Mueller Investigation pt5

[smartcooky]

No, you DON'T know what the investigation turned up. Only what was written in a letter by a heavily partisan toadie.

Yup. You can read all this as....

"No collusion" reported by a person who was hired to report "No Collusion"

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Ignore this if it has been addressed in the two pages I haven't read yet. The sealed indictments(s) we know about are from other investigations aren't they?

No.
We know that Mueller has a sealed indictment against Assange.
Seems like Barr doesn't know that m

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Maxine waters announced Deutsche bank is fully cooperating today. Could they be the secret appeal to the supreme Court?

No.
It's most likely a Saudi or Qatar investment group.

 

[phiwum]

No, if the report clears Trump and associates, then tune into mainstream media and it won't take long... I can see the chyron on MSNBC..."Do the Russians have something on Mueller"...

If'n something like that happens, feel free to come back and say that you told us so. Until then, I'm kinda unimpressed with your prognosticating.

 

[phiwum]

The actual quote from Barr's letter is:



A very very specific conclusion, which leaves open many questions:

Who were "members of the Trump Campaign"? Does it include those without official campaign posts?

It limits itself to "Russian government"; what about collusion with Wikleaks, or Russian oligarchs not officially part of the Russian government.

"in its election interference activities"; does not rule out money-laundering, or doing deals on sanctions.

I take your point, but discovery of money-laundering (for instance) would be discovery of a crime. It would definitely be in Mueller's report.

Now, it's possible that it's there and Barr's letter is dishonest to an astonishing degree. It's possible that section will be scrubbed from the released report (redacted, say). But I'd think that word would get out nonetheless eventually and this would be a very dangerous path for Barr to take.

Obviously, we'll wait and see. I could be wrong, but I'm leaning to the judgment that Mueller conducted a thorough examination and reported his findings. Barr plausibly spun the results hard and perhaps went too far in proclaiming insufficient evidence for obstruction. I hope we see most of the report soon to see what Mueller actually discovered.

I might well be disappointed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's a good point except... Who would bring that issue up, Democrats? They'll immediately be attacked, probably viciously by Trump. Not only that, Trump has put Washington on notice he will try and politicize all of this. He's already threatening to "go after" people who enabled the Mueller investigation.

The Democrats did bring it up during the confirmation hearings. Like Lucy pulling out the football from Charlie Brown, Barr promised he would release the report. And like Charlie Brown the Senators accepted Barr's lie as if saying so cleared him. Not that the Democrats could have blocked the confirmation if they wanted to anyway.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And what do you do if you're suspicious? Investigate, right?

Well, the investigation happened. And it didn't turn up any Russian collusion.

According to Barr. But few people have confirmed his summary. I also understand there was something careful in Barr's wording.

The Atlantic

Trump’s triumphant supporters notwithstanding, we don’t yet know what that means. When prosecutors say that an investigation “did not establish” something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Barr was hired, specifically, to protect Trump from Mueller's findings. His summary should not be taken seriously.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, I just saw the list of approved parties:

Saudi Princes
Saudi Princes' Friends
Russian Ambassadors
Fat Guy at Mar A Lago
Ivanka's Father-in-Law

Amazing isn't it? They are still repeating "but her emails'.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I’m curious - if A.G. Barr, as is being suggested, is mischaracterizing the special counsel’s conclusions, wouldn’t Mr. Mueller offer at the very least a public “not so fast?” Or is it that, since he’s now the ex spec. cncl., out from under the strain and pressure of these last two years, he’s already happily on his way to Disneyland?

 

[Norman Alexander]

I’m curious - if A.G. Barr, as is being suggested, is mischaracterizing the special counsel’s conclusions, wouldn’t Mr. Mueller offer at the very least a public “not so fast?” Or is it that, since he’s now the ex spec. cncl., out from under the strain and pressure of these last two years, he’s already happily on his way to Disneyland?

Barr is his boss's boss. You NEVER make your boss look bad, and you NEVER EVER make your boss look bad to your boss's boss. In both those situations, you will lose.

Also, Trump is Barr's boss...I think you can see how this works.

I would love to see Mueller going round in the Disneyland tea-cup ride, though.

 

[phiwum]

I’m curious - if A.G. Barr, as is being suggested, is mischaracterizing the special counsel’s conclusions, wouldn’t Mr. Mueller offer at the very least a public “not so fast?” Or is it that, since he’s now the ex spec. cncl., out from under the strain and pressure of these last two years, he’s already happily on his way to Disneyland?

I don't think he'd publicly comment, but I don't know. He could, far as I understand, be called to testify before congress and respond to questions about the accuracy of Barr's assessment, but I reckon the report will be released first -- unless Barr does something unexpected.

I don't know much, but I do expect a release of a redacted report.

