A Compendium of Responses to the Mueller Report

[AUDub 11,184]

20 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Glenn has great disdain for political partisanship and in this instance admits he was sucked into the noise. Props to him for that candor. 

Given the article you posted, you would hardly know that. His Twitter is a riot right now too. 

The guy is a lying sack of s***. Hell, he’s a lawyer too, He doesn't even have the excuse of being ignorant about legal standard.  He's just a disingenuous a**hole.

[AUDub 11,184]

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Kunstler reports. Interesting read:

After two years of gaslighting the public while it blew smoke up America’s ass, the Jacobin news media enjoyed its final feeding frenzy with the release of the 400-page Mueller report. They expected 1000 pounds of raw filet mignon, but it turned out to be tofu fried in olestra. The ensuing fugue of hyperventilating hysteria was also duly expected and William Barr stoically endured their hebephrenic peevings at the release ceremony — a press conference which itself offended the media.

The threats and raving continued all the livelong day and far into the peeper-filled night with CNN’s Chris Cuomo blustering “It’s time to rumble,” and the lugubrious hack David Gergen muttering soulfully, “This was not fake news,” and The Times’ Maggie Haberman fuming that the White House had played the “Nazi anthem” Edelweiss — very fake news, it turned out, since the tune was written for Rodgers’ and Hammerstein’s 1959 Broadway show, The Sound of Music (and sung by the anti-Nazi hero Baron von Trapp). Meanwhile Rachel Maddow had the balls to confab in prime time with disgraced former FBI mandarin Andy McCabe, officially identified as a liar by his own colleagues at the agency. What a circus of perfidious freakery!

Understand that the Mueller Report itself was the mendacious conclusion to a deceitful investigation, the purpose of which was to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election, in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign, to derail Mr. Trump’s campaign, and then disable him when he managed to win the election. Mr. Mueller was theoretically trying to save the FBI’s reputation, but he may have only succeeded in injuring it more gravely.

The whole wicked business began as a (failed) entrapment scheme using shadowy US Intel “assests” Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to con small fish Papadopoulos and Carter Page into incriminating themselves (they declined to be conned) and moved on to ploys like the much-touted Trump Tower meeting to ensnare Trump Junior and then to several efforts (also failed) to flip Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen — the final product of which was an epic failure to find one instance of real chargeable criminal collusion between anyone connected to Mr. Trump and Russia.

By the way, the Mueller Report failed to mention that the two Russians present in that August 2016 Trump Tower meeting, lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, were on the payroll of Hillary Clinton’s oppo research contractor Fusion GPS, and met with that company’s principal, Glenn Simpson, both before and after the meeting — just one example among many of the Mueller Team’s shifty tactics, but a move that speaks volumes about Mr. Mueller’s actual intent, which was to keep his prosecutorial circus going as long as possible to interfere with Mr. Trump carrying out his own duties.

The Special Prosecutor’s main bit of mischief, of course, was his refusal to reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice charge. What the media refuses to accept and make clear is that a prosecutor’s failure to reach a conclusion is exactly the same thing as an inability to make a case, and it was a breach of Mr. Mueller’s duty to dishonestly present that failure as anything but that in his report — and possibly an act of criminal prosecutorial misconduct.

Like any tantrum, the media’s frenzy will run out of steam (and credibility) and now they will be whipped like dogs for betraying their public trust. There is a counter-narrative to the “Resistance” narrative, and it is a true crime story. That suppressed story is finally going to roll out in the implacable workings of actual (not fake) justice and it is going to crush a lot of people who concocted this epic political hoax, including some members of the press who knowingly and dishonestly abetted it.

Many criminal referrals have already been made on the likes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr, and a big net has been cast to pull in the figures who have been hiding in the thickets lo these two-and-a-half-years of smoke and gaslight: Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, William Brennan, James Clapper, Nellie Ohr, Samantha Power, Bill Priestap, Jim Rybicki, James Baker, Mike Kortan, John Carlin, Mary McCord, Josh Campbell and more. Some of these are going to jail and some have already flipped. The fetchings should reach the Obama White House. Mr. Mueller himself, even in his majestic granitic silence, will be liable for failing to inform his boss, the Attorney General, that the predicate document for his witch hunt was known to be a fraud back in 2016, and was used anyway to spy on a presidential candidate.

