The Robert Mueller Investigation

[triplehorn 2,664]

What's kind of hiding in plain sight is that we don't actually know what Rosenstein's thoughts or role has been, first in Comey's firing, and now second, in Barr's decision to usurp the role of Congress in making a determination on POTUS obstruction of justice.

Rosenstein was used as a political shield when Trump fired Comey (Rosenstein's negative letter critiquing Comey used as justification), but then he immediately appointed a Special Counsel.  Now, he's being roped into Barr's perspective presumably to lend validation to Barr's actions, but in reality we have no idea what the DAG thinks about this. 

The periodic WH flip-flopping between bashing him and praising him is a tell.  He's keeping his head low for now, which is good, especially if he was a witness to potential Trump obstruction (seems very likely).

Edited April 4, 2019 by triplehorn

[jimmyjazz 46,008]

Y'all need to stop taking anything reported by liberal rags such as WSJ, NYT and WaPo seriously.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Rosenstein was supposed to be gone weeks ago.  Him hanging around leads me to believe he has unfinished business. 

Which could be good or bad. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[JimmyHoffa 1,188]

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

13 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

What's kind of hiding in plain sight is that we don't actually know what Rosenstein's thoughts or role has been, first in Comey's firing, and now second, in Barr's decision to usurp the role of Congress in making a determination on POTUS obstruction of justice.

Rosenstein was used as a political shield when Trump fired Comey (Rosenstein's negative letter critiquing Comey used as justification), but then he immediately appointed a Special Counsel.  Now, he's being roped into Barr's perspective presumably to lend validation to Barr's actions, but in reality we have no idea what the DAG thinks about this. 

He's keeping his head low for now, which is good, especially if he was a witness to potential Trump obstruction (seems very likely).

I thought he was supposed to quit by now, anyway.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

There’s a chance we see the Mueller report.

[zork 629]

Sunday, April 21 is the big day?

Spoiler

EASTER 2019: 3rd time will not be the charm.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,586]

'Member when Napolitano told Trumpkins on Fox News they might want to tone down the fist pumping as it was very possible the Mueller Report was quite a bit more damaging to the president than Barr was letting on. Pepperidge Farms remembers.

[notre dame joe 191]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I like that it is from the WSJ, but that's not exactly a primary source.

A person that was informed about a person's conversation with another person about that person's thoughts.  So Mueller's team talks to friend at bar.  Friend at bar tells her roommate what Mueller's team thinks.  Roommate calls WSJ.

Well some would say that's grounds for a FISA warrant 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[RomaVicta 29,958]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I like that it is from the WSJ, but that's not exactly a primary source.

A person that was informed about a person's conversation with another person about that person's thoughts.  So Mueller's team talks to friend at bar.  Friend at bar tells her roommate what Mueller's team thinks.  Roommate calls WSJ.

The WSJ (and the other two papers for that matter) have a higher standard than that for confirmation. They would identify that such an indirect a source was used. The paper saying they can confirm is a bigger statement by the editorial staff.

They could be wrong or their source could be wrong, but they weren't just waiting for an anonymous tip to confirm a competing paper's story. The bigger story for the WSJ would be to find that the NYT was wrong and the WSJ had the real hot poop.

The usual suspects who believe the news media are the enemy of the state will, of course, scoff, but that's where this declining "republic" stands these days.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

14 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Well some would say that's grounds for a FISA warrant 

Because of which foreign parties involved?

[Horn Dog 9,896]

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But really that applies to any summary, so arguing about summaries is dumb.  Let's get the source doc out, redacted at first and in full later, if legal and get on with it.

Thats the point.  Summaries are dumb.  They can easily be made misleading while maintaining  factual accuracy.  The gang of 8 needs the full unredacted report.  Agree the public needs to see as much as legally possible.

[Captainant 27,716]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

Wow, Nadler is starting to crank the heat up. That letter is doing more than poking holes in the narrative that barr is trying to spin on why the report hasn't been released. Here's the most striking stuff, in my opinion:

Quote

It is notable that the Department's press statement this morning does not deny the existence of these summaries. The Department merely indicated that "[e]very page of the 'confidential report' ... war marked 'May Contain Material Protected under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)'." If these summaries were, in fact, produced for public consumption by experience prosecutors, then a precautionary marking should not be an impediment to public production in a very short period of time

...

