US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

[alasdairm]

In fairness, if you'd read something that damn long would you have the stamina to go on and check the evidence? Due process, I agree, would say 'you must'. Especially for Barr when it is his damn job. I'm just watching the rest of us struggle to take on the report alone.

the rest of us are not the united states attorney general. i agree he must.

remember the context is a president with an aversion to reading who needs one-page memos on subjects because he can't be bothered to do his job properly.

Though, it also begs the question, if the report truly does not indicate finding collusion/conspiracy, and states it cannot provide grounds for obstruction, does a recommendation from Barr require going thru the evidence as well before issuing a response to Congress? Once Barr forced Mueller to wrap it up, was the speed to summary and recommendation Barr's preference or at the behest of Congress? I don't know. Not a question posed to Ali specifically, but in general.

i would think so. this is serious staff and it deserves the full attention of serious people.

alasdair

 

[TheLoveBandit]

We already have a thread for FISAGATE and the alleged presidential coup:

US Politics - FISA scandal

Autopsy of a Dead Coup https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/17/autopsy-of-a-dead-coup/ The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an...

www.bluelight.org

Excellent! The content has a home, should it come up. I'll look for such comments in the appropriate thread. Thank you.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Another interesting take on Mueller's supposed confronting of Barr regarding mischaracterizing the report.

Don't Believe the Headlines: Mueller Said Barr Memo Was Accurate

These headlines all suggest some sinister attempt by Attorney General Barr to mislead the public about the Mueller report in his four-page memo on the report's findings. But, when you actually read beyond the headlines you’ll discover that the media is doing all the misleading here. This comes from CNN’s story:

Later, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone and while Mueller didn't think Barr's letter was inaccurate, the special counsel believed his report was more nuanced on the obstruction of justice issue, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller was frustrated by media coverage, and wanted more of the report to come out, those officials told CNN.

[...]
Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement Tuesday that Mueller did not tell Barr that anything in the letter was factually wrong.
"In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel's obstruction analysis," Kupec said.

The Washington Post buried the same thing as well:

A day after the letter was sent, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials.
When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation,officials said.

So, the two key points here are (1) Mueller did not think Barr’s memo was inaccurate, and (2) Mueller's major concern was actually misleading media coverage.

EDIT:

And another similar article with the same take:

“On Thursday morning I received a letter from Bob, the letter that’s just put into the record, and I called Bob and said, ‘What’s the issue here?’ and I asked him if he was suggesting the March 24 letter was inaccurate? And he said ‘no,’ but that the press reporting had been inaccurate, and that the press was reading too much into it,” he testified.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

i would think so. this is serious staff and it deserves the full attention of serious people.

Good thing we're all sillies in here, eh?

Even though Barr says he didn't go thru all the evidence, I would expect there is a supporting staff who did so and would advise him of what they found. I don't feel he, personally, has to go thru it all and delay things additional weeks, but he should at least have a staff that does that effectively for him. I've heard no mention of anyone, beyond Mueller, reviewing the evidence aspect.

Personally, if it were my job, and I knew the importance of it, I'd have a staff go through it AND I'd take a look for myself.

 

[alasdairm]

Personally, if it were my job, and I knew the importance of it, I'd have a staff go through it AND I'd take a look for myself.

indeed.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

"Don't Believe the Headlines: Mueller Said Barr Memo Was Accurate"

Uhhh... So I should in that case continue believing the reverse..yes?

I don't really care about how much Barr looked at the evidence. I do care that that there seems to be no way to honestly and reasonably call his memo an accurate reflection of the report.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I don't really care about how much Barr looked at the evidence. I do care that that there seems to be no way to honestly and reasonably call his memo an accurate reflection of the report.

You say that, but as we've established, how do any of us know how accurate a reflection it is unless we have read the report ourselves? Have you read it?

Mueller wrote it, and didn't indicate a problem with Barr's memo, but instead an issue with how the media were misrepresenting things based upon Barr's memo. If we want to take the view that Mueller DID have an issue with the memo itself, let's find the link which quotes him.

