The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 45557]

10 hours ago, Eminence Front said:

Why is it that every Repub is now solidly in the "suppress the release" camp.

Moreover they seem so strikingly ignorant of facts. Facts like Barr's 19 page memo.

Could it be that Fox is both lying to them and arming them with facetious talking points. 

Fuck Horn Under A Bad Sign and his neg rep.  Got your back.  You're dead-on right.

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus Christ.  Why do you do this?  You're better than that.  You're not a fucking idiot, and you're not evil.  Your posts would lead some to believe otherwise.  Come on.

He's a hard right wing alabama football fan, from...alabama.  Why on earth do you think he's not a fucking idiot?  I mean, yes, he may not be evil.  But pretty much all signs point to fucking idiot. 

[jimmyjazz 45557]

7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He's a hard right wing alabama football fan, from...alabama.  Why on earth do you think he's not a fucking idiot?  I mean, yes, he may not be evil.  But pretty much all signs point to fucking idiot. 

Earlier interactions. Guess I got fooled.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

Missed some nuance there . . . sorry, Bad Sign.  

[TwiceHorn 31272]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He's a hard right wing alabama football fan, from...alabama.  Why on earth do you think he's not a fucking idiot?  I mean, yes, he may not be evil.  But pretty much all signs point to fucking idiot. 

Honestly, outside of the discussions that get going on this thread, it's hard to stay well informed on this.  So much of the reporting, as is typical of legal reporting, is really poor.

There is an argument that even though a President might act with corrupt intent and obstruct justice in carrying out his constitutional duties, he ought to be immune from any questioning of motives (second guessing), and therefore can't be guilty of it.  Given that he can't be indicted for it anyway, that's a particularly unpersuasive argument.  Nonetheless, it has gotten traction in other contexts and jurisdictions (states and governors, for example), where the office in question is not immune from indictment.

You can't point to any caselaw because the issue has never come up, not because it's a far-fetched idea.

And I give jimmy every credit for not calling him evil or an idiot.  That's too much the currency of debate these days.

[triplehorn 2664]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He never called it a summary, he called it a report required by the rules, and explained that.  It wasn't a walkback.  That, as with many things associated with this investigation, was a whole-cloth fabrication by the press who apparently have never bothered to read the rules carefully.

Again, it may all be obfuscation, but he is doing it totally by the book by all external appearances.

At this point to compare Barr to John Mitchell is complete speculation and fairly irresponsible.

From Barr's opening paragraph in his initial letter:

"Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

Third paragraph:

"Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report."

 

But the first statement in the opening paragraph is the one that should grab your attention as he's "summarizing the results of the investigation."

In his follow-up letter to Graham and Nadler, note the change in the opening sentence of the third graph:

Spoiler

That's a walkback.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

I thoroughly disagree with that characterization.  Just more needless parsing and response to a provocative (and partially bullshit assertion about grand jury evidence) by Nadler.  And a stupid assertion by the press "he made a four page summary of a 400 page report!!!111!!!"  Gasp, struggle for breath.

This is like dissecting a coach's press conference.  Read too much into it at your peril.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I thoroughly disagree with that characterization.  Just more needless parsing and response to a provocative (and partially bullshit assertion about grand jury evidence) by Nadler.

This is like dissecting a coach's press conference.  Read too much into it at your peril.

What was Nadler’s bullshit assertion about grand jury evidence ?

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Honestly, outside of the discussions that get going on this thread, it's hard to stay well informed on this.  So much of the reporting, as is typical of legal reporting, is really poor.

There is an argument that even though a President might act with corrupt intent and obstruct justice in carrying out his constitutional duties, he ought to be immune from any questioning of motives (second guessing), and therefore can't be guilty of it.  Given that he can't be indicted for it anyway, that's a particularly unpersuasive argument.  Nonetheless, it has gotten traction in other contexts and jurisdictions (states and governors, for example), where the office in question is not immune from indictment.

You can't point to any caselaw because the issue has never come up, not because it's a far-fetched idea.

And I give jimmy every credit for not calling him evil or an idiot.  That's too much the currency of debate these days.

It’s obvious when people parrot the talking points right off Fox.  Hate to say it but the vast majority of those people are idiots.  

[jimmyjazz 45557]

15 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

That's a walkback.

