The Robert Mueller Investigation

[GW Hayduke 1957]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Where did barr explicitly invoke that standard in his letter?

That’s the standard he used. Page 2, second paragraph, last sentence. Note footnote. “Conspired” (conspiracy) is criminal act. “Coordinated” was also used to define conspiracy.

[jimmyjazz 47203]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I'd like to ask a very simple question that will hopefully help people keep their eye on the ball:

What is the most obvious piece of evidence regarding potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians in Trump's effort to win the election?

 

The above is the beginning of your initial post. The bolded emphasis was yours, thus my focus.

The impetus for the investigation is irrelevant. It’s been investigated. You want people to keep their  eye on the ball, but Mueller took the ball and went home. You should do the same.

Your dinner is about ready. 

No, the "simple question" is about the total scope of evidence regarding collusion.  I subsequently refined the point as far as rejecting Trump's denial of any reason to launch the investigation.  This impetus is not "irrelevant", inasmuch as your President continues to harangue about it.

You know this.

You're obfuscating.

You're a Trumpkin.
 

You're going to either have to try a whole lot harder or get a whole lot smarter to cast this shade around here.  It won't work.

[Anastasis 23720]

Nowhere does it eastaidh what evidentiary standard was applied. I would defer to the legal mods, but I think that the standard sssociated with indictment would be the more likely standard. 

[Anastasis 23720]

State, minds. Blame the tsa. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Let's see the report first.

Exactly. Trumpkins want to scream total exoneration without reading a damn word of the thing. I realize living in ignorance is ok with them, but I like to formulate conclusions about what a report says by doing something really radical to the trumpkins. Reading it first. 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Nowhere does it eastaidh what evidentiary standard was applied. I would defer to the legal mods, but I think that the standard sssociated with indictment would be the more likely standard. 

I recommend folks take a look at this link as a good primer on what to expect and how to understand the Mueller report.

 

 

“In many cases, reporters and publications trumpeted Barr’s top-line descriptions without giving adequate attention to both the more complicated facts of what Barr had actually described—the difference between no evidence of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and “no collusion,” for example—and the information that remained hidden from public view.”

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/memo-press-how-not-screw-mueller-report

[Rimbo 27022]

William Barr Agrees To Release Nonverbal, Abstract Visual Representation Of Mueller Report

Spoiler

 

WASHINGTON—Explaining that he would present the investigation’s findings in a format that offered the most richly detailed portrayal of its full meaning, Attorney General William Barr reportedly agreed Friday to release a nonverbal, abstract visual representation of the Mueller report. “I’m nearly done going through the special counsel’s conclusions and will be ready to deliver them in the form of a multimedia performance featuring interpretative dance, experimental music, and a variety of conceptual art installations within the next week or two,” said Barr, adding that he had already finished summarizing President Trump’s firing of James Comey in a 30-minute postmodern movement piece incorporating aerial silks and a fog machine, and had finally hit upon a suitable way to show Congress the significance of Trump’s contact with former campaign chair Paul Manafort by smearing red, white, and blue paint on the walls of a white space over a collage of slowed-down audio recorded in a slaughterhouse. “It’s clear, given the nature of the special counsel’s findings, that any summary must be issued to Congress with my voice removed, indeed artificially silenced, allowing the canvas of my body to convey the full extent of the report’s subconscious dialogues and liminal fixation on agency and the dialectic of guilt and innocence. Indeed, it is only through repeatedly assembling and disassembling a bricolage of objects such as metal pails, rusty saws, and clumps of wax that I can truly express the hidden and fluctuating tensions expressed in Mueller’s analysis of whether Trump pressured Jeff Sessions to conform to his wishes. The American people deserve to see a full performance of me lying nude and motionless on a concrete slab under a Cubist portrait of Mueller as masked, mute figures representing Donald Jr., Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen slowly walk in circles, tearing pieces of paper and scattering them over me, every so often extemporaneously interrupting the sounds of kettle drum and lagerphone by erupting in a primal scream. Only then can Americans fully understand the truth.” Barr also clarified that in order to protect classified government intelligence, he would have to perform the part of his presentation where he wordlessly beats his chest, smears himself in glitter, and repeatedly turns on and off several televisions behind a curtain where no one can see.

