Republicans are great at getting folks that should be in the hot seat in the hot seat, and then wasting their opportunity to squeeze information from them in the five minutes per representative they’re allotted. And if recent appearances on various news shows is any indication, they’re of the belief that Robert Mueller will do what he said during that cowardly nine-minute Post Mueller Report Show and stick to what’s in his report. Except…Robert Mueller has an agenda. He was the person tasked with implementing the “insurance” policy, the method by which Donald Trump would be booted from office should he win, or hamstrung to the point of impotency should impeachment fail.

The Mueller Report Volume One found no one colluded with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. Period. But The Mueller Report Volume Two discussed obstruction of justice, and then punted to the Attorney General with the decision to charge unmade. Both were atypical reports: When are the details about an investigation where the subject is not charged with a crime ever released (thanks, Comey, for that trend)? Further, Volume Two was an obvious roadmap created for the Dem-controlled House’s benefit in keeping the Russian Collusion narrative alive, a lie that was reportedly cooked up way back in 2016 in Barack Obama’s State Department, then under the direction of one John Kerry.

Of course, former FBI Director James Comey has his own list of collusion/obstruction questions for his good buddy, Robert Mueller, that are as biased as the day is long in favor of painting Trump as a “colluder” and an “obstructor.” But it’s all political for Mr. Comey, because it looks like yet another effort to deflect from his own alleged misdeeds:

BREAKING: Inspector General Has Evidence Comey Really Was Investigating Trump — On the Sly https://t.co/glzv8sNh1R

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 22, 2019

Nevertheless, with the above preface, there are at least five questions (and follow-ups) that Republicans should ask Robert Mueller when he testifies tomorrow:

1. Why did you populate your team exclusively with Democrats, some of whom had obvious conflicts of interest, including Andrew Weissmann, who attended Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election night party, and reportedly offered to drop indictments against a Ukrainian oligarch in exchange for dirt on the president?

How Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann's plea offer to an oligarch could boomerang on DOJhttps://t.co/84VNsI7wnR

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) July 22, 2019

2. When did you know that evidence didn’t exist that would show that the Trump Campaign “colluded” with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election? And if it was more than a year before your report was complete, as some have reported, did you make the White House aware of your findings? And if it was more than a year prior to your report’s completion, why did you not make the public aware prior to the 2018 midterm elections? And if you knew more than a year earlier, why did you allow the investigation to drag on for another eight months?

3. Did you investigate all parties—including our own intelligence agencies—for potential “collusion” with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election? If not, why not? Do you think the Clinton campaign and the DNC, given that they funded the now-infamous “Steele Dossier” that was heavily relied upon to secure surveillance warrants from the FISC, should have been included in the investigation? Further, given that we now know the FBI worked with Christopher Steele—even after being terminated as an intel asset—who garnered much of his false oppo research from the Russians, do you think Mr. Comey, Mr. McCabe and other FBI employees should have been included in the “collusion” investigation as well? Why or why not?

4. Why did you omit from your final report exculpatory evidence that would have shown that the Trump Campaign was not “colluding” with a foreign nation and which would have undermined the entire purpose of the special counsel?

5. Why were some of Stryzok and Page’s work-phone texts destroyed by the Department of Justice, specifically someone in your office, before the Inspector General could review them? Is that not destruction of evidence and/or obstruction of justice?

And that’s just the short list. By the way: as of Monday morning, Adam Schiff (D-CA)—who himself once thought he was, ahem, colluding with Russians—is already making a concerted effort to undermine the impending findings of the FISA abuse investigation, which tells us there are likely some bombshells ‘bout to ‘splode (make sure to read the Real Clear Investigations article linked above). Not to mention the Justice Department has instructed Mr. Mueller not to step outside the boundaries of his own report:

Hmm. https://t.co/PwFIHrGwBY

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 23, 2019

The thing is: Who’s gonna stop him? And what are the ramifications if he chooses to step over the Justice Department’s red line?

Make no mistake: these hearings are all about the 2020 election and convincing enough voters that a president who’s been fully exonerated on conspiring with Russia is nevertheless guilty of multiple crimes regardless of the nearly two-year-long investigation that concluded otherwise. And it’s about prodding those voters into voting Democrat. Following Wednesday’s Mueller Show, the liberal media will be in full-on propaganda mode: you’ll be told by the various talking heads exactly what you saw, exactly what you heard, and how you should therefore vote Democrat next year. Here’s hoping the American people are smarter than the Democrat Party thinks we are.

In case you can stomach it, you can watch Mueller’s testimony Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee starting at 8:00 a.m. ET, and then round two before the House Intelligence Committee at 12:00 p.m. ET here:

And what are you hoping Mueller is asked during his House testimony tomorrow?

Feature Image Credit: Medill DC; Wikimedia; Creative Commons 2.0 license; image cropped.