Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/stat...05761366003718

Sean Hannity has no idea how to thread tweets, but here's a 13 part tweet series of him whinging that US media are covering the fact that Russian news media are using Hannity's own clips/words to attack the Mueller report.

Womp womp.

[Gorsameth]

So, how badly did the redactions butcher the Mueller report? Is there any chance we'll ever see a full, unedited report?

Its very readable.
There is a big section blacked out about the IRA's social media campaign because its still an ongoing investigation.
Same with a big section on wikileaks (most likely related to Roger Stone). I'm not sure if they will go back and un-redact those when the relevant criminal cases end but I doubt it.

The rest of the report has a few small bits hidden by Grand Jury, little more then a single sentence at a time. Those will never most likely never be revealed.

All in all its worth reading atleast the introduction of both Volume 1 and 2. Its not to long and summarises the rest pretty well.

[cubby]

We've been over this, that law requires you to know that its illegal to accept aid before you can break it, Mueller explains it in the report.

That's not correct. The law says you must know it's a crime before you can conspire to receive aid. Not ACTUALLY receive aid.

They can bring charges but they won't stick because Trump Jr. can easily claim that he didn't know.

Except that Giuliani just admitted they received assistance from foreign sources. That's not a collusion issue, that is a FEC issue - a clear violation.

[Breccia]

So, how badly did the redactions butcher the Mueller report? Is there any chance we'll ever see a full, unedited report?

Based purely on what we've seen,
1) they didn't, and
2) we won't

and the "why" is the same: the Gang of Eight either has seen, or will shortly see, the full unredacted report. If you give Pelosi (for example, doesn't have to be just her) the full report and the redactions included "by the way, Trump also did X Y and Z which were objectively illegal and Sessions stopped me from proceeding" then it's game over. Hiding that would be stupid: it would only make Team Trump more guilty. So the safe assumption is the redactions are pretty much what was claimed, blocking the public from seeing info about ongoing cases.

Granted, those cases themselves could be a big deal. But Barr didn't redact the bank transfers from Putin, for example.

[cubby]

Its very readable.
There is a big section blacked out about the IRA's social media campaign because its still an ongoing investigation.
Same with a big section on wikileaks (most likely related to Roger Stone). I'm not sure if they will go back and un-redact those when the relevant criminal cases end but I doubt it.

The rest of the report has a few small bits hidden by Grand Jury, little more then a single sentence at a time. Those will never most likely never be revealed.

All in all its worth reading atleast the introduction of both Volume 1 and 2. Its not to long and summarises the rest pretty well.

We will definitely see the full Mueller Report (at least Congress will). The second a Dem (see also "legitimate") AG is sitting in that office, they will request the Grand Jury testimony, and all the rest Barr should have already done for Congress after their request. Thinking we won't see the full, unredacted report is assuming that Trump's corrupt crime family will be in office permanently.

[Breccia]

We've been over this, that law requires you to know that its illegal to accept aid before you can break it, Mueller explains it in the report.

Except that Giuliani just admitted they received assistance from foreign sources. That's not a collusion issue, that is a FEC issue - a clear violation.

I have to say, I am extremely uncomfortable that the defense being used is "Trump ran for President without knowing the rules of running". You don't get to keep the touchdown and later say "Sorry, ref, I didn't know you weren't allowed to drive a Jeep in a third-and-long situation."

Still, Team Trump is forced to use ignorance as a defense. Again.

[cubby]

I have to say, I am extremely uncomfortable that the defense being used is "Trump ran for President without knowing the rules of running". You don't get to keep the touchdown and later say "Sorry, ref, I didn't know you weren't allowed to drive a Jeep in a third-and-long situation."

Still, Team Trump is forced to use ignorance as a defense. Again.

@Gorsameth isn't getting the Mueller summary entirely correct. If you accept foreign aid, boom, you're done - crime committed, knowledge irrelevant. You cannot, however, conspire to receive aid unless you know that receiving aid is illegal. It's a very fine line.

[DarkTZeratul]

@Gorsameth isn't getting the Mueller summary entirely correct. If you accept foreign aid, boom, you're done - crime committed, knowledge irrelevant. You cannot, however, conspire to receive aid unless you know that receiving aid is illegal. It's a very fine line.

That's literally the only thing saving their asses right now: not only did they not know it was illegal, they were too inept to actually carry it out. Robbing a bank is illegal, and conspiring to rob a bank is illegal, but if you don't know it's illegal to rob a bank and you plan to do so but you're too stupid to bring that plan to fruition, you're in the clear. Of course, if someone was too stupid to successfully carry out an action they were too stupid to know was illegal, I also wouldn't want them anywhere near public office.

