Mueller Investigation pt5

[Wayward son]

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.

Doubt it. Mueller is old school, he has a sense of duty (which unfortunately leaves him with no options when those he has to serve have no sense of duty) and he will not divert from his mandate. This has been known from the beginning although so many people wanted to ignore it. Mueller was never going to recommend an indictment of a sitting president no matter what (Justice Department rules are that a sitting President can't be indicted). The Dems will subpoena the report and they will fail to get it. They will challenge it all the way up to the Supreme Court and they will fail. The Dems will subpoena Mueller and they will get nothing out of him. They can fight that up to the Supreme Court and they will fail. It has nothing to do with whether he wants to talk or not. It is simple - decisions about disclosure are left to the AG, not Mueller. The Justice Department prohibits disclosure of information that does not lead to a prosecution. It also prohibits disclosure of information that could influence an election. The house committee investigation was thwarted by a Republican majority for the last couple years, and now will have a hard time conducting their own investigation in time for it to result in anything.

Nixon fell because a small number of people around him believed in right and wrong and had a sense of duty, and a number of his electorate similarly had a belief in right and wrong and a sense of civic duty. Trump will not fall because he has ensured that no one around him has either, and he has long known that his supporters have none. If you are the President and you have no scruples you can't lose. There are no do-overs when your country is stupid enough to elect someone like Trump.

 

[Wayward son]

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.

Those rules are very transparent. Mueller gives his report to the AG and the AG can do whatever he wants with it. If anything Barr said was a lie, Mueller still could not say a thing. The Dems can sue for disclosure all the way to the Supreme Court if they want, but the Republican controlled court will just say that they are following the statute. You can thank Bill Clinton for that.

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.

Mueller won't talk. The report will not be released. It will be guarded so carefully that it won't be leaked.

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.

They gave this job to Barr because they knew that he would protect the President at all costs. They don't care about the appearance of forthrightness, and they have spun the unseen report masterly, knowing that enough of the electorate will believe that Trump was exonerated even we don't know (and won't know) what the report says.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

Some of these guys simply excuse themselves by saying it's not their place to object to policies and procedures.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

And yet he refused to commit on the obstruction charges, passing the buck, and I don't see that Barr spent one sentence addressing all the contacts with Russians that were lied about and the Trump Tower meeting we all know about, and the Moscow Trump Tower and the things Trump simply gave to Putin...

To simply say, nothing here? No, this isn't right.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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

Clinton was unfit to be president because clinton emails, and when trump does far worse things its totes okay, because... er... look at clinton emails!! She's unfit!! So we had to vote twump!


It's uncanny to watch a POTUS and his fans not just lie a lot or be so thoroughly morally inconsistent, but to do it so openly and earnestly. Something new for sure.

 

[cmikes]

The current conspiracy theory is that Mueller and his hand picked "I'm with Her" team are all secretly Trumpists and covering up for the President. After all, Democrats "know" in their hearts that Trump must be guilty, because otherwise they wouldn't be infallible, and that's just silly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The current conspiracy theory is that Mueller and his hand picked "I'm with Her" team are all secretly Trumpists and covering up for the President. After all, Democrats "know" in their hearts that Trump must be guilty, because otherwise they wouldn't be infallible, and that's just silly.

It must be getting hard to dig out from under all that straw.

 

[cmikes]

On a more serious note, has anyone read the Matt Taibbi piece from Rolling Stone?

Rolling Stone

MSNBC HOST Chris Matthews said something very similar. First, he recounted his dismay as he learned over the weekend there wouldn’t be new indictments of Trump family members, his inner circle, etc. From there, Matthews deduced, “There’s not going to be even a hidden charge…. They don’t have him on collusion.”

Members of the media like Matthews spent two years speaking of Mueller in mythical tones, hyping him as the savior who was pushing those “walls” that were forever said to be “closing in” on Trump. Mueller, it was repeatedly said, was helping bring about “the beginning of the end.”

Over and over, audiences were told the investigation had hit a “turning point,” after which Trump would either resign or be impeached, because as Brian Williams put it, summarizing a guest’s take, “Donald Trump is done.”

