Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Bullettime]

What a shock. The irony is that I trust Mueller to make sure someone outside the Trump team sees the unredacted report. I don't think it will matter a whole lot for the election - Trump's insane fan base doesn't care about reality, and will back him even when Trump claims to have walked on the moon (see recent claims that his father was born in Germany and Wind Turbines cause cancer - and even people in this forum still blindly follow him). But the rest of the nation is getting more awake to what some of us already knew. Trump is and always will be a criminal. And the Residency is the only thing keeping that sealed indictment from being opened.

Trump will spend the rest of his insane life trying to stay out of prison once he's booted from the White House. The only question will be what mental illness claim he eventually uses to avoid actual jail time.

Trump will go full Mubarak after out of office. He's facing a lot of potential charges even in New York state and he's going to go from the "portrait of health" to confused senile crippled old man near his deathbed in a matter of weeks.

[Dacien]

Unsurprising. It doesn't take 400 pages to say, "Nobody did anything wrong."

"Mr. Barr was also wary of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with Mr. Barr’s thinking. They pointed to the decision by James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, to harshly criticize Hillary Clinton in 2016 while announcing that he was recommending no charges in the inquiry into her email practices."

This was something I had thought would gain more traction, but never did, when discussing full disclosure of the report. The line of thinking behind the practice is that if there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges, then your job is over. If you don't have enough evidence to bring charges, it's hardly fair to instead air it out to the court of public opinion.

Either way, this is exactly the scenario we should expect if there was indeed an objection to Barr's summary: Those involved would bristle and "whisper into the ear of reporters", as I put it last week. But my gut tells me that, assuming they exist, these are details that necessarily fall short of any kind of prosecutable crime, yet nonetheless paint Trump and Co. in a bad light. Which, as we all well know, is like catnip for his enemies.

[cubby]

"Mr. Barr was also wary of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with Mr. Barr’s thinking. They pointed to the decision by James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, to harshly criticize Hillary Clinton in 2016 while announcing that he was recommending no charges in the inquiry into her email practices."

This was something I had thought would gain more traction, but never did, when discussing full disclosure of the report. The line of thinking behind the practice is that if there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges, then your job is over. If you don't have enough evidence to bring charges, it's hardly fair to instead air it out to the court of public opinion.

Either way, this is exactly the scenario we should expect if there was indeed an objection to Barr's summary: Those involved would bristle and "whisper into the ear of reporters", as I put it last week. But my gut tells me that, assuming they exist, these are details that necessarily fall short of any kind of prosecutable crime, yet nonetheless paint Trump and Co. in a bad light. Which, as we all well know, is like catnip for his enemies.

We just want to see the report. Nothing you say or do to defend your Dear Leader matters. There is no good reason not to release the report, and delaying just makes it look that much worse. You claim vindication because of Barr's uncontested "summary". You're lying. And the investigators are already agreeing.

People like you are the reason someone like Trump, an objective criminal and unindicted co-conspirator, can remain in place. Blindly following him regardless of what objective evidence tells you. The only reason the sealed indictment is still sealed is because Mueller believes a sitting president cannot be indicted. And nothing your badfaith posting does can distract us from those points (and many more).

And you ignore so many obvious conclusions from the report not being released in full, and in fact being "redacted" as we speak, by a known GOP operative who has covered up for previous presidents. Your outrage is laughable and your concern is of troll-level quality. As usual.

[Orbitus]

We just want to see the report. Nothing you say or do to defend your Dear Leader matters. There is no good reason not to release the report, and delaying just makes it look that much worse. You claim vindication because of Barr's uncontested "summary". You're lying. And the investigators are already agreeing.

People like you are the reason someone like Trump, an objective criminal and unindicted co-conspirator can remain in place. Blindly following him regardless of what objective evidence tells you. The only reason the sealed indictment is still sealed is because Mueller believes a sitting president cannot be indicted. And nothing your badfaith posting does can distract us from those points (and many more).