The Department's press statement today noted that you "[do] not believe the report should be released in 'serial or piecemeal fashion.'" Unfortunately, that selective release has in effect already occurred. You have already provided an interpretation of the Special Counsel's conclusions in a fashion that appears to minimize the implications of the report as to the President. Releasing the summaries - without delay - would being to allow the American people to judge the facts for themselves. 

Frankly, pretty strong arguments for releasing the summary statements as a start. Especially with calling out that these summaries were written by very experience prosecutors who know how to cull out protected info to generate a public release.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

26 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Well some would say that's grounds for a FISA warrant 

Some of the best evidence I have that the left is on the correct side of most issues these days is how bad arguments from people for the right are.

[jimmyjazz 46,008]

17 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Because of which foreign parties involved?

He doesn't know, he's just throwing shit against the wall.  Business as usual.

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

24 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Thats the point.  Summaries are dumb.  They can easily be made misleading while maintaining  factual accuracy.  The gang of 8 needs the full unredacted report.  Agree the public needs to see as much as legally possible.

DIdn't mean to disagree with you.

The Gang of Eight has clearance to receive the classified or national security stuff.  They don't have "clearance" to see the other grounds of redaction.  Preparation of a redacted report, and submission of that to a court, as in the case of the Reporters' petition, to examine at least the grand jury material for release, is a rational process and not dissimilar to that occurring under the independent counsel law.

A special counsel report has never gone directly to congress (parts of it have).  You can quibble over whether it should be redacted before submitting to a court or not, but that's just an issue of timing. 

Under the independent counsel law, the special division of the DC Circuit got an unredacted copy of the report direct from the special counsel, the only copy.  The court then decided what to do with it.

Quote

(2)Disclosure of information in reports.—

The division of the court may release to the Congress, the public, or any appropriate person, such portions of a report made under this subsection as the division of the court considers appropriate. The division of the court shall make such orders as are appropriate to protect the rights of any individual named in such report and to prevent undue interference with any pending prosecution. The division of the court may make any portion of a final report filed under paragraph (1)(B) available to any individual named in such report for the purposes of receiving within a time limit set by the division of the court any comments or factual information that such individual may submit. Such comments and factual information, in whole or in part, may, in the discretion of the division of the court, be included as an appendix to such final report.

Typically, the court took submissions from interested parties, like those discussed in the report, or Nadler, about whether and how much of the report should become public/go to congress.  I can't find any timetables, but I'm guessing that took longer than a couple of weeks. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Blotto 23,560]

3 hours ago, XingTheRubicon said:

 We need to stop pretending we're all this stupid.

Lulz. Nobody believes that Trumpkins are pretending to be that stupid. You are that stupid.

Maybe it's not your fault, it's possible that you live too close to wind turbines, and the tumors are rotting your brain.

[Amos Moses 795]

2 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

I have read the Bible.  Although I can’t show it to you I have prepared a summary of the important parts.  Yada, yada, yada... and Jesus says Ceasar can do whatever the fuck he wants.

— Barr

But you yada yada'd over the best parts!

Edited April 4, 2019 by Amos Moses

[notre dame joe 191]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Some of the best evidence I have that the left is on the correct side of most issues these days is how bad arguments from people for the right are.

your search terms are: Papadapolis, wine bar, Australian diplomat

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

What a sad state of affairs. 

[David Dennison 18,941]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What a sad state of affairs. 

And completely expected.

[triplehorn 2,664]

Good odds one of the Mueller compartmentalized summaries is dedicated to this subject and addressed to HSCI.  That'd be quite the alley-oop.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by triplehorn

[JimmyJames 12,271]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, how these knuckleheads think they’re gonna keep this report somehow secret to me is simply baffling. 

It will come out. Hell even the dipshit trumplicans want it to come out.

Not only does it exonerate dear leader per AG Barr, but rubbernecking happens for a reason.  Peoples are inherently curious. So it’s coming out eventually.

