The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Fondren & Main 6,727]

Move forward with impeachment already and guarantee us another four years.  

[Anastasis 23,481]

Sounds like some folks in the SCO, as well as the AGs office, may be a little miffed that Mueller punted to Barr on the obstruction findings.

The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation. It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public. It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel.

At the same time, Mr. Barr and his advisers have expressed their own frustrations about Mr. Mueller and his team. Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials believe the special counsel’s investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry, according to the two government officials. After Mr. Mueller made no judgment on the obstruction matter, Mr. Barr stepped in to declare that he himself had cleared Mr. Trump of wrongdoing.

Representatives for the Justice Department and the special counsel declined to comment on Wednesday on views inside both Mr. Mueller’s office and the Justice Department. They pointed to departmental regulations requiring Mr. Mueller to file a confidential report to the attorney general detailing prosecution decisions and to Mr. Barr’s separate vow to send a redacted version of that report to Congress. Under the regulations, Mr. Barr can publicly release as much of the document as he deems appropriate.

...

Though it was not clear what findings the special counsel’s investigators viewed as troubling for the president, Mr. Barr has suggested that Mr. Mueller may have found evidence of malfeasance in investigating possible obstruction of justice. “The report sets out evidence on both sides of the question,” Mr. Barr wrote in his March 24 letter.

Mr. Mueller examined Mr. Trump’s attempts to maintain control over the investigation, including his firing of Mr. Comey and his attempt to oust Mr. Mueller and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to install a loyalist to oversee the inquiry.

[triplehorn 2,664]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Something seems weird about that.  As leak-conscious and controlling as Mueller is, "sub-reports" and "summaries" prepared by someone other than Mueller pose the risk of undermining Mueller"s Report as much as anything else.

Most legal drafters that know their work is going to be scrutinized probably want to destroy drafts and prevent any sort of "subdocument" from being attributed to their team, precisely because it creates a whole other realm of second-guessing and unwanted-inference-drawing, which is going to be bad enough with the main Report itself.

It’s all speculation - what these multiple summaries represent, their intended purpose, and whether they were created by design with oversight from Mueller as compartmentalized components of “The Mueller Report.”

guess what, I bet we’re going to find out.

Not sure who stands to look worse for their singular withholding, Comey or Barr.

 

[Tuco 5,077]

Who here still wishes Mueller would have concluded his report sooner, back when the Republicans controlled the House?

[David Dennison 18,941]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

While I have no doubt Trump will escape virtually unscathed politically, the Mueller report narrative of the Russian Interference and Trump’s unwitting participation in it should be harsh if a conclusion is made explaining it.  

Trump’s behavior during the 2016 campaign couldn’t have been scripted better by the Kremlin.  Trump running around screaming “Wikileaks! Emails! Wikileaks! Emails!”...also Trump asking Russia to hack Hillary...also Trump saying everything is rigged (like Russia)... also Trump protecting Russia by denying and discrediting those claiming their involvement... also Trump negotiating a secret real estate deal with the Russian government while all this is going on.

That’s just what is publicly known.  I wonder how the Mueller report is going to spin it.  Trump’s behavior was instrumental in the Russian attack, even if unintentionally. 

Losing in 2020 would not be escaping virtually unscathed politically.

[triplehorn 2,664]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Sounds like some folks in the SCO, as well as the AGs office, may be a little miffed that Mueller punted to Barr on the obstruction findings.

 

The text you quoted doesn't support that conclusion.  

 

11 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Who here still wishes Mueller would have concluded his report sooner, back when the Republicans controlled the House?

No shit man.  And if it's any indication, today we have McConnell go 'nuclear option' to accelerate ramming nominations through, like stuffing pockets with last bits of silver as the blazing house afire threatens collapse.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by triplehorn

[Anastasis 23,481]

11 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

The text you quoted doesn't support that conclusion.  

SCO:

Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.

...

The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation. 

Barr's Office:

At the same time, Mr. Barr and his advisers have expressed their own frustrations about Mr. Mueller and his team. Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials believe the special counsel’s investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry, according to the two government officials.

[Brisketexan 105,191]

Losing in 2020 would not be escaping virtually unscathed politically.

He’s not losing.

[maninblack 7,974]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He’s not losing.

