Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious why Mueller didn't try to get Manafort on conspiracy to affect the election, given that he knew that he gave polling data to Russian sources.
It seems that Mueller chose not to investigate a whole range of possible cases for collusion.

I had hoped that he would do a more thorough job.
 
acbytesla said:
Not charging him is not the same as clearing him. I DON'T think ANYONE thought he would be indicted by his own justice department.
Click to expand...

Some hoped. Most of that hope was pretty well removed when Sessions was fired and toadies were put in charge that were blatantly chosen based on their public condemnations of the investigation.

Either way, emptywheel has some rather harsh things to say about the summation. Such as...

Note that the second bullet does not even exonerate Roger Stone, as it pertains only to the Russian government, not Russians generally or WikiLeaks or anyone else. This is important given that we know the Trump campaign knew of and encouraged Roger Stone’s coordination with WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...

And...

Here’s the thing, though: at least given what they lay out here, they only considered whether Trump was covering up his involvement in the hack-and-leak operation. It doesn’t consider whether Trump was covering up a quid pro quo, which is what there is abundant evidence of.

They didn’t consider whether Trump obstructed the crime that he appears to have obstructed. They considered whether he obstructed a different crime. And having considered whether Trump obstructed the crime he didn’t commit, rather than considering whether he obstructed the crime he did commit, they decided not to charge him with a crime.
Click to expand...

Paul2 said:
Barr's letter will be used to cast doubt on all the other investigations, and such doubt has important influence on politics and the juries who would ultimately decide about those investigations.
Click to expand...

It is already being used to try to do so.

Paul2 said:
How could Mueller not have any indictments or examples of collusion from the Trump Tower meeting with Manafort, Jr., the Russian lawyer, etc.? Can't wait for Congress to tell us the details about that one.

Given all the bootlicking of Russians by Trump, his financial entanglements, all the lying leading to jail time about Russia by Trump's cronies, etc, etc., how can it be that Mueller is basically neutral?

What the **** is going on?
Click to expand...

When it comes to Mueller's neutrality, I suspect that much of it comes from wanting to push the matter to Congress, rather than give any real openings for the Republicans to further try to destroy the FBI in their frenzy to protect Trump. As it was, given the Barr's description of how he handled obstruction of Justice in the report, it would be no surprise if that section was specifically designed for Congress to deliberate upon. As for some of the rest of the stuff you mentioned, hopefully, he simply decided to ship off those cases to more directly appropriate departments, as he supposedly did for a bunch of things. Can't say much, though, with the lack of available information.

Belz... said:
What in the blue hell are you babbling about?
Click to expand...

Republican conspiracy theory propaganda.

Skeptic Ginger said:
We're being conned but I don't think this is the last word. All of the domino indictments and the House investigations are still to come.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it the House investigation after the special prosecutor was "done" that got Nixon, as it was?

smartcooky said:
- Trump fired Comey and stated publicly that he did so because he would not shut down the SCO investigation
Click to expand...

Small reminder. The Special Counsel was appointed largely because of that.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh yeah, I forgot a couple crimes: diverting both the Trump Charity and the Trump Inaugural non-profit money for personal use.
Click to expand...

With... at least 16 open cases in play and a whole lot more that have been poked at (like how involved Trump was in his fathers estate tax evasion plots and the Trump Tower in Azerbaijan), not remembering them all is actually probably a healthy thing.

The Great Zaganza said:
I'm curious why Mueller didn't try to get Manafort on conspiracy to affect the election, given that he knew that he gave polling data to Russian sources.
It seems that Mueller chose not to investigate a whole range of possible cases for collusion.

I had hoped that he would do a more thorough job.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That's one of the... interesting established facts that quite seem to contradict the conclusions claimed by Barr.

Anyways, I'll finish this off with a bit from conservative David Frum. I may think that his statements are somewhat premature, but... he does raise good points in his article that even the deniers should seriously consider.

Good news, America. Russia helped install your president. But although he owes his job in large part to that help, the president did not conspire or collude with his helpers. He was the beneficiary of a foreign intelligence operation, but not an active participant in that operation. He received the stolen goods, but he did not conspire with the thieves in advance.

