Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[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.”

[James Monroe]

Russian apologist Green Greenwald is again pushing the false narrative of no collusion between Trump and the Kremlin. This dangerous rhetoric leaves me to no further believe that Glenn and the rest of the cronies at Intercept are apologetic to Trump and Putin, further denying any hacking that was done to manipulated the election in favor of Trump.

[pbrower2a]

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).

Many of the violations in themselves are small, but on a big scale they make a serious set of crimes. We have laws against tax evasion, money laundering, banking fraud, campaign-finance violations, wire fraud, and mail fraud. Maybe one gets away with one such violation (so you fail to report your winnings in a 50-50 contest that nets you $35... but if you have a job in which you are being paid under the table you are committing a crime, and so is your employer). 

Minor offenses might be essential to major crimes, and if one does enough of them one could be a major criminal. It is the organization of those minor offenses that is the big crime.

Did Trump's people do enough to throw the 2016 Presidential election (and as a corollary, some Senate elections?) How can one measure such? The Presidential election was close, and it would not have taken much.   

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?

I think the opposite: I think that it is getting juicy. We have learned that at the very least, Donald Trump is a willing dupe of Vladimir Putin. Willing dupes are accomplices if they are somehow involved in illegal acts in a conspiracy to commit a crime.

Look at it this way: when Obama was President, the FBI was investigating other things than corruption involving the Presidency. Like cyber-crime, including the fake FBI warning that you were to send in money to some shyster  to get your computer access restored. Like drug trafficking or human trafficking.   

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.

The incompetence, amorality, and venality of this President is exposed to history. This man is more loyal to his self-image than to his country. What many of us suspected has proved true. Do we have more to the story? Sure. There is much redaction, mostly of on-going investigation. I am drawing no conclusions about that. Were it exculpatory it would be out in the open.

Should Trump run for re-election, then the content of the report will be used against him. This is material for the comedians on the Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, and others. With news, comedy is the best analysis.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

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.

Trump was too stupid to collude. The idea of a petulant manchild like Trump being able to hide a sophisticated conspiracy like that is pretty laughable. Even NK dictator Kim Jong Il plays Trump like a fiddle, let alone ex KGB agent Putin.

[Badger]

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.

"Blatant corruption and obstruction at the highest levels of government is so BOR-ing! And there are so many words to read, and some of them are big!"

[Progressive Pessimist]

So, if I am following this correctly, the Republican spin for the report consists of the following:

1. No politicians are moral, therefore expecting morality out of Trump is hypocritical.

2. Trump wasn't indicted of a crime therefore his conduct resembling conspiracy to commit a crime is perfectly fine and totally exonerates him.

3. Mueller is the real criminal because he chose to describe Trump negatively in his findings even though he isn't indicting Trump of anything, therefore robbing Trump of being innocent until being proven guilty.

4. The Democrats talked about the report for two years and since there is some nuance to it, they are completely wrong and Trump needs to exact revenge on them.

5. Robert Mueller, a lifelong Republican, hired Peter Strzok at one point; so his entire staff consisted of Democrats pursuing a witch hunt based on a petty, personal vendetta against our President. That includes Mueller himself too because he once golfed at one of Trump's country clubs.

Feel free to add to the list if you hear any new kinds of this perfectly logical rhetoric by our country's "law and order" party.

[PSOL]

Russian apologist Green Greenwald is again pushing the false narrative of no collusion between Trump and the Kremlin. This dangerous rhetoric leaves me to no further believe that Glenn and the rest of the cronies at Intercept are apologetic to Trump and Putin, further denying any hacking that was done to manipulated the election in favor of Trump.

The Intercept is not a hivemind.

[Frodo]

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.

^^^

In an age of the imperial presidency, and with someone in office who has the proclivities of a dictator with no respect for democratic norms, and with even less of a moral compass than Richard Nixon, it is downright terrifying to hear him calling for retaliation against his political enemies. 

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Atlas liberals (indeed, most of the anti-Trump left coailition) is disappointed that the Mueller report concluded that Trump and his campaign didn't "collude" with Russia.  They wanted it to be true.  They wanted sham indictments, even if they were baseless.  