Expecting @wildcat09 to be along any second to call you a MAGA loving Trumptard

Edited April 4, 2019 by maninblack

[triplehorn 2,664]

30 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

SCO:

Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.

...

The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation. 

Barr's Office:

At the same time, Mr. Barr and his advisers have expressed their own frustrations about Mr. Mueller and his team. Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials believe the special counsel’s investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry, according to the two government officials.

 

The text still does not imply that members of SCO are miffed at Mueller.  They're concerned Barr's summary non-summary misrepresents their findings which will cause Americans to pre-judge without seeing Special Counsel's findings.  Absolutely agree with that concern.

That Barr believes the SCO's investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Trump obstructed the inquiry ?  WoW.  Bunch of blame shifting BS for his own inappropriate actions to subvert the intent of an independent investigation.  He just doused himself in gasoline.

[David Dennison 18,941]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

He’s not losing.

I disagree.

[triplehorn 2,664]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Something seems weird about that.  As leak-conscious and controlling as Mueller is, "sub-reports" and "summaries" prepared by someone other than Mueller pose the risk of undermining Mueller"s Report as much as anything else.

Most legal drafters that know their work is going to be scrutinized probably want to destroy drafts and prevent any sort of "subdocument" from being attributed to their team, precisely because it creates a whole other realm of second-guessing and unwanted-inference-drawing, which is going to be bad enough with the main Report itself.

Per WaPo tonight, the multiple SCO summaries were prepared by design, crafted with intent for direct release to the public !!!  

 

WaPo Link

By Ellen Nakashima , 
Carol D. Leonnig and 
Rosalind S. Helderman 

April 3 at 11:33 PM 

[...]

“....Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions. 

“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according one U.S. official briefed on the matter. 

Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said. 

The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,”the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.” 

Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.”

 

Holy hell.  Trump Admin is going to leave Bill Barr reduced to a tub of goo for his half cocked cover-up.  

#ETTD

 

[notre dame joe 191]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

That Barr believes the SCO's investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Trump obstructed the inquiry ? 

Hint: the inquiry was completed when Trump could have stopped it. 

[jimmyjazz 46,008]

That makes no sense.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

The NYT and WaPo reporting isn’t surprising since we know Barr’s letters were nothing but political theatre. Any professional would be pissed if that happened to their work. However it should be noted that these are second hand sources. 

[David Dennison 18,941]

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

There are rumors the Mueller report contains evidence of a secret meeting where trump admits to Lester Holt that he fired the director of the fbi because of the “russia thing.” 

[Prepuce of Doom 21,098]

12 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Que the “I’d like to see Trump get out of this mess unscathed” meme.

They really should make a 80’s style TV series out of the Trump Presidency.  Every week he gets is some kooky mess and then escapes in the nick of time.  Like a modern day Dukes of Hazzard.

Please don't tarnish the reputation of the Duke boys like this. 

Although their car displayed the Confederate flag, they were not racists - unlike our president. 

[Biff Tannen 45,697]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

There are rumors the Mueller report contains evidence of a secret meeting where trump admits to Lester Holt that he fired the director of the fbi because of the “russia thing.” 

I think I had secret access to that meeting.  Maybe I was the only one.

[Biff Tannen 45,697]

3 minutes ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

Please don't tarnish the reputation of the Duke boys like this. 

Although their car displayed the Confederate flag, they were not racists - unlike our president. 

Patton Oswalt already did this bit in the Bush years.  And it was great.  

[Mole 4,333]

12 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Que the “I’d like to see Trump get out of this mess unscathed” meme.

They really should make a 80’s style TV series out of the Trump Presidency.  Every week he gets is some kooky mess and then escapes in the nick of time.  Like a modern day Dukes of Hazzard.

About as many Confederate flags as well.

[Red Five 40,879]

There are rumors the Mueller report contains evidence of a secret meeting where trump admits to Lester Holt that he fired the director of the fbi because of the “russia thing.” 

That seems pretty far fetched, but if true that’s slam dunk obstruction. Any chance there’s video evidence?

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

The NYT and WaPo reporting isn’t surprising since we know Barr’s letters were nothing but political theatre. Any professional would be pissed if that happened to their work. However it should be noted that these are second hand sources. 