Let congress put on a carnival of its own now. It will be greeted like a TV commercial for a hemorrhoid remedy while the real national psychodrama plays out in grand juries and courtrooms, demonstrating what a grievous injury was done to this republic by its own vested authorities.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

CNN's Chris Cilliza

Quote

So why didn't Mueller charge Trump for obstruction?

The answer to that question is that it's complicated. Mueller cites a number of factors for why he ultimately didn't recommend such a charge. They include:

 

* There was no underlying crime for which Trump was obstructing the investigation. While Mueller makes clear that there need not be an underlying crime for obstruction to occur, he acknowledges that the lack of proof of collusion makes the obstruction case a harder sell.

 

----------------------------------

 

Instead we got two top-line conclusions: 1) Neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign conspired with the Russian government in the 2016 election and 2) Trump will not be charged by the DOJ with obstructing the investigation.

 

Both of those conclusions are very good news for Trump. Period.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/donald-trump-bill-barr-william-barr-mueller-report/index.html

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Here's the Monmouth poll pictured from CNN in the tweet:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_041719/

[AUDub 11,184]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Kunstler reports. Interesting read:

After two years of gaslighting the public while it blew smoke up America’s ass, the Jacobin news media enjoyed its final feeding frenzy with the release of the 400-page Mueller report. They expected 1000 pounds of raw filet mignon, but it turned out to be tofu fried in olestra. The ensuing fugue of hyperventilating hysteria was also duly expected and William Barr stoically endured their hebephrenic peevings at the release ceremony — a press conference which itself offended the media.

The threats and raving continued all the livelong day and far into the peeper-filled night with CNN’s Chris Cuomo blustering “It’s time to rumble,” and the lugubrious hack David Gergen muttering soulfully, “This was not fake news,” and The Times’ Maggie Haberman fuming that the White House had played the “Nazi anthem” Edelweiss — very fake news, it turned out, since the tune was written for Rodgers’ and Hammerstein’s 1959 Broadway show, The Sound of Music (and sung by the anti-Nazi hero Baron von Trapp). Meanwhile Rachel Maddow had the balls to confab in prime time with disgraced former FBI mandarin Andy McCabe, officially identified as a liar by his own colleagues at the agency. What a circus of perfidious freakery!

Understand that the Mueller Report itself was the mendacious conclusion to a deceitful investigation, the purpose of which was to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election, in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign, to derail Mr. Trump’s campaign, and then disable him when he managed to win the election. Mr. Mueller was theoretically trying to save the FBI’s reputation, but he may have only succeeded in injuring it more gravely.

The whole wicked business began as a (failed) entrapment scheme using shadowy US Intel “assests” Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to con small fish Papadopoulos and Carter Page into incriminating themselves (they declined to be conned) and moved on to ploys like the much-touted Trump Tower meeting to ensnare Trump Junior and then to several efforts (also failed) to flip Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen — the final product of which was an epic failure to find one instance of real chargeable criminal collusion between anyone connected to Mr. Trump and Russia.

By the way, the Mueller Report failed to mention that the two Russians present in that August 2016 Trump Tower meeting, lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, were on the payroll of Hillary Clinton’s oppo research contractor Fusion GPS, and met with that company’s principal, Glenn Simpson, both before and after the meeting — just one example among many of the Mueller Team’s shifty tactics, but a move that speaks volumes about Mr. Mueller’s actual intent, which was to keep his prosecutorial circus going as long as possible to interfere with Mr. Trump carrying out his own duties.

The Special Prosecutor’s main bit of mischief, of course, was his refusal to reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice charge. What the media refuses to accept and make clear is that a prosecutor’s failure to reach a conclusion is exactly the same thing as an inability to make a case, and it was a breach of Mr. Mueller’s duty to dishonestly present that failure as anything but that in his report — and possibly an act of criminal prosecutorial misconduct.

Like any tantrum, the media’s frenzy will run out of steam (and credibility) and now they will be whipped like dogs for betraying their public trust. There is a counter-narrative to the “Resistance” narrative, and it is a true crime story. That suppressed story is finally going to roll out in the implacable workings of actual (not fake) justice and it is going to crush a lot of people who concocted this epic political hoax, including some members of the press who knowingly and dishonestly abetted it.

