Mueller Investigation pt5

[smartcooky]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1112006572891353089

"If House Democrats don't get the full Mueller report by April 2, the next step, Dem staffers tells NBC News, would be a subpoena. "We'll have more to say on April 3."

Democrats are fleshing out legal and political arguments to make if DOJ refuses.


Article embedded in tweet.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Rachel Maddow is facing a lot of criticism recently, and not just from the far right.

But I find it quite informative when she compares and contrasts the Mueller investigation and its report and aftermath with historical precedents, including reports by Ken Starr, Leon Jaworski and several other more minor players.

I’m a fairly recent watcher/listener of Maddow’s show, but find it quite educational, refreshing and enjoyable. And this is in spite of my holding a relatively conservative world view on many topics.

 

[Belz...]

Rachel Maddow is facing a lot of criticism recently, and not just from the far right.

I don't understand why. Most of her analyses were on point. That the Mueller report may not have the results she or I expected doesn't change that.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I don't understand why. Most of her analyses were on point. That the Mueller report may not have the results she or I expected doesn't change that.

I agree.

Here’s what comes up when I search “Rachel Maddow” in Apple News:

Stipulated that most of these are right wing or right-leaning sites, but I’ve never seen Slate that way, for instance, and I was pushed other similar stories from what I also consider more neutral sites.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't understand why. Most of her analyses were on point. That the Mueller report may not have the results she or I expected doesn't change that.

Let's suppose Barr's summary is correct (which I reject).

Her reporting of what is on point actually pointed to a different conclusion then what the report finally made. Then her reporting promoted conclusions that were wrong. People would have had a better understanding of what was going on by not watching her show.

 

[alfaniner]

I think it bears mentioning that no one, except for Barr and Mueller, has seen the full report and commented on it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think it bears mentioning that no one, except for Barr and Mueller, has seen the full report and commented on it.

You don't think one of the attorney's on the team proof read it?

Do you think he handled formatting to make sure the kerning followed DoJ standards?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I think it bears mentioning that no one, except for Barr and Mueller, has seen the full report and commented on it.

The trumpkins don't need to, they live in a world where they make their own reality as they see fit.

 

[Bogative]

You're in denial; the facts Maddow has been talking about will already be in the report, because they're public knowledge to anyone paying attention.

But I was promised collision, criminal conspiracy, videos of water works, the beginning of the end, the walls closing in…

I guess I'll have to go with Mueller/Barr being part of the Trump cabal and covering for the boss until the report is released.

When the report is released and it doesn't show what I want it to, I'll claim all of the criminal behavior was redacted.

When Mueller finally breaks his silence and says his investigation cleared Trump of Russia collusion, I'll ignore him and continue with my ID and in 30 years I'll still be yammering on about how Trump and Putin colluded to steal the 2016 election.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But I was promised collision, criminal conspiracy, videos of water works, the beginning of the end, the walls closing in.

Prove it

 

[Bogative]

What do you suppose this is about?

CNN: Investigations will continue despite submission of the Mueller report

Just fake news?

I believe the investigations will continue and I believe it's possible there will be more indictments, arrests and possible jail time for some people. One thing I won't do is deny reality when the investigations conclude without confirming what I was hoping they would conclude going in.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I don't understand why. Most of her analyses were on point. That the Mueller report may not have the results she or I expected doesn't change that.

I do tend to think, in this case at least, that Mueller's failure to find hard evidence of actual conspiracy on the Russian election meddling probably means there wasn't any, at least not explicitly, and on the crimes associated with that meddling. Whereas smart conspirators could easily avoid a paper trail, I think it's pretty obvious that we're not talking about smart people. They left a paper trail and told some pretty dumb lies about the Trump Tower meeting, so now we know that they were willing to discuss trading our national interests for dirt on Hillary, but decided that what the Russians were offering wasn't worth the price of lifting Magnitsky Act sanctions.

Gee, how could anyone possibly suspect that maybe Junior, Kushner, and Manafort held out for a better offer, when all we know is that there were an incredible number of lied-about contacts between the campaign and Russians, that Russia did indeed distribute criminally-obtained dirt on Hillary, and that Trump did indeed try to lift the Magnitsky Act sanctions as soon as he got in office and then tried to delay new ones as long as he could.

No, despite the attempts to portray it as a "conspiracy theory" of imaginary facts and Glen-Beckish random associations between random dots and illogical but religiously held conclusions, this was clearly a matter that deserved investigation. What trumpers want us to forget about now is that speculating about that conspiracy was an attempt to possibly explain Trump's bizarre and inexplicable deference to Putin personally and to Russian interests. And what trumpers want us to ignore is that Maddow has been covering all the details about other possible explanations, such as Russian kompromat on Trump, the possibility that Trump and Co. were unwitting dupes, and then eventually the theory that maybe it really was just because Trump really, really wanted that Trump Tower Moscow deal.

We still don't know much except that we're dealing with a bunch of grifters, some of whom were just running their own scams, headed by a pathological liar, grifter, and malignant narcissist who surely must have thought he was "winning" some transaction, whatever his disturbed mind perceived that to be.

It should be clear by now that trumpers think we know too much already, but I'll be both surprised and disappointed if Maddow lets this ******** deter her.

 

[Bogative]

Pretty good reason, doncha think?

It's not a matter of being dumb if there is no such statute.