Note one important contrast between the two articles: NYT says Barr couldn’t publish the Mueller summaries because they contained sensitive information. The WaPo story reports the summaries were written specifically so they’d be ready for public review.

I think Schmidt at NYT got spun on that point.  

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by triplehorn

[Captainant 27,716]

8 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Note one important contrast between the two articles: NYT says Barr couldn’t publish the Mueller summaries because they contained sensitive information. The WaPo story reports the summaries were written specifically so they’d be ready for public review.

I think Schmidt at NYT got spun on that point.  

NYT has been getting spun by the administration pretty regularly since the jump

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

Note one important contrast between the two articles:  NYT says Barr couldn’t publish the [Mueller] summaries because they contained sensitive information. The WaPo story reports the summaries were written specifically so they’d be ready for public review.

I think Schmidt at NYT got spun on that point.  

Here's the thing though.  Take, for example, national security information.  Mueller's feebeees may write up some report they THINK doesn't contain such information, and they may be correct, but that still does not free Mueller or Barr from the need to have it reviewed by the relevant agencies in the event they are actually wrong.

I cannot imagine that Mueller is pleased that his underlings generated versions and subversions of his report for distribution.  There is a potential for benign or malignant interpretation from each individual member of Mueller's team.  We didnt appoint Bob Mueller and the Seven Dwarfs to get eight reports or opinions.

 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Note one important contrast between the two articles:  NYT says Barr couldn’t publish the [Mueller] summaries because they contained sensitive information. The WaPo story reports the summaries were written specifically so they’d be ready for public review.

I think Schmidt at NYT got spun on that point.  

And I think this gets us back to what is “sensitive information” and what needs to be redacted from the public. It is probable that Barr’s standard is much different from the SC’s office.

Barr, a political appointee who’s past actions have all been political theatre to minimize damage to POTUS, is undoubtably applying as stringent a standard as possible (infringement on reputational interests of peripheral third parties, etc.).

[Captainant 27,716]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I cannot imagine that Mueller is pleased that his underlings generated versions and subversions of his report for distribution.  There is a potential for benign or malignant interpretation from each individual member of Mueller's team.  We didnt appoint Bob Mueller and the Seven Dwarfs to get eight reports or opinions.

We also didn't appoint Mueller just to have his findings and evidence buried by DOJ bureaucracy. I really doubt that Mueller has no idea what in the summaries, and don't understand why that's an argument being made, as there's nothing to suggest that these are reports from individuals rather than summaries of sections of their findings (which is what has actually been reported)

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

And I think this gets us back to what is “sensitive information” and what needs to be redacted from the public. It is probable that Barr’s standard is much different from the SC’s office.

Barr, a political appointee who’s past actions have all been political theatre to minimize damage to POTUS, is undoubtably applying as stringent a standard as possible (infringement on reputational interests of peripheral third parties, etc.).

Valid point.  Overbroad redactions is going to be Barr's MO here.

Also, I refreshed on congressional subpoeanas, and they are a clusterfuck.  No real direct, swift path to disclosure of a report.  Which I guess I used to know.  It seems like the private litigation is going to be the fastest way to test the redactions, which has been my sense all along.

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We also didn't appoint Mueller just to have his findings and evidence buried by DOJ bureaucracy. I really doubt that Mueller has no idea what in the summaries, and don't understand why that's an argument being made, as there's nothing to suggest that these are reports from individuals rather than summaries of sections of their findings (which is what has actually been reported)

They are two different issues.  There's a mechanism in place for disclosure of the report, both redacted as by Barr, and as unredacted as the law permits.  Sidestepping that in favor of 19 semi- or un-authorized reports from Mueller's minions is another Strzok/Page/Comey shitshow.

You may get the stuff you want to hear, but it's going to come in a format that's easily dismissed by Trump and the Trumpkins.

[Captainant 27,716]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

They are two different issues.  There's a mechanism in place for disclosure of the report, both redacted as by Barr, and as unredacted as the law permits.  Sidestepping that in favor of 19 semi- or un-authorized reports from Mueller's minions is another Strzok/Page/Comey shitshow.