Many criminal referrals have already been made on the likes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr, and a big net has been cast to pull in the figures who have been hiding in the thickets lo these two-and-a-half-years of smoke and gaslight: Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, William Brennan, James Clapper, Nellie Ohr, Samantha Power, Bill Priestap, Jim Rybicki, James Baker, Mike Kortan, John Carlin, Mary McCord, Josh Campbell and more. Some of these are going to jail and some have already flipped. The fetchings should reach the Obama White House. Mr. Mueller himself, even in his majestic granitic silence, will be liable for failing to inform his boss, the Attorney General, that the predicate document for his witch hunt was known to be a fraud back in 2016, and was used anyway to spy on a presidential candidate.

Let congress put on a carnival of its own now. It will be greeted like a TV commercial for a hemorrhoid remedy while the real national psychodrama plays out in grand juries and courtrooms, demonstrating what a grievous injury was done to this republic by its own vested authorities.

Good writer. He gets a lot wrong here though. Lot of red meat and outright horse hockey.

Let's focus on the part I bolded here though. Why didn't Mueller reach a conclusion on obstruction? 

It's right there in the report. They determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement as that is outside Mueller's power. Decades old, long-standing rule. It's a matter of procedural fairness. Removal is in the hands of Congress, and this as close to a roadmap to impeachment as we were going to get. Neither here nor there. No impeachment will successfully remove a president in this climate, though Trump's behavior certainly warrants it. 

You could try reading the thing and then viewing anything you post though that lense.

[AUDub 11,184]

20 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

CNN's Chris Cilliza

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/donald-trump-bill-barr-william-barr-mueller-report/index.html

Eh.

Of the examples Mueller pointed out in the report, 8 were examples of obstruction of justice where Mueller concluded all three prongs of the statute were met, then four where a prong is "unclear." 

Trump would've been prosecuted for all eight of those but for the fact he's the president. 

So, hooray? 

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

50 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Good writer. He gets a lot wrong here though. Lot of red meat and outright horse hockey.

Let's focus on the part I bolded here though. Why didn't Mueller reach a conclusion on obstruction? 

It's right there in the report. They determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement as that is outside Mueller's power. Decades old, long-standing rule. It's a matter of procedural fairness. Removal is in the hands of Congress, and this as close to a roadmap to impeachment as we were going to get. Neither here nor there. No impeachment will successfully remove a president in this climate, though Trump's behavior certainly warrants it. 

You could try reading the thing and then viewing anything you post though that lense.

He gets more right.

As has been reported via multiple sources today, if Mueller had substantial evidence of obstruction he would have charged Trump. 

Reading is great. Interpreting more important. Doing so with a partisan bent not recommended. 

Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein chose not to charge the President with an obstruction crime.

"Although the deputy attorney general and I disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories, and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision," Barr said at a press conference Thursday morning.

"Instead, we accepted the special counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis, and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusions," he added.

The law requires obstruction of justice be linked to a “corrupt” intent, such as urging a witness to lie under oath to mislead the grand jury.

Atty. Gen. William Barr - who controversially concluded that the president’s actions as described by Mueller did not constitute illegal obstruction — insisted that Trump was merely trying to defend his reputation out of a “sincere belief” that he didn’t conspire with Russia and therefore was being unfairly attacked.

There are a variety of obstruction crimes but most have no applicability to this controversy. There is Section 18 U.S.C. 1503 which broadly defines the crime of “corruptly” endeavoring “to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice.” This “omnibus” provision, however, is most properly used for judicial proceedings such as grand jury investigations, and the Supreme Court has narrowly construed the provision.

There is also 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime for any person who corruptly or “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” However, this provision has been narrowly construed as well on the underlying conduct and the need for some “official proceeding.” Mueller should be fully aware of that problem since his principal deputy, Andrew Weissmann, was responsible for overextending that provision in a jury instruction that led the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005.

These and other provisions simply do not make for a compelling case against Trump. While Trump has shown breathtakingly poor judgment in firing Comey and publicly attacking investigators, that is not obstruction. Moreover, Trump had independent grounds to fire Comey, including many of the reasons cited by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in his scathing criticism of Comey in 2017. Put simply, this is not what an “O” bomb looks like.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

FiveThirtyEight with a good article on the issue:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/muellers-report-does-not-exonerate-trump-but-does-that-matter/

[AUDub 11,184]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

He gets more right.

Hardly. Lot of sound and fury, little substance. 

Quote

As has been reported via multiple sources today, if Mueller had substantial evidence of obstruction he would have charged Trump. 

Nope. Not even close to true. 