When a prosecutor indicts someone, they are saying, at the time of an indictment, or of an information filed, that they are able, at trial, to prove their allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that a prosecutor indicts someone to see what sticks is reprehensible in jurisprudence.  It's not OK just because people see examples of this on fictional TV, and the fact that it's done in real life doesn't make it right.  That's what people wanted here, even though the facts of the report say otherwise.

Donald Trump may not deserve your vote.  I'm not convinced he deserves mine for 2020, although there are lost of Democrats I can't vote for under any circumstances.  But people are so deranged over Trump that they've abandoned their own principles.  Vote the man out.  Oppose his policies.  But the idea that anyone, even a political leader you hate, should be prosecuted when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

[Hindsight was 2020]

Nice side stepping my point Fuzzy

[SteveRogers]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

[Badger]

Atlas liberals (indeed, most of the anti-Trump left coailition) is disappointed that the Mueller report concluded that Trump and his campaign didn't "collude" with Russia.  They wanted it to be true.  They wanted sham indictments, even if they were baseless.  

When a prosecutor indicts someone, they are saying, at the time of an indictment, or of an information filed, that they are able, at trial, to prove their allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that a prosecutor indicts someone to see what sticks is reprehensible in jurisprudence.  It's not OK just because people see examples of this on fictional TV, and the fact that it's done in real life doesn't make it right.  That's what people wanted here, even though the facts of the report say otherwise.

Donald Trump may not deserve your vote.  I'm not convinced he deserves mine for 2020, although there are lost of Democrats I can't vote for under any circumstances.  But people are so deranged over Trump that they've abandoned their own principles.  Vote the man out.  Oppose his policies.  But the idea that anyone, even a political leader you hate, should be prosecuted when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

You really don't seem to have the slightest idea of what Mueller actually reported.

[ProudModerate2]

Nice side stepping my point Fuzzy

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

... Preachy Parson Fuzzybear loves to cling onto an irrelevant or incomplete portion of the point being made and then bloviate ad nauseum.  He does this in nearly every argument he makes.
  This is called ignoratio elenchi or “irrelevant conclusion” in which the person makes what may or may not be logically valid or sound argument, but whose conclusion misses the point of the issue in question.

[ProudModerate2]

Atlas liberals (indeed, most of the anti-Trump left coailition) is disappointed that the Mueller report concluded that Trump and his campaign didn't "collude" with Russia.  They wanted it to be true.  They wanted sham indictments, even if they were baseless.  

When a prosecutor indicts someone, they are saying, at the time of an indictment, or of an information filed, that they are able, at trial, to prove their allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that a prosecutor indicts someone to see what sticks is reprehensible in jurisprudence.  It's not OK just because people see examples of this on fictional TV, and the fact that it's done in real life doesn't make it right.  That's what people wanted here, even though the facts of the report say otherwise.

Donald Trump may not deserve your vote.  I'm not convinced he deserves mine for 2020, although there are lost of Democrats I can't vote for under any circumstances.  But people are so deranged over Trump that they've abandoned their own principles.  Vote the man out.  Oppose his policies.  But the idea that anyone, even a political leader you hate, should be prosecuted when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.

You really don't seem to have the slightest idea of what Mueller actually reported.

Fuzzy talks of others being "so deranged over trump," yet he uses the same style of excuses and deflections of reality like the other trumpists. Go figure.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Mitt Romney made an great statement on behalf of Dems, saying the Trump campaign got Russian corroboration on behalf of Trump, to destroy to Hilary campaign.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It’s also worth remembering that the report extremely did not say that there was no collusion or coordination. It’s just that the coordination happened at enough of a level of remove that it’s probably not a crime anymore. Trump campaign dealt with Roger Stone who dealt with Wikileaks who laundered hacks from the Russian government. There was explicit coordination among these entities. And to the degree that there wasn’t, it was largely because both sides knew they were working toward the same ends and didn’t need to explicitly coordinate about it.

Basically, a lot of what we instinctually think should be crimes around this stuff either isn’t illegal, or is so hard to prosecute/so easy to get around that it may as well not be illegal. It’s a powerful argument for reforming our laws around this stuff right now, because it’s ALSO a handbook for how to coordinate a presidential campaign with a hostile foreign power in a way that’s not technically against the law.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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.

Clinton lied under oath.  People were OK with that; Democrats, and even a few Republicans.

The Red Avatars' response to this is no different than the partisan Democratic response to Clinton's lying under oath.  Let's get real about this.