Apparently the criminal enterprise aka the Republican Party is taking its time processing this reality. I guess maybe we should give them some safe space and stop violating their personal space so that they can eventuality achieve personal enlightenment. 

Or we can say fuck em. Go cry home and get your shine box.  I vote for that. 

[horncyclist 1,391]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

GOP needs time to write their well prepared post Mueller report release talking points. 

They can’t have this nuclear truth bomb dropped on them all at once.  That’s cruel. 

#whiteprivilege 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

5 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

 

Collusion? Wow I would've thought they were talking about not taking obstruction seriously enough. Consider me skeptical. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Wow, Nadler is starting to crank the heat up. That letter is doing more than poking holes in the narrative that barr is trying to spin on why the report hasn't been released. Here's the most striking stuff, in my opinion:

Frankly, pretty strong arguments for releasing the summary statements as a start. Especially with calling out that these summaries were written by very experience prosecutors who know how to cull out protected info to generate a public release.

Another blurb below, same subject, but you can sense that this inquiry is more about looking at how Barr's thinking and motives square with the SCO.  When I suggested last page that Barr should be brought in first to testify to HJC, my thinking related to it being about Barr's personal conduct, not so much about getting the Mueller report released.  Defining Barr's interactions with SCO could shed light on some seriously shady moves by the AG hovering around willful cover-up.  Last night I suggested Barr doused himself with gasoline.  Now he's got to avoid swirling sparks.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Lmao, how long has this con job of Assange’s impending doom been going?  Two years? 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[notre dame joe 191]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Collusion? Wow I would've thought they were talking about not taking obstruction seriously enough. Consider me skeptical. 

I had assumed the two terms were treated as synonyms. 

[Zavala 1,384]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lmao, how long has this con job of Assange’s impending doom been going?  Two years? 

 

Hes not even alive. PGP key signed messages haven't happened since October 2016. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

2 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Hes not even alive. PGP key signed messages haven't happened since October 2016. 

Manafort probably offed him during one of their meetings at the Embassy. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Welp, this is sure to deliver.

 

On a more positive note:

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Horn Dog 9,896]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

DIdn't mean to disagree with you.

The Gang of Eight has clearance to receive the classified or national security stuff.  They don't have "clearance" to see the other grounds of redaction.  Preparation of a redacted report, and submission of that to a court, as in the case of the Reporters' petition, to examine at least the grand jury material for release, is a rational process and not dissimilar to that occurring under the independent counsel law.

A special counsel report has never gone directly to congress (parts of it have).  You can quibble over whether it should be redacted before submitting to a court or not, but that's just an issue of timing. 

Under the independent counsel law, the special division of the DC Circuit got an unredacted copy of the report direct from the special counsel, the only copy.  The court then decided what to do with it.

Typically, the court took submissions from interested parties, like those discussed in the report, or Nadler, about whether and how much of the report should become public/go to congress.  I can't find any timetables, but I'm guessing that took longer than a couple of weeks. 

Appreciate your input and explaining this to non-lawyers like myself.  I am sure you are correct legally.  As a layman it seems incredibly contradictory for the Justice Department to argue on one hand that a sitting president can not be formally charged with a crime and the only recourse available is impeachment via the Congress, and on the other hand state that Congress is not entitled to review all evidence with respect to the president in an official government investigation.  Basically that means the president is above the law and not truely subject to congressional review.  If that is the case we need the SC to explicitly state that so we can all rest comfortably knowing America is officially a banana republic.

[TwiceHorn 31,516]

9 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Appreciate your input and explaining this to non-lawyers like myself.  I am sure you are correct legally.  As a layman it seems incredibly contradictory for the Justice Department to argue on one hand that a sitting president can not be formally charged with a crime and the only recourse available is impeachment via the Congress, and on the other hand state that Congress is not entitled to review all evidence with respect to the president in an official government investigation.  Basically that means the president is above the law and not truely subject to congressional review.  If that is the case we need the SC to explicitly state that so we can all rest comfortably knowing America is officially a banana republic.

