Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Breccia]

u mad bro?

He's mad that he forgot that Trump started the Mueller investigation because he fired Comey.

He forgot the reason was literally Trump's obstruction. If the only issue was Trump working with Russia, Comey would likely have found what Mueller found, made similar indictments, and there wouldn't be 300-700 pages of Trump saying "I'm fucked".

It's going to be even more fun when the investigation turns up stuff from his businesses. SDNY is only part of that, NYState is out for blood. And they have his taxes, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Barr's talk about spying is a Republican talking point that emerged a while ago about how the FISA warrants that supposedly kickstarted the FBI investigation were obtained illegally or wrongfully and it was all a conspiracy to spy on Trump orchestrated by Obama and Hillary.

Right, I know that. But Barr seems to have mysteriously gone silent on the subject now that the Mueller report seems to indicate that wasn't the case at all.

[Gorsameth]

Now that the Mueller investigation is over we should be investigating whether or not the collusion between the media and the Democrats was a crime.

1) collusion is not a crime. Trump's campaign ran into issues about accepting foreign aid. Trump Jr. only escaped indictment because the law requires breaking it to be 'wilful' aka you need to know the law exists before you can break it.

If you want to take down media for working with the Democrats, sure go right ahead. Just be 'fair' and do the same for Fox which is now the defacto propaganda arm for Trump's administration.

[Breccia]

What He Meant Was is forced to What I Meant Was.

Specifically, Sanders is trying to get out of the whole "caught lying on purpose" bit, by claiming the lies were "a slip of the tongue" or "heat of the moment".

To be clear: not only is she now admitting she said things that weren't true, she's also admitting that she let 23 months pass before admitting they were "accidentally" false. And she had to be called out by the special counsel to do even that.

Since her defense is admission that her honesty is not important to her job, it makes sense to treat them her job as such.

[Pratt]

There's no way you could read any significant portion of the report with your brain turned on and still support Trump, unless you also don't believe in anything America stands for.

[Breccia]

House subpoena's full, unredacted report.

Now, the only question is, were the redactions done to protect ongoing investigations, or to hide information that's damning to Trump? If Barr intentionally withheld relevant information from Congress, this gets a lot worse in a hurry.

EDIT: I don't think Barr used partisan redactions, just to be clear. He'd have to know how stupid of a move that is, and how he'd be caught eventually.

[Pratt]

What He Meant Was is forced to What I Meant Was.

Specifically, Sanders is trying to get out of the whole "caught lying on purpose" bit, by claiming the lies were "a slip of the tongue" or "heat of the moment".

To be clear: not only is she now admitting she said things that weren't true, she's also admitting that she let 23 months pass before admitting they were "accidentally" false. And she had to be called out by the special counsel to do even that.

Since her defense is admission that her honesty is not important to her job, it makes sense to treat them her job as such.

I believe a member of the press questioned her claim on the spot and she doubled down and added more details. Straight up blatant lie, not a slip of the tongue.

[Rukh]

House subpoena's full, unredacted report.

Now, the only question is, were the redactions done to protect ongoing investigations, or to hide information that's damning to Trump? If Barr intentionally withheld relevant information from Congress, this gets a lot worse in a hurry.

EDIT: I don't think Barr used partisan redactions, just to be clear. He'd have to know how stupid of a move that is, and how he'd be caught eventually.

He also had to know his blatant lying about the report not leaving the task to congress would be found out an hour later, but he went ahead and said that anyways. Makes me wonder about his mental faculties.

[rda]

OK, so, regarding this:

New: Manafort wasn't just giving polling data, he gave russian intel planned campaign messaging and directed them where to focus their influence campaign (wisconsin, michigan, minnesota, and pennsylvania). He was also planning a peace deal concerning eastern ukraine that would give russia control of the donbass region that would use trump's influence if he became elected (now obviously untenable).

Anytime someone says "the campaign didn't collude with russia" just tell them, yes, they did. Page 140 of volume 1 of the mueller report.