 

Quote

It’s clear that Attorney General Barr obscured and mischaracterized the bases upon which Mueller declined to reach a prosecutorial decision on whether President Trump committed the crime of obstruction. He did so based on two unsettled legal questions: First, current DOJ policy not to charge sitting presidents, and second, Trumps’ lawyers’ asserted defense that a president cannot legally obstruct justice (which happens to exactly mirror Barr’s own legal theory, which he sent in an unsolicited memo to DOJ one year ago). Since either of these theories might preclude the president from rebutting the evidence in an adversarial process, Mueller believed a fairness principle constrained him from accusing the president in the form of recommended charges.

Notably, the report extensively challenges the legal basis of the DOJ policy as well as Trump’s (i.e., Barr’s) Article II defense. It also makes an affirmative case for Congress’ authority to investigate obstruction of justice by the president and observes that the president could be exposed to criminal liability once he leaves office, thereby justifying a full investigation and gathering of evidence. In doing so, Mueller makes clear that his findings were intended for independent evaluation by Congress, or by future prosecutors — not by Barr himself.

https://www.justsecurity.org/63665/the-redacted-mueller-report-first-takes-from-the-experts/

Quote

Reading is great. Interpreting more important. Doing so with a partisan bent not recommended. 

You say this as you paste the most hyperpartisan screed here lol. 

Quote

Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein chose not to charge the President with an obstruction crime.

 

And they never were. But it’s not their decision to make. Nor was it Mueller’s. Mueller’s report lays out a damning case for obstruction, but it’s geared toward Congress, not them.  

 

"Although the deputy attorney general and I disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories, and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision," Barr said at a press conference Thursday morning.

 

"Instead, we accepted the special counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis, and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusions," he added.

 

Barr’s word is mud now. Hard to avoid the conclusion he intentionally misled in his presser. Mueller talks specifically about it being Congress’ prerogative to address obstruction. Barr actually said that Mueller never indicated he wanted Congress to address the problem. .

 

The law requires obstruction of justice be linked to a “corrupt” intent, such as urging a witness to lie under oath to mislead the grand jury.

 

This requirement is easily satisfied with the evidence laid out in the report. 

 

Atty. Gen. William Barr - who controversially concluded that the president’s actions as described by Mueller did not constitute illegal obstruction — insisted that Trump was merely trying to defend his reputation out of a “sincere belief” that he didn’t conspire with Russia and therefore was being unfairly attacked.

 

Few people ever feel they’re being treated fairly if they’re under investigation, but that’s not how it works. Ask any mob boss about that. That your fee fees are hurt doesn’t provide cover for lawless behavior. 

 

[homersapien 11,447]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Yesterday was a bad day for many if not most journalist. 

Are you kidding?  They are feasting! 

 

The Mueller report isn’t just a legal document. It’s also the best book on the Trump White House so far.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Good read here from the AP showing, with backup from the Mueller report, that a large portion of reporting called out as "fake news" was actually spot on.

https://www.apnews.com/06c88719c3634e66a15adbbc658978b0

[AUFAN78 3,926]

17 hours ago, AUDub said:

Hardly. Lot of sound and fury, little substance. 

Nope. Not even close to true. 

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/63665/the-redacted-mueller-report-first-takes-from-the-experts/

You say this as you paste the most hyperpartisan screed here lol. 

 

You continue to quote partisan sourcing. Asha? She's a hack for CNN. Can it get any worse than that? No, it can't.

Mueller lacked the evidence to do the deed you desired. Let's just call it what it is and end the needless spin.

There is not a syllable in the text of the Constitution that supports the conclusion reached by either the Nixon-appointed OLC lawyer that Nixon was immune or the Clinton-appointed OLC lawyer that Clinton was immune. The foundation of Mueller’s reluctance to indict is rotten to the core.

As I have written previously, both of the OLC opinions upon which Mueller relied have been described by scholars as “shaky” and “political.” Indeed, recent historical discoveries (of which Mueller might not even be aware) make them even weaker.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Good read here from the AP showing, with backup from the Mueller report, that a large portion of reporting called out as "fake news" was actually spot on.

https://www.apnews.com/06c88719c3634e66a15adbbc658978b0

I understand why they'd spin this. Don't you? 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

I understand why they'd spin this. Don't you? 

It's the AP.  Not really the group known as a spin machine.

This is about actual reporting, not punditry.  And the article does call out some reports that Meuller report refuted.