Seems like it to me.  Again, I just don't understand how an attorney of his experience could be that careless with the language.  Sorry to be hung up on it, but I feel like it's a bad explanation either way -- he's a dipshit or he's playing a game.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

That every other special counsel had moved, together with Congress, for release of grand jury information to Congress at least.  The other person who wrote Barr said "as was done with the Watergate investigation," which is accurate as far as I can tell, except that the grand jury asked that  certain of the information be sent to the committees itself, rather than the special prosecutor or congress.

This is the kind of back and forth certain types of lawyers do to each other outside the presence of the court, which the court would never put up with.

What the fuck difference does it make whether he purported to summarize the whole thing or the principal conclusions?   It might make a difference if he hadn't said he would release the redacted report.  Why don't we look at the redactions before we shit ourselves about obfuscation.

Further, it's a lot easier to deal with specific objectionable redactions, once made, than to have a fight over whether the whole thing ought to be released when nobody knows what it says or what the redactions are.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

Maybe Barr's a shitty football coach.

[zork 629]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That every other special counsel had moved, together with Congress, for release of grand jury information to Congress at least.  The other person who wrote Barr said "as was done with the Watergate investigation," which is accurate as far as I can tell.

What the fuck difference does it make whether he purported to summarize the whole thing or the principal conclusions?   It might make a difference if he hadn't said he would release the redacted report.  Why don't we look at the redactions before we shit ourselves about obfuscation.

Further, it's a lot easier to deal with specific objectionable redactions, once made, than to have a fight over whether the whole thing ought to be released when nobody knows what it says or what the redactions are.

yea, but insert: reportredactedexcept"therewasnocollusion".pdf

[notre dame joe 172]

5 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Maybe Barr's a shitty football coach.

Maybe he was spontaneously reacting to an offensive youtube video.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Just as a practical matter, if you are having an argument over privileged or otherwise confidential information, it is much much easier to have it when you have the very specific assertions in front of you and in context than to try to argue it in some abstract way.  This is the way you do it in court every time.

[triplehorn 2664]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That every other special counsel had moved, together with Congress, for release of grand jury information to Congress at least.  The other person who wrote Barr said "as was done with the Watergate investigation," which is accurate as far as I can tell, except that the grand jury asked that  certain of the information be sent to the committees itself, rather than the special prosecutor or congress.

This is the kind of back and forth certain types of lawyers do to each other outside the presence of the court, which the court would never put up with.

What the fuck difference does it make whether he purported to summarize the whole thing or the principal conclusions?   It might make a difference if he hadn't said he would release the redacted report.  Why don't we look at the redactions before we shit ourselves about obfuscation.

Further, it's a lot easier to deal with specific objectionable redactions, once made, than to have a fight over whether the whole thing ought to be released when nobody knows what it says or what the redactions are.

Re: "That every other special counsel had moved, together with Congress, for release of grand jury information to Congress at least.  The other person who wrote Barr said "as was done with the Watergate investigation," which is accurate as far as I can tell, except that the grand jury asked that  certain of the information be sent to the committees itself, rather than the special prosecutor or congress."

^^^ If Nadler used that superlative, "every other special counsel", I'd call that unnecessary wording, not bullshit.  In the context of a counterintelligence investigation, access to grand jury information can be highly relevant in Congress doing its job.

 

Re: "What the fuck difference does it make whether he purported to summarize the whole thing or the principal conclusions?   It might make a difference if he hadn't said he would release the redacted report.  Why don't we look at the redactions before we shit ourselves about obfuscation.

^^^ I think Barr attempted to "summarize" it as a criminal investigation without charges while sidestepping addressing the counterintelligence domain of Mueller's investigation/report.  Barr appears to be using the criminal investigation aspect as a rationale for redaction or withholding, or omitting information that fills out the larger picture that would be essential for Congressional deliberation of a critical counterintelligence matter involving the highest levels of our government.  

 

The discussion should break down into what Judiciary and Intel committees are entitled to, what the rest of Congress should see, and what goes public.  Judiciary and Intel should have the full unadulterated Muller report - zero redactions- for a start.  Why would Barr attempt to withhold anything in the Mueller report from those with the highest need to know from a co-equal branch ?  Again, I strongly suspect Mueller has a carefully planned report that was mostly ready to go straight to Congress weeks ago.  Barr appears to have made an initial attempt to shift eyeballs away from counterintelligence considerations and is manufacturing reasons to fragment the release of information and delay delivery of Mueller's report.