Mueller was authorized to prosecute any federal crimes arising from his investigation. He didn't find proof of any between Russia and the Trump campaign or he's going easy on the man who has dragged his name through the mud for nearly 2 years for some reason.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I do tend to think, in this case at, that Mueller's failure to find hard evidence of actual conspiracy on the Russian election meddling probably means there wasn't any, at least on the crimes associated with that.

But, again, we don't know what he didn't find. Barr's summary states that Mueller did not find *enough* hard evidence of a *prearranged* conspiracy between Trump and *official representatives* of the Russian *government* to override the standing DoJ position that you can't indict a sitting president. All of the asterisks are weasel-words that sum up to the statement meaning jack all. The only thing we know right now is Mueller didn't want to pull the trigger and effectively stage a coup without even reporting in to Congress first.

 

[phiwum]

Neither were they charged with purple saddle abrasion, correct? And that’s because? Anyone?

I am not picking on Regnad here, but his post is an example of a curious trend.

Prior to Barr's letter, pro-Trumpers regularly pointed out that collusion isn't a crime and concluded that the investigation was a pointless witchhunt. Anti-Trumpers responded that collusion is a shorthand for various crimes including conspiracy.

After Barr's letter, pro-Trumpers point out that no collusion crimes resulted in indictment and anti-Trumpers rebut this by pointing out that collusion is not a crime. Which is true, but the reason collusion was part of the discussion is because people were concerned with conspiracy and related crimes. There are no indictments regarding any such crime.

I think that the anti-Trumpers are being disingenuous with the "collusion is not a crime" line, just as the pro-Trumpers were prior to the report. The fact is that Barr's letter explicitly says there is not sufficient evidence that there was coordination between the campaign and Russia. Such coordination was definitely a prominent suspicion during the investigation. That Barr says there isn't sufficient evidence can't just be dismissed by saying that collusion isn't a crime, as if no one had ever been concerned by the prospect of conspiracy.

Mind, I'm not defending Trump here. I am surprised that the Trump Tower meeting would not be sufficient evidence of coordination (or at least a strong willingness for such). I'm only pointing out that "collusion is not a crime" was a dodge before the Barr letter and it's a dodge after, though it's a dodge from the other side now.

No offense, Regnad. Could've made the same point with several other posters, but yours was the post I was reading when I decided to respond.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Does anyone here believe that Trump would not have lied if Mueller had been allowed to question him under oath?

 

[WilliamSeger]

But, again, we don't know what he didn't find. Barr's summary states that Mueller did not find *enough* hard evidence of a *prearranged* conspiracy between Trump and *official representatives* of the Russian *government* to override the standing DoJ position that you can't indict a sitting president. All of the asterisks are weasel-words that sum up to the statement meaning jack all. The only thing we know right now is Mueller didn't want to pull the trigger and effectively stage a coup without even reporting in to Congress first.

Yes, exactly. All we got was a few sentence fragments, but even those don't support the sweeping "nothing to see here" conclusions that trumpers are peddling.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I am not picking on Regnad here, but his post is an example of a curious trend.

Prior to Barr's letter, pro-Trumpers regularly pointed out that collusion isn't a crime and concluded that the investigation was a pointless witchhunt. Anti-Trumpers responded that collusion is a shorthand for various crimes including conspiracy.

After Barr's letter, pro-Trumpers point out that no collusion crimes resulted in indictment and anti-Trumpers rebut this by pointing out that collusion is not a crime. Which is true, but the reason collusion was part of the discussion is because people were concerned with conspiracy and related crimes. There are no indictments regarding any such crime.

I think that the anti-Trumpers are being disingenuous with the "collusion is not a crime" line, just as the pro-Trumpers were prior to the report. The fact is that Barr's letter explicitly says there is not sufficient evidence that there was coordination between the campaign and Russia. Such coordination was definitely a prominent suspicion during the investigation. That Barr says there isn't sufficient evidence can't just be dismissed by saying that collusion isn't a crime, as if no one had ever been concerned by the prospect of conspiracy.

Mind, I'm not defending Trump here. I am surprised that the Trump Tower meeting would not be sufficient evidence of coordination (or at least a strong willingness for such). I'm only pointing out that "collusion is not a crime" was a dodge before the Barr letter and it's a dodge after, though it's a dodge from the other side now.

No offense, Regnad. Could've made the same point with several other posters, but yours was the post I was reading when I decided to respond.

I think the point is, not all collusion is criminal -- it has to be conspiracy to commit a crime -- but that the public deserves to know about any collusion with foreign powers. Some of us might think that colluding with Russians is unethical and underhanded and highly undesirable for elected officials for many serious reasons, even if there was no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution.

 

[johnny karate]

Let's suppose Barr's summary is correct (which I reject).

Her reporting of what is on point actually pointed to a different conclusion then what the report finally made. Then her reporting promoted conclusions that were wrong. People would have had a better understanding of what was going on by not watching her show.

Maddow isn’t a reporter. She’s an openly liberal political commentator. Her conclusions are not presented as findings of fact. They are presented as opinions.

 

[phiwum]

I think the point is, not all collusion is criminal -- it has to be conspiracy to commit a crime -- but that the public deserves to know about any collusion with foreign powers. Some of us might think that colluding with Russians is unethical and underhanded and highly undesirable for elected officials for many serious reasons, even if there was no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution.

If that's the point, it could be made more clearly, as you did. Simply say that, according to Barr, there was insufficient evidence to indict on any collusion, but this doesn't mean there was no collusion nor that crimes are the only concern.