That's IV.A.8.b.iii. Paul Manafort's Two Campaign-Period Meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik in the United States

I read through the entire section (pp 138-141). And while, yes, that's new info (and thanks for pointing it out), I am not sure it contains much.

Observe what happens:

Manafort and Kilimnik had two meetings.

Meeting 1. Manafort briefed Kilimnik on Trump's campaign. Kilimnik talked about events in Ukraine. Manafort tried to make Kilimnik buy his services for the folks in Ukraine but Kilimnik didn't bite.

Meeting 2. Before the meeting Kilimnik went to Moscow and then he told Manafort that he has some messages for Manafort from (the person Manafort thought was) Yanukovich. Then there was a meeting between Manafort, Kilimnik and Gates. (a) Manafort and Kilimnik talked about a plan for Russia to deal with Donbas with Yanukovich becoming the head of it. Manafort says the discussions were cut, the plan was ridiculous, etc. Kilimnik raised the plan again later a couple of times via email for no apparent result either. (b) Manafort again briefed Kilimnik on Trump's campaign. Talked about battleground states. No reaction from Kilimnik noted, seems he didn't buy anything from Manafort this time either. (c) Manafort and Kilimnik talked about some previous financial disputes of Manafort - he thought he is owed money for some of what he was doing in Ukraine before.

I am not seeing any cooperation. The guys are talking about things, yes. Manafort is trying to appear valuable and wants Kilimnik to buy his services. Kilimnik does not want to buy these meek services, and wants to talk about the Donbas plan with Yanukovich and wants to buy Manafort services for that. Manafort does not want to hear anything about the Donbas plan - as far as he says, but there's nobody to say otherwise and there's no evidence of them going further. It's all just Kilimnik mentioning that he wants the Donbas and no continuation. If there was any continuation at all, we should have been seeing it in the report, that's what those years of digging were for - and there is nothing.

There appears to be no cooperation / collusion in this incident. Just two sides talking, each side wanting something from the other that the other is not willing to provide. I mean, sure, Manafort shouldn't be blabbering with Kilimnik about Trump's campaign, but we knew that already.

The quote above is a little misleading, Manafort was NOT "also planning a peace deal concerning eastern ukraine" - from the report, it is just Kilimnik wanting it and Manafort shrugging and doing nothing.

---
Now, I am not saying there's nothing actually damning in the report anywhere. The report is long and I didn't read it all. Maybe there is something. I will continue reading and if I find anything of note, I will post it. But the particular incident above is not terribly strong. It is something new, yes, but it isn't much damning.

[Grapemask]

He also had to know his blatant lying about the report not leaving the task to congress would be found out an hour later, but he went ahead and said that anyways. Makes me wonder about his mental faculties.

Nah, it's part of the spin. Republicans want his outline of the report to be the official message of what's in it. Mitch McConnell is now shooting down any remarks about what's actually in the report by referring them to Barr's summary and press conference about it - it was this morning or last night that he talked about those radical leftists who are criticizing Barr's impeccable character and judgment by daring to claim there's anything in the report that doesn't mesh with what Barr said.

[Breccia]

I believe a member of the press questioned her claim on the spot and she doubled down and added more details. Straight up blatant lie, not a slip of the tongue.

Oho, it's even worse. Turns out they had to keep the transcript up.

Since we’re establishing the facts — Senator Dianne Feinstein said she was told something different directly from the President. The President said he asked Rosenstein and Sessions to review this. Is she lying?

MS. SANDERS: He asked them for their recommendation, based on the conversation that they had on Monday. He asked them to put that recommendation in writing. But they came to him on his own. And again, the President had lost confidence in Comey from the day he was elected. He wasn’t sure that he should be —

Q Then why did Sean say he did? On May 3rd, Sean came out and said that the President had full confidence in his FBI Director? Why did he say that?