 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

5 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Re: "That every other special counsel had moved, together with Congress, for release of grand jury information to Congress at least.  The other person who wrote Barr said "as was done with the Watergate investigation," which is accurate as far as I can tell, except that the grand jury asked that  certain of the information be sent to the committees itself, rather than the special prosecutor or congress."

^^^ If Nadler used that superlative, "every other special counsel", I'd call that unnecessary wording, not bullshit.  In the context of a counterintelligence investigation, access to grand jury information can be highly relevant in Congress doing its job.

 

Re: "What the fuck difference does it make whether he purported to summarize the whole thing or the principal conclusions?   It might make a difference if he hadn't said he would release the redacted report.  Why don't we look at the redactions before we shit ourselves about obfuscation.

^^^ I think Barr attempted to "summarize" it as a criminal investigation without charges while sidestepping addressing the counterintelligence domain of Mueller's investigation/report.  Barr appears to be using the criminal investigation aspect as a rationale for redaction or withholding, or omitting information that fills out the larger picture that would be essential for Congressional deliberation of a critical counterintelligence matter involving the highest levels of our government.  

 

The discussion should break down into what Judiciary and Intel committees are entitled to, what the rest of Congress should see, and what goes public.  Judiciary and Intel should have the full unadulterated Muller report - zero redactions- for a start.  Why would Barr attempt to withhold anything in the Mueller report from those with the highest need to know from a co-equal branch ?  Again, I strongly suspect Mueller has a carefully planned report that was mostly ready to go straight to Congress weeks ago.  Barr appears to have made an initial attempt to shift eyeballs away from counterintelligence considerations and is manufacturing reasons to fragment the release of information and delay delivery of Mueller's report.

 

Stahp.

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Stahp.

That I can see, you've not once incorporated counterintelligence considerations of the investigation into your comments or acknowledged it in any of your responses. 

Why is that ?

 

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

 Barr summarized for the people without giving a summary.

 

He's a people person.

[The People’s Elbow 707]

The biggest takeaway from this thread? Dolemite is a pussy. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

Being a week + has passed from Barr publicly issuing his explosive, headline dominating non-summary, are there plans for him wedging in a summary before he at very least releases the unredacted Mueller Report to the Gang of 8?

Edited April 1, 2019 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And now you are getting toward pretty irresponsible speculation about events that have yet to even occur.

Welcome to the CR.

[Anastasis 23395]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And now you are getting toward pretty irresponsible speculation about events that have yet to even occur.

As long as nobody posts a gif, it's [serious].

[EMAWesome 101]

10 hours ago, triplehorn said:

 

She should be an authority on making stuff up.  She works for The Washington Post and claims to be a Republican.

[Chooky 13302]

6 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

She should be an authority on making stuff up.  She works for The Washington Post and claims to be a Republican.

That bothers you? People who just make stuff up bother you? You find that to be an abhorrent personality trait? This is irredeemable to you? 

[triplehorn 2664]

Barr walkback notwithstanding, his follow-up letter to Graham and Nadler has reassuring bits and appears to be by the book wrt redactions and making a report available:

Second graph:

Spoiler

As long as "peripheral" = unwitting, and not DonJr, Kushner, et al. we're probably good. 

Note Special Counsel is assisting in the process and they are "well along in the process," and there is no expectation for any Executive Privilege review. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

19 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Barr walkback notwithstanding, his follow-up letter to Graham and Nadler has reassuring bits and appears to be by the book wrt redactions and making a report available:

Second graph:

  Hide contents

As long as "peripheral" = unwitting, and not DonJr, Kushner, et al. we're probably good. 

Note Special Counsel is assisting in the process and they are "well along in the process," and there is no expectation for any Executive Privilege review. 

 

If Trump family is still under investigation, I doubt the Mueller report is going to discuss them, as redacted.

Yes I noted all that stuff contemporaneously, which is why I have been saying he's making all the right noises.  Still might be a shitpile, but I submit that we are better off from a practical perspective seeing the actual redactions before trying to judge their legitimacy.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Not only did Barr’s walk-back letter walk back his initial letter to summarize the “results of his investigation,” but he is also walking back what he is planning to release. 

