Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

William Barr is a hack partisan.

He was the sh**tbag who supported HW Bush's pardons of his cronies in the Iran Contra scandal.

[Fuzzy Bear]

“There were NO indictments.”

You incredible lying hack.

You're such a class act. 

No further indictments is what I should have said.  The indictments of Manafort were for matters having nothing to do with Trump's campaign.  Ditto the indictments of Flynn, Stone, and Cohen.  No indictments pertaining to activities of Donald Trump.  No indictments regarding the "collusion" narrative, which was the basis of the Mueller Investigation in the first place.  No indictments of Trump's family members.  No indictments for obstruction of justice for anyone.

That's a lot of "No", don'tcha think?

And, yes, no new indictments were announced in the Mueller report.

Yes, I understood from the outset what you *meant*, but it matters that you *said* something else entirely.

I bet you're a touch of grace and class in every situation you enter into. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

“There were NO indictments.”

You incredible lying hack.

You're such a class act. 

No further indictments is what I should have said.  The indictments of Manafort were for matters having nothing to do with Trump's campaign.  Ditto the indictments of Flynn, Stone, and Cohen.  No indictments pertaining to activities of Donald Trump.  No indictments regarding the "collusion" narrative, which was the basis of the Mueller Investigation in the first place.  No indictments of Trump's family members.  No indictments for obstruction of justice for anyone.

That's a lot of "No", don'tcha think?

And, yes, no new indictments were announced in the Mueller report.

Yes, I understood from the outset what you *meant*, but it matters that you *said* something else entirely.

I bet you're a touch of grace and class in every situation you enter into. 

I try to be, where appropriate. This is not a situation that calls for politesse.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1113584079843278848 You don't say?

[Nyvin]

Surprise surprise.

[Xing]

I'm going to want to see the actual report before drawing any conclusions. Pretty clear that Barr is extremely biased, but I don't want to make too much out of vague statements.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm going to want to see the actual report before drawing any conclusions. Pretty clear that Barr is extremely biased, but I don't want to make too much out of vague statements.

[T'Chenka]

...but I was told the Democrats and fake news media ruined every shred of credibility they ever had by wasting two years questioning whether Drumpf was squeaky clean or not...

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've said this before but our version of "collusion delusion," as a counter to it, is exoneration exaggeration.

[Badger]

“There were NO indictments.”

You incredible lying hack.

You're such a class act. 

No further indictments is what I should have said.  The indictments of Manafort were for matters having nothing to do with Trump's campaign.  Ditto the indictments of Flynn, Stone, and Cohen.  No indictments pertaining to activities of Donald Trump.  No indictments regarding the "collusion" narrative, which was the basis of the Mueller Investigation in the first place.  No indictments of Trump's family members.  No indictments for obstruction of justice for anyone.

That's a lot of "No", don'tcha think?

And, yes, no new indictments were announced in the Mueller report.

Yes, I understood from the outset what you *meant*, but it matters that you *said* something else entirely.

I bet you're a touch of grace and class in every situation you enter into. 

In fairness, fuzzy, this doesn't change the fact that you were completely incorrect In what you posted about there being no indictments.

Incidentally, have the recent reports about The Mueller team being cheesed off at Barr for making an apparently misleading statement that there was no evidence of collusion or obstruction found? The leaks from the Mueller team indicate that it was a much closer case on both matters.

Does that matter to you at all? Or you just so buried in your Jihad against the liberal media that it all just doesn't matter?

[T'Chenka]

What people are trying to do, ultimately, is define Obstruction of Justice in a way that criminalizes Trump's normal and legal use of his Presidential powers, and those powers include the right to fire the FBI Director.

So if I'm understanding your logic correctly... as a departmemt manager at a company with a strict policy of NO anti-gay discrimination, I am obviously authorized to fire somebody as a manager, BUT if I go on the local news tonight with a Lester Holt wannabe and explicitly say on live television that I fired her because she's s lesbian, I was well within my "normal and policy-compliant (legal) use of my managerial powers".

[SteveRogers]

Will this report say Trump acted like a yucky poo-poo head?  Probably.  Will what's there justify more investigations, let alone impeachment?  I doubt it, and everyone here doubts it too.  If it does, well, have at it, but what people are trying to do, ultimately, is define Obstruction of Justice in a way that criminalizes Trump's normal and legal use of his Presidential powers, and those powers include the right to fire the FBI Director.