MS. SANDERS: Look, I think — again, he’s questioned Director Comey’s reason for needing to stay at the FBI. He had countless conversations with members from within the FBI. I think one of the big catalysts that we saw was, last week, on Wednesday, Director Comey made a pretty startling revelation that he had essentially taken a stick of dynamite and thrown it into the Department of Justice by going around the chain of command when he decided to take steps without talking to the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General when holding a press conference and telling them that he would not let them know what he was going to say —

Q Then why did the President —

MS. SANDERS: — and that is simply not allowed.

Now the red "countless" is one of the What I Meant Was corrections Sanders made 23 months later after being caught lying by the special counsel. But the bolded parts go into what you said. Either Sean Spicer lied, or Sanders lied. Their statements are in direct opposition.

Oh, and it wasn't a fluke.

Sarah, the President said — or excuse me — Sean Spicer said just a week ago today the President has confidence in the Director. So, again, I’m sorry for not understanding this, but what has happened in the last seven days to shake the confidence? Was Sean lying at that point? Or did something happen in the last seven days?

Here is another good part from the same conference:

I think, frankly, the saddest thing is that the Democrats are trying to politicize and take away from something that the President should be doing. He should be meeting with the Foreign Minister. He should be meeting with people like Kissinger. And for them to try to attack him for doing his job, — maybe they should spent a little more time doing their jobs, and we wouldn’t have all the problems that we do.

Just a reminder, when WHMS says "trying to politicize" the event she refers to led to the creation of Mueller's investigation. And that jab "maybe they should do their job" seems even funnier after re-reading Trump's golf tally. He is at Mar-a-Lago literally right now.

And yet, there's more.

Q What gives you such confidence that the rank and file within the Bureau lost faith in the FBI Director? There’s a special agent who is inside, who wrote us, who said: “The vast majority of the Bureau is in favor of Director Comey. This is a total shock. This is not supposed to happen. The real losers here are 20,000 front-line people in the organization because they lost the only guy working here in the past 15 years who actually cared about them.”

So what’s your response to these rank-and-file FBI agents who disagree with your contention that they lost faith in Director Comey?

MS. SANDERS: Look, we’ve heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things. In fact, the President will be meeting with Acting Director McCabe later today to discuss that very thing — the morale at the FBI — as well as make an offer to go directly to the FBI if he feels that that’s necessary and appropriate. And we’ll certainly provide further information on that meeting for you guys.

Sanders made what she called a slip of the tongue -- after being called out on it by the special counsel's office 23 months later -- multiple times. With the same word. That's not an accident, that's coaching. And, of course, it wasn't true. Which she now admits.

[Noxx79]

I'd be more worried about the counter investigation into the FISA warrant and whatever stink that reveals.

Why? The report clearly shows that there was something worthwhile to investigate, it just barely wasn't a crime.

If “Barely not a crime” is all you and trumpsters can hang their hats on, everyone is lost.

As Popehat put it so eloquently:

Not everything contemptible or morally blameworthy is against the law.

[Breccia]

There appears to be no cooperation / collusion in this incident. Just two sides talking, each side wanting something from the other that the other is not willing to provide. I mean, sure, Manafort shouldn't be blabbering with Kilimnik about Trump's campaign, but we knew that already.

Self-contradictory statement. Trump's campaign manager going to Kilimnik and asking for help is Trump's campaign manager trying to commit a crime -- and remember what Flynn was fired for? Campaigns aren't allowed to negotiate with the authority of the US govt when they haven't won. Flynn did after the election, lied, got caught, and got fired for it. Now you're flat-out admitting Trump's campaign manager did the same thing.

This is a stunning admission from you. That you'd even cite this is surprising. Oh, you're trying to hide it with the "nothing happened so it wasn't illegal" defense (good luck with that, by the way), but bear in mind what you just said:
1) Trump's campaign manager went to Moscow to talk to Russians and he did it on purpose.
2) Then he lied about it.
3) And that's just the one incident you cite. We already know of more.