And you ignore so many obvious conclusions from the report not being released in full, and in fact being "redacted" as we speak, by a known GOP operative who has covered up for previous presidents. Your outrage is laughable and your concern is of troll-level quality. As usual.

Don't worry, he will wait til Andrew McCarthy tells him what to relay here.

[Dacien]

Except that's not the threshold when it comes to Presidents.

I don't know that the standard practice is any different whether it's a president or a regular person. As I understand it, it's a broad reason-based approach to closing investigations.

But I will say this: The threshold for impeachment is obviously much different. So if there's anything in the Mueller report that Democrats think looks bad enough, they might be able to launch an impeachment campaign. Which I predict would fail, and would rally support for Trump, so it'd be a disastrous mistake.

[Rukh]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/u...er-report.html

Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

Doot doot

[Ripster42]

I'm not sure what leaves you to conclude that I'm angry? Was it because I generalized your toxic personality in this conversation or was it for associating your lack of interpersonal skills with your handle? It would be prudent of you to self-reflect before you start assuming people have rage issues. It could lead to a better quality of life, such as actually being able to have a normal conversation and not being lonely.

You literally said I was a rapist, because you can't handle the fact that you're transparent.

I don't see the point in discussing what my personal views are on national security because it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand. We aren't discussing yours either because your view on national security is as irrelevant as mine. Clearly though, we can agree, that you have an extremely irrational mindset for what constitutes a national security threat.

Then why are you posting at all? Like I said, transparent. Apparently you think unless there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there's obviously no security threat. I really hope you don't have a job where people depend on you to be competent or careful (or maybe you're just play acting on this forum).

Correct. Mueller did not say "their was no collusion" nor would he. Nor would it be correct for Mueller to do so. Saying their was no collusion is arriving at a judgement, which is not Muellers role. He is an investigator/prosecutor, not a judge. Investigators don't come to conclusions about evidence, they only have findings. It would be highly unethical for Mueller to state that and would only leave his methods vulnerable to arguments of bias.

With that being said, their is no collusion statute in US statutes. Their is conspiracy, and conspiracy is the statutory language for which collusion would fall under. If you don't have evidence for the principal of conspiracy, you don't have collusion, legally.

They've got evidence. There's evidence in the public sphere. BTW, conspiracy isn't even the only charge that would fall under the "collusion" framing. There's also bribing, aiding and abetting (after the fact), defrauding the united states, and obstruction of justice.

Muellers investigation is done. The dude has gone home lol. That's why their is a summary of his investigation, of which we are discussing. I'm not sure how this obvious fact escapes you? Their are no sealed indictments. Again, the grand jury for Mueller will remain in place until the disposition phase of all the cases Mueller personally handled. You understand that's gonna be like forever because of the Russian military officers indicted who will never likely see a day in court here in the US, thus making it impossible for the court to enter into it's disposition phase and thus release the grand jury.

I've already linked you to a piece stating that the investigation isn't done. Great denial though. I'm glad you've never heard of a plea deal. We should totally take you at your word though, as you seem like a stable individual.

You are making illogical and irrational assumptions about what the Mueller report is. It is not a report on if the president is compromised. It is a “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” A judge could, but isn't going to swing a wrecking ball of collateral damage to the institutions which produced the report to satisfy the immediate need and political speculations with an investigative report that didn't investigate to address the speculations of those demanding an arbitrary release date.

If you don't think the president was part of the investigation, why did barr even bother mentioning trump's campaign at all? This is the most bizarre rebuttal that has nothing related to reality I've heard in a while. Paraphrasing: "The investigation had nothing to do with trump." What planet are you from again?

Not sure what leads you to believe that their is a rage issue here on my part but your inability to think rationally, stay on topic, or coherently express yourself is disconcerting.