 

 

he does kinda look like yoko ono

Edited April 12, 2019 by Rimbo

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s depressing everyone keeps focusing on Trump or Clinton with the Mueller report.  The real story has always been the overall Russian interference in the election.  People seem to have this emotional block regarding how they feel about Trump, Hillary, or the election results that prevents them from seeing the BIG picture.  The Trump campaign’s witting or unwitting role in the attack is significant but it’s only a small piece of the puzzle.  My only hope from the Mueller report is it tells the compelling story of the Russian interference. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Biff Tannen 46168]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Exactly. Trumpkins want to scream total exoneration without reading a damn word of the thing. I realize living in ignorance is ok with them, but I like to formulate conclusions about what a report says by doing something really radical to the trumpkins. Reading it first. 

Especially when all logic points to at least some level of collusion/conspiracy/whathaveyou.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

30 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Again, then why are they slow rolling the release, not seeking judicial approval to release Grand Jury testimony, continuing to attack Mueller, etc.?  If it was truly a "total exoneration" then why are they so reluctant to release the report?  And why the leaks from Mueller's otherwise leak-proof team that claim Barr misrepresented the contents of the report?

Sorry/not sorry I'm taking not the word of a seemingly conflicted Barr as gospel as you are choosing to do.

Do you agree that at least the public version initially should be redacted for:  grand jury information, national security/intelligence information, information concerning ongoing investigations, and information concerning peripheral third parties not charged with wrongdoing (e.g. any Monica Lewinskys)?

If so, how long do you think it might take to redact a 400 page report of that material?

Finally, don't you think it might be important to determine what the proposed redactions are before attempting to go to court to unredact?  Also, that there might be a need to establish an adversary position (pro-redaction vs. anti-redaction), or are you unfamiliar with the principle against courts rendering advisory opinions?  If not, someone like Barr doesn't just go to the DC District Court and say "well, here's the redacted report, we understand some people may want to see this stuff, but we don't care or don't think they should, you figure it out."  Or maybe the court should just go through all 400 pages on its own and determine what should be redacted, while knowing basically nothing about it?  Think that would take two weeks?  Maybe a little longer?

Given all of the above, why do you insist on calling it a "slow roll"?  It's been two bloody weeks.

Again, Barr may be up to all kinds of no good, but there is nothing objective about the process the report is undergoing to so indicate.  Rosenstein is right.  Bizarre.

[GRHorn 105]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, the "simple question" is about the total scope of evidence regarding collusion.  I subsequently refined the point as far as rejecting Trump's denial of any reason to launch the investigation.  This impetus is not "irrelevant", inasmuch as your President continues to harangue about it.

You know this.

You're obfuscating.

You're a Trumpkin.
 

You're going to either have to try a whole lot harder or get a whole lot smarter to cast this shade around here.  It won't work.

If an investigation is initiated into a crime, but is found to not be true, then why are you focusing on why it was initiated?  It was investigated.  We reached the endpoint on collusion.  

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

 

We’ve seen reports online that Craig James killed 5 hookers. 

2 year investigation finds Craig James didn’t kill 5 hookers. 

Let’s go back and look at why we started our investigation. 

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Exactly. Trumpkins want to scream total exoneration without reading a damn word of the thing. I realize living in ignorance is ok with them, but I like to formulate conclusions about what a report says by doing something really radical to the trumpkins. Reading it first. 

It’ll come out. There’s exoneration on collusion unless Barr and Rosenstein are insane. I put those odds at extremely low.

Obstruction will probably give y’all some tidbit to hold you over for dozens of pages, but that obviously wasn’t that noteworthy or more would’ve been made of it by Barr and Rosenstein. 

[jimmyjazz 47203]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

If an investigation is initiated into a crime, but is found to not be true, then why are you focusing on why it was initiated?

I'm going to tell you once more, and if you continue to deflect, we'll call it a day.  The reason I am focusing on this is because Trump continues to promulgate the myth that there was no justification for the investigation.  This is important.  He is trying to create a false narrative.

Let me know if you need help with "promulgate".

[retread 2951]

How would an innocent man act if the FBI informed him that the Russians had interfered in an election? Not like Trump.