 

[phiwum]

Barr is his boss's boss. You NEVER make your boss look bad, and you NEVER EVER make your boss look bad to your boss's boss. In both those situations, you will lose.

Also, Trump is Barr's boss...I think you can see how this works.

I would love to see Mueller going round in the Disneyland tea-cup ride, though.

I think Mueller is more independent than you make out, especially since his job is more or less done.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I’m curious - if A.G. Barr, as is being suggested, is mischaracterizing the special counsel’s conclusions, wouldn’t Mr. Mueller offer at the very least a public “not so fast?” Or is it that, since he’s now the ex spec. cncl., out from under the strain and pressure of these last two years, he’s already happily on his way to Disneyland?

I think he's holding his head low knowing that he will have his chance to say what the report is really saying to Congress, in public.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now, it's possible that it's there and Barr's letter is dishonest to an astonishing degree. It's possible that section will be scrubbed from the released report (redacted, say). But I'd think that word would get out nonetheless eventually and this would be a very dangerous path for Barr to take.

Indeed, there's no way he can keep it for his eyes only (even if it's never made public, other people at DOJ will end up seeing it) and keep Mueller silent forever as well. It's possible he might be spinning the report, but it's not credible that he's simply lying about it completely.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'd bet Putin spent a hell of a lot more than that.

What we have is an incomplete picture. But here's what we do know.

We KNOW for a FACT that Russia was meddling in the election.
We also KNOW for a FACT they reached out the Trump campaign.
We KNOW that members of the Trump campain were happy to receive that help.
We KNOW that high level members of the Trump campaign met with Russian agents to discuss how Russia could help.
We KNOW they discussed sanctions.
We KNOW that the Trump Campaign Manager then shared detailed polling data.
We KNOW that all these people LIED about it.
And we KNOW that Trump has been trying to obstruct the investigation since it began.

Now maybe it went a little or a lot further than this. We don't know. We also KNOW that Trump's AG has said There was no collusion and no obstruction because there is not enough proof of the underlying crime.

Do you dispute ANY of this?

Reading Seth Abrams, I know it's even worse than this.

 

[Wayward son]

I don't think he'd publicly comment, but I don't know. He could, far as I understand, be called to testify before congress and respond to questions about the accuracy of Barr's assessment, but I reckon the report will be released first -- unless Barr does something unexpected.

I don't know why the report not being released would be unexpected, as everything points to this report not being released. The House Dems have demanded a copy, and the response has been that they will be provided with their own summary within a couple weeks. This has been masterfully played by the Trump White House and the media fell for it (of course his supporters fell for it too, but they would fall for anything).

 

[Cavemonster]

I’m curious - if A.G. Barr, as is being suggested, is mischaracterizing the special counsel’s conclusions, wouldn’t Mr. Mueller offer at the very least a public “not so fast?” Or is it that, since he’s now the ex spec. cncl., out from under the strain and pressure of these last two years, he’s already happily on his way to Disneyland?

Its a good question. Folks are citing his one media correction, but that was newsworthy due to the extreme rarity. Him and his team communicated extremely little to the public. It seems that he is limited in some ways by the role and I would imagine those ways are not transparent to those outside of the justice department.

But one bit of speculation, the supposed reason for Comey's sacking was his making public a very broad statement about his investigation. I can easily imagine that there is a mechanism at the ready to try to discredit Mueller just as trump tries to discredit Comet if Mueller were to communicate anything that could be spun as a leak.

Another possible read, the Barr summary is misleading but not technically incorrect or lying. Lawyers have obviously gone over the specific language with a fine tooth comb. If Mueller tried to correct an impression rather than an incorrect fact, that can easily be spun as him politicking.

Or the summary is accurate and fair and there's nothing to say.

Or the wheels are in motion to make the report public, and any dishonesty will be shortly publicly known so Mueller gas no need to issue corrections.

As I said, an interesting question, but it doesn't lend too much to the credence that Barr is being honest and accurate. To the extent this administration cares about the appearance of forthrightness, they probably shouldn't have given the job to Barr. It sure doesn't engender the benefit of the doubt.

We'll have to wait and see how it shakes out.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I explain a lot of the cover Republicans who should know better give to Trump by the desire to preserve the power of the President - if they actually checked Trump the way he needs to be checked, that would set precedent for future, more sane Presidents.
Barr obviously believes that Presidents should be Kings, and Mueller, the loyal soldier, probably thinks that the US needs an independent Commander in Chief and that Trump is too incompetent to cause irrevocable damage.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Barr obviously believes that Presidents should be Kings, and Mueller, the loyal soldier, probably thinks that the US needs an independent Commander in Chief and that Trump is too incompetent to cause irrevocable damage.

But only if it is a Republican in office.

Republicans harness more and more power to the President every time they win the oval office. Democrats do nothing to reverse that power when there is a Democratic President. The cycle repeats, and now we have an executive that is above the law. It will only get worse.