Even if you actually believed that attempting to commit a crime, but failing, wasn't a crime (and just so you're clear, we all know you're acting, we all know you don't believe that), you still have admitted he tried to do something wrong. You've just admitted you know Team Trump tried to collude with Russia, which was illegal.

You just admitted you are backing someone who tried to illegally work with Russia. And you did so while admitting it was wrong.

OR.

You referred to this as "just people talking" but nothing happened. Let's pretend you aren't acting and actually believe that. Fine. That means Trump has done literally nothing with trade talks. Oh sure, he met with some people, and talked, but nothing happened. Therefore, Trump has not even come close to his promises on trade talks. And you should be upset about that, too. North Korea? Nothing happened, so it's exactly the same as if he didn't try. China? Nothing happened, so it's exactly the same as if he didn't try. Trump has not tried to make any trade deals. He just met with some people, and they talked, but nothing happened, so it doesn't count.

Pick one. Neither trait is redeeming.

Try not to cry into that single scoop of ice cream. It ruins the flavor.

- - - Updated - - -

If “Barely not a crime” is all you and trumpsters can hang their hats on, everyone is lost.

Well no, wait, my version is funnier:

1) Team Trump met with the Russians multiple times, but nothing happened, so it wasn't a crime and we should move on.
2) According to Team Trump, the nasty angry Democrat FBI spied on them.
3) But they didn't find anything.
4) So it wasn't a crime.
5) Move on.

See, they have to do this. Or else they're being hypocrites. Me? I don't care if they investigate this process or not. If they find there was an actual problem, I want it known and fixed. Why wouldn't I?

I don't think they will, though.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Why? The report clearly shows that there was something worthwhile to investigate, it just barely wasn't a crime.

If “Barely not a crime” is all you and trumpsters can hang their hats on, everyone is lost.

As Popehat put it so eloquently:

Not everything contemptible or morally blameworthy is against the law.

So we agree that at the end of the day, no crime was committed by Trump, which is what this ultimately was deemed to determine.

It wasn't a test of character. Everyone has known for decades that he's been a shady character.

Most independents surveyed have said that the longer this drags on, the more prone they are to vote for Trump. So keep digging the Dems' graves over this issue.

[Fahrenheit]

I seriously can't believe we are at the point of defending Trump that "he only attempted to do illegal shit" is what we are hearing.

Look, it was just a little bit of light treason. Nothing worth getting worked up over. I mean, come on, who hasn't taken meetings with agents from somewhat hostile foreign government with the expectations of obtaining illegally obtained dirt on political rivals?

[Breccia]

It wasn't a test of character.

Actually, it is.

It's a test of yours.

There is now proof in front of you that Trump, alone and with his Team, tried to commit crimes. Trump personally tried to obstruct justice by firing Mueller. And the Trump Tower meeting, Manafort, Gates, etc. prove they tried to work with Russia.

The question is now, what will you do about that? Now that you have proof that Trump is an attempted criminal and works with other attempted criminals, what will you do about that?

P.S. Your comment about digging is false. Independents would be more likely to move towards Trump, if nothing was found. And as you have now just personally admitted, some ugly-ass stuff was found.

[rda]

Self-contradictory statement. Trump's campaign manager going to Kilimnik and asking for help is Trump's campaign manager trying to commit a crime -- and remember what Flynn was fired for?

There is no contradiction, I don't know where you are seeing one. If we talk, that's talk, not cooperation. If you offer me something and I don't respond, that's not cooperation.

The lithmus test: cooperation on what? What's the subject? You offered something but I didn't even say anything to you. If you think just offering X unilaterally is enough to be saying that we cooperate on that, then Kilimnik could have just said "let's kill Hillary" and according to your logic, Manafort would be cooperating with him on that. And if you don't want to say that Manafort cooperated with Kilimnik on that, what it is you want to say - that he cooperated on something we cannot name? That's exactly why I am calling this weak. There's just nothing material.

