Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The report (or Barr's interpretation of it) seems to me like a really, really good stuff for Trump who will benefit a lot because of high expectations (threeeeason) that the talking heads in mainstream media and Democrats (Adam Schiff, oh my god) etc have set.

I think that some "swing-voters" would think that Trump was right. Witch Hunt (seriously, but not literally). Not by Mueller who has done a great job, but by MSM, Dems and "deep state" (John Brennan, oh my god) etc.

According to rcp Trump have had 43-44% approval rating since May 2018. I'd guess that Trump will get a bump of 1-2%. So let's say 45-46% - still awful, but the path to the reelection becomes real enough. Especially if Biden isn't the nominee of Democrats (ha!). We'll find out it soon enough.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Trump has definitely won the 'framing game.'  The media is repeatedly saying 'no evidence' of collusion found.  But, that's not what the Mueller report states.  William Barr quotes from the Mueller report in his summary:

As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Is that 'no evidence', 'no proof' or somewhere in between?  It certainly doesn't sound like 'no evidence' to me.  "Did not establish" sounds like there was no concrete proof or 'smoking gun.'  

Of course, I'm biased on this just as the idiot Trump cultists are biased, however, the summary at no time uses the phrase 'no evidence.'

There is not enough evidence to conclude that there is probable cause that Trump, or anyone in the Trump Administration, committed a crime.  That's a fact, according to even Mueller.  If that were the case, Trump could have been named by Mueller as an unindicted co-conspirator.  Nixon was so named in the indictments of Haldeman and Ehrlichmann, long before the "Smoking Gun" of the release of the actual tapes.  

As for the 2020 GE, have at it!  That's what General Elections are for.  If people wish to make a political case against Trump on the campaign trail, well, fine and good!  That's what the political process is about.  But stop the advocacy of issue positions that suggest that Trump is Below the Law.  He's not Below the Law any more than he's Above the Law, but the Echo Chamber is very much in denial of that.  (Although I have been encouraged by a few cracks on that particular point, which is a good thing.)

No proof of a crime on the matter of conspiracy. Mueller had no opinion on obstruction of justice, and other matters have been handed off to other prosecutors.

Yes, but both Barr AND Rosenstein concluded that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense".

Yes, that Rod Rosenstein who appointed Mueller.
Yes, that Rod Rosenstein who allegedly was discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th.

He is clearly NOT a Trump hack. Not even close.
Actually, I don't think Bill Barr likes Donald Trump very much either. But he is probably more biased.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

http://twitter.com/ABC/status/1111713641961803777

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I'm not quite sure that all have read the Barr's letter.
Here it is

Dear Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler,

I write in response to Chairman Nadler's March 25, 2019 letter and Chairman Graham's March 27, 2019 letter, which addressed the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, and the "confidential report" he has submitted to me pursuant to 28 C.F.F. § 600.8(c).

As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and the public have the opportunity to read the Special Counsel's report. We are preparing the report for release, making the redactions that are required. The SpecialCounsel is assisting us in the process. Specifically, we are well along in the process of identifying and redacting the following: (1) material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) that by law cannot be made public; (2) material the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources methods; (3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other Department offices; and (4) information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties. Our progress is such that I anticipate we will be in a position to release the report by mid-April, if not sooner. Although the President would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated publicly that he intends to defer to me, and, accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review.

Also, I am aware of some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24, 2019 supplemental notification as a "summary" of the Special Counsel's investigation and report. For example, Chairman Nadler's March 25 letter refers to my supplemental notification as a "four-page summary of the Special Counsel's review." My March 24 letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel's investigation or report. As my letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the public provided, pending release of the report, a summary of its "principal conclusions" - that is, its bottom line. The Special Counsel's report is nearly 400 pages long (exclusive of tables and appendices) and sets forth the Special Counsel's findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions. Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public's interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.

As I have discussed with both of you, I believe it would be appropriate for me to testify publicly on behalf of the Department shortly after the Special Counsel's report is made public. I am currently available to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2019 and before the House Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2019.

Finally, in the interests of keeping the public informed as to these matters, I intend to make this letter public after delivering to you.

Sincerely,
William P. Barr
Attorney General

Pretty transparent, no?
Also, Mueller will be assisting in "preparing the report for release, making the redactions that are required".

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

"Mueller was given the opportunity to review the March 24 letter and "declined."
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1115614113118412805
The Great Cover-Up of the Collusion!

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1115988859957927936

The Greatest Cover-Up in Human History?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rod-rosenstein-defends-justice-department-handling-of-mueller-report-11555021002
Rod Rosenstein Defends Justice Department Handling of Mueller Report

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Justice Department’s handling of the special counsel’s still-secret report, saying Attorney General William Barr is “being as forthcoming as he can” about his process for redacting and releasing the roughly 400-page document.

In his first interview since the conclusion of the special counsel’s investigation, Mr. Rosenstein beat back suggestions that Mr. Barr is trying to mislead the public by releasing only a four-page summary of Robert Mueller’s investigation. The attorney general in that letter said the Mueller probe found President Trump and his campaign didn’t conspire with Russian interference in the 2016 election but reached no conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice. With the absence of a recommendation, Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein determined Mr. Trump’s actions weren’t criminal.