This is what Donald Trump’s administration and its enablers in Congress and the media are already calling exoneration. But it offers no reassurance to Americans who cherish the independence and integrity of their political process.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Some hoped. Most of that hope was pretty well removed when Sessions was fired and toadies were put in charge that were blatantly chosen based on their public condemnations of the investigation.

Either way, emptywheel has some rather harsh things to say about the summation. Such as...



And...





It is already being used to try to do so.



When it comes to Mueller's neutrality, I suspect that much of it comes from wanting to push the matter to Congress, rather than give any real openings for the Republicans to further try to destroy the FBI in their frenzy to protect Trump. As it was, given the Barr's description of how he handled obstruction of Justice in the report, it would be no surprise if that section was specifically designed for Congress to deliberate upon. As for some of the rest of the stuff you mentioned, hopefully, he simply decided to ship off those cases to more directly appropriate departments, as he supposedly did for a bunch of things. Can't say much, though, with the lack of available information.



Republican conspiracy theory propaganda.



Wasn't it the House investigation after the special prosecutor was "done" that got Nixon, as it was?



Small reminder. The Special Counsel was appointed largely because of that.



With... at least 16 open cases in play and a whole lot more that have been poked at (like how involved Trump was in his fathers estate tax evasion plots and the Trump Tower in Azerbaijan), not remembering them all is actually probably a healthy thing.



Indeed. That's one of the... interesting established facts that quite seem to contradict the conclusions claimed by Barr.

Anyways, I'll finish this off with a bit from conservative David Frum. I may think that his statements are somewhat premature, but... he does raise good points in his article that even the deniers should seriously consider.
Click to expand...

To sum it up, in combination with Popehat's article, and Seth Abramson's twitter thread... "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and she hasn't even cleared her throat yet, or walked onto the stage; she's still in the dressing room!"
 
smartcooky said:
To sum it up, in combination with Popehat's article, and Seth Abramson's twitter thread... "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and she hasn't even cleared her throat yet, or walked onto the stage; she's still in the dressing room!"
Click to expand...
Regardless of what the report said (plus or minus) it would not be over until well after Trump is no longer president.
If anyone thinks the report is going to sway most partisan people no matter what it says I have some penny stocks to sell them or maybe a famous bridge.
 
Well, Barr's summary was a surprise to me. Now that it probably can't come to pass, here's the narrative I've had running in my head:

Mueller: He's still the President and I've said all along I'm not pushing that button, but he's scum and here's his balls on a silver platter.
Barr: Having read Mueller's report, here is some garnish around those balls.
GOP: What? He's scum, you say? Reeeally? Well let's flip around and impeach him and make ourselves look like heroes just in time for the primaries.
Democrats: But you've just spent three years-
GOP: WE IMPEACHED TRUMP! WE IMPEACHED TRUMP! PENCE 2020!
Independent Voter: Well I didn't like Trump, and these guys on the scrolly news channel say they got rid of him, so they get my vote!
McConnell does that grin of his, and treats himself to an extra leaf of cheeto-flavored garnish for dinner.

But with a seemingly obsequious Barr, I don't think that'll be able to happen. It would tear the GOP apart, half trying to back Barr's summary and the other half calling it a lie.

I say "seemingly" because something still doesn't add up. You don't have a years-long investigation that interviews hundred of people, indicts dozens of players on minor charges in return for cooperation, never even talks to the key suspects and concludes that the whole thing is a misunderstanding. As a negative example, in the Benghazi investigations Hillary was called to testify how many times? Wasn't it something like 10? So, something's fishy here.

Barr isn't a dumb guy, he surely knows the House has vowed to subpoena Mueller's full report if they were dissatisfied with his own. Is he making a ploy to get it all out in public and out of Trump's proxy hands, while denying the GOP the ability to pivot and take the credit?
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
.....
I say "seemingly" because something still doesn't add up. You don't have a years-long investigation that interviews hundred of people, indicts dozens of players on minor charges in return for cooperation, never even talks to the key suspects and concludes that the whole thing is a misunderstanding. As a negative example, in the Benghazi investigations Hillary was called to testify how many times? Wasn't it something like 10? So, something's fishy here.
....
Click to expand...


A conservative columnist's assessment:
Good news, America. Russia helped install your president. But although he owes his job in large part to that help, the president did not conspire or collude with his helpers. He was the beneficiary of a foreign intelligence operation, but not an active participant in that operation. He received the stolen goods, but he did not conspire with the thieves in advance.