Sure, that's how it seems, but the indictment issue comes from an entirely different place than the grounds of redaction.  I'm not even completely convinced that if they are applied "correctly," that they will make the report that hard to understand.  Having them applied "correctly," and not as a smoke screen for the incriminating evidence, is kind of the key question.  We could figure out a lot with the redacted report, and I think that is the starting point for removing redactions that are inappropriate or outweighed by congressional or public interest.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[zork 629]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,468]

Gotta think the Ecuadorians are just tired of having his smelly, unhygenic ass around.  I mean, he's been in their embassy for, what, 42 years?

[Gil Bang 25,986]

36 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

That's gonna accomplish jack shit. 

[notre dame joe 191]

1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

As a layman it seems incredibly contradictory for the Justice Department to argue on one hand that a sitting president can not be formally charged with a crime and the only recourse available is impeachment via the Congress, and on the other hand state that Congress is not entitled to review all evidence with respect to the president in an official government investigation.  

Not when you remember that the President is the Chief Executive in charge of all the non-chiefs in that branch. Congress can impeach without the help of the Executive Branch.  IMO the Constution doesn't even say they need "proof" of anything to exercise their impeachment power.  

 

They tried to workaround the ancient problem of Who polices the police? with a statutory independent counsel.  Nobody liked it. 

[zork 629]

29 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

That's gonna accomplish jack shit. 

you didn't get the email yesterday from "need to impeach"(presumably .org)?  Steyer or however you spell his name is going social media grassroots to infect the process with spontaneous yet planned protests.  get used to it.

 

Here is a cut and paste:

Quote

.... cccccre’s the plan for tomorrow: Attorney General William Barr has refused to release the full Mueller report to Congress, and we’re taking to the streets in protest.    Tomorrow, April 4, marks a National Day of Action: Grassroots groups all across the country are organizing marches, protests, and events to express our outrage at being denied the truth. There will be events in over 300 towns and cities nationwide at 5:00 p.m. local time.    -snip=   Every time Trump thinks he’s untouchable, we have to speak up and remind him: No one — not the sitting president, not the attorney general, not complicit Republicans in Congress — is above the law.   -snip=   See you there, Jane   Jane Slusser Organizing Director Need to Impeach   ....

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by zork
cut out the links due to likely marketing, analytics info tied to the urls.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

27 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

That's gonna accomplish jack shit. 

Yes, do not protest.  It will accomplish nothing despite that this country was founded on protest, well before the war. 

[maninblack 7,974]

 

We're you at the front of that, Alex?

[Zavala 1,384]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

That's gonna accomplish jack shit. 

But the stunt will be covered by the media, and repeated... blah blah on it goes

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,468]

4 hours ago, zork said:

you didn't get the email yesterday from "need to impeach"(presumably .org)?  Steyer or however you spell his name is going social media grassroots to infect the process with spontaneous yet planned protests.  get used to it.

 

Here is a cut and paste:

 

 

"Infect the process?"  Yeah, it's called people exercising their first amendment right to pressure their political leaders.

It's quite amazing to me how an investigation that was started by Republicans and run by Republicans and looking into crimes committed by Republicans that resulted in a report written by Republicans and (now) attempted to be covered up by Republicans has become, in the eyes of some, a "thanks for wasting everybody's time, Democrats."  

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,468]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yes, do not protest.  It will accomplish nothing despite that this country was founded on protest, well before the war. 

 

In fairness, I know that when I need a source regarding MLK, Laura Ingraham is at the top of my list.

[maninblack 7,974]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

^^^ Note the obvious overlap with this investigation, posted on the previous page:

Spoiler

 

Now we await the Mueller report, which likely addresses this matter through one of the numerous Mueller summaries.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I hate to be a cynic but I can’t help but think our troll AG Barr is going to release a majority redacted version of the Mueller report that conceals all the treachery and we get another round of spiking of the football by the Trumpers. 

“NO Collusion!  No obstruction! Totally exonerated!”

The only way to avoid this is for Congress to crank up the heat to 11, which I don’t see happening.

Also, any pundit starting sentences with bullshit like, “The danger here for democrats...” can fuck right off.