[GRHorn 105]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm going to tell you once more, and if you continue to deflect, we'll call it a day.  The reason I am focusing on this is because Trump continues to promulgate the myth that there was no justification for the investigation.  This is important.  He is trying to create a false narrative.

Let me know if you need help with "promulgate".

Yes Trump is running a victory lap.  He thought it was an unjust investigation. There’s people, including Never Trumpers, who think the basis was flimsy at best.  All those details pale in comparison to what has come of it to this point, which is net very positive for Trump. And very bad for most of the media and Left. 

[jimmyjazz 47203]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

Yes Trump is running a victory lap.  He thought it was an unjust investigation. There’s people, including Never Trumpers, who think the basis was flimsy at best.  All those details pale in comparison to what has come of it to this point, which is net very positive for Trump. And very bad for most of the media and Left. 

I don't care what stupid people think.  Can you yourself look at those emails between Junior and Goldstone (I provided the link) and actually say "hmmm, I see no reason to look into this"???

And by the way, it's not just a "victory lap".  It's far more than that, and far more sinister.  Trump is trying to redefine the investigation as nonsense and rewrite the report.  This is bad.  Real bad.  You should know better.  Somehow, I doubt you do.

[GRHorn 105]

8 minutes ago, retread said:

How would an innocent man act if the FBI informed him that the Russians had interfered in an election? Not like Trump.

How someone acts has absolutely nothing to do with it. People act all different ways when accused of crimes they didn’t commit. What evidence was produced after exhaustive investigation? That’s all that matters. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Guilty people usually blame the investigators for their crimes. 

[GRHorn 105]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Guilty people usually blame the investigators for their crimes. 

What does that have to do with anything, if true?

[The Royal We 3100]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Do you agree that at least the public version initially should be redacted for:  grand jury information, national security/intelligence information, information concerning ongoing investigations, and information concerning peripheral third parties not charged with wrongdoing (e.g. any Monica Lewinskys)?

If so, how long do you think it might take to redact a 400 page report of that material?

Finally, don't you think it might be important to determine what the proposed redactions are before attempting to go to court to unredact?  Also, that there might be a need to establish an adversary position (pro-redaction vs. anti-redaction), or are you unfamiliar with the principle against courts rendering advisory opinions?  If not, someone like Barr doesn't just go to the DC District Court and say "well, here's the redacted report, we understand some people may want to see this stuff, but we don't care or don't think they should, you figure it out."  Or maybe the court should just go through all 400 pages on its own and determine what should be redacted, while knowing basically nothing about it?  Think that would take two weeks?  Maybe a little longer?

Given all of the above, why do you insist on calling it a "slow roll"?  It's been two bloody weeks.

Again, Barr may be up to all kinds of no good, but there is nothing objective about the process the report is undergoing to so indicate.  Rosenstein is right.  Bizarre.

It looks like slow rolling when compared to Starr's report.  He filed his report on Sept 9, 1998, it was made public on Sept 10, 1998 and by Sept 21, 1998 3,200 pages of grand jury testimony were released to the public.

Mueller filed his report on March 24 and as of April 12, not even the intelligence committees who have the clearances to review everything in the report have seen anything other than Barr's summary/not summary.

I know the laws governing the reports have been changed since then, but due to the timelines above, it appears to be a slow roll. 

 

Edited to add that you've been very impartial and shared a lot of good information in this thread, so I do take your comments seriously and appreciate your insights.

Edited April 12, 2019 by The Royal We

[retread 2951]

His questionable actions have been listed numerous times itt.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just asking questions again I see.

[Biff Tannen 46168]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Guilty people usually blame the investigators for their crimes. 

 

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What does that have to do with anything, if true?

[Anastasis 23720]

20 minutes ago, retread said:

How would an innocent man act if the FBI informed him that the Russians had interfered in an election? Not like Trump.

How many truly pathological narcissists have you dealt with?

[jimmyjazz 47203]

8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

How someone acts has absolutely nothing to do with it. People act all different ways when accused of crimes they didn’t commit. What evidence was produced after exhaustive investigation? That’s all that matters. 

You see, that doesn't even matter.  Criminal misconduct isn't the only output of value in this investigation.  "High crimes and misdemeanors" (re: impeachment) are equally important, but your man's team is trying to suppress the report.

