Mueller Investigation pt5

[Aridas]

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.

More like, Congress shut their attempts to do that down, pretty much unanimously, in one of the few times that the Republican lawmakers firmly refuted Trump's wishes.

They actually tried, but failed in the end, as I recall.

 

[theprestige]

Impeachment isn't coming unless Pelosi changes her mind. Your prediction sucks so far.

My prediction is not that Pelosi will impeach.

My prediction is that you will come to argue there is an impeachable offense hidden in the parts of the Mueller report that you can't see.

 

[Belz...]

I still disagree; in the context of what trumpers are claiming especially, the point is that only 29% think he has been cleared.

You are correct BUT, that is not the same claim.

But he hasn't been cleared.

And? The claim is that the majority of Americans don't think he's been cleared. That has nothing to do with the fact that he hasn't. It's an opinion poll.

 

[acbytesla]

And? The claim is that the majority of Americans don't think he's been cleared. That has nothing to do with the fact that he hasn't. It's an opinion poll.

I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Everybody is asking how the phony and fraudulent investigation of the No Collusion, No Obstruction Trump Campaign began. We need to know for future generations to understand. This Hoax should never be allowed to happen to another President or Administration again!


“Outrageous, it’s the Adam Schiff problem. People abusing the access to classified data to then go out in public and make allegations that didn’t prove to be true. You look at a decision to essentially investigate a political rival. Who made it?” James Freeman, @WSJ

 

[Steve]

Trump Tweets

Everybody is asking how the phony and fraudulent investigation of the No Collusion, No Obstruction Trump Campaign began. We need to know for future generations to understand. This Hoax should never be allowed to happen to another President or Administration again!


“Outrageous, it’s the Adam Schiff problem. People abusing the access to classified data to then go out in public and make allegations that didn’t prove to be true. You look at a decision to essentially investigate a political rival. Who made it?” James Freeman, @WSJ

"Everybody is asking".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
“Outrageous, it’s the Adam Schiff problem. People abusing the access to classified data to then go out in public and make allegations that didn’t prove to be true. You look at a decision to essentially investigate a political rival. Who made it?” James Freeman, @WSJ

Looks like the WSJ is going full Fox fantasy.

James Freeman's content page

 

[Minoosh]

My prediction is not that Pelosi will impeach.

My prediction is that you will come to argue there is an impeachable offense hidden in the parts of the Mueller report that you can't see.

There's a pretty simple solution: Make it all public. Right now.

IMO, Trump has no clue re: what should be withheld for national security. You personally are far, far ahead of him in understanding why state secrets are secret.

The only solution that matters to me at this point is the ballot box. With a little luck, U.S. democratic institutions will prove robust enough to transcend attempts at manipulation.

 

[quadraginta]

My prediction is not that Pelosi will impeach.

My prediction is that you will come to argue there is an impeachable offense hidden in the parts of the Mueller report that you can't see.

That wouldn't be too hard, since an impeachable offense is whatever Congress decides they want it to be.

Trying to cover up getting a knob job from some power groupie comes to mind.

(And for the response, "But ... but ... lying under oath!!!", there's a bunch of people who could be put in that chair, many of whom cheerfully helped castigate Clinton.)

If we use that as a baseline there's enough out in the public domain already to fuel an impeachment hearing. Mueller's report isn't needed for that.

Just the will on the part of the GOP to respect the office of the Presidency, and the welfare of the country.

Of course, we already know they don't care about any of that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There's a pretty simple solution: Make it all public. Right now.

But Barr needs to cover up damning evidence of crimes redact portions of the report to protect Trump ensure national security.

 

[johnny karate]

You misunderstand. I wasn't raising hypothetical criticisms. I was merely denying that the fact that she's a commentator makes her immune to claims that she spreads falsehoods.

And I never argued that she should be immune from criticism.

I think we might be agreeing past each other.

 

[phiwum]

My prediction is not that Pelosi will impeach.

My prediction is that you will come to argue there is an impeachable offense hidden in the parts of the Mueller report that you can't see.

Who, me personally? Seems a long shot.

Or did you mean someone else? Your post didn't quote anyone in particular, so I'm sure I don't know who you have in mind. Maybe your prediction is a wee bit underspecified. Maybe that way, if anyone on this forum claims there is an impeachable offense hidden in the redactions, you can claim victory.

Of course, it is the nature of redactions that there could be an impeachable offense hidden by a redaction. If, say, the entire discussion of the Trump Tower meeting is redacted, folks would rightly complain, since it does not seem to exclusively involve "peripheral third parties"[1]. It would sure be nice if an independent party knew what was being redacted and why and somehow signed off on it, but I doubt that's consistent with regulations.