[cubby]

That's literally the only thing saving their asses right now: not only did they not know it was illegal, they were too inept to actually carry it out. Robbing a bank is illegal, and conspiring to rob a bank is illegal, but if you don't know it's illegal to rob a bank and you plan to do so but you're too stupid to bring that plan to fruition, you're in the clear. Of course, if someone was too stupid to successfully carry out an action they were too stupid to know was illegal, I also wouldn't want them anywhere near public office.

And that's pretty much the Trump Crime Family - too stupid not to get elected.

[Edge-]

I wonder why the 13th tweet is missing.

M is the 13th letter of the alphabet. It's 4 letters away from Q. If you remove the "M" from Trump's name you have "Trup", which has 4 letters. Clearly the 13th tweet isn't included because it's a message from Q and we need to look elsewhere to find it. IT ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

(/s)

I think it's the last tweet he made whinging about Smollett and others, he just forgot to/ran out of characters to tag it.

[Gorsameth]

@Gorsameth isn't getting the Mueller summary entirely correct. If you accept foreign aid, boom, you're done - crime committed, knowledge irrelevant. You cannot, however, conspire to receive aid unless you know that receiving aid is illegal. It's a very fine line.

Nope, there is no such legal distinction between trying to get information and actually getting it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30109
section D. penalties
Subsection 1(A)

(d) Penalties; defenses; mitigation of offenses
(1)
(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure—

And there is the Willfully that Mueller mentions.

[Breccia]

It's a very fine line.

"Your Honor, I didn't know the gun was loaded when I pointed it at the victim and pulled the trigger" kind of fine line?

[Gorsameth]

He should really pay someone to tweet for him.

Those people would refuse to tweet things.

Remember how under Kelly (i think?) his usual Twitter spads were at like 4 am leading to the assumption that someone was stopping his worse impulses during the day?
Well everyone that gave a shit left the White House a long time ago.

[Breccia]

Kerry (i think?)

Kelly. Kerry is also in the news so it's a fair Freudian Slip to make.

[cubby]

Nope, there is no such legal distinction between trying to get information and actually getting it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30109
section D. penalties
Subsection 1(A)
And there is the Willfully that Mueller mentions.

You're right - that is an interesting provision of the law. Good point. I can guess why they did it this way, for this law specifically - whereas most/all others don't have the knowingly/willfully provision.

Giulliani is saying it's ok to receive information from foreign agents. Which is illegal (ironically proving that even the Resident's lawyer doesn't know the law). Which should call for an investigation - although you are right, nothing actionable from that statement directly.

[Drutt]

A legal view over the Mueller report. Interesting 10 minutes to say the least.

Came here to post that myself. It's an excellent brief orientation for why the report says what it says. When put into context so succinctly, it looks even worse for Trump than it already did.

[cubby]

"Your Honor, I didn't know the gun was loaded when I pointed it at the victim and pulled the trigger" kind of fine line?

It's actually not as fine as I thought - @Gorsameth is right. Even violating the law is ok if you didn't know. My guess would be that it's about receiving aid. So you and I can't receive information for Pence, for instance, and then use it for his benefit, which would be a violation on his part without the "knowingly/willfully" part. If you expand out on that example, anyone could fuck over anyone else without their knowledge. It's one of those laws that seems like overall benefits and protects people, but in this case gets a Crime Boss and his Family off the hook.

[Breccia]

it looks even worse for Trump than it already did.

Which is why Barr did the smart move...well, one of the smart moves he was allowed.

Yelling "TOTAL EXONORATION NO COLLUSION NO CORRUPTION I HAVE A BIG PENIS" was the wrong way to handle this. There was objective evidence, enough for Mueller to defer to Congress.

Saying "okay it looks bad, but here's the whole thing, and you'll see it's not bad enough" to Congress right away would have been the smartest play. Trump ruled that out and Barr had to stall for time. We know he was stalling because he came up with four pages within hours.

The current plan, "okay you can't see the whole thing, but people you trust can, it just takes a few weeks" remains proof that you're not hiding anything. It's the best tool he had left. And, yes, if he had hid the whole thing, eventually it would have come out, or worse, the fact it didn't come out would itself be grounds for impeachment.

[Orbitus]

What specifically survived from Steele's dossier and how new that was and how damning that is? I mean, you are saying the above presumably because you have this picture in your mind composed - what is it?

---
Actually, I take this back -- don't answer. I see from the other thread that you appear to have some kind of a mania (reporting on the number of cases of measles as a measure of quality of Trump vs Obama??). Step away from the forums, you need it, and yes, I am being serious.

Says the guy that is defending Trump like his life depends on it? Yeah, going to go with Breccia over you.

[Kallisto]

Came here to post that myself. It's an excellent brief orientation for why the report says what it says. When put into context so succinctly, it looks even worse for Trump than it already did.

Definately looks like if this was Mr Trump private citizen living in NY and not President Trump a lot of things would have been done different with Trump standing in front of a judge if I have read and listened correctly. At least for obstruction.