I did not believe that Clinton should have been impeached.  I did not believe that the "investigations" of Clinton were legitimate; they were political attempts to criminalize Clinton's private life.  The Lewinsky affair was an act between two consenting adults, however stupid the action was.  Clinton was a pig to suggest Monica do what she did, but if I were a young adult female, I would think I'd have enough sense not to perform oral sex on a married man.  (That's a pretty minimal standard, don't you think?) 

This investigation was illegitimately conceived with false information and unjustified FISA warrants.  This investigation went far beyond the scope of its original intent, and the whole goal was to get rid of an elected President that the investigators, and their allies in Congress and in the intelligence community, wished to be rid of.  It was an attempted coup d'etat designed to drive Trump from office, complete with concocted drama, sculpted narratives that have fallen apart, and endless innuendo, much of which has fallen away.  And the folks MOST discredited by this are the self-righteous gasbags (Schiff, Brennan, Strzok, McCabe, Swalwell, et al) who assured all of us that there were "imminent" revelations of "treason", "Imminent" indictments of Trump, Jr., and others close to Trump, "imminent" disclosures of a "smoking gun" revelation on the order of the one on Nixon's tapes that demolished his political base in the Congress and brought about his resignation.

I am not thrilled with the idea of "investigating the investigators", as this is getting to be an unfortunate habit of a Congress that was never intended to be a permanent Grand Jury, and whose "investigations" were meant to serve honest public policy aims, and not to merely scrounge up dirt of potential Presidential candidates.   (Had Hillary not been running for President, Benghazi would not have been 1/4th the production it was.)  If I were advising Trump, I would advise him that now would be a good time for magnanimity.  Sadly, I don't think Trump is all that capable of that, but there is also an argument of why should he be?  While I don't wish to drag endless persons through the wringer for what will likely be a political witch hunt of its own (as much of Mueller's investigation was), I do think that Brennan and Clapper and Strzok and McCabe and Schiff and Swallwell ought to be thoroughly discredited for their actions, which are as un-American as anything people have accused Trump of.

There are unflattering aspects of the Mueller Report as far as Trump is concerned.  They suggest reasons not to vote for Trump for re-election in 2020.  They are POLITICAL reasons, however, not legal reasons for impeachment.  Trump did fail to adhere to avoiding the appearance of impropriety in some instances; this is a weakness of Trump that is often his undoing.  Not wanting to vote for Trump is a defensible proposition, and, as I have previously stated, I am currently undecided for 2020.  What I HAVE made up my mind about is the nature of "The Resistance" to Trump; it is not a "Loyal Opposition" and it swings from the un-American to the anti-American for the most part; a far cry from the opposition to Richard Nixon in the 1970s.  I may well vote third party in 2020.  I may well vote for Trump.  There are, however, a slew of Democrats that I will not vote for under any circumstances; they have been part and parcel of fostering a "Disloyal Opposition" to an elected President that has done nothing but encourage the GOP to go one up should the Democrats win in 2020.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Again Fuzzy you completely ignore what the Mueller’s report says. Trump knew about the hackings in advance, did not inform our IC about it, and kept in contact with the people who launched an attack on our democracy because he would benefit from it and your treating it like Mueller said Trump doesn’t wipe after taking a dump. To call the clearly legitimate concerns our IC had of his Russian spy connections shows what a complete partisan hack you are

[Nyvin]

Atlas liberals (indeed, most of the anti-Trump left coailition) is disappointed that the Mueller report concluded that Trump and his campaign didn't "collude" with Russia.  They wanted it to be true.  They wanted sham indictments, even if they were baseless.  

When a prosecutor indicts someone, they are saying, at the time of an indictment, or of an information filed, that they are able, at trial, to prove their allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that a prosecutor indicts someone to see what sticks is reprehensible in jurisprudence.  It's not OK just because people see examples of this on fictional TV, and the fact that it's done in real life doesn't make it right.  That's what people wanted here, even though the facts of the report say otherwise.

The special council didn't conclude there was no collusion with Russia.   The OLC made the determination that they couldn't indict a sitting president, so the special council made no statement declaring collusion.   That doesn't mean it didn't happen,  if they determined that it didn't happen they would've said so, they didn't.

[Badger]

Atlas liberals (indeed, most of the anti-Trump left coailition) is disappointed that the Mueller report concluded that Trump and his campaign didn't "collude" with Russia.  They wanted it to be true.  They wanted sham indictments, even if they were baseless.  

