Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Pericles]

Is a congressional censure on the cards? Unlike impeachment I think that would just need a simple majority and could be more palatable, though might just be an unsatisfactory compromise.

[pbrower2a]

Were I a Republican officeholder I would want President Trump to step down. He offers far too many risks and too few rewards -- and he might make my electoral loss all the more likely. Besides, Mike Pence would be just the thing for my economic and social agenda -- back to the Gilded Age!

[Mr. Morden]

Were I a Republican officeholder I would want President Trump to step down. He offers far too many risks and too few rewards -- and he might make my electoral loss all the more likely. Besides, Mike Pence would be just the thing for my economic and social agenda -- back to the Gilded Age!

My guess is that the majority of congressional Republicans agree with that, and always have.  They'd rather have Pence.  But obviously their voters wouldn't be happy with them if they were to say that out loud, so they're never going to do so.

[Hindsight was 2020]

If Dems wanted to go hard they should in unison call for Barr’s resignation for flat out lying about things Mueller said in this report. You can’t have any confidence in him now to duly enforce the law

[Hollywood]

I read AG Barr's 4-page summary and the Mueller report.  Nothing in that summary was inaccurate. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

I read AG Barr's 4-page summary and the Mueller report.  Nothing in that summary was inaccurate. 

Technically correct is the worst kind of correct.

[Hollywood]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

[Virginiá]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

Eh, the reason it's scarier is because as president he can actually do something to these people instead of just running his mouth. Even Congressional Democrats can only churn out subpoenas and hold hearings, which is far less power than the executive branch.

[Hollywood]

I read AG Barr's 4-page summary and the Mueller report.  Nothing in that summary was inaccurate. 

Technically correct is the worst kind of correct.

The 4-page summary is almost word-for-word the conclusive paragraphs in the Mueller report.  I have both documents in front of me.  The last paragraph on page 182 of Part II is the same conclusion in the 4 page summary.  

[Nyvin]

I read AG Barr's 4-page summary and the Mueller report.  Nothing in that summary was inaccurate. 

Technically correct is the worst kind of correct.

The 4-page summary is almost word-for-word the conclusive paragraphs in the Mueller report.  I have both documents in front of me.  The last paragraph on page 182 of Part II is the same conclusion in the 4 page summary.  

The summary was a cleverly crafted press release that put Trump in the most positive light possible. 

[GP270watch]

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

 How do you explain Trump constantly deflecting Russia's attempts to influence our elections and the fact U.S. intelligence believes they were behind the hacked emails. Why does Trump keep minimizing it, let alone going out of his way to blame others.

 Why did Trump when standing next to Putin say he believes Putin? Then when people were appropriately outraged and called it treasonous said he "misspoke" and meant to say something else, when it's clear from the language before and afterwards that he meant to say "I believe Putin". Why?

[Hindsight was 2020]

I read AG Barr's 4-page summary and the Mueller report.  Nothing in that summary was inaccurate. 

I’m talking about the press conference. He flat out lied in at least two times about the report. 1) He said the Mueller report and Mueller himself did not indicate who should rule on obstruction but the report plainly says Congress should and 2) Barr said the DOJ guideline not indicting a president didn’t factor into Mueller’s decision but the 1st page plainly says that it did.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Barr concluded and said that Trump nor his associates have colluded with 🇷🇺 Russia.

Mueller could have indicted Trump Jr. The sealed indictments didnt stop him from indicting Manafort

[Hollywood]

I read AG Barr's 4-page summary and the Mueller report.  Nothing in that summary was inaccurate. 

I’m talking about the press conference. He flat out lied in at least two times about the report. 1) He said the Mueller report and Mueller himself did not indicate who should rule on obstruction but the report plainly says Congress should and 2) Barr said the DOJ guideline not indicting a president didn’t factor into Mueller’s decision but the 1st page plainly says that it did.

1) The section you are referring to expresses that Congress provides a basis for executive agencies through organic statutes, and puts limits on the manner in which the President may utilize those administrative agencies without those organic statutes.  It does not say anything about who should rule on obstruction of justice, which is normally an executive branch decision.  Congress doesn't normally charge people with crimes.  They don't prosecute cases or make determinations about when to prosecute.  The passage you are misreading is about Congress' ability to enact laws regarding obstruction of justice, but it does not give them any ability to prosecute.  That is in the purview of administrative law.  Congress may start impeachment proceedings.  That’s it. 

2) Finally found this at the end of the video at 19:10.  He didn’t lie.  Well I guess we don’t know whether Mueller would have decided to prosecute despite OLC recommendations, because we only have AG Barr’s word.  However, you’re essentially calling someone a liar without any evidence.   