He has moved from his initial letter of redacting 6e information and information that could impact ongoing matters to now wanting to also redact “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Why add that now? Why does he think that Congress shouldn’t see that information?

Who defines unduly infringe? Who defines reputational interests? Who defines peripheral third parties? 

A house subporna is clearly in order. This needs to be done in the courts.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

Not only did Barr’s walk-back letter walk back his initial letter to summarize the “results of his investigation,” but he is also walking back what he is planning to release. 

He has moved from his initial letter of redacting 6e information and information that could impact ongoing matters to now wanting to also redact “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Why add that now? Why does he think that Congress shouldn’t see that information?

Who defines unduly infringe? Who defines reputational interests? Who defines peripheral third parties? 

A house subporna is clearly in order. This needs to be done in the courts.

 

No one is saying it shouldn't be done in the courts, but even if it is done in the courts, it's done after Mueller, Barr, DOJ, CIA, DIA, NSA, and so on and so forth get a pass at the redactions they feel are proper.

 

[Anastasis 23395]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Mueller, Barr, DOJ, CIA, DIA, NSA, and so on and so forth get a pass at the redactions they feel are proper.

No redactions at all. NRAA. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

What's humorous to me is, if, as all the wild-eyed speculators desperately hope, Trump family members are going to be indicted, that means that information regarding same will be legitimately redacted as pertaining to ongoing investigations.

And then that's going to be the subject of another breathless conspiracy.

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What's humorous to me is, if, as all the wild-eyed speculators desperately hope, Trump family members are going to be indicted, that means that information regarding same will be legitimately redacted as pertaining to ongoing investigations.

And then that's going to be the subject of another breathless conspiracy.

I’m surprised people expect family members to be indicted.  It’s possible and perhaps they should but this is the good ol’ white boy network administration.   I’ve seen way too many political strings pulled in my lifetime to know justice is not blind in America, especially for family members of the President of the United States.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

No one is saying it shouldn't be done in the courts, but even if it is done in the courts, it's done after Mueller, Barr, DOJ, CIA, DIA, NSA, and so on and so forth get a pass at the redactions they feel are proper.

 

Barr and DOJ are looking to release it mid month to both Congress and Public without the court’s involvement. 

Barr has added an undefined redaction crtieria about third parties and their reputational interests. After he gives it another read, maybe he’ll add a fifth redaction criteria. The walk back letter looks bad for Barr.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Heres the weird thing about the subpoena.  I think the intel committees are clearly authorized to have the intel information, but may have no need for the other stuff, while Judiciary and others aren't clear to have the intel stuff.

That's a problem, but I don't think it's one that's solved by unredacted report for err'body.

[Zavala 1384]

436 pages

 

[EuroHorn 3204]

Someone should subpoena Nadler's eyebrow

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by EuroHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What's humorous to me is, if, as all the wild-eyed speculators desperately hope, Trump family members are going to be indicted, that means that information regarding same will be legitimately redacted as pertaining to ongoing investigations.

And then that's going to be the subject of another breathless conspiracy.

 

Correct.  And it follows that any of the prominent actors in this web who don't appear prominently in the redacted report have legitimate reason for concern about ongoing legal exposure stemming from this requirement for redaction:

(3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other Department offices; 

 

Mueller's report may very well be nothing resembling a finale for the overall breadth of the investigation.  Mueller farmed out or "embedded" some number of investigations/prosecutions to multiple linked (but diffuse) offices making them essentially "fire proof" and tamper resistant.

And with headers like THIS at the page bottom of Cohen's search warrant affidavit followed by 18 pages of black bars, how can one not expect more surprises:

Spoiler

 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

9 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Barr and DOJ are looking to release it mid month to both Congress and Public without the court’s involvement. 

Barr has added an undefined redaction crtieria about third parties and their reputational interests. After he gives it another read, maybe he’ll add a fifth redaction criteria. The walk back letter looks bad for Barr.

As I have said endlessly, there's really nothing for a court to review until there's a redacted document.

It may not be well defined, but as Rosenstein said, there is a clear DOJ policy not to discuss publicly information concerning investigation targets not indicted.  And that's a policy one can't argue with in the general case.  And according to Neal Katyal is the reason the rules are written the way they are for the specific case of special counsel investigations. And Barr said all along the redactions would be according to DOJ policy, regulations and law.