Aren't those summary reports are part of the Mueller report? Meaning they were part of what was submitted to Barr, and by inductive reasoning, part of the original Mueller report? It's only another shitshow if some partisan hack gets a hold of the findings and puts out an initial statement to give talking points and spike the football.

...

It's already a shitshow thanks to Barr. Give. The. People. The. Information.

[Biff Tannen 45,697]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

You may get the stuff you want to hear, but it's going to come in a format that's easily dismissed by Trump and the Trumpkins.

To be fair, they are going to dismiss anything that comes out regardless.

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Aren't those summary reports are part of the Mueller report? Meaning they were part of what was submitted to Barr, and by inductive reasoning, part of the original Mueller report? It's only another shitshow if some partisan hack gets a hold of the findings and puts out an initial statement to give talking points and spike the football.

...

It's already a shitshow thanks to Barr. Give. The. People. The. Information.

This is how it reads to me.  I highly doubt Mueller was not aware of these summaries, especially if they were submitted with the report.  That would just be dumb.

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

I don't know what the "subreports" are.  If they differ materially from the Mueller Report, then I think they're problematic.

It's only a shitshow if you are impatient.  In the past, mostly out of the public eye, there has been considerable litigation built into the release of the special counsel's report, ultimately, in most cases resulting in release, but still with certain information redacted.

The Iran Contra report had national security information redacted, as one might expect it contained a lot of it.

The Starr Report didn't because it probably didn't contain much.  And it probably contained too much information about Monica Lewinsky, among others.

And if you're honest, you don't want more "summaries."  The summaries aren't the report.  They by definition omit information selected by the author, so, like Barr's "summary," they are at least somewhat suspect.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Rumor has it Trump was livid about Sessions recusing himself from the Russia investigation and ultimately why he fired him the day after the midterms.  

[Anastasis 23,481]

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Aren't those summary reports are part of the Mueller report? Meaning they were part of what was submitted to Barr, and by inductive reasoning, part of the original Mueller report?

This is my take.  You had leads on various parts of the report producing essentially an executive summary for each of the main threads of the investigation. Russian influence campaign, Trump campaign conspiracy/coordination (stone, papadop), Financial crimes (manafort/gates), whatever the fuck spun out of Flynn's proffer, obstruction investigation. These are the major sections, each section has an  summary component that was written for inclusion in the final report.  

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

25 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

To be fair, they are going to dismiss anything that comes out regardless.

That's true enough, but don't you think there's some utility in an impartial, professional analysis, from one very credible source, that gives fuel to an impeachment or a general conclusion of unfitness for office? If there's anyone left on the fence?  Or to get Pelosi off BDC?

We've already seen what dozens of gibbering fools gets us.

[jimmyjazz 46,008]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I cannot imagine that Mueller is pleased that his underlings generated versions and subversions of his report for distribution.  There is a potential for benign or malignant interpretation from each individual member of Mueller's team.  We didnt appoint Bob Mueller and the Seven Dwarfs to get eight reports or opinions.

 

I don't see why you think this would have been done without Mueller's approval.  

[Seasick Sailor 3,747]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know what the "subreports" are.  If they differ materially from the Mueller Report, then I think they're problematic.

I think it's fair to assume Mueller reviewed any subreports or summaries included in the report. I see no reason to think he wouldn't have handled it like countless supervising attorneys/partners in nearly every firm or U.S. Attorney's office where an associate or junior AUSA drafts something and the supervising partner/attorney reviews it before it gets filed. 

[jimmyjazz 46,008]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is my take.  You had leads on various parts of the report producing essentially an executive summary for each of the main threads of the investigation. Russian influence campaign, Trump campaign conspiracy/coordination (stone, papadop), Financial crimes (manafort/gates), whatever the fuck spun out of Flynn's proffer, obstruction investigation. These are the major sections, each section has an  summary component that was written for inclusion in the final report.  

Yes, I think you are exactly right.  I was telling myself "this sounds like a compartmentalized report, with each section having a de facto executive summary, all of which comprises the Mueller report".  There is just no way these sections -- chapters if you will -- were separated and summarized by Mueller's team without his knowledge.  No chance.  Zero.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Half assed coverup still in progress. 

America deserves better obstruction of justice.

Sad!

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

Maybe yall are right about these chunks of report, in which case, why label them as "summaries"?  Why not say members of Muellers team want to release portions of the report inconsistent with Barr's summary?