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

I certainly believe that we need to dial this all back.  We do not need the massive investigation that Trump and others seem to want as to how this got started.

But the conduct of any number of the inquisitors is reprehensible.  Andrew McCabe?  James Comey?  Peter Strxok?  Lisa Page?  John Brennan? 

They tried to "kill the king".  Figuratively, but sure enough.  And they failed.  They failed because they, themselves, were not truthful, and they were acting out of motives that, for many of them, were unacceptably political for the positions of trust they held.  Trump will go up in my estimation if he actually can show some magnanimity here, but there are a number of individuals involved in all of this that deserve to experience an extreme episode of unmitigated defecation into their undergarments, followed by a proper passage of time until the sigh of relief.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

I certainly believe that we need to dial this all back.  We do not need the massive investigation that Trump and others seem to want as to how this got started.

But the conduct of any number of the inquisitors is reprehensible.  Andrew McCabe?  James Comey?  Peter Strxok?  Lisa Page?  John Brennan? 

They tried to "kill the king".  Figuratively, but sure enough.  And they failed.  They failed because they, themselves, were not truthful, and they were acting out of motives that, for many of them, were unacceptably political for the positions of trust they held.  Trump will go up in my estimation if he actually can show some magnanimity here, but there are a number of individuals involved in all of this that deserve to experience an extreme episode of unmitigated defecation into their undergarments, followed by a proper passage of time until the sigh of relief.

This is delusional.  To take just one example, Strzok supported reopening the probe into Clinton's emails after they were found on the Weiner laptop, and in fact helped write the letter Comey sent to Congress about it.  If that didn't happen, Clinton would have been elected.  Or if Strzok had really wanted to prevent Trump's election, he could have done so with a single phone call to a media source in Fall 2016 and leaked that Trump was under investigation for ties with Russia.  This would have finished Trump.

Did Strzok dislike Trump?  No doubt.  But law enforcement officials are allowed to have personal and political feelings.  What they shouldn't do is let those feelings influence the conduct of their official duties.  As part of his duties, Strzok took actions that unquestionably harmed Clinton's chances of being elected, despite his dislike of Trump.  This was correct professional and ethical behavior.

[bandg]

I've avoided commenting on any Russia related topics, because it has been obvious for some time what the ultimate conclusion would be. However, it was satisfying to see the Mueller report systematically destroy every conspiracy theory that people have obsessed over (Papadopolous passed on his gossip to Trump campaign, Carter Page as superspy, Michael Cohen Prague trip, Manafort-Assange rendezvous, RNC platform change, Alfa bank server, Deutsche bank Russian money laundering, Jeff Sessions as Russian agent while a US senator, honestly the list goes on and on).

But at the end of the day, most normal people have tuned out this "scandal" long ago, because of one fatal flaw. It is so incredibly *BORING*. It is full of facebook memes, FARA violations, tax law violations, obscure arguments over obstruction of justice statutes etc. Where is the illicit sex in the West Wing, the Watergate break-in, the secret recordings inside the White House? Even the big event that the obstructionists are clinging to, the Mueller firing...oh wait, he wasn't actually even fired. Where is the Saturday Night Massacre?

My prediction is that the Trump-Russia affair will quickly be relegated to the dustbin of history like Iran-Contra or Valerie Plame. There is nothing here that can capture and hold the national consciousness like the more sensational Watergate and Lewinsky scandals.

[Hollywood]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

I certainly believe that we need to dial this all back.  We do not need the massive investigation that Trump and others seem to want as to how this got started.

But the conduct of any number of the inquisitors is reprehensible.  Andrew McCabe?  James Comey?  Peter Strxok?  Lisa Page?  John Brennan? 

They tried to "kill the king".  Figuratively, but sure enough.  And they failed.  They failed because they, themselves, were not truthful, and they were acting out of motives that, for many of them, were unacceptably political for the positions of trust they held.  Trump will go up in my estimation if he actually can show some magnanimity here, but there are a number of individuals involved in all of this that deserve to experience an extreme episode of unmitigated defecation into their undergarments, followed by a proper passage of time until the sigh of relief.

This is delusional.  To take just one example, Strzok supported reopening the probe into Clinton's emails after they were found on the Weiner laptop, and in fact helped write the letter Comey sent to Congress about it.  If that didn't happen, Clinton would have been elected.  Or if Strzok had really wanted to prevent Trump's election, he could have done so with a single phone call to a media source in Fall 2016 and leaked that Trump was under investigation for ties with Russia.  This would have finished Trump.

