Mueller Investigation

No, dumbass, you set yourself up for an obvious troll and I ran with it.

Could turn out that way, but just don't set yourself up for disappointment in case it turns out to be nothing after all.

I'm sure you'll be telling us why (non Trumpistas) we should be disappointed with it no matter what it says.

@Tuttle displaying his brilliant debating skills:

I hope it's very clear exactly how much has been redacted. People, myself included, are going to be pissed if it reads like some of Mueller's court filings.

It's going to be all black. I think Barr's strategy is just drag this out past 2020 and people will just stop caring.

I agree that the public should not get some things, but Congress should get everything as an oversight organization who needs clearance to information. That said the redaction should be minimalized and not decided purely by any ag, and should be able to be challenged by foi procedures in a court.

That's it, insult me because I reaffirmed to supposed grown ups that there's no such thing as Santa. I just didn't want your heads to explode again tomorrow, as they already did twice now, first on election night and then with the first taste of Mueller report release in Barr letter. : D

The chance is below 1% that Mueller report will reveal anything beyond trivia of interest solely to the Rachael Maddow brainwashed crowd. Beside Strzok (a well informed insider) revealing very early on "there's no there there", Barr knew the report would be released in immediate future and he's not Leftist-level dumb enough to lie about the ultimate contents.

Wrong.

It's going to be color coded. So it will be a rainbow.

No one blew up about it when it was finished, except in your head.

Wonder how some of you re going to react when it becomes clear you've been duped into believing a conspiracy theory.

Wonder how you'll react after months of playing "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"?

Just to put this conversation in perspective:



I'll accept a warning for posting @Tuttle's personal information...

We do.

the suspicious bit is the "protect the reputation" exception, which hopefully is lightly or not at all used. What if the name being concealed is Don Jr, or Kushner. That's not acceptable.

If he is stupid enough to color code it then simply using the fimd function will uncover it. The truth is several judges have said they shall personally review Barr's retractions to confirm they are legal. It will not be long until the truth will out and Barr's game will be up.

William Barr has officially become the mansplainer in chief.

Mueller Report Redacted Using Crayon

Yeah, it's not looking good for Obama's minions. : ( It looks like there was insufficient actual smoke to justify tearing the US apart for years on a collusion hoax.

America will breathe a sigh of relief when investigations are wrapped up and high level administration officials (in place in 2016) start facing the possibility of charges and prison time.

Maybe, but a lot of people (including Barr) are conflating "collusion" with "conspiracy". Conspiracy is a legal term, and collusion apparently isn't. You can correct me if I'm wrong being that you're a lawyer and I'm not, but as has been said from early on, collusion isn't against the law. The Mueller Report found that there was no conspiracy, but it's pretty evident there was collusion. Just look at page 6.



That's just one example. The question isn't "how is that not collusion?", because that's obviously exactly what it is. The question is, "How is that legal?"...and the answer is, "because there's no law against it."

Either you've read the entire 448 pages already or Your Boy Donnie is playing you like a two-dollar banjo.

I wouldn't even rate him as a homemade kazoo using a toilet roll and tissue paper.

Two other things that are frequently in touch with assholes and what comes out of them.

Exactly right about "collusion" having no legal meaning in general terms. And that most criminal laws on topic address "conspiracy" as actionable. Don't agree with your point about everyone conflating the two. As you said, one is a Term of Art, the other colloquial. No attorney would use the Term of Art "conspiracy" in any context outside a precise legal usage of the word (discussion of whether you can prove the element of a case). OTOH all attorneys would use "collusion" freely and attach to it the generally understood meaning of the word (which is of course subjective, but that doesn't matter in this context). We could argue for a page and never agree what collusion means, but I think most people would accept adding two words to the general meaning in conversation "that mattered."

The "Russia collusion" hoax, as I've come to call it, refers to the popular meaning in the US conversation about it. I.e. Did Trump win the election because he or his campaign cooperated with Russian gov't officials.

But I disagree with your characterization of that Manafort conduct on p.6 as "collusion". Even in the broadest sense (i.e. any effort to act in concert to achieve a joint objective of affecting the election). You'll have to connect the dots for me on that one - I can see some cooperative effort implied, but imo doesn't reach a reasonable inference of "collusion." "Discussion" does not equate to the same thing as cooperative activity. In conspiracy, e.g., you typically need the defendant to commit an act in furtherance.

You are such a fucking moron.

Manafort discussed how the Trump campaign can win more Democrat votes, and shared polling data with an agent of a foreign government that was actively trying to illegally influence the election in that campaign's favor at a time when the campaign was aware that that foreign government was actively trying to influence the election.

Don't be silly. He's a Libertarian, which means he's the smartest person in the room and everyone else is stooped. That's why I let him mansplain everything to me.