Be honest:  if this had happened with Obama you'd be screaming bloody murder, and rightfully so.  We have evidence RELEASED BY TRUMP'S FAMILY that they were interested in illegally-obtained information about their opponent.  How does this not bother you?  How fucking low are your ethical standards?

[retread 2951]

I'm primarily talking about his actions after the election. Would an innocent president: fire Comey, Lester Holt quote, quotes w Russians in Oval Office, want to fire Mueller several times, Helsinki remarks (I don't know why Russia would have meddled; Putin was very forceful; etc), not even acknowledge that the Russians meddled in the election, not pursue some sort of investigation into the meddling in the 2016 election ....

Edited April 12, 2019 by retread

[Captainant 28539]

Huh, CNN is reporting live that the redacted report "could be released publicly any moment"

[jimmyjazz 47203]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Huh, CNN is reporting live that the redacted report "could be released publicly any moment"

Friday afternoon bad news anti-publicity turd.

I don't know how much bad news they might redact, but I bet there will be some left.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

My money is it drops before 5pm cst

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Huh, CNN is reporting live that the redacted report "could be released publicly any moment"

Now would be the time to do it.  Friday news dump before holiday week 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't care what stupid people think.  Can you yourself look at those emails between Junior and Goldstone (I provided the link) and actually say "hmmm, I see no reason to look into this"???

And by the way, it's not just a "victory lap".  It's far more than that, and far more sinister.  Trump is trying to redefine the investigation as nonsense and rewrite the report.  This is bad.  Real bad.  You should know better.  Somehow, I doubt you do.

And he's using that redefinition as justification to have his AG weaponize law enforcement against his political opponents and the prior law enforcement officials who approved of and took part in the investigation.  

Edited April 12, 2019 by Longhornfan1024

[retread 2951]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I hope my printer has enough black ink with all the redactions 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

13 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

It looks like slow rolling when compared to Starr's report.  He filed his report on Sept 9, 1998, it was made public on Sept 10, 1998 and by Sept 21, 1998 3,200 pages of grand jury testimony were released to the public.

Mueller filed his report on March 24 and as of April 12, not even the intelligence committees who have the clearances to review everything in the report have seen anything other than Barr's summary/not summary.

I know the laws governing the reports have been changed since then, but due to the timelines above, it appears to be a slow roll. 

Starr's report was produced under an entirely separate set of laws.  End of story.

In fact, what is known as the Starr Report was an interim report to Congress about impeachment information under 28 USC 595(c) and not the concluding report of the investigation.  Congress effectively leaked it and probably broke some laws in the process.

Current laws, such as they are, were produced directly in response to the over-hasty publication of the Starr Report.

Edited April 12, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23720]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Be honest:  if this had happened with Obama you'd be screaming bloody murder, and rightfully so. 

And there would be people lining up here to defend it. 

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, retread said:

I'm primarily talking about his actions after the election. Would an innocent president: fire Comey, Lester Holt quote, quotes w Russians in Oval Office, want to fire Mueller several times, Helsinki remarks (I don't know why Russia would have meddled; Putin was very forceful; etc), not even acknowledge that the Russians meddled in the election, not pursue some sort of investigation into the meddling in the 2016 election ....

That’s all very interesting. Perhaps they should investigate. 

[jimmyjazz 47203]

Just now, Anastasis said:

And there would be people lining up here to defend it. 

There probably would be.  I wouldn't be one of them.  I guess that's the difference between the right and the left (and yes I mean exactly what you think I mean -- the left is more principled).

[Anastasis 23720]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Huh, CNN is reporting live that the redacted report "could be released publicly any moment"

If WiFi goes down on my flight that would suck. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

lulz, Russia is pissed one of their best weapons got taken in. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Anastasis 23720]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There probably would be.  I wouldn't be one of them.  I guess that's the difference between the right and the left (and yes I mean exactly what you think I mean -- the left is more principled).

So I guess you have some problems with Obama colluding on tape with the Russians to give him some room to operate during the election season, explicitly stating that he would have greater flexibility in negotiating with Russia after they let him clear the election. I think that was the same election season during which he scored political points by attacking publically the notion that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical threat. After which the Russians apparently ran train on American democracy by posting on Facebook. 

