Mueller Investigation

Thus I've clarified my initial comment, to avoid any misunderstanding, which was based upon your reasonable inference.

[Oh, and I forgot anti Israel, pro big pharma and pro reparations. That last one is not going to play well, probably alone it could single-handedly cost the Dem nominee the election in 2020.]

The Many Problems With the Barr Letter
By unilaterally concluding that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice, the attorney general has made it imperative that the public see the Mueller report.

By Neal K. Katyal
Mr. Katyal is a law professor at Georgetown. He drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed.

-----------------------------------------------------

On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General Bill Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Trump tweeted “Total EXONERATION!” But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.

First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Mr. Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report “does not exonerate” Mr. Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.

But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.

Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.

The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Mr. Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?

Mr. Barr’s letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law.

His letter says Mr. Mueller set “out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Yet we don’t know what those “difficult issues” were, because Mr. Barr doesn’t say, or why Mr. Mueller, after deciding not to charge on conspiracy, let Mr. Barr make the decision on obstruction.

On the facts, Mr. Barr says that the government would need to prove that Mr. Trump acted with “corrupt intent” and there were no such actions. But how would Mr. Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Mr. Trump about his intentions?

What kind of prosecutor would make a decision about someone’s intent without even trying to talk to him? Particularly in light of Mr. Mueller’s pointed statement that his report does not “exonerate” Mr. Trump. Mr. Mueller didn’t have to say anything like that. He did so for a reason. And that reason may well be that there is troubling evidence in the substantial record that he compiled.

Furthermore, we do not know why Mr. Mueller did not try to force an interview with the president. The reason matters greatly. Mr. Mueller could have concluded that interviews of sitting presidents for obstruction matters are better done within the context of a congressional impeachment investigation (perhaps because a sitting president cannot be indicted, the Barr letter says this legal argument didn’t influence Mr. Barr’s conclusion but again is pointedly silent as to Mr. Mueller).

Or Mr. Barr (should rad "Mueller" here?) could have concluded that the attorney general, not a special counsel, should carry out such an interview. The fact that Mr. Barr rushed to judgment, within 48 hours, after a 22 month investigation, is deeply worrisome.

The opening lines of the obstruction section of Mr. Barr’s letter are even more concerning. It says that the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” That suggests that at least some of the foundation for an obstruction of justice charge has not yet been made public. There will be no way to have confidence in such a quick judgment about previously unreported actions without knowing what those actions were.

On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.

That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.

As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.

Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move. This is not one of those times. Congress now has a clear path of action. It must first demand the release of the Mueller report, so that Americans can see the evidence for themselves. Then, it must call Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller to testify. Mr. Barr in particular must explain his rationale for reaching the obstruction judgment he made.

No one wants a president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. The only thing worse than that is a guilty president who goes without punishment. The Barr letter raises the specter that we are living in such times.

It is funny that members of the right wing echo chamber who were outraged by Obama wearing brown suits and using Grey Poupon mustard are now doing end zone dances because of a report that does not fully exonerate Trump.

Wtf is a gunt

Reminds me of Comey claiming 'we know she's as dirty as shit but we won't bring criminal charges because.'


The whole country (excluding those w/hardcore TDS) is relieved at the slew of good news:
-centuries old republic system survived in a pretty tough test
-checks /balances still in place, nobody violated the Constitution
-Mueller team didn't leak much or at all (some politicians/lawyers aren't scum?!)
-Pres's legal team kept a gaff-prone person out of avoidable trouble
-both Dems and GOP and POTUS say they want full disclosure
-POTUS isn't a Russian agent (heh)

Bear in mind that Mueller report is one-sided prosecutorial document that contains no rebuttal of any kind, nor was any rebuttal of evidence ever intended.

It contains no cross-examination and no witnesses confronted, no contradictory evidence raised or considered, no alternative theories to explain circumstantial evidence or equivocal behavior was sought, etc.

If it hadn't been for this bullshit opener I would have agreed with everything else in your post.

It was worth finding out. It was also worth uncovering and prosecuting all the many, many criminals surrounding Trump.