Again, jumping to rape allegations, because I put in plain text how you're full of shit, makes me wonder who exactly is able to "think rationally, stay on topic, or coherently express" themselves. Accusing someone of being a rapist isn't exactly a normal thing for people to do. They tend to do that when they've got, you know, rage issues. Tell me again how you're a democrat though. I'll totally believe you this time.

[Shalcker]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/u...er-report.html

Doot doot

Third-hand info - "those who are familiar with frustration of investigators they shared with their associates"? It is toss up wherever it is true or not really.

[Rukh]

Third-hand info - "those who are familiar with frustration of investigators they shared with their associates"? It is toss up wherever it is true or not really.

You best go back and check what your assigned spin is supposed to be, because that one aint goinna fly.

[D Luniz]

Third-hand info - "those who are familiar with frustration of investigators they shared with their associates"? It is toss up wherever it is true or not really.

easy way to find out, just ask for a yes or no from Mueller if there were summaries, and if so, release those

or is the same half assed excuse being used to hide the report itself gonna be used for the summaries too?

[Shalcker]

You best go back and check what your assigned spin is supposed to be, because that one aint goinna fly.

Let's see what actual testimony will be - assuming it comes earlier then redacted report, that is.

Trusting third-hand media reports... well, trust whatever you want. That "more troubling" can mean anything. What do you think it actually infers?

[Thepersona]

You best go back and check what your assigned spin is supposed to be, because that one aint goinna fly.

I mean, come on, they may be low on turnips!

[kaelleria]

The super fun part of the NYT story is that the SCO prepared several top level summaries that Barr could have used.

[Belize]

The super fun part of the NYT story is that the SCO prepared several top level summaries that Barr could have used.

Yeah, but those didn't whitewash Trump, so of course they weren't gonna fly

[Thepersona]

Yeah, but those didn't whitewash Trump, so of course they weren't gonna fly

They fucking knew that this shit was going to see the light. Why the fuck they tried to hide it, in such a stupid fashion?

[RaoBurning]

They fucking knew that this shit was going to see the light. Why the fuck they tried to hide it, in such a stupid fashion?

When was the last time they operated in any other sort of capacity? Been a minute, I'd guess.

[Endus]

They fucking knew that this shit was going to see the light. Why the fuck they tried to hide it, in such a stupid fashion?

Because it's not about truth, it's about controlling the narrative.

Barr's summary establishes that there's nothing there (with a mountain of weasel words that let him evade actual legal consequences). Now, when the other summaries, or the whole report comes out, just watch. The narrative will be that this is an attack on the President, that they are framing things too harshly, and that Barr was even-handed in his summary.

They got their message out first, so anything else is now in opposition to it, meaning it's a fight about who you believe.

[Thepersona]

When was the last time they operated in any other sort of capacity? Been a minute, I'd guess.

Yeah, i can get that from trump, but from the turtle, or from Barr? i mean, this is amateur level stupidity

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's not about truth, it's about controlling the narrative.

Barr's summary establishes that there's nothing there (with a mountain of weasel words that let him evade actual legal consequences). Now, when the other summaries, or the whole report comes out, just watch. The narrative will be that this is an attack on the President, that they are framing things too harshly, and that Barr was even-handed in his summary.

They got their message out first, so anything else is now in opposition to it, meaning it's a fight about who you believe.

Yea... but i have a question on that, though: If they wanted to control the narrative, then why the polls show that they failed on that? because everyone wants to see the full report, and his approval rating did not improve when it was released.

[Endus]

Yea... but i have a question on that, though: If they wanted to control the narrative, then why the polls show that they failed on that? because everyone wants to see the full report, and his approval rating did not improve when it was released.

I didn't say they were good at this. Just that this was the (admittedly stupid) plan.

[Belize]

They fucking knew that this shit was going to see the light. Why the fuck they tried to hide it, in such a stupid fashion?

Because they got a couple of week's worth of Fox screaming NOCOLLUSIONAAAAHHHH and now they can say anything else that comes out is Faek Nooz