Dems settle on new agreement, Mueller appearance postponed

(FILE PHOTO by Getty)

Congressional Democrats have negotiated a new agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller that calls for him to testify before Congress one week later than initially planned. This is arguably good news for President Donald Trump, who’s been vocal in his opposition to Mueller testifying.

Instead of appearing before the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee next Wednesday, Mueller will now testify before the committees on July 24th, the Wednesday after.

The possible good news (more on this later) for the president is that the new agreement also calls for the special counsel to testify for a longer period of time than previously planned.

“We are pleased to announce that Special Counsel Mueller will provide additional public testimony when he appears before our committees,” Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler and Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff announced in a statement Friday.

“At his request, we have agreed to postpone the hearing for one week, until July 24, at which time Mr. Mueller will appear in public before the House Judiciary Committee followed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.”

“The House Judiciary Committee will convene on July 24 at 8:30 am with Special Counsel Mueller testifying in public for three hours. After a brief break, the House Intelligence Committee will convene for additional public testimony beginning at 12:00 pm.”

The key line from the statement is that “[a]ll members — Democrats and Republicans — of both committees will have a meaningful opportunity to question the Special Counsel in public.”

Previously, the hearings had been limited to two hours per committee. This timetable would have reportedly prevented every member of each committee from questioning Mueller. With the hearings having since been extended, EVERY member will be given a chance to ask questions.

Is this good or bad news for the president? It depends. Democrats command a majority in both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, meaning that the majority of questions — all of them presumably about Trump’s alleged crimes — will come from them.

But both committees also contain a number of Republicans. And because everybody will now have the time to ask questions, Republican members such as Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Louie Gohmert, to name a few, are now guaranteed the opportunity to question Mueller about the origins of the Russia probe.

For instance, “What about the dossier?

This was among a series of questions posed two months ago by conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh.

While the special counsel had nothing to say in his report about the dossier — despite his entire investigation having reportedly been predicated on its existence and usage by the FBI — plenty of questions remain.

“Did you know that the dossier was fake?” Limbaugh continued. “Did you know that it’s made up? Do you know that it was political opposition research? Do you know that it formed a large part of the entire investigation before you picked up the job?”

Fellow conservative radio show host Mark Levin had some questions for Mueller as well.

Listen, via Fox News’ “Hannity“:

“Did Mueller say he had evidence of a crime that met the probable cause standard but could not indict? He never says that. He doesn’t say it today, it’s not in his report. He doesn’t say he has probable cause ever,” he asked during a Fox News appearance in May.

“Number two. Did he say we had to question the president about obstruction and therefore found others who had actually obstructed and charged them? No. Who are these other people? There aren’t any other people because the president didn’t obstruct. So, no, nobody else who was not immune was charged with obstruction for trying to cover up this investigation.”

He’d also like to know why Mueller left the obstruction of justice verdict up to Attorney General Bill Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“Why did Mueller leave it to the Attorney General to decide obstruction rather than wait a couple years and see if the president wins reelection and if he doesn’t, indict him in 2020?” he asked.

As pointed out by a number of social media users, including notable ones like Judicial Watch founder Tom Fitton, there are plenty more questions beyond these tiny few:


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles