Mueller Investigation pt5

[Minoosh]

Trump Tweets

I have not read the Mueller Report yet, even though I have every right to do so.

For once I believe him.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump doesn't have the attention span to read 400 pages. Hell, he doesn't have the attention span to read a Cliff's Notes on the world's shortest short story.

 

[smartcooky]

Receiving leaked information is usually not a crime in the US.

"Leaking" is where a person with authorised access, passes that information on to a third party without authority to do so.

This is not the same as "unauthorised hacking into a computer and stealing the information therein"

The Law is well established that media may publish leaked information - that does not extend to information that was outright stolen.

Unauthorised hacking into a computer is a crime - 18 U.S.C. §1030 (a)

Data theft is also a crime - 18 U.S. Code § 2701

Data taken from said computer are the proceeds of a crime and therefore are stolen property.

Receiving stolen property is a crime, even in the USA.

 

[Minoosh]

If somebody on Mueller's team decides to pass a full copy of the report to the NY Times, he'd likely be in a lot of trouble, but neither he nor the Times would be accused of "stealing" anything.

I think it's 50-50 that any leaking will be done by people inside the White House/administration.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not quite sure what you're questioning here but Dershowitz has agreed to write the introduction.

And given Amazon is not the publisher, Skyhorse Publishing is, I'm guessing they picked Dershy. Or more likely, Dershy is acting as editor because he knows the report will be a public document. Otherwise I can't see how Dershy or Skyhorse have the copyright.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And given Amazon is not the publisher, Skyhorse Publishing is, I'm guessing they picked Dershy. Or more likely, Dershy is acting as editor because he knows the report will be a public document. Otherwise I can't see how Dershy has the copyright.

I've not seen any suggestion that the book will have an editor at all, never-mind Dershowitz being that editor. Nor any suggesting he'd have copyright on the book. He's just listed as author of the introduction.

 

[Paul2]

You lost me. What did I say that was incorrect?

It was an error of omission. If that doesn't make immediate sense, I'll go back and quote the relevant posts, at your request.

ETA: I see that phiwum has basically laid out those details. Thanks, Phi.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've not seen any suggestion that the book will have an editor at all, never-mind Dershowitz being that editor. Nor any suggesting he'd have copyright on the book. He's just listed as author of the introduction.

I thought I saw editor somewhere but I was mistaken.

But someone had to initiate the publication and I'd bet Dershy had something to do with it.

Look at this:

Same thing only this is the WA Po edition. Again, a place holder page. This one to be published by Scribner.

 

[Belz...]

Trump Tweets

I have not read the Mueller Report yet, even though I have every right to do so. Only know the conclusions, and on the big one, No Collusion. Likewise, recommendations made to our great A.G. who found No Obstruction.

- "Mister teacher I haven't read the book but I looked at the back of it and I'm pretty sure I know the conclusion."
- "And what's the conclusion, Timmy?"
- "That Mr. Poe is a famous writer?"
- (sigh)

 

[Belz...]

The placeholder cover says "with an introduction by Alan Dershowitz". LOL. You couldn't make it up. Only Jeff Bezos can. After Fake News now Fake Books.

Most people would be embarrassed to broadcast their wilful ignorance to the entire planet the way you do so regularily.

 

[Drysdale]

Still?

Gonna be a bunch of disappointed liberals again.

If Mueller had anything he would have stated it.
He obviously didn't.

 

[Stacyhs]

Still?

Gonna be a bunch of disappointed liberals again.

If Mueller had anything he would have stated it.
He obviously didn't.

Would you care to explain to us then just why the WH and Trump are trying so desperately not to release the full report?

Somehow Trump's orders not to release his academic records or his tax returns spring to mind.

 

[Minoosh]

Still?

Gonna be a bunch of disappointed liberals again.

If Mueller had anything he would have stated it.
He obviously didn't.

Not to us, he wouldn't have. His job was to provide a report to the attorney general. Now that AG is stalling.

 

[smartcooky]

Most people would be embarrassed to broadcast their wilful ignorance to the entire planet the way you do so regularly.

It hasn't stopped Dear Leader's blindly devoted followers from doing so!

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Still?

Gonna be a bunch of disappointed liberals again.

If Mueller had anything he would have stated it.
He obviously didn't.

He made a 400 page long statement.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Still?

Gonna be a bunch of disappointed liberals again.

If Mueller had anything he would have stated it.
He obviously didn't.

He just released a whole report. You might have heard of it. It was in the news and such.

Others, primarily Seth Abramson, have done a wonderful job at compiling all the facts we already have apart from the report.

 

[quadraginta]

There isn't much information that can be "stolen." Physical objects? Trade secrets? Maybe. But that's not how leaking usually works. If somebody on Mueller's team decides to pass a full copy of the report to the NY Times, he'd likely be in a lot of trouble, but neither he nor the Times would be accused of "stealing" anything.

Nice choice of example. How about this one.

If someone not on Mueller's team hacks into their computer systems and gets the report, is that leaking ... or stealing?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Still?

Gonna be a bunch of disappointed liberals again.

If Mueller had anything he would have stated it.
He obviously didn't.

Seems to me, if Mueller didn't have "anything," Barr would have gleefully presented Mueller's own summaries instead of rewriting them around a couple of out-of-context sentence fragments, and he wouldn't be attempting to impede or override Congress's oversight duties by denying them the full report. But I'll gladly risk the disappointment of being wrong.

Personally, I'm hoping it's bad enough to insure that Trump has no chance of reelection, but not so bad that it demands an immediate impeachment and a President Pence. If talking about all the reasons Trump should be impeached dominates the election cycle, without actually doing so, I won't be disappointed.

 

[cmikes]

Not to us, he wouldn't have. His job was to provide a report to the attorney general. Now that AG is stalling.

It's a transparent attempt to set up a Sophie's Choice for Barr. Either he can release the full report with no redactions (or let Congress leak it, which amounts to the same thing) and see the Democrats howling for impeachment for releasing classified and grand jury information or he can make the legally necessary redactions and see the Democrats howling for impeachment for "covering up for Trump".

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's a transparent attempt to set up a Sophie's Choice for Barr. Either he can release the full report with no redactions (or let Congress leak it, which amounts to the same thing) and see the Democrats howling for impeachment for releasing classified and grand jury information or he can make the legally necessary redactions and see the Democrats howling for impeachment for "covering up for Trump".

It is extremely unlikely that Mueller didn't provide Barr with a number of summaries written for different levels of clearance.
Barr clearly didn't use them.

I am also unhappy about the suggestion that no classified information can possibly be given to the House Committees, since they might leak them.
Yes, they might, or might not, but that doesn't mean that the AG doesn't have the obligation to properly brief the part of the government tasked with overseeing the administration's actions.