This is what Donald Trump’s administration and its enablers in Congress and the media are already calling exoneration. But it offers no reassurance to Americans who cherish the independence and integrity of their political process.
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...rt-leaves-one-key-question-unanswered/585625/
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Well, Barr's summary was a surprise to me. Now that it probably can't come to pass, here's the narrative I've had running in my head:

Mueller: He's still the President and I've said all along I'm not pushing that button, but he's scum and here's his balls on a silver platter.
Barr: Having read Mueller's report, here is some garnish around those balls.
GOP: What? He's scum, you say? Reeeally? Well let's flip around and impeach him and make ourselves look like heroes just in time for the primaries.
Democrats: But you've just spent three years-
GOP: WE IMPEACHED TRUMP! WE IMPEACHED TRUMP! PENCE 2020!
Independent Voter: Well I didn't like Trump, and these guys on the scrolly news channel say they got rid of him, so they get my vote!
McConnell does that grin of his, and treats himself to an extra leaf of cheeto-flavored garnish for dinner.

But with a seemingly obsequious Barr, I don't think that'll be able to happen. It would tear the GOP apart, half trying to back Barr's summary and the other half calling it a lie.

I say "seemingly" because something still doesn't add up. You don't have a years-long investigation that interviews hundred of people, indicts dozens of players on minor charges in return for cooperation, never even talks to the key suspects and concludes that the whole thing is a misunderstanding. As a negative example, in the Benghazi investigations Hillary was called to testify how many times? Wasn't it something like 10? So, something's fishy here.

Barr isn't a dumb guy, he surely knows the House has vowed to subpoena Mueller's full report if they were dissatisfied with his own. Is he making a ploy to get it all out in public and out of Trump's proxy hands, while denying the GOP the ability to pivot and take the credit?
Click to expand...

As I quoted a few posts ago:

"A source with direct knowledge of the investigation told The Daily Beast that Mueller intended to make a case to Congress, believing that legislators, and not the DOJ, are 'empowered to weigh the lawfulness of a president’s conduct.'"
Click to expand...

Barr was appointed because he'd publicly expressed opposition to Mueller's probe. Did you really expect him to turn around and bitchslap Trump, rather than to determine Trump had done nothing wrong even while conceding that he hadn't finished reviewing the report?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I'm curious why Mueller didn't try to get Manafort on conspiracy to affect the election, given that he knew that he gave polling data to Russian sources.
It seems that Mueller chose not to investigate a whole range of possible cases for collusion.

I had hoped that he would do a more thorough job.
Click to expand...

Mueller was obviously a Trump plant. Why else would he have fired James Comey? He had to get Comey off the case so Mueller could take over the investigation. Mueller needs to be subpoenaed to appear before Congress to explain why he refused to investigate Trump's ties to Russia. It's obvious Trump colluded with Russia and stole the 2016 election, the evidence has been in the public domain for years. Trump is still an illegitimate President and should be impeached ASAP. We should not accept the results of this fake investigation. Trump has been pulling the strings since the beginning.

Chris B.
 
Bob001 said:
A conservative columnist's assessment:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...rt-leaves-one-key-question-unanswered/585625/
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't buy that either. Because why wouldn't Mueller have interviewed the Trumps? To stick with the stolen goods analogy, even if you decide not to charge someone because they're just a dumbass, you still talk to them to get all the details of who you do need to charge. Do you know who else has stolen goods? How did this guy find you? What else was he involved in? There are questions second-hand sources can't give you the full picture on, and its free testimony you don't need to cut a deal to obtain. You only don't talk to someone if you intend to charge them and don't have any bigger fish to hook.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Barr was appointed because he'd publicly expressed opposition to Mueller's probe. Did you really expect him to turn around and bitchslap Trump, rather than to determine Trump had done nothing wrong even while conceding that he hadn't finished reviewing the report?
Click to expand...
It could be that simple. Certainly was for the sham investigation into Kavanaugh's accusers. If I were going to sink the case, though, I'd have made people wait and get impatient, then written up a giantass tome that appeared comprehensive but carefully omitted everything incriminatory, not a four-page FU done two days later.
 
smartcooky said:
A crime did in fact happen, and it happened in public.