This manipulative brand of news programming preyed upon the emotional devastation of liberal audiences, particularly the older people who watch cable. It told them the horror they felt over Trump’s election would be alleviated in short order. The median age of the CNN viewer is 60 and MSNBC’s is 65, and these people were urged for years to place their trust in Santa BOB, who knew all and whose investigation would surely lead to impeachment and “the end.”

The end of the piece is particularly interesting, with potential consequences for 2020:

Matthews, in a tone that suggested he was being the sober adult delivering tough love, completed his thought about how “they don’t have him on collusion” by saying, with a shrug of undisguised disappointment:

“So I think the Democrats have got to win the election.” He added, “There’s no waiting around for uncle Robert to take care of everything.”

I know no one cares how this sounds to non-Democrats, but this is a member of the media looking sad that Democrats would have to resort to actual democracy to win the White House back.

Given that “collusion” has turned out to be dry well, to the ordinary viewer it will look a hell of lot like the MSNBCs of the world humped a fake story for two consecutive years in the hopes of overturning election results ahead of time. Trump couldn’t have asked for a juicier campaign issue, and an easier way to argue that “elites” don’t respect the democratic choices of flyover voters. It’s hard to imagine what could look worse.

Bolding mine.


Now, there's very little I agree on with Matt Taibbi politically, but when you have a progressive democrat in good standing being this tough on the media, it's not hard to see that they done ****** up.

To me, the biggest takeaway from the Mueller investigation is how is the media going to earn back any semblance of credibility going forward? Can they? Will they even try or just double down and maintain their role as the face of the Resistance?

 

[Lambchops]

Here's a crazy idea: Maybe russian bots and trolls did not get Trump elected.

Maybe it happened because Queen Hillary was just a ****** candidate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Here's a crazy idea: Maybe russian bots and trolls did not get Trump elected.

Maybe it happened because Queen Hillary was just a ****** candidate.

You are correct. That is a crazy idea.

The reality is that Russia did help Trump get elected.

 

[Venom]

Now, there's very little I agree on with Matt Taibbi politically, but when you have a progressive democrat in good standing being this tough on the media, it's not hard to see that they done ****** up.

To me, the biggest takeaway from the Mueller investigation is how is the media going to earn back any semblance of credibility going forward? Can they? Will they even try or just double down and maintain their role as the face of the Resistance?

Progressives generally are very critical of mainstream media. This view that the focus was too deep on the Trump conspiracy isn't out of the ordinary in alternative progressive outlets.

 

[cmikes]

Progressives generally are very critical of mainstream media. This view that the focus was too deep on the Trump conspiracy isn't out of the ordinary in alternative progressive outlets.

Fair point, but most progressive criticism of the media is that the media was being too fair to Trump. To have a progressive acknowledge that the media's two minute 1440 minute hate of Trump every day may be counter-productive to actually beating Trump is the surprise. Progressives don't usually have that level of self-awareness.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I am a bit puzzled about Barr's statement that Mueller found evidence "for and against Obstruction".
How can that be true? How can you commit negative obstruction that can cancel actual obstruction?

The only consideration can be whether the President is within his rights to do things that might or might not have the effect of obstruction - but that is a legal consideration, not an evidence-based one.
In any case, it is not the job of a Prosecutor to find exonerating evidence (though they are required to turn such evidence over to the Defense in case of an actual lawsuit).

This all sounds to me that Barr is making judgments that he is really not authorized to do: he isn't a one-person Supreme Court.

 

[Craig4]

I'm not saying hold off for the sake of decency - I'm talking about the best response strategically. I don't know what that would be, but I want it to be well thought out.

That's why you have what used to be called a 527 organization do it. A group aligned philosophically with the Democratic party but not part of it. The candidate stays above the fray and disavows all knowledge. It's what happened with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

 

[cmikes]

I am a bit puzzled about Barr's statement that Mueller found evidence "for and against Obstruction".
How can that be true? How can you commit negative obstruction that can cancel actual obstruction?

The only consideration can be whether the President is within his rights to do things that might or might not have the effect of obstruction - but that is a legal consideration, not an evidence-based one.
In any case, it is not the job of a Prosecutor to find exonerating evidence (though they are required to turn such evidence over to the Defense in case of an actual lawsuit).