I mean you wouldn’t be one of those right?

[Bruh Man 3160]

Friday news dump before a two week Congress recess, Trump finally got his Roy Cohn.

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Friday news dump before a two week Congress recess, Trump finally got his Roy Cohn.

yup.  And odds that it's so redacted or changed as to unintelligible?  And the GOP will be doing a victory dance regardless of what it says?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Anastasis said:

So I guess you have some problems with Obama colluding on tape with the Russians to give him some room to operate during the election season, explicitly stating that he would have greater flexibility in negotiating with Russia after they let him clear the election. I think that was the same election season during which he scored political points by attacking publically the notion that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical threat. After which the Russians apparently ran train on American democracy by posting on Facebook. 

I mean you wouldn’t be one of those right?

  Obama fucked up with Russia.  I’m pissed at him about it and always have been. But you’re being a both sides trollish prick with the  “Obama collusion” talking point.  

Collusion is working together to create an unfair advantage over an opponent. That’s not what Obama was doing.   

Was Obama being “flexible” with Russia when he signed the Magnitsky Act into law a month after the 2012 election? 

[jimmyjazz 47203]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So I guess you have some problems with Obama colluding on tape with the Russians to give him some room to operate during the election season, explicitly stating that he would have greater flexibility in negotiating with Russia after they let him clear the election. I think that was the same election season during which he scored political points by attacking publically the notion that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical threat. After which the Russians apparently ran train on American democracy by posting on Facebook. 

I mean you wouldn’t be one of those right?

Are you talking about his discussion on camera in front of God and everybody?  THAT'S your angle?  You think that was Obama "colluding"?

No, I wouldn't be one of those stupid people.  Presumably, you wouldn't either.  I said what I meant which to further clarify:  if the same evidence existed but it was on Obama's campaign, yes I'd be pressing for an investigation.

[Bash Riprock 1695]

[Anastasis 23720]

So we missed the 5pm window?  Gonna be a boring flight 

[GRHorn 105]

36 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Are you talking about his discussion on camera in front of God and everybody?  THAT'S your angle?  You think that was Obama "colluding"?

No, I wouldn't be one of those stupid people.  Presumably, you wouldn't either.  I said what I meant which to further clarify:  if the same evidence existed but it was on Obama's campaign, yes I'd be pressing for an investigation.

And they investigated it. Great. 

[Gatorubet 30720]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

It’ll come out. There’s exoneration on collusion unless Barr and Rosenstein are insane. I put those odds at extremely low.

Obstruction will probably give y’all some tidbit to hold you over for dozens of pages, but that obviously wasn’t that noteworthy or more would’ve been made of it by Barr and Rosenstein. 

Wish we did not live in a world where Barr did not have a history of covering up GOP criminality in Iran-Contra, and had not gotten his current job by writing what most legal scholars saw as a bizarre unsolicited protect-the-President-even-if-he-is-guilty-of-obstruction legal opinion/resume - which got him the gig.   And - wait for it - he now seems hell bent on recreating Iran-Contra II by his selective and pro-Trump distilled report on what Mueller said.  He is going hard to be the House Counsel for Trump that he auditioned for, rather than the fucking AG of the United Stated of America that he was confirmed to be.    Not having anyone state under oath yet what authority/role Rosenstein had (can he overrule the AG in his report under current procedure) to 'buck' Barr's assessment, I remain at least open to the possibility that there is some funny business going on.   I do agree that Rosenstein's alleged support of Barr is a valid point that suggests that the evidence of obstruction was weak.   But in light of the fact that Mueller team summaries were supposedly ignored and not used by Barr, there is a response to that as well.    

If none of that history gives a person any pause, they may be a Trumpkin.   To be fair, you said 'extremely low', so i am not saying YOU are a Trumpkin.    I can respect that opinion and disagree, thinking it more likely than you do that there is still smoke - and maybe fire.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Gatorubet

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

How many truly pathological narcissists have you dealt with?

This is a good point. Trump lies even when the truth would help him. 

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

This is a good point. Trump lies even when the truth would help him. 

Telling the truth would be a form of breaking character.  The public seeing what he looks like telling the truth is too risky.