Also, what specifically Manafort asked Kilimnik's help on? Is this on some other pages? What was it, what are you referring to, and is this new or is this something we already knew before the report and used in Manafort's indictments?

[Breccia]

There is no contradiction, I don't know where you are seeing one.

You said he shouldn't be doing it. I emphasized that point by reminding you it's past "he shouldn't be doing it" but that it was illegal.

Which is why he lied about it.

Plus you're sidestepping the whole "he tried to cooperate". You're admitting you know Manafort (and others) attempted to break the law. You seem really okay with that. You should think about what that says about you.

Should I pencil you in for "Trump has not had any trade talks because he got nothing done"? Because it seems you're leaning that way. It was just people talking. Nothing happened. Therefore, no trade talks. I mean, you don't want to be a hypocrite, do you?

God, it's like large fish in a small barrel today.

[Gorsameth]

So we agree that at the end of the day, no crime was committed by Trump, which is what this ultimately was deemed to determine.

It wasn't a test of character. Everyone has known for decades that he's been a shady character.

Most independents surveyed have said that the longer this drags on, the more prone they are to vote for Trump. So keep digging the Dems' graves over this issue.

No, again the report is very clear in this. The report can not say if a crime was committed because of DoJ guidelines. It can only say if NO crime was committed and the report clearly states that it cannot say this.

Read the report. Read the actual evidence listed in that report.
Trump committed Obstruction of Justice multiple times but Mueller cannot charge him with that while he is President. He also clearly states that it is up to Congress to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

House subpoena's full, unredacted report.

Now, the only question is, were the redactions done to protect ongoing investigations, or to hide information that's damning to Trump? If Barr intentionally withheld relevant information from Congress, this gets a lot worse in a hurry.

EDIT: I don't think Barr used partisan redactions, just to be clear. He'd have to know how stupid of a move that is, and how he'd be caught eventually.

The only possible damning stuff is under the contact between the Campaign and Wikileaks which is hidden because of, I assume, the ongoing case against Roger Stone who acted as intermediary for this.

For all the shit Barr has done wrong and his blatant partisan actions despite his supposed impartial standing as AG, the redactions appear to be done correctly.

[rda]

You said he shouldn't be doing it. I emphasized that point by reminding you it's past "he shouldn't be doing it" but that it was illegal.

Which is why he lied about it.

Plus you're sidestepping the whole "he tried to cooperate". You're admitting you know Manafort (and others) attempted to break the law. You seem really okay with that. You should think about what that says about you.

Drop your "should I pencil you" and "it's large fish in a small barrel", they are just noise. I don't know who you are trying to impress with it. Just stick to the topic.

Manafort talking with Kilimnik and the likes of him was wrong and punishable, but it was known and he was punished. There's no new info in this. What was new in the incident above is the subject of talks and possible cooperation. However, as it turns out, there was no cooperation, we just got to know that Kilimnik wanted to do the Donbas plan and Manafort thought it was ridiculous and they didn't discuss it as a deal or anything, it was all unilateral with Kilimnik talking and Manafort rejecting - according to the info in the report - and a symmetric situation with Manafort trying to appear useful in some vague ways and Kilimnik not responding to that either. The news was in that maybe this is finally something that can be called cooperation - and no, on closer look, it isn't.

You previously said that Manafort was "asking [Kilimnik] for help". What was this about? Something new or something old?

[Shalcker]

Self-contradictory statement. Trump's campaign manager going to Kilimnik and asking for help is Trump's campaign manager trying to commit a crime -- and remember what Flynn was fired for? Campaigns aren't allowed to negotiate with the authority of the US govt when they haven't won. Flynn did after the election, lied, got caught, and got fired for it. Now you're flat-out admitting Trump's campaign manager did the same thing.

Stop lying, Breccia.

Flynn was fired for lying to Pence (and Pence then going with those lies to press). What Flynn did on behalf of Israel by contacting Russian Ambassador (among others) was perfectly legal (and Russians didn't buy that one either and voted against Israel in UN anyway).