[1] I don't understand the rules regarding grand jury investigations. I don't know whether information presented to the grand jury is out-of-bounds, regardless of its initial source.

 

[phiwum]

But Barr needs to cover up damning evidence of crimes redact portions of the report to protect Trump ensure national security.

Some of the reasons for redaction come from longstanding Justice Dept. regulations. I'm not saying that such regulations can't be abused.

For what it's worth, on last Friday's PBS NewsHour, Mark Shields (liberal pundit) and David Brooks (conservative pundit who loathes Trump) agreed that Barr is a respectable man and that he will behave honorably. I tend to find those two commentators pretty reliable and their comments gave me some hope in the release of the report, but we'll see what happens.

 

[acbytesla]

Who, me personally? Seems a long shot.

Or did you mean someone else? Your post didn't quote anyone in particular, so I'm sure I don't know who you have in mind. Maybe your prediction is a wee bit underspecified. Maybe that way, if anyone on this forum claims there is an impeachable offense hidden in the redactions, you can claim victory.

Of course, it is the nature of redactions that there could be an impeachable offense hidden by a redaction. If, say, the entire discussion of the Trump Tower meeting is redacted, folks would rightly complain, since it does not seem to exclusively involve "peripheral third parties"[1]. It would sure be nice if an independent party knew what was being redacted and why and somehow signed off on it, but I doubt that's consistent with regulations.

[1] I don't understand the rules regarding grand jury investigations. I don't know whether information presented to the grand jury is out-of-bounds, regardless of its initial source.

Why would they be out of bounds?

 

[phiwum]

And I never argued that she should be immune from criticism.

I think we might be agreeing past each other.

Perhaps so. I re-read the post to which I first replied and you were explicitly referring to her conclusions, not to the facts employed to justify them.

That said, we do criticize folks like Glenn Beck (think back to the worst of his conspiracy theorist days) for just how misleading he was in presenting crap conclusions. I am not, of course, suggesting that Maddow is another Beck.

Anyway, you're right. I doubt we disagree much at all.

 

[phiwum]

Why would they be out of bounds?

Why would what be out-of-bounds? Stuff presented to the grand jury? If that's the question, I don't know whether it is out-of-bounds or not, because I don't know the rules.

The Post says, "[Consistency with the law] means scrubbing the report of any information that could compromise the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, as well as any material that could affect other ongoing investigations or prosecutions." Sounds to me like the fact that one presented information to the grand jury would not preclude presenting the same information to the public -- this wouldn't compromise the secrecy of the proceedings. But I don't really know what the law says.

I do understand that Barr could ask a court for permission to waive that particular requirement. I sure haven't heard any indication that he intends to do so.

 

[acbytesla]

Re: Maddow, I listen to her podcast, which is just the audio track of the show. (Good for the gym or commuting.) Visuals aren’t necessary and I can concentrate on the content without distractions.

I liked Maddow more when she was on the radio. Her tv show is great because of the depth of it. But she does a lot of teases in her show often stretching 5 minutes of info into an hour.

 

[acbytesla]

Why would what be out-of-bounds? Stuff presented to the grand jury? If that's the question, I don't know whether it is out-of-bounds or not, because I don't know the rules.

The Post says, "[Consistency with the law] means scrubbing the report of any information that could compromise the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, as well as any material that could affect other ongoing investigations or prosecutions." Sounds to me like the fact that one presented information to the grand jury would not preclude presenting the same information to the public -- this wouldn't compromise the secrecy of the proceedings. But I don't really know what the law says.

I do understand that Barr could ask a court for permission to waive that particular requirement. I sure haven't heard any indication that he intends to do so.

I'm pretty sure the confidentiality cloak only applies while the Grand Jury is empaneled.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Some of the reasons for redaction come from longstanding Justice Dept. regulations. I'm not saying that such regulations can't be abused.

For what it's worth, on last Friday's PBS NewsHour, Mark Shields (liberal pundit) and David Brooks (conservative pundit who loathes Trump) agreed that Barr is a respectable man and that he will behave honorably. I tend to find those two commentators pretty reliable and their comments gave me some hope in the release of the report, but we'll see what happens.

They are both wrong. Barr is not a respectable man that behaves honorably. He has a history. He helped Bush Sr. avoid criminal investigations for his role in Iran/Contra.

 

[phiwum]

I'm pretty sure the confidentiality cloak only applies while the Grand Jury is empaneled.

I didn't think so, but I am very uncertain about these rules obviously.

Anyway, isn't Mueller's grand jury still empaneled for a while?