Did Strzok dislike Trump?  No doubt.  But law enforcement officials are allowed to have personal and political feelings.  What they shouldn't do is let those feelings influence the conduct of their official duties.  As part of his duties, Strzok took actions that unquestionably harmed Clinton's chances of being elected, despite his dislike of Trump.  This was correct professional and ethical behavior.

The crux of this information comes out of CNN, who cited a dude "familiar with Stzrok's thinking".  In the same sentence they try to imply that it came from e-mails, but it came from the dude.

[UncleSam]

Since we are going down the path of debating reopening the emails, I would remind my Democratic friends here that neither Comey nor Strozk had any choice. This is because when Comey went before congress during the initial Clinton report release over the summer, Gowdy made him swear under oath that if there were a new opening of the investigation that he would inform congress immediately.

In other words, to do anything other than what he did would have been to either blatantly disregard the duties of his office or to commit perjury. In reality, the reopening was minor and I suspect he knew that - but that doesn’t mean he can just not make sure it is minor.

Comey was in an impossible situation and did the best he could. The real problem is that the American voters gave a sh**t in the first place. The election should’ve been decided on policy but there’s a reason the parties keep dredging up random bs instead of developing their platforms - too many people vote based on their feelings of who is the better person than based on what policies that person is proposing once in office.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

"Scary and should scare everyone" has been an accurate descriptor from Trump ever since he stopped being a joke candidate back in 2015. He's the political equivalent of hydrofluoric acid, introduced into a system that already badly corroded and overheated.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

I certainly believe that we need to dial this all back.  We do not need the massive investigation that Trump and others seem to want as to how this got started.

But the conduct of any number of the inquisitors is reprehensible.  Andrew McCabe?  James Comey?  Peter Strxok?  Lisa Page?  John Brennan? 

They tried to "kill the king".  Figuratively, but sure enough.  And they failed.  They failed because they, themselves, were not truthful, and they were acting out of motives that, for many of them, were unacceptably political for the positions of trust they held.  Trump will go up in my estimation if he actually can show some magnanimity here, but there are a number of individuals involved in all of this that deserve to experience an extreme episode of unmitigated defecation into their undergarments, followed by a proper passage of time until the sigh of relief.

This is delusional.  To take just one example, Strzok supported reopening the probe into Clinton's emails after they were found on the Weiner laptop, and in fact helped write the letter Comey sent to Congress about it.  If that didn't happen, Clinton would have been elected.  Or if Strzok had really wanted to prevent Trump's election, he could have done so with a single phone call to a media source in Fall 2016 and leaked that Trump was under investigation for ties with Russia.  This would have finished Trump.

Did Strzok dislike Trump?  No doubt.  But law enforcement officials are allowed to have personal and political feelings.  What they shouldn't do is let those feelings influence the conduct of their official duties.  As part of his duties, Strzok took actions that unquestionably harmed Clinton's chances of being elected, despite his dislike of Trump.  This was correct professional and ethical behavior.

Strzok went way over the line, however. Lots of cops have strong opinions; they're supposed to keep them in check while acting as law enforcement officers.

Why didn't Strzok leak what he leaked?  Because he thought Trump a sure loser and didn't want to risk it?  How much did Trump's upset victory expose Strzok's motivations, as well as the motivations of a number of people?

Trump won, and that wasn't supposed to happen.  Lots of folks reacted to that in the spirit of Desperate Times calling for Desperate Measures. 

[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.”

[Dr. Arch]

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.”

Implying it wasn't already dysfunctional.

[Hindsight was 2020]

For FB and all the other Trumpers claiming that the Brennan’s of the world calling Trump treasonous is over the line A) fox hosts like Eric Bolling said the same thing about Obama for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorist” so spare us the partisan outrage and B) the Mueller report clearly shows Trump and his campaign knew the Russians were behind the hacking, kept in contact with Wikileaks, and encouraged this attack on our democracy because it would benefit them. Guys like Brennan probably do view such actions as treasonous

[ProudModerate2]

For FB and all the other Trumpers claiming that the Brennan’s of the world calling Trump treasonous is over the line A) fox hosts like Eric Bolling said the same thing about Obama for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorist” so spare us the partisan outrage and B) the Mueller report clearly shows Trump and his campaign knew the Russians were behind the hacking, kept in contact with Wikileaks, and encouraged this attack on our democracy because it would benefit them. Guys like Brennan probably do view such actions as treasonous

What trump and his cohorts did is treasonous, and I'm sure many others (including me and other Atlas users) see it that way also.