Democrats have demanded access to the full report, which Mr. Barr said he would release, likely next week, after blacking out portions for sensitive information.

“He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre,” Mr. Rosenstein said.

The man who
- is hated by Trump and occasionally have been praised by Democrats,
- installed Mueller and gave him free hand, despite Trumps constant attacks,
- was allegedly thinking about invoking 25th against Trump and who,
- is resigning, has nothing to lose and can quickly become a millionaire by writing and selling a book to "collusioners".

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Barr said (4/9) that the report is likely to be released within a week so you may be have just a couple of days to post your hot takes about THE collusion... even if it's pretty obvious that the report will be mostly about what we already know, just more detailed and throughout as well as with Mueller's thinking/analysis.


My hot take:
- strong case that Russia tried to khe-khe the election.
- strong case against the collusion. TOTAL EXONERATION that is.
- quite strong case that Trump was "extremely careless" or similar about OOJ, but not a strong case about corrupt intent, so basically that DOJ, Congress or/and the voters who has to decide about it.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1117820631737937921
The last* three days for hot embarrassing collusion takes!



*after Thursday it will be time for hot Barr's-Cover-Up takes.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Why would Trump attack the man who virtually put in the report that he does not exonerate Trump of OOJ? So strange.

The mystery that only Collusioners and Cover-upers can solve!


#BarrHidEverything!

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

WTF Nadler just announced he’s been informed that Congress won’t be getting a the mueller report until after Barr’s press conference
https://mobile.twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1118639594692644864

Why is that a big deal?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

WTF Nadler just announced he’s been informed that Congress won’t be getting a the mueller report until after Barr’s press conference
https://mobile.twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1118639594692644864

Why is that a big deal?

You seriously don’t see something messed up about Barr holding a press conference on a report that neither the congress or anyone has read yet? It’s politics. He’s going to put a spin out for Fox to run with throughout the morning so when the ugly stuff hits later in the afternoon the narrative has been set

Yes, it's politic. But I still don't think it's a big deal. Fox would spin nevertheless, CNN&Co would be cautious nevertheless. I don't really see how it would "set the narrative". May be a little, but not a bid deal as I said.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

WTF Nadler just announced he’s been informed that Congress won’t be getting a the mueller report until after Barr’s press conference
https://mobile.twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1118639594692644864

Why is that a big deal?

You seriously don’t see something messed up about Barr holding a press conference on a report that neither the congress or anyone has read yet? It’s politics. He’s going to put a spin out for Fox to run with throughout the morning so when the ugly stuff hits later in the afternoon the narrative has been set

Yes, it's politic. But I still don't think it's a big deal. Fox would spin nevertheless, CNN&Co would be cautious nevertheless. I don't really see how it would "set the narrative". May be a little, but not a bid deal as I said.

Turn this around (a useful technique for looking at any political issue).  Imagine what would have happened if Comey had provided the Hillary Clinton campaign with advance knowledge of his findings to give them time to prepare a rebuttal, and that the Clinton people then held a press conference to spin the results hours before its actual release.  The right would have been marching on Washington with pitchforks and torches.

Trump is the president and the election is 80 weeks away. I don't think it is a big deal.

The bid deal is how heavily the report will be redacted.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Ok. Barr's OOJ-defence of the President was quite partisan.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Ok. Barr's OOJ-defence of the President was quite partisan.

I was talking about this >>>

https://twitter.com/aterkel/status/1118872450031341568

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1118930277961744391

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

On pp 180-181 the report makes clear that collusion in a criminal activity is itself conspiracy in accordance with Black's Law Dictionary, a recognized source on the meaning of words in law. One cannot successfully twist the meaning of words in legal statutes to win a legal point, as by calling one's theft "pilferage" instead of "larceny". Words have rigid meanings in statutory  law lest they be meaningless in law. Postmodernist devices with language are incompatible with legal statutes, lest law be unenforceable.

What do you want to say by that?

I cannot cut and paste the section from the report, so such is the best that I can do.  

NyT has made a very convenient searchable/copy&pastable and partly annotated document of the report.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1118920717460836352

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 


4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

These two are wrong.    We already knew of the "collusion" with Russia (Collusion is not a legal term, so it's pretty vague).   Barr's summary just stipulated that the Trump Campaign didn't actively coordinate with the Russian Government,  which is practically meaningless since the Russian government simply had third party operatives do all the dirty work.   

It doesn't matter if Trump attempts to interfere with the investigation were "successful" it just matter that he tried to interfere...which is VERY plainly written out in the report multiple times.

Mueller's report states that conspiracy and collusion are synonyms and that the conspiracy between Russians and Trump's team wasn't established. No?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I can understand (though I disagree with) that you disregard Barr's opinion on OOJ as partisan, but why disregard Rosenstein's?


As I have already written,

he is the one who appointed Mueller,
he is the one who has been very supportive and defended Mueller during the whole investigation (right?),
he is the one who allegedly was freaking out about Trump going to obstruct the justice and therefore talking about invoking the 25th,
he is resigning soon, and basically has nothing to lose, but his reputation.