For now you're just picking nits.

If by some miracle, the subpoena were before the D DC before Barr produces the redacted report, the first thing the judge would say is "slow your roll, Jerry Nads, give the man time to produce the redacted report and we'll take up your objections to the redactions individually."

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

I'd bet Mueller was careful and thoughtful enough in crafting the report for his intended audience(s) that a redaction process would not be unduly cumbersome or disrupt the continuity for understanding what is being reported.

As of Barr's second letter late last week he states:

"The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process.  Specifically, we are well along in the process of identifying and redacting the following: [...]"

Sounds like there's appropriate cooperation and that Mueller produced something essentially deliverable right out of the chute.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I'd bet Mueller was careful and thoughtful enough in crafting the report for his intended audience(s) that a redaction process would not be unduly cumbersome or disrupt the continuity for understanding what is being reported.

As of Barr's second letter late last week he states:

"The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process.  Specifically, we are well along in the process of identifying and redacting the following: [...]"

Sounds like there's appropriate cooperation and that Mueller produced something essentially deliverable right out of the chute.

As author of the report, Mueller and his team I think would clearly know where much of the sensitive material is, and could have written it to avoid reliance on sensitive material, where possible.  He couldn't entirely eliminate the need for review, particularly by non-DOJ entities like CIA and the "IC."

Also, I think if Barr were inclined to "pull a fast one," he would do so away from the prying eyes of Mueller, based on our collective assumption that Mueller is a straight shooter with upper management potential.

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just call Mueller in to publicly testify.  His investigation is complete.  He can brief the American public directly.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just call Mueller in to publicly testify.  His investigation is complete.  He can brief the American public directly.

If that's done without the benefit of even a redacted report as a basis for formulating pointed questions, I would expect that to be an absolute shit show.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I have said endlessly, there's really nothing for a court to review until there's a redacted document.

It may not be well defined, but as Rosenstein said, there is a clear DOJ policy not to discuss publicly information concerning investigation targets not indicted.  And that's a policy one can't argue with.  And according to Neal Katyal is the reason the rules are written the way they are. And Barr said all along the redactions would be according to DOJ policy, regulations and law.

For now you're just picking nits.

You are free to have various opinions and also consider others to be picking nits. Nadler wants the unredacted report now and the public report created within the court system. That doesn’t need to wait until a redacted version has been created. Nadler is moving toward his subpoena. 

If Barr is using what you describe, that they can’t discuss a target that isn’t indicted, that sure would help POTUS since the report wouldn’t mention him

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If that's done without the benefit of even a redacted report as a basis for formulating pointed questions, I would expect that to be an absolute shit show.

We’re way past shit show.  The public needs to hear from Mueller in some way ASAP.

[DigglerontheHoof 21061]

Agree that Mueller needs to testify in front of Congress, regardless. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You are free to have various opinions and also consider others to be picking nits. Nadler wants the unredacted report now and the public report created within the court system. That doesn’t need to wait until a redacted version has been created. Nadler is moving toward his subpoena. 

If Barr is using what you describe, that they can’t discuss a target that isn’t indicted, that sure would help POTUS since the report wouldn’t mention him

Redacted reports are created in the courts the way I described.  Redactions are made, their appropriateness for Congress and the public are tested on an individual basis.

Nadler trying to argue that congress has a right to the full report, without having the first clue what's actually in it, is a non-starter.  Pure theater.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Barr’s letter was pure political theater. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You are free to have various opinions and also consider others to be picking nits. Nadler wants the unredacted report now and the public report created within the court system. That doesn’t need to wait until a redacted version has been created. Nadler is moving toward his subpoena. 

If Barr is using what you describe, that they can’t discuss a target that isn’t indicted, that sure would help POTUS since the report wouldn’t mention him

I think the President is a different deal.  He wasn't indicted first because he can't be indicted.  Weighing of the evidence is a secondary consideration.

I think there are public interests, depending on the individual in question, that clearly outweigh any privacy interests.  But you can't just generally say, Barr could/should ignore the legitimate DOJ policy wholesale because this is important.  Again, taking up the particular redactions on a specific basis is necessary and unavoidable.