This all sounds to me that Barr is making judgments that he is really not authorized to do: he isn't a one-person Supreme Court.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but the way I understand it, the debate is over the interpretation of the obstruction law. The current interpretation is that the President can't obstruct justice by using his lawful powers. In other words, a person has to actually do something illegal in order to obstruct justice. Apparently, some of the "I'm with Her" lawyers on Mueller's staff were pushing for an alternate interpretation of the law, namely, that even if the President was using his lawful powers, if he had bad intent, he could be charged with obstruction. There's a Andrew McCarthy column up at National Review that goes into more detail.


National Review

The refusal to draw a conclusion on obstruction is notable in contrast. At bottom, this is a retreat on the push by at least some members of Mueller’s staff for a novel theory of obstruction, which held that the president could be charged based on exercises of his constitutional powers (e.g., firing the FBI director) if a prosecutor decided his motivation was improper. Regarding this retreat, it is worth exploring the effect of the Barr memo — the June 2018 memorandum that Barr, when he was a former attorney general rather than the incumbent one, submitted to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy AG who was the acting AG supervising Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation.

In the memo, Barr argued that the obstruction theory Mueller’s staff appeared to be pursuing was constitutionally infirm and practically unworkable. Based on statutory law, the Constitution, court precedent, and longstanding Justice Department guidelines, Barr posited that an indictment of a president for obstruction could properly be based only on plainly corrupt acts — not constitutionally ordained exercises of presidential prerogative — that involve tampering with evidence and witnesses.

In the end, then, Mueller had a choice to make: Either (a) accept that Barr’s interpretation of obstruction law was correct, or (b) recommend an indictment based on the more expansive interpretation of obstruction that his staff seems to have been pursuing and dare Barr to reverse him. The special counsel couldn’t bring himself to decide. In effect, he accepted Barr’s construction of the law, but he declined to admit that he was doing so. After all, if Barr was right all along, what were the last 22 months about?

If you're at all interested in the legal ramifications of the Mueller investigation, it's definitely worth your while to read McCarthy's work on the subject. He's not a Never Trumper, but also not a Rah-Rah Trump cheerleader either, so he's fairly balanced in his approach and a good place to get a fair opinion of the actual legal case, IMO.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweeted

“I think this is probably the most consequential media screwup of the last 25 to 50 years. It is difficult to comprehend or overstate the damage that the media did to the Country, to their own reputation or to the Constitution. An absolute catastrophe” Sean Davis @TuckerCarlson


The Fake News Media has lost tremendous credibility with its corrupt coverage of the illegal Democrat Witch Hunt of your all time favorite duly elected President, me!
T.V. ratings of CNN & MSNBC tanked last night after seeing the Mueller Report statement. @FoxNews up BIG!

 

[Belz...]

Here's a crazy idea: Maybe russian bots and trolls did not get Trump elected.

Maybe it happened because Queen Hillary was just a ****** candidate.

Here's the more reasonable middle ground: Russians tried to influence the elections, AND Hillary was relatively undesirable.

 

[Darat]

I understand people want to see the report. Prosecutors are given the the power of the state to use the threat of violence to upend people's lives and dig into them beyond anything a private person could accomplish. They must then charge someone and present the evidence in charges and at trial, or drop the investigation.

This is asking a prosecutor to release all the stuff they found against people they didn't charge. That has tinges of a police state. It is using their powers for a role it wasnt meant to do.

Slipping up a tad Bob, have you forgotten that in past posts you have stated that all the evidence and information should be available....

 

[uke2se]

Can anyone explain why US media aren't questioning Barr's summary of the report? If I'm wrong and they are, could anyone link? I only find such questioning on left-leaning online magazines.

To me it's fairly obvious that Barr's summary of the report isn't sufficient as it answers precisely zero questions honestly.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Can anyone explain why US media aren't questioning Barr's summary of the report? If I'm wrong and they are, could anyone link? I only find such questioning on left-leaning online magazines.

To me it's fairly obvious that Barr's summary of the report isn't sufficient as it answers precisely zero questions honestly.

my thoughts:
most of the media is desperate to follow the Trump-created Overton window towards the Alt-right, but the facts of the news tend to be really bad for the Donald: only Fox can spin his tweets as anything but the stream of a disturbed consciousness.

Promoting The Summary^TM as the new truth gives them an opening to gain the advertisers Fox is losing by showing that they cater to the more sane segment of the Fox viewership.