Those who support him can still think of him as a kingpin who escaped Mueller. The rest will recognize him as the biggest stooge and easiest mark in history: swindled and betrayed by pretty much everyone he trusted, surrounded by crooks and criminals, and a Russian pawn without his own knowledge or agreement. A perfect representation of the stupidity that elected him.

But there's no collusion...stupidity and incompetence...but no collusion!

2/ Trump directed his attorney to commit criminal campaign finance violations for which the attorney has been sentenced to jail. Likely as part of the apparent cover up of that criminality, Trump omitted his debt to Cohen for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels from...

3/ his financial disclosure report. That’s a crime if done knowingly and willfully — and who really doubts that it was? His attorney asked that he be excused from signing the certification in that financial disclosure report in which he was required to attest that it was true.

4/ Trump’s inaugural committee is under investigation for possibly accepting money from foreign actors, possibly giving favors in exchange for money, possible false statements, and likely allowing the Trump Organization to overcharge for services, so Trump could pocket the money.

5/ The New York Times dropped a bombshell accusing Trump of participating in a tax fraud scheme. Trump fired both the FBI Director and the Attorney General for allowing him to be investigated.

6/ Trump has called for yet another investigation of his vanquished political rival, expressly as a misdirected act of revenge for the special counsel investigation. He pressured the Postmaster General to retaliate against Amazon as an act of revenge against Jeff Bezos.

7/ Trump called for DOJ to block the AT&T and Time Warner merger as an act of revenge against CNN. In fact, DOJ did try to block that merger without offering the public satisfactory evidence to show that Trump’s demand didn’t influence its action.

8/ Trump’s campaign manager was convicted, a top campaign aide, his National Security Advisor, and one of his foreign affairs advisors pled guilty to crimes.

9/ Trump called for Russia to obtain and release his rival’s emails shortly before they did. He dictated a false account of a meeting between his son and Russian operatives in his building.

10/ After years of working with a campaign that had featured “lock her up” as a recurring refrain, Jared Kushner is illegally using WhatsApp to communicate with foreign actors outside the view of U.S. authorities.

11/ Ivanka Trump also continues to violate federal records laws — not that this has stopped Trump from leading recent cheers of “lock her up.”

12/ Trump has committed nepotism in the White House and has put national security at risk by interceding in the denial of security clearances for his daughter and son-in-law.

13/ There is reason to suspect that the conflicts of interest of the Trump and Kushner families may be influencing government policies, ranging from the cover up and non-response to the Khashoggi murder, foot dragging on Russia sanctions, efforts to lift sanctions on...

14/ individuals connected to the Russian government, the blockade of Qatar, cancelling the move of FBI’s headquarter, etc.

15/ Trump has monetized the presidency, frequently touting his properties and engaging in pay to play with the members and clientele of his clubs and hotels. Access to government is indisputably for sale in this administration.

16/ There have been suspicions of money laundering activity before he came into the federal government, which warrant investigation. While some have said that business activity before coming into federal office is off limits, they seem to be conveniently forgetting...

17/ that the White Water investigation into the Clintons (which was bigger, costlier and noisier than the Special Counsel investigation into Trump) was about business activities before coming into federal office.

18/ He has told over 8,000 documented lies or misleading statements to the American people. He has put children in cages and made no effort to track their family affiliations so they could be returned safely, letting his administration speak instead of “deterrence.”

19/ This isn’t even everything, but it makes the point that the Mueller report is a drop in the bucket.

My opinion is that it is slimy for a public official to on one hand name a person and list arguably bad things that person might have done, and then on other hand state that "but we're not going to do anything about it because it might be a difficult case." Why tarnish the name then? Comey? Mueller? Why?

Haven't caught up with this thread yet but I'm looking forward to the Mueller report being released

The idea that this conclusion is anywhere near good for America is stupid. Meuller's investigations has shown that most of trump's campaign staff was doing illegal things including acting as agents for Russia. So trump has surrounded himself with people who have tried to interfere with American government at the highest levels, and have corrupted our election process bringing him into power. If he knew nothing about any of that he is a dangerous moron on levels that are unheard of. Chelsea Manning did not do this much damage to our government. Hillary's emails were not even close to this much stupidity and danger. This guys was surrounded by Russian agents which if you believe he had no idea what was going on makes him incompetent on levels equals to SpongeBob. SpongeBob is about the only thing so stupid that could be duped by that many people.