[triplehorn 2,664]

The fact that it took a week and a half for these "leaks" from the SCO side to come out suggests significant restraint was in effect.  It raises questions about how much Barr may have been uncooperative with Mueller in the redaction process, or doubling down on not letting the substance of the independent investigation see light, that after two years, the ship finally sprung a leak.  

It's a fair assumption that the Mueller report, which does not exonerate Trump of obstructing the investigation, is very damaging to Trump.

[Captainant 27,716]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe yall are right about these chunks of report, in which case, why label them as "summaries"?  Why not say members of Muellers team want to release portions of the report inconsistent with Barr's summary?

IDK if you've had to do professional writing before, but it's pretty typical to have executive summaries for large sections of a document if it's as in depth and thorough as the Mueller report is purported to be. It's basically the thesis statement for the case they lay out in the following section.

[yoladu 4,094]

14 hours ago, Patron said:

Honestly, I think they're just dancing as fast as they can right now. There's no way out. They took a shot and they missed.
 

They were banking on being able to sway public opinion with Barr's misleading "summary that's not a summary" in their direction, alleging there's really nothing to see here, move along, move along, before the full report was released.

Didn't work.

what interesting about the bolded part of this  post is that it is the talking point for both the right and the left right now. They are accusing each other of grasping in desperation here.

we really won't know who is truly barking up the wrong tree unless an unedited/unredacted report can be viewed by all.

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe yall are right about these chunks of report, in which case, why label them as "summaries"?  Why not say members of Muellers team want to release portions of the report inconsistent with Barr's summary?

I think they're labeled "summaries" because they deliver the substance of Mueller's findings without the need for redaction or other adulteration.  The public (and various Congressional committees) get the results and road maps after a 2 year wait, which necessarily will give impetus to Congress pursuing the corroboration from Mueller's sensitive evidence. 

If this is the case, it lends even more credence to the threat that Barr engineered his own "summary" for a political cover-up of an independent investigation.  

[Skyline 325]

Question for @TwiceHorn or any other legal people: If there was no collusion, does it hurt any case that argues Trump obstructed with the investigation?

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

IDK if you've had to do professional writing before, but it's pretty typical to have executive summaries for large sections of a document if it's as in depth and thorough as the Mueller report is purported to be. It's basically the thesis statement for the case they lay out in the following section.

Dude.  I'm a lawyer.  I have generated 1,000s of pages of prose over the last 28 years.  Executive summaries are not common in legal prose because you have to read the goddamn thing.  No laziness allowed when the analysis is as important as the conclusion.  See any "executive summaries" here?  https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/icreport.htm  There is one here, but not one for every chapter. https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

Have you ever seen a draft of a judicial opinion?  No (there are a few out there).  Would a lawyer ever let you look at drafts of an infringement or validity opinion, or any of the several types of opinions that lawyers are paid to give and draft?  Fuuuuuuck no.  Lawyers routinely destroy drafts of everything.  In the old days, drafts were printed on yellow paper to insure that they were shredded at the end of the day.

Leaving drafts, or portions or subdocuments lying around for people to stumble upon or leak is not common legal practice. 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45,697]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dude.  I'm a lawyer. 

[Captainant 27,716]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Leaving drafts, or portions or subdocuments lying around for people to stumble upon or leak is not common legal practice.

Again, you're characterizing these summaries as just lying around and as if they aren't being treated with the same level of care and caution as the rest of the Mueller report. You have no basis or evidence to make that claim, aside from headlines we've seen in the news and what we've heard from Barr. Neither of which is an objective source.

[jimmyjazz 46,008]

I don't see why it's absurd to think that Mueller's team did the legwork as far as providing an overview without running afoul of security or privacy concerns.  

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Again, you're characterizing these summaries as just lying around and as if they aren't being treated with the same level of care and caution as the rest of the Mueller report. You have no basis or evidence to make that claim, aside from headlines we've seen in the news and what we've heard from Barr. Neither of which is an objective source.

Right, I'm going by the speculation and how it doesn't gibe with my ordinary experience.

I'm kind of curious why Mueller himself wouldn't step forward and say this is bullshit.  It doesn't seem his style to leave it to his minions.