We are all anxious to see how proper examination in a hearing could take down Special Counsel Mueller's pretenses and deceptions, maybe even reveal something of the nature of the Deep State swamp.

House judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler and House intelligence chairman Adam Schiff issued a joint statement regarding the decision made to delay the appearance of Special Counsel Robert Mueller from July 17 to July 24, adding that Mueller had agreed to the delay.  There is no doubt that the House Committee Democrats are hoping for an energizing boost from the Mueller appearance in their efforts at a coup.  The question is, will they get their wish?  Let's consider some suggested strategies for examination questions by the Republican members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, in the open and closed sessions planned.

First I put up the recommendations of George Parry, former federal and state prosecutor; Philadelphia lawyer in private practice; and prolific, able, and articulate essayist at The American Spectator, who proposed a strategy that is subtle and effective in such a situation as a congressional hearing with limited time for questioning.

Mr. Parry titled his essay "The Art and Science of Cross Examining Mueller."  He is an expert in these matters, so he has a number of important recommendations for any congressman who plans to examine Mr. Mueller, who should be considered a hostile witness and a proven partisan and advocate for bringing down President Trump in this blatant coup attempt.

Mr. Parry has suggested a sequence of soft and then harder questions that start with getting Mueller to agree to things he would be foolish to disagree with.  Then Mr. Parry suggests some approaches that deal with the tough and contentious matters, building on the foundation created by the previous strategy.  

Mr. Parry tailored his suggestions to the problem of five-minute time limits in the hearing format.  Cross-examination is a challenge — and particularly a challenge if examining an attorney witness with a time limit.

Parry suggests that cross-examination in a short time should avoid contentious colloquy.  The examiner should focus on areas for agreement that can lay the foundation for a few hard questions based on the predicate.  Example: The president was cooperative, as exemplified by the many witnesses and documents provided.  The cooperation included no blocking by the White House of 2,800 grand jury subpoenas; 500 search and seizure warrants; 230 orders for communications records; 50 pen register orders; 13 requests to foreign governments; and interviews of approximately 500 witnesses, including almost 80 before the grand jury.  The White House produced over one million documents.  Hard to make a case for obstruction of justice when the president, his lawyers, and his staff were so cooperative.   

Mr. Parry suggests some sharp questioning about the conduct of the prosecutors, and the reader will benefit from his comments.  Example: Hiring Andrew Weissmann, who has a lot of bad baggage, and all those Democrat partisans.  Mueller should be asked to explain his inappropriate statement that he was unable to exonerate the target, the president.  Custom and practice of prosecutors is to restrict their statements to the findings of illegal activities, not the inability to find crime or illegal activities.

The second recommendation is an essay by Jeff Carlson at the Epoch Times, "33 Key Questions for Robert Mueller," that is comprehensive and informative but not suited for the five-minute time limits of a congressional hearing.  Mr. Carlson displays a thorough knowledge of the case, so his essay is more a long wish list of ways to expose Mueller.  Some points from his essay might be made by a coordinated and tactical Republican effort.  Sometimes a question can be an accusation, and the accusation can stick.  Reading Mr. Carlson's essay will inform on the many areas of the Mueller team's malfeasance and misconduct.

Carlson suggests a starter that is good: does Mr. Mueller think A.G. Barr misrepresented the report?  Then he asks who actually wrote Volume I and Volume II of the report, and did they consult with people from Brookings and the Atlantic Council, both partisan think-tanks?  He also points out Mueller's fancy dancing on the obstruction issue after the clear and definite conclusion on collusion.  Why?  Why no examination of other matters related like the origins of the Steele Dossier, and if the collusion was not found, was there any notice to the FISA court?  No investigation of Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, foreign government, CIA involvement in the Steele Dossier?

I like his question about whether there was a FISA or national security letter issued on Michael Flynn to spy on him and set up the "friendly" interview that resulted in his indictment for a process crime.

If you are an armchair, wannabee, or real lawyer, all the materials and commentary by Mr. Parry and Mr. Carlson in the essays are better than the popcorn you might decide to have during the hearings.  Enjoy the show after you prep with these great essays.

These hearings are an effort to resuscitate the coup, the Democrats' Doug Flutie/Hail Mary pass, with Robert Mueller waving his arms in the end zone.

Caricature by Donkey Hotey

John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. is a physician and inactive attorney in Brownwood, Texas.

Image: James Ledbetter via Flickr.