I believe he had knowledge, and that he will not be impeached. But even if you didn't this is no where near good and innocent. This is negligence on an epic level. The trumpistas are cheering for it. OMG our guy was so stupid he let multiple Russian agents on his teams, opened up classified information to them, allowed them to undermine many of our government's systems, and will probably pardon them after the next election, but at least there was not enough evidence to make his guy who said he would never indict a sitting president indict him.

Anyway, the right wing are still dangerous Russian tools.

Dude, you are a tool.

I always thought it was the area that protrudes on some older women between their stomachs and their crotches

Not quite their gut, not quite their cunt. Gunt

that is called a muffin top, and men have them too.

Loved Lindsay Graham's ominous response to James Comey's tweet today...

Here is a good synopsis of the results, what we learned, and the damage that was done by the Mueller report. It even shows the report was profitable due to what was seized from manafort for being a Russian agent while working as a trump campaign advisor.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/the-mueller-probe-was-money-well-spent-015006842.html

It is far from pointless, and there certainly was not innocence.

The meetings were there, even if no deal or quid pro quo could be established.

There were plenty of fall guys and people working for the benefit of Putin.

Russia was certainly involved even if not ordered or bargained with for doing so, and they recognize the damage and problems trump would cause their greatest opponent over any other person. Trump and them may not have made a deal to work towards the same goals, but they certainly were both on the same track.

There are still plenty of open questions about breaking of campaign finance laws and conflicts of interest with trumkp's business that were outside the scope of mueller's investigation which still have to be resolved.

It seems like in the end there was not enough evidence uncovered to get beyond a reasonable doubt in making a link between Putin and Trump, but that only seems to be because the meetings to make a deal never produced one. It does not mean that in the end they both did not go the same way for nefarious purposes, it just means they just did not pay each other off or make any incriminating direct contact. Certainly their intermediaries like manafort did with other Russian agents below Putin. That may have been by design to create plausible deniability or because neither side had to make a deal because they both were going to do the same thing and work towards the same goals anyway.

His serial killer nature is re-emerging. He makes Ed Gein look wholesome.

Check his recent Tweets, look for any reference to skin.

It puts the lotion on it’s skin or else it gets the hose again.

His victims don’t last long. He just wants bodies and flesh for his projects, like the severed penis hat rack.

What is the basis of this "confirmation"?

According to Barr's letter, that is part of Mueller's conclusion. What his basis is waits to be seen for that report's hopefully full disclosure.

Well, Trump's own Secretary of State, for one.

But whatever, man. I mean, we've got ample evidence that Assange was a dick. I mean, you remember when he released all the personal info of ordinary citizens who happened to have contact with the DNC? Even those who'd just emailed the DNC to say that they weren't happy with the direction of the party? That was some Grade-A fuckery. I mean, reverse that shit where he's releasing the personal info of ordinary folks who'd had contact with the RNC, and that shit still ain't cool. That (a hypothetical release of average folks who'd contacted the RNC) is enough to erase any good he might have done. Because it shows he doesn't care about what's moral (releasing video of US troops committing war crimes), but is far more interested in chaos for the sake of chaos, than seeing that criminals are brought to justice.

Not that this will make the slightest dent in your view of Assange. You don't care what he does, so long as he makes the US look bad, even if innocent people get hurt. You want to see America crippled on the world stage, and don't care how it happens, or who gets hurt in the process, just so long as we get knocked down. You and I might agree on many things that the US has done wrong in the world (the invasion of Iraq being just one of them), but unlike you, I'm not willing to continue to support someone who's actions has enabled Trump to do the kinds of things that he's done. Safe in your privilege in the UK, you don't have to worry about the havoc Trump is creating. Nevermind that Nigel Farage has close ties to both Wikileaks and Russia, and that at least part of the reason the UK is going through the whole Brexit nonsense is due to Russia and Wikileaks, the fact that the US is now being run by a toddler is all you care about. But go on with your bad self, history will judge us all, and the verdict will not be kind, I'm sure.

