Al Franken-"What I'd Ask Mueller"

[EleanorR]

Love it, especially this part-

12. In that same press conference, Attorney General Barr said that the Report had concluded that there had been “no collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The President likes to repeat that every chance he can. But you did not conclude that there was no collusion, did you?

13. In fact, on page two of the Report you say, “…Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.” So, would it be fair to say that you made no judgement at all in the Report about whether there was collusion?

14. So, if a graduate of an accredited law school asserted that the Report had concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, would that be person be wrong?

15. And just so the average non-lawyer understands, that means that no one could ever be charged with collusion in federal court because collusion is not a criminal offense in the U.S. code. We all understand what collusion is, but it’s just not something you could ever indict someone for. Just as you would never indict someone for, say, “being in cahoots.” We all understand what the colloquial “to be in cahoots” means. For example, in the Roger Stone indictment, which was redacted in the Report, it says that Mr. Stone and the Trump campaign were in cahoots with WikiLeaks. But I think you would agree, Director Mueller, that we are never going to hear this in a federal courtroom: “Your honor, the jury finds the defendant, Roger Stone, guilty of being in cahoots.” Am I correct?

16. And what is the statute of limitations on being in cahoots? I think everyone gets my point. The reason that’s a joke is that it’s so ridiculous. But saying the Report concluded that there was no collusion – isn’t that just as ridiculous?

17. Staying on that point. Would it be fair to say that by sharing internal polling data on Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI considered to be connected to Russian intelligence, that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Kiliminik appear to have been in cahoots?

https://alfranken.com/read/what-id-ask-mueller

[Takket]

1. great questions

i have 1 additional question... it is for Kirsten Gillebrand.

[marble falls]

6. Me, too.

[brooklynite]

10. Anything for Harris? Booker? Sanders? Warren? Klobuchar? Bennet?

[wellst0nev0ter]

26. Any of them cut campaign ads

boasting about how they shivved Franken?

[rzemanfl]

2. I so miss Al. Don't get me started.

[Luciferous]

4. So do I...

[Bettie]

5. Me too

reading these, I can hear them in his voice.

Though, to be fair, he was in the Senate, not the house!

[global1]

7. Not A Good Title Line For A Franken Post.....

Me Too

I'm sure there was no pun intended!!!!

[Bettie]

9. Oops...yeah, entirely unintentional

Ah well, story of my life, always with the wrong words.

[rzemanfl]

11. "So do I" was taken....

[trueblue2007]

21. SIGH ..... big sigh and with tears ..... I MISS AL MORE !!! I want him to run again.

[BootinUp]

24. You are already started me thinks. Nt

[WA-03 Democrat]

3. Love #14

Could be rephrased to “anyone through Jr. High.”

[LakeArenal]

8. Al is the one.

I won’t forget why he’s gone.

[Skittles]

12. COME BACK, AL

seriously - run again

[More_Cowbell]

13. Franken's tough questioning of Sessions...

Led to Sessions having to recuse himself. I wish he could be one of the people questioning Mueller tomorrow.

[Trumpocalypse]

27. No it didn't

Sessions confirmation hearing was in January 2017. He didn’t recuse himself until March when articles in the Washington Post and NY Times reveled he met with the Russian Ambassador in 2016.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html

[Hoyt]

14. Unfortunately, I don't think Franken understands. Mueller didn't look at "collusion" because there

is no crime called "collusion." So, he looked at the closest thing -- cooperation, conspiracy, whatever you want to call it.

I think Mueller erred in his conclusion, but he did say that he found no evidence anyone in trump's campaign cooperated with the Ruskies.

If someone asks those questions of Mueller, and Mueller is in a pissy mood, he might just laugh in their face and say, "Did you actually read the report, Congressperson." I'd be careful.


This is what Mueller said:

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collude" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign term that appears
in the appointment order with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement tacit or express between the Trump Campaign and the
Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.


Didn't have time to go to link, so other questions might have been good.

[ms liberty]

16. He does understand . It is right there at #15 of the snip in the OP.

You don't even have to go to the full article to find it. Did you even read the text of the OP?

[Hoyt]

18. Not so sure. It's clear trump doesn't get it, but trump can say -- with the support of Mueller --

I did not collude, conspire or coordinate with Ruskies. I don't believe that, but Boy Scout Mueller made sure he got off.

Fact is, whatever you call it -- collude, conspire, cahoots, coordinate, cooperate, etc. -- Mueller let him off the hook.

[rockfordfile]

35. That's because Mueller didn't really want to find cooperation/conspiracy. Mueller supports

Mueller supports the DOJ policy. Which is a right-wing policy. Everybody knows Trump/gop had cooperation with Russia and the Saudis. Republicans don't prosecute republicans that's the problem. Been that way for years.

[tclambert]

15. No cahoots! No cahoots! Fake news! Witch Hunt! MAGA!

Someone would say.

[PatrickforO]

19. Hope those folks who are asking the questions are reading Franken's,

and I certainly wish Franken were there to ask them in person.

[EarnestPutz]

29. You just know that every democratic member of the committee's staff....

....has a copy of Al’s great questions. I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear some of them verbatim.

[EveHammond13]

20. wow wow. He would be a hell of a lawyer.

[dalton99a]

22. "What crimes were you not confident that the President did not commit?"

[BootinUp]

23. Maybe they should have Al be a panelist. Nt

[zentrum]

25. Come back! Run again, Al!

[flibbitygiblets]

28. Cahoots!

Song starts at 1:35

[scarletwoman]

30. DAMN IT!!!! Just DAMN IT!!!!

FUCK, FUCK, FUCK!!!!

Fuck all his so-called colleagues who threw him under the bus!

Our country NEEDS Al! And they took him away from us!

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!! It makes me so damn fucking angry!!!!

[gulliver]

31. Yep, I'll be disappointed if both "no collusion" and "no obstruction" aren't put to rest tomorrow.

[California_Republic]

32. Trump; 'No cahoots!'

[Zambero]

33. And 'No obfuscation!'

[quickesst]

34. I would like to see someone....

.... who did not dump on Al Franken, and who has read this to pose one of his questions to Mueller, followed by: "Asking for a friend."