Why would he covering up President Trump who's gone in 2-6 years?
Does his opinion not mean anything? Nothing?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I can understand (though I disagree with) that you disregard Barr's opinion on OOJ as partisan, but why disregard Rosenstein's?


As I have already written,

he is the one who appointed Mueller,
he is the one who has been very supportive and defended Mueller during the whole investigation (right?),
he is the one who allegedly was freaking out about Trump going to obstruct the justice and therefore talking about invoking the 25th,
he is resigning soon, and basically has nothing to lose, but his reputation.


Why would he covering up President Trump who's gone in 2-6 years?
Does his opinion not mean anything? Nothing?

What opinion? As far as I can tell, he hasn't done or said anything. Yes, he was standing behind Barr during the press conference but he is the Deputy Attorney General.

Edit: If you mean about him agreeing with Barr on Obstruction of Justice, again, he is Deputy Attorney General. Its not his job to take a stand.

Yes, I talked about him agreeing with Barr.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision. The attorney general and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators had insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed that offense.

Mr. Barr’s letter said that the Mueller report identified no actions that, in his and Mr. Rosenstein’s minds, “constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent.” Mr. Barr did not consult Mr. Mueller in writing his letter to leaders of the congressional judiciary committees, a Justice Department official said on Sunday.

Also, Rosenstein wrote about Barr for Time 100
http://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2019/5567756/william-barr/

Sort of endorsement.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-the-russia-investigation-ends-experts-see-two-years-of-us-political-dysfunction-as-a-win-for-putin/2019/04/18/da418fb4-5faf-11e9-9412-daf3d2e67c6d_story.html
As the Russia investigation ends, experts see two years of American political dysfunction as a win for Putin

If anything, the report has caused additional splintering, with divisions coming into view between Mueller’s team and the Justice Department. While Attorney General William P. Barr has essentially declared that Trump is legally in the clear, the report suggests Mueller’s team believed it had found compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice — reigniting the prospect of aggressive follow-up investigations by Congress.

Setting aside the issues of collusion and obstruction, the country’s polarized view of the Russia investigation is perhaps most evident in connection to the least contentious of Mueller’s conclusions — that Russian interference in 2016 was real.

“But at the same time, we have to recognize the reality of what Putin and Russia are doing,” he said. “They are weaponizing corruption and technology as tools to undermine us and undermine democracies.”

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

It seems like everyone (including Barr and Rosenstein) was surprised (some even irritated) that Mueller chose to not make a call.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-legal-dispute-between-mueller-and-barr-drove-the-end-of-the-trump-probe/2019/04/19/1781807e-623e-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html
How a legal dispute between Mueller and Barr drove the end of the special counsel’s probe

That move surprised everyone, including Attorney General William P. Barr and his senior advisers, according to current and former Justice Department officials. When Mueller presented his findings without reaching a decision about the president, Barr reviewed the evidence and decided that Trump had not obstructed justice.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Mueller’s failure to make a decision on obstruction was “one of the biggest surprises of the report,” and he was still struggling to understand the special counsel’s thought process.

“It doesn’t make any sense, because on collusion, he seemed to be perfectly empowered to reach a conclusion on whether the president committed a crime,” Turley said. “The other problem is that his mandate clearly allowed him to make a decision, and [Justice Department headquarters] had clearly indicated he could make a decision.”

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The Mueller's highly damning report has BEEN out for 2 weeks now (and Mueller WILL testify).

Stil, the BIG STORY is somehow 4 pages memo (which by the way Mueller was given the opportunity to review, but has declined to do that)...
_{Former BIG STORIES were that the report would not be released at all, then that it would be damaged by redactions. And before that COLlUSION...}


Is the report really so damning that MSM&Resistance told ya (still saying) it would be?   

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The Mueller's highly damning report has BEEN out for 2 weeks now (and Mueller WILL testify).

Stil, the BIG STORY is somehow 4 pages memo (which by the way Mueller was given the opportunity to review, but has declined to do that)...
_{Former BIG STORIES were that the report would not be released at all, then that it would be damaged by redactions. And before that COLlUSION...}


Is the report really so damning that MSM&Resistance told ya (still saying) it would be?   

Well, it lays out clear evidence of obstruction of justice.  Enough evidence so that some experts in the field (former prosecutors and DoJ officials, for example) are on record saying that if Trump weren't the currently sitting president, he would have been indicted for it.  Yeah, I'd call that pretty damning.

And some experts argue Trump Jr should have been indicted))
And that Muslim Ban is illegal.
And that Trump doesn't have authority to declare Border Emergency.

You see, what I mean?


Is there a consensus that Trump should have been indicted for OOJ among constitutional law experts?


The report itself is comprehensive and detailed, but we mostly knew all the damning facts anyway. MSM & Resistance had always anticipated it'd be more. That's why they put now more focus on argh Barr's letter than the report itself. Trump BAAAD collusion went to Barr BAAAD ARGH letter.