When a prosecutor indicts someone, they are saying, at the time of an indictment, or of an information filed, that they are able, at trial, to prove their allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that a prosecutor indicts someone to see what sticks is reprehensible in jurisprudence.  It's not OK just because people see examples of this on fictional TV, and the fact that it's done in real life doesn't make it right.  That's what people wanted here, even though the facts of the report say otherwise.

The special council didn't conclude there was no collusion with Russia.   The OLC made the determination that they couldn't indict a sitting president, so the special council made no statement declaring collusion.   That doesn't mean it didn't happen,  if they determined that it didn't happen they would've said so, they didn't.

Now wait a minute. Going in the opposite direction, I will concede that I thought that the Mueller report, while reporting several instances of what looked smelled and quacked a lot like collusion, felt that they could not prove a criminal conspiracy case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt? Are you sure their declining to proceed further with simply on procedural/ constitutional grounds of the issue of indicting a sitting president?

I'm almost reluctant to give those squawking automatons falsely claiming the Mueller report did not in fact find substantial evidence of both collusion with Russia and, most especially, obstruction of justice, but I'm not about to sink to their level of self-delusion.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Atlas liberals (indeed, most of the anti-Trump left coailition) is disappointed that the Mueller report concluded that Trump and his campaign didn't "collude" with Russia.  They wanted it to be true.  They wanted sham indictments, even if they were baseless.  

When a prosecutor indicts someone, they are saying, at the time of an indictment, or of an information filed, that they are able, at trial, to prove their allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that a prosecutor indicts someone to see what sticks is reprehensible in jurisprudence.  It's not OK just because people see examples of this on fictional TV, and the fact that it's done in real life doesn't make it right.  That's what people wanted here, even though the facts of the report say otherwise.

The special council didn't conclude there was no collusion with Russia.   The OLC made the determination that they couldn't indict a sitting president, so the special council made no statement declaring collusion.   That doesn't mean it didn't happen,  if they determined that it didn't happen they would've said so, they didn't.

Mueller went far beyond what a Prosecutor is supposed to do in a report like this.  Either charges are levied, or they are not.  Prosecutors are not to say things such as "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but we can't meet the standard of Probable Cause, so we'll leave it at that."  Mueller was NEVER an unbiased Special Prosecutor, and he had prosecutors on his staff whose view, in their minds was to "Get Trump".  Now this is not remarkable; Ken Starr had his "Get Clinton" brigade, and Jaworski had his "Get Nixon" brigade.  It's the nature of this particular beast.

If people want to conclude that Donald Trump's conduct was unacceptable, based on the Mueller Report, they are free to do that.  Trump certainly failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety in many instances.  But facts have also been brought forth to suggest that this entire investigation was illegitimately conceived, and anything in it that is unflattering to Trump is, indeed, "the fruit of the poisoned tree" just as evidence gathered from an illegal search would be in a Court.  There is no reason to impeach Trump.  There is no reason to consider any investigations of the matters in the Mueller Report by any committee of Congress.  No reason at all.  Vote against him.  Campaign against him.  Make the case, by all means.  But there needs to be some acknowledgement of the horrible precedent this whole process has set; it was far more of a witch hunt even I thought it was, and something that should never have to happen to any future President, just because people don't like him personally.  (And the motivation here was personal, as well as partisan, and that, too, is unjustified.) 

[Slander and/or Libel]

The standard isn’t probable cause, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, isn’t it? They don’t get grand juries to indict on probable cause. They get grand juries to indict on cases where they’re sure they can get a conviction at trial.

[Badger]

The standard isn’t probable cause, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, isn’t it? They don’t get grand juries to indict on probable cause. They get grand juries to indict on cases where they’re sure they can get a conviction at trial.

Bingo. And fuzzy, this Beyond A Reasonable Doubt standard is EXPLICITLY what the Mueller report said they couldn't get to regarding collusion, not lack of probable cause. And they didn't even say that regarding obstruction of justice.

You really really really need to review the fundamental findings of this report before posting further.

In your allegation about Mueller being a biased investigation is pure horsesh**t. Tell me why this lifelong Republican would do that.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am very sure that Dem prez will get a prosecution on Trump Jr, with their own AG at the helm.