[AUDub 11,184]

6 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You continue to quote partisan sourcing. Asha? She's a hack for CNN. Can it get any worse than that? No, it can't.

Mueller lacked the evidence to do the deed you desired. Let's just call it what it is and end the needless spin.

There is not a syllable in the text of the Constitution that supports the conclusion reached by either the Nixon-appointed OLC lawyer that Nixon was immune or the Clinton-appointed OLC lawyer that Clinton was immune. The foundation of Mueller’s reluctance to indict is rotten to the core.

As I have written previously, both of the OLC opinions upon which Mueller relied have been described by scholars as “shaky” and “political.” Indeed, recent historical discoveries (of which Mueller might not even be aware) make them even weaker.

Call her a hack if you will, but you follow up with an article that rienforces what she said. On shaky ground though the OLC policy may be, that was the framework under which Mueller was operating. He didn't lack the evidence, but under the framework on which he based his decision not to reach a judgement , he punted to Congress. Simple as that. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You continue to quote partisan sourcing. Asha? She's a hack for CNN. Can it get any worse than that? No, it can't.

Dismissing things because they come from "ritually impure" sources might fly in the smack forum.  It's not a tactic for this one.  If you can attack the argument on factual grounds, do so.  Otherwise, unless we're talking about Alternet or some equivalent right wing site or worse, this is not an argument.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

On 4/19/2019 at 11:07 AM, homersapien said:

Exactly. 

Although some are blind to this, he truly cares more about his personal prestige and reputation more than he does about democracy and the country.

I do not know this to be case and neither do you Homer. I do feel that this president has faced an illegitimate assault from the left which includes the media, social included  The people that elected this man have been assaulted which is shameful.

The assault regarding our president begins with the machine gun fire of the BS Russia Collusion. How do you obstruct a lie?  

Kudos to the man for standing up to the crap. No one else in DC would have and it is so obvious that they put country before self. JEEZ

[kevon67 2,368]

Teflon Donald

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 4/20/2019 at 1:07 PM, Brad_ATX said:

Good read here from the AP showing, with backup from the Mueller report, that a large portion of reporting called out as "fake news" was actually spot on.

https://www.apnews.com/06c88719c3634e66a15adbbc658978b0

Well that's because the "large portion" referenced here was only taken from a portion of the reporting called out as fake news in the first place. 

Gotta be careful Bradly. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

@AUFAN78 I wonder if drive by postings of tweets unaccompanied by the original poster’s thoughts are proscribed under Rule 2, or literally only editorials? In other words, is that a permissible tactic for this forum? You know, so everyone can understand how all of this is enforced. Surely the rules aren’t just selectively applied. 

“2.    Drive by postings of editorials unaccompanied by your own thoughts are not permitted. If what you are posting is worthy of comment and discussion, as the original poster you need initiate the commentary/discussion.”

**Also, didn't another poster explicitly attack the credibility of the author of one of the sources you posted? ....hmmmmm. Seemed to be perfectly fine then. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well that's because the "large portion" referenced here was only taken from a portion of the reporting called out as fake news in the first place. 

Gotta be careful Bradly. 

Careful of what?  That's exactly what I said.  Most of the stuff called out as "fake news" within the Mueller report turned out to be accurate.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Careful of what?  That's exactly what I said.  Most of the stuff called out as "fake news" within the Mueller report turned out to be accurate.

Read what I said again. I think you misunderstood me lol

[TitanTiger 20,510]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

@AUFAN78 I wonder if drive by postings of tweets unaccompanied by the original poster’s thoughts are proscribed under Rule 2, or literally only editorials? In other words, is that a permissible tactic for this forum? You know, so everyone can understand how all of this is enforced. Surely the rules aren’t just selectively applied. 

“2.    Drive by postings of editorials unaccompanied by your own thoughts are not permitted. If what you are posting is worthy of comment and discussion, as the original poster you need initiate the commentary/discussion.”

**Also, didn't another poster explicitly attack the credibility of the author of one of the sources you posted? ....hmmmmm. Seemed to be perfectly fine then. 

In this case, no. It wasn’t used as an argument against anything anyone said. It was simply a thread where we could compile various reactions to the Mueller report into one big thread. You know the difference.

Second, if you think I missed something, report the post  I’m not omniscient.  But I will also say, you can attack the credibility of an author, but it should be accompanied by reasons or examples that amount to more than “they appear on CNN - icky!”

Don’t be “that guy.”  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Don’t be “that guy.”