Pompeo claimed that Wikileaks was abetted by Russia, therefore that's confirmation that Wikileaks was a "knowing tool of Russian intelligence". Er, no.

Yes, and I've agreed that those should have been redacted. But that's a non-sequitor to the whole Russian thing, and it's bizarre to claim that it "is enough to erase any good he might have done", given how monumental those impacts have been. Are you aware of any harm following as a result?

As the victim of one absurd propaganda campaign which is being exposed as bullshit (Trump is a Russian agent!) one might think that you might at this point be led to question the claims of another related campaign run by US intelligence.

Really at this stage those pushing this conspiracy shit - whether in the media or it he political domain - need to be held responsible. That the world isn't going the way you'd like isn't always because of some nefarious plot between all of the people you don't like.

I won't accuse him of taking the "high road" but maybe he thought this was important enough to listen to his handlers.

So, you're saying that Pompeo is smarter than Assange. Because if Pompeo could figure out that Russia was feeding Wikileaks info in order to further Putin's agenda, then why couldn't Assange?

How's about an apology from Assange for releasing that info? One could argue that it was an honest mistake on his part (I wouldn't, but whatever), but such an action should at the very least merit an apology from Assange. Have you seen one?

Yeah, like pointing out that serial killers have a pattern of torturing and killing animals is a total non-sequitur in regards to later behavior.

You mean like the family separations of refugees at the borders of the US ordered by the Trump Administration and the recent crashes of Boeing planes which had software delays due to government shutdowns? Or are you going to claim that the DNC email leaks during the campaign had no impact on the US presidential election?

So, you're saying that it wasn't the Russians who hacked the DNC and then gave the info to Wikileaks?

Oh, yeah, because the idea of a nation-state (be it the US or Russia or some other country) interfering in the election process of another country is just so hard to believe.

Pompeo has an agenda. You appear dismally unable to discern evidence-based claims from opportunist political ones.

It wasn't a mistake, and I don't expect an apology.

That an organisation does one thing that you don't like (which it fully admits) is not remotely evidence that it did the other thing that you don't like (which it strenuously denies). If that's the standard you might as well claim that Kim Jong Un faked the moon landings. Or that Donald Trump is a Russian agent. Oh, wait...

Are we talking about the fact of the leaks themselves or that personal information of third parties wasn't redacted? Your criticism was of the latter and your attempt at bait and switch implies that you have nothing.

What in the blue hell has this got to do with what I posted? At this stage you're just posting random accusations instead of responses.
I'm arguing that there are very large propaganda efforts at work, and that having been taken in hook, line & sinker by the fantastical nonsense about Trump which is being exposed, you might reconsider how these are distorting your perceptions.

That's not remotely the extent of the conspiracist nonsense that has been gaining traction both here and in the wider commentariat and you know it.

None of the report, according to the summary, involves problems with campaign finance laws and given Mueller disseminated evidence to states for their AGs to look over and determine if any laws were broken. so there may be more to come, just not federal obstruction charges.

And you think that Assange doesn't?

Hmmm. Let's see here, Pompeo is not only a Trump appointee, but he thinks Trump was anointed by God.

Innocent people got hurt and you don't expect an apology? "Fuck you" isn't a strong enough term. You claim to agree that the information should have been redacted, while simultaneously claiming that it wasn't a mistake. Only someone incredibly naive would think Assange couldn't have known what the consequences of his actions were. Don't claim to have the moral high ground here, pal, because you don't have it.

Yet fails to answer the question of how it got the information and who Guccifer 2.0 might be.

The person who has nothing is you. The issue was what the outcome of the US election was after the leaks, and what might have happened had those leaks not occurred. Are you going to claim that the leaks had no impact on the US elections?

It's a pretty simple question: Where did Wikileaks get the info? That you don't want to answer it is telling.

They only seem random if you haven't been following the events which happened, or you're in denial of who did what.

Really? It seems more likely to me that you're desperately trying to protect Assange. Who, if he did nothing wrong, would need no protecting. Yet here you are.

That's nice. I'm not talking about the wider "conspiracist nonsense," so why bring it up? Unless, of course, you're hoping to distract from the stuff that's come out related to the cases which have gotten actual convictions (Flynn, Manafort, etc.).