- Trump fired Comey and stated publicly that he did so because he would not shut down the SCO investigation

- Trump tried numerous times to get Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, and when he wouldn't, Trump fired him.

- Trump tried getting others in his orbit and at the White House to shut down the investigation.

These are all obstruction of justice, so the crime was committed, but Barr has decided that these do not add up to a sufficient level to warrant an indictment.
Click to expand...

Yet Mueller left the final decision to Barr? Why not recommend further action for these public domain crimes? Mueller was a plant. He cleared the path for Trump and shoveled just a bit of dirt at Trump's feet so it would not appear obvious. Mueller had no intention of bringing Trump down. Mueller knew Barr would not act, he knew it.

And no collusion? Really? The Trump tower meeting is well known. We know there was collusion yet Mueller doesn't find it? There needs to be Congressional action ASAP. Why has nobody concentrated on Melania? She would have been the perfect contact to speak with Russians.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lev-raphael/melania-trump-secret-agen_b_11366666.html

Chris B.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Not quite. Barr said two things in this regard. First, he said that Mueller never came to a decision about whether or not Trump obstructed justice ("The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”"). That matches up with your post, but it's not Barr's final word on the matter. He also said:

Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. 2

FN2 See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of justice offense.
Click to expand...

In other words, while Mueller may have been unwilling to clear Trump of obstruction accusations, Barr and Rosenstein are doing so.
Click to expand...
Actually, what Barr wrote sounds an awful lot like what James Comey said to explain why the FBI had decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Barr was more careful, and said it better, but the reasons given are quite similar.

As many of us may recall, some idiots responded to Comey's explanation by chanting "Lock her up!" One of those idiots became President.

It would not surprise me if some idiots respond to Barr's explanation by chanting "Lock him up!" On the other hand, I doubt whether the masculine pronoun will be employed by as many idiots as chanted the feminine pronoun. I also doubt whether any idiots who use the masculine pronoun in that chant will be elected President---but it's entirely possible my opinion of the major candidates vying for the Democratic party's nomination is overly optimistic.
 
Recognizing how corrupt and otherwise deplorable Trump is, the outcome is thoroughly disappointing. But politics and partisanship aside, for anyone who enjoys mysteries, the unanswered questions are deeply unsatisfying. This barely scratches the surface:

  • Why wasn't Jr charged with lying to congress? I hope we get a transcript of his testimony in order to learn more.
  • No explanation for the change to the GOP platform concerning Ukraine, and the lies told by Manafort and Trump about said changes.
  • Why was this wrapped up before Roger Stone's trial? Why didn't Mueller subpoena Roger Stone?
  • How/why has Jared escaped the law, with his serial lying on disclosure form about Russian contacts?
  • Why wasn't Trump subpoenaed? How can a conclusion be reached without questioning Individual 1?
  • Why weren't Trump Jr and Jared subpoenaed concerning the infamous meeting with Russian operatives?
 
Yeah a lot of people/news media is assuming Barr’s statement was written in good faith.
 
Geez, five new pages in this thread since yesterday, and I have no desire to read through them.

I'm really doubting anything new or interesting has been presented after the first 30 or so posts after the release.

I admit, this post doesn't do a lot to add to things, either! :)

However, I will present two quotes from Star Wars...

To The PDJT:
"Great, kid!!! Don't get cocky..."
"It's not over yet!..."
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's only vague to you because you've repeatedly ignored all the evidence that is in the public sphere, and because we don't really have Mueller's report.

There is the Emoluments lawsuit, Trump's corruption is out in the open.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that lawsuit isn't going to go anywhere. It's a Hail Mary attempt to get anything to stick, but it won't work.

And the ballooning deficit is the result of Trump giving himself enormous tax breaks, especially eliminating the inheritance tax which allows the Trumps to get out of all the capital gains taxes accrued up to that point.
Click to expand...

By your logic, any tax cut can be considered corruption. It doesn't work that way.

And you know, if you think Trump's constant vacations on the public dime isn't a crime,
Click to expand...

119258689896f40fe.jpg


I don't believe for a minute you wouldn't have called that a crime during the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

You've really gone off the deep end. I might criticize it as wasteful, but I never would have claimed that was criminal, because such a claim would be stupid and wrong.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom