He just cannot reveal anything that he found in the investigation.

But I don't think the Dems are all that interested in his experiences.

Why not. Give us the evidence you are using to make these pontifications.

 

[Cardinal]

What would be the ethics problem? Lets say a publisher hired Meuller to write a book about his experiences in the Special Counsel office. Could he do that? I see no ethics problem unless he signed an exclusive non disclosure agreement with the AG office.

Put the shoe on the other foot. The Republican-controlled Senate pays Whittaker to come forward and he testifies that Mueller is corrupt. What is your reaction to that scenario?

The whole purpose of following ethics protocol is you keep the trust of the public. The public trust is why ethics rules exist.

 

[Cardinal]

They can call him to testify, but he cannot tell them anything about his report or the investigation unless the AG authorizes it.

Are you basing this on something in the real world or you basing this on goblins that nobody else can see speaking to you?

 

[haymarket]

Put the shoe on the other foot. The Republican-controlled Senate pays Whittaker to come forward and he testifies that Mueller is corrupt. What is your reaction to that scenario?

The whole purpose of following ethics protocol is you keep the trust of the public. The public trust is why ethics rules exist.

Fine with me. And the Dems can ask him for the verifiable evidence that led him to that conclusion.

And what so called ethics rules would prevent Mueller from being hired by the House to write their own report on possible grounds for impeachment?

 

[Cardinal]

Fine with me. And the Dems can ask him for the verifiable evidence that led him to that conclusion.

And what so called ethics rules would prevent Mueller from being hired by the House to write their own report on possible grounds for impeachment?

Honest question: is there a precedent for a House or Senate committee paying an individual to testify?

 

[haymarket]

Honest question: is there a precedent for a House or Senate committee paying an individual to testify?

I believe that the House hires attorneys all the time and is normal matter for them. This would be be different if they want to hire him to write a report
.

If Mueller wants to testify about grounds for impeachment and evidence applicable, I see no reason to pay him for that as I would agree that is NOT the normal procedure.

 

[Cardinal]

I believe that the House hires attorneys all the time and is normal matter for them. This would be be different if they want to hire him to write a report
.

If Mueller wants to testify about grounds for impeachment and evidence applicable, I see no reason to pay him for that as I would agree that is NOT the normal procedure.

Hiring an attorney and paying someone to testify is a billion light years apart.

Look, ultimately, I agree on the central issue: calling on Mueller to testify about pertinent facts concerning the report and the AG's handling of it is legitimate. Fussing over paying him is silly...and unnecessary. Mueller walked away from a six or seven figure income to be SC. He's not in this for the money.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

They can call him to testify, but he cannot tell them anything about his report or the investigation unless the AG authorizes it.

Wow, you are terrified of the truth. You would support anything to protect Trump, even burying evidence.

If Trump and the DOJ try to pull this then he will be impeached. I doubt ordinary Americans would look favorably upon a coverup.

 

[Mycroft]

Where are you getting these pontifications from?

Everything he found in his investigation belongs to the AG. That's who he gives his report to. That's who has control of everything.

 

[Mycroft]

Why not. Give us the evidence you are using to make these pontifications.

Are you basing this on something in the real world or you basing this on goblins that nobody else can see speaking to you?

Where are you getting these pontifications from?

It's the law.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-excuse-for-not-making-mueller-report-public/

 

[Mycroft]

Wow, you are terrified of the truth. You would support anything to protect Trump, even burying evidence.

If Trump and the DOJ try to pull this then he will be impeached. I doubt ordinary Americans would look favorably upon a coverup.

I'm terrified of nothing.

Trump and the DOJ aren't trying to pull anything. Barr has stated he will follow the law. Trump has said nothing.

I'm thinking you are terrified that you'll be left with nothing but the need to howl at the night sky.

 

[Cardinal]

It's the law.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-excuse-for-not-making-mueller-report-public/

While educational, that article did not refer to Mueller being muzzled in the event that he is called to testify before the House.

One thing that the article does reiterate is that the AG must explain himself to Congress if he chooses to act against the Special Counsel's recommendations, and those recommendations would make it before Congress. The specter of criminality, corruption and a coverup would, once again, rear their ugly heads even more so with this administration than before.

In the end, the meat of the report being muzzled isn't likely, especially in light of the fact that the House, if pushed into war with the DOJ, isn't without its own arsenal. The House can, if it chooses, simply defund the DOJ. This is something the previous House explored in order to sever funding for the Special Counsel investigation.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-cost-trump/index.html

 

[apdst]

Actually it is called part of capitalism - the exchange of labor for money between two willing parties.

Paying someone to release classified information is straightup bribery. It's literally, espionage.

 

[apdst]

Do you have evidence to present that prohibits Mueller from writing about his own experiences?

Yeah! It's called, The Espionage Act.

 

[Mycroft]

While educational, that article did not refer to Mueller being muzzled in the event that he is called to testify before the House.

One thing that the article does reiterate is that the AG must explain himself to Congress if he chooses to act against the Special Counsel's recommendations, and those recommendations would make it before Congress. The specter of criminality, corruption and a coverup would, once again, rear their ugly heads even more so with this administration than before.

There's a reason the article doesn't refer to Mueller. Once he submits his report, all control goes to the AG. Mueller is out of the picture.

I'm sure Barr is aware of his responsibilities under the law and I have no reason to expect him to not comply with the law.