Fuzzy, by your logic Rod Blagojevich should never have gone to jail. After all, appointing a Senator to fill Obama’s vacant seat was one of his “normal and legal” powers as the governor of Illinois. And yet he was still found guilty of abuse of office when he tried to use that power to sell the seat to the highest bidder.

Yes, in a vaccuum, it is totally legal for the president to fire the FBI director for any reason or no reason at all. But that doesn’t mean that action can’t constitute an element of a crime.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1115614303611183109

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1115625419460546561

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1115614303611183109

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1115625419460546561

So the unredacted report gets subpoenaed next week?  Got it.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1115625419460546561

There is no legitimate reason to withold the full report from the House Judiciary Committee.


Trump needs to fire Barr immediately and order his replacement to hand over the entire report. Failure to do so can and should be considered proof of his guilt of high crimes, including conspiracy against the United States, under the principle of spoliation of evidence.

Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. Spoliation has three possible consequences: in jurisdictions where the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration (if convicted in a separate criminal proceeding) for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference, or by other corrective measures, depending on the jurisdiction; in some jurisdictions the act of spoliation can itself be an actionable tort.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

"Mueller was given the opportunity to review the March 24 letter and "declined."
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1115614113118412805
The Great Cover-Up of the Collusion!

[Person Man]

"Mueller was given the opportunity to review the March 24 letter and "declined."
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1115614113118412805
The Great Cover-Up of the Collusion!

Hearsay much?

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1115625419460546561

There is no legitimate reason to withold the full report from the House Judiciary Committee.


Trump needs to fire Barr immediately and order his replacement to hand over the entire report. Failure to do so can and should be considered proof of his guilt of high crimes, including conspiracy against the United States, under the principle of spoliation of evidence.

Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. Spoliation has three possible consequences: in jurisdictions where the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration (if convicted in a separate criminal proceeding) for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference, or by other corrective measures, depending on the jurisdiction; in some jurisdictions the act of spoliation can itself be an actionable tort.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

So if there was an unreasonable amount of redaction, that would be grounds in and of itself to start impeachment proceedings.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1115988859957927936

The Greatest Cover-Up in Human History?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rod-rosenstein-defends-justice-department-handling-of-mueller-report-11555021002
Rod Rosenstein Defends Justice Department Handling of Mueller Report

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Justice Department’s handling of the special counsel’s still-secret report, saying Attorney General William Barr is “being as forthcoming as he can” about his process for redacting and releasing the roughly 400-page document.

In his first interview since the conclusion of the special counsel’s investigation, Mr. Rosenstein beat back suggestions that Mr. Barr is trying to mislead the public by releasing only a four-page summary of Robert Mueller’s investigation. The attorney general in that letter said the Mueller probe found President Trump and his campaign didn’t conspire with Russian interference in the 2016 election but reached no conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice. With the absence of a recommendation, Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein determined Mr. Trump’s actions weren’t criminal.

Democrats have demanded access to the full report, which Mr. Barr said he would release, likely next week, after blacking out portions for sensitive information.

“He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre,” Mr. Rosenstein said.

The man who
- is hated by Trump and occasionally have been praised by Democrats,
- installed Mueller and gave him free hand, despite Trumps constant attacks,
- was allegedly thinking about invoking 25th against Trump and who,
- is resigning, has nothing to lose and can quickly become a millionaire by writing and selling a book to "collusioners".

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1116696849853886465
FYI this guy a) was fired from the Obama administration in 2010 b) is being charged for lying to the fbi (which Trump said is no big deal when Flynn got it), and c) is being charged for lying about work he did with Paul Manafort

[pbrower2a]

The full report will be out soon.  Perhaps we can spike the narrative before hand so then if and when it turns out to be something far less than what people are saying, there will be cries of "cover up" and calls for a "new investigation".

There were NO indictments.  Zip, zero, zilch.  The full report will be released soon enough.  Good Lord, people waited longer for the Warren Report, and its release sparked a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists that continues to this day.

People are doing penal time because they have been indicted and convicted. Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Flynn... all indicted for doing political dirty work on behalf of the President. A comparison to the Warren Report is void because that report includes investigations of then-imaginable accusations of involvement with a Presidential assassination. One such possible accusation would have been against the KGB, and an imaginable pretext for starting World War III, something that few Americans would have wanted. 

Will this report say Trump acted like a yucky poo-poo head?  Probably.  Will what's there justify more investigations, let alone impeachment?  I doubt it, and everyone here doubts it too.  If it does, well, have at it, but what people are trying to do, ultimately, is define Obstruction of Justice in a way that criminalizes Trump's normal and legal use of his Presidential powers, and those powers include the right to fire the FBI Director.

