Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[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.

[136or142]

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.

Oh sure, but Mueller didn't comment on it. Also, I wrote 'handed off to other prosecutors.'  I should have written 'handed off to other investigators.'

[Joe Biden 2024]

This whole thing is basically the inverse of Comey clearing Clinton, with one side saying there's nothing there, and the other saying there's more.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This whole thing is basically the inverse of Comey clearing Clinton, with one side saying there's nothing there, and the other saying there's more.

Except for the bits where Trump publicly asked for Russian assistance and got it, while secretly making deals with Russians. Deals which he then tried to conceal with conduct that Barr previously agreed was obstruction of justice.

[Koharu]

https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1109908684874878976

https://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/1110003397724377088

[Virginiá]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/mueller-doj-subpoena-trump/index.html

"In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the (Mueller) report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense," Barr wrote.

The special counsel's office and the Justice Department declined to comment on internal discussions of a subpoena.
In the end, the decision to not make a formal request for a subpoena was critical, because that demand, should it have been rejected, would have been communicated by the attorney general to Congress, as the special counsel regulations mandate. Instead, a formal request from Mueller wasn't made, allowing Barr to say in his letter to Congress on Friday "there were no such instances during the Special Counsel investigation" where Mueller was turned down.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1109908684874878976

Yep. The supposedly "liberal" and "biased" media are busy peddling an amplified version of the Trump/Barr-spin. They're eager to protect their Trump cash-cow.

The Guardian: Mueller report: Trump claims 'total exoneration' as Democrats regroup

Politico: Mueller finds no Trump-Russia conspiracy

NYT: Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am disappointed, but not surprised. He worked with chairman Grassley during Obama administration. He likes workimg with GOP and isnt Comey. Thanks for nothing Mueller

[Frodo]

What does 'below the law' even mean?

[Silent Hunter]

I'd like to see the full report here... because the Barr reasoning sounds bizarre.

[Flyersfan232]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

agreed

[Gass3268]

Next Steps

1. Full report needs to be handed over to Congress and the public.
2. Provide Congress the entirety of the materials (transcirpts, information, data, etc.) that were used to draft the report.
3. Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, and maybe others need to publically (privatly too if needed) testify to Congress.
4. Keep the course on their own investigations into Russian interference and Trump's crimes.

[Flyersfan232]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Because he's guilty.

And I would prefer to live in a nation where rule of law exists.

(Not that anyone should let up on any of the others. And don't forget his racism and bigotry, his attempted autocracy, his gross incompetence and unfitness, his pathetic self-dealing, etc.)

Is this a troll account?

[Crumpets]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

agreed

You guys saw the Mueller report? What did it say?

[Frodo]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are.  

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton?  

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck.  

I don't believe that the Echo Chamber was interested in the facts, no.  I believe the Echo Chamber just wants to drive Trump from office by any means.  Primaries and GEs exist for that purpose; to get rid of an incumbent people no longer want, regardless of the reason.

I was never a big fan of the Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton on Benghazi.  It was a politicized spectacle that deserved the criticism it got.  It was designed to achieve a politically negative result for Ms. Clinton, and it achieved its purpose.  The investigation stunk of rank politics, but it DID bring to light confirmation that the Obama Administration, with HRC at the top of the State Department, attempted to blame an attack on our Embassy in Benghazi on spontaneous anger over the showing of a movie Fundamentalist Muslims found offensive and not the work of organized Islamist Terrorist groups that the Obama Administration was claiming that they were controlling.  The upshot of all of that was that Hillary Clinton made a series of decisions that, basically, left people at that Embassy to die.  She could have taken steps to get them out, and she did not.  I personally believe that her inaction was to preserve the "movie" narrative as insurance of (A) Obama's re-election and (B) her viability for 2016.  (I don't believe Hillary made a single decision as SoS without taking 2016 into account.)