You are dated now. Julian Assange has been busted, and the UK is one of the easiest countries from which to extradite someone. This man can crack if he sees himself spending the rest of his life in a ADX-Florence, the federal Supermax.

Do I like everything about Donald Trump?  Lord, no!  I would not want my son to have Trump's persona (although I might wish my son to have Trump's work ethic).  He says things and does things at times that, while entertaining (to a point), have me scratching my head.  I'm a "less is more" individual in many walks of life, and I usually restrain the urges I have to fire off at people because I know once I say something I can't take it back.  That's not Trump at all. 

I would not want a son to grow up with the sense of entitlement, the lack of empathy, and the vindictiveness of Donald Trump. Work ethic? I know of men who do work that few of us want and live in a trailer -- with five other such men.

Do I like everything politically about Donald Trump?  Again:  Lord, no!  He's right on immigration and trade, and I appreciate his commitment to social conservatism, even if his heart isn't always in it.  I certainly think he's been too much the Freedom Caucus Republican, and while I see that as an alliance of convenience, those are the folks who do the most to reward the wealthiest and trash the safety net.  While I agree with a good deal of Trump's questioning of many institutions, I don't wish to trash those institutions to the point where they are unsalvagable.

Donald Trump is a Marxist stereotype as a businessman and a Marxist stereotype of a pol who represents rapacious plutocrats. Such in itself is evil. One can defend capitalism by either humanizing its worst aspects or by endorsing those worst aspects. Trump is one of those "Suffer for my greed and indulgence, you expendable peon!" types who make Marxism relevant.   

No, I don't like everything about Donald Trump, but I detest "The Resistance".  I consider "The Resistance" to be downright anti-American; they would have America fail if it brings down Trump.  And the events of the post-election period of 2016 has convinced me that there is a coalition of powerful elites who cast their own veto on Trump's election and are bound and determined to undo his election.  When nearly every single newspaper in America comes out to oppose Trump, when the mainstream media abandon any pretense of objectivity toward Trump, and when they do this REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS, we have before us the darkness that democracy will actually die in, if it, indeed, is killed.  When the majority of a House of Congress devotes its entire resources removing a President, and with developing false narratives to justify the extreme step of impeachment and removal, then we have something other than what the Founding Fathers indicated.  Something frightening.  Something more worthy of the failed states from which the people seeking to crash our borders come from than from an advanced and supposedly stable democracy that Trump, by the way, did not destabilize.

First of all, Donald Trump is political rot should he establish the new direction for America. The reformer who makes his country better is a genuine patriot in contrast to the grafter and shyster. Second, we have a 230-year tradition of Constitutional government with checks and balances most directed against despotism; Trump violates that.  Third, it is the right of newspapers to oppose any politician (although newspaper editorials rarely change anyone's mind). Fourth, Trump appeals to the basest drives in human nature. We may need to regulate some practices out of the realm of legality, we may need to raise taxes, we may need to get people to lower their expectations, and we may need to get people to put their lives at risk in the defense of their country.

If Trump's that bad, then make the case for it in an election.  Convince people you're right and vote him out of office.  I'm all for that.  Let the Congress work on legislation, and not on political investigations disguised as "oversight".  But let's stop the insanity.  Because it IS possible for the GOP to be even more of a "resistance" if the Democrats are voted in.  Would THAT be good for America?  Somehow, I think not.

Donald Trump has put himself into the political nightmare that he is in. He is a depraved, corrupt, unfeeling person. It's not that he lacks empathy; people can act as if they have some out of some principle contrary to their tendencies. Anyone who brags about grabbing women by their "kitty-cats" is bragging about behavior very close to rape.   

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Barr said (4/9) that the report is likely to be released within a week so you may be have just a couple of days to post your hot takes about THE collusion... even if it's pretty obvious that the report will be mostly about what we already know, just more detailed and throughout as well as with Mueller's thinking/analysis.


My hot take:
- strong case that Russia tried to khe-khe the election.
- strong case against the collusion. TOTAL EXONERATION that is.
- quite strong case that Trump was "extremely careless" or similar about OOJ, but not a strong case about corrupt intent, so basically that DOJ, Congress or/and the voters who has to decide about it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

If you don’t expect this report to be redacted within an inch of its life, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The redacted report is scheduled to be released Thursday morning.