I DO think that "Government Oversight" of the Executive Branch by Congress has progressed to the point where every matter is unfairly politicized and checks and balances are upset.  We have gone too far, IMO, in the direction of "Oversight" to where everything is politicized.  The Army-McCarthy Hearings have become the norm.  There is something wrong with this in general.  If good people are less willing than ever to serve in government, perhaps this factor should be looked at.

Do you believe the President should be an elected monarch who can only be held accountable by the electorate, and by no one else?  Is that what you're effectively saying?  Yes, congressional oversight has become overly politicized, especially by Republicans egged on by conservative propagandists media especially when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office, but that's not a reason to jettison it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I’m trying to resist the temptation to comment much in this thread until we know what the report actually says, but I should point out that the Mueller probe has actually brought in a net of roughly $23 million more than it cost.  This isn’t merely my opinion, it’s an objective fact.

[pbrower2a]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are. 

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton? 

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck. 

I don't believe that the Echo Chamber was interested in the facts, no.  I believe the Echo Chamber just wants to drive Trump from office by any means.  Primaries and GEs exist for that purpose; to get rid of an incumbent people no longer want, regardless of the reason.

I was never a big fan of the Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton on Benghazi.  It was a politicized spectacle that deserved the criticism it got.  It was designed to achieve a politically negative result for Ms. Clinton, and it achieved its purpose.  The investigation stunk of rank politics, but it DID bring to light confirmation that the Obama Administration, with HRC at the top of the State Department, attempted to blame an attack on our Embassy in Benghazi on spontaneous anger over the showing of a movie Fundamentalist Muslims found offensive and not the work of organized Islamist Terrorist groups that the Obama Administration was claiming that they were controlling.  The upshot of all of that was that Hillary Clinton made a series of decisions that, basically, left people at that Embassy to die.  She could have taken steps to get them out, and she did not.  I personally believe that her inaction was to preserve the "movie" narrative as insurance of (A) Obama's re-election and (B) her viability for 2016.  (I don't believe Hillary made a single decision as SoS without taking 2016 into account.)

I DO think that "Government Oversight" of the Executive Branch by Congress has progressed to the point where every matter is unfairly politicized and checks and balances are upset.  We have gone too far, IMO, in the direction of "Oversight" to where everything is politicized.  The Army-McCarthy Hearings have become the norm.  There is something wrong with this in general.  If good people are less willing than ever to serve in government, perhaps this factor should be looked at.

We have more tolerance for political messes that come from failed intelligence or execution than we have for political messes that come from corruption and malign intent. Barring a visit with the Grim Reaper to the White House that results in the permanent departure of the President, we are stuck with him until January 2021.

The allegations are not disproved; they will follow this President throughout his Presidency and into history. So far as I can tell he will be defeated, as his approval ratings were weak before the investigation and will be weak again.

[Inmate Trump]

Nothing re: Trump/Russia is conclusive until the full, uncensored report is released.

Barr's summarization of the report is irrelevant and unimportant; it's meaningless.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Nothing re: Trump/Russia is conclusive until the full, uncensored report is released.

Barr's summarization of the report is irrelevant and unimportant; it's meaningless.

Yes, and if the report really does give the president "total exoneration" as he claims (which Barr's letter does not, by the way), he should have no problems with it being released.

[Reaganfan]

[ProudModerate2]

https://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/1110003397724377088

I look forward to not only seeing the full report, but I'm also interested to see what Mueller has to say when the appropriate House committee brings him forward to speak in front of them and the country.

[James Monroe]

https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1110150588074000385
https://twitter.com/MikeSpangenberg/status/1110165071135535104

[ProudModerate2]

https://twitter.com/MikeSpangenberg/status/1110165071135535104

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Nothing re: Trump/Russia is conclusive until the full, uncensored report is released.

Barr's summarization of the report is irrelevant and unimportant; it's meaningless.

In an ideal world, maybe.

 In the world we live in, Barr's letter has successfully spun the investigation as a vindication of Trump.


I don't know what the public perception will end up being.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1110287213458309121