EDIT: changed letter and memo to better reflect how the documents were referenced in media, and to add:

Mueller expressed misgivings to Barr about 4-page letter

Later, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone and while Mueller didn't think Barr's letter was inaccurate, the special counsel believed his report was more nuanced on the obstruction of justice issue, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller was frustrated by media coverage, and wanted more of the report to come out, those officials told CNN.

...

According to a source familiar with Mueller's letter to Barr and subsequent call with the attorney general, the letter from the special counsel's office came in on March 27. It was first reviewed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's office and is roughly a page in length.

After reviewing it, Barr called Mueller the following day. Barr said something to the effect of "we've been friends for a long time, let's talk about this," according to a source with knowledge of the call. The call was described to CNN as polite, but there was clear disagreement.

Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement Tuesday that Mueller did not tell Barr that anything in the letter was factually wrong.

"In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel's obstruction analysis," Kupec said.

"They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released. However, the Attorney General ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion. The Attorney General and the Special Counsel agreed to get the full report out with necessary redactions as expeditiously as possible. The next day, the Attorney General sent a letter to Congress reiterating that his March 24 letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but instead only stated the Special Counsel's principal conclusions, and volunteered to testify before both Senate and House Judiciary Committees on May 1st and 2nd."

Emphasis mine, to reflect again where Mueller's concerns were, and to answer my question of 'why rush?'. Lastly, we should note, Mueller's team did the redaction, not Barr.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Came across another headline screaming about how "69 Percent of Americans Want Origins of Russia Probe Investigated: CNN Poll", and other links pointing to it saying CNN was burying the poll results. I haven't seen the results elsewhere, but if they are available on the internet via CNN's site, I'm not buying that headline much either.

I'm not putting this in the FISA-gate thread, because I actually followed the link and read the survey. Only a small bit addressed the origins of the investigation. The rest of the questions are focused on how did Mueller and Barr do, did Trump cooperate, and other aspects related to the report and NOT the origins of the investigation. Worth a quick read if you have time. Not too surprised with the results, IMO, but I'll admit trying to interpret responses to fit my bias or expectations....when reality was they were just results that didn't give a hoot about my bias or expectations.

 

[cduggles]

Link to one of Mueller's letters to Barr:

Document: Robert Mueller's Letter to Bill Barr

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had submitted a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr on March 27 related to the letter Barr sent to Congress on March 24 summarizing the Mueller report. Mueller’s letter is available below.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[cduggles]

Link to full text of Executive Summaries of Mueller report:

Full Text of the Mueller Report's Executive Summaries

Editor’s Note: Below are the executive summaries of the two volumes of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's final report. Volume I deals with links between Russia and the Trump campaign, while Volume II deals with potential obstruction of justice by President Trump. This article is available in...

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[cduggles]

Will Mueller testify in front of Congress? I believe he probably will. I definitely think he should.

 

[JessFR]

You say that, but as we've established, how do any of us know how accurate a reflection it is unless we have read the report ourselves? Have you read it?

Mueller wrote it, and didn't indicate a problem with Barr's letter, but instead an issue with how the media were misrepresenting things based upon Barr's letter. If we want to take the view that Mueller DID have an issue with the memo itself, let's find the link which quotes him.

Yes I've read it.

As for what mueller thinks.. We are all operating on second hand accounts of what he said regardless. So I'm not prepared to make any assumptions about what he thought one way or the other.

I can see a lot of room for context and interpretation between both general accounts of what he said.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Yes I've read it.

Sweet Jeebus I admire you. I've barely scratched the surface of it, and keep losing interest.

 

[cduggles]

This is a handy companion when reading the Mueller report by Lawfare's editor in chief:

Notes on the Mueller Report: A Reading Diary

Reading the report carefully and writing my thoughts as I go.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[JGrimez]

did you type that with a straight face? the irony of this must be totally lost on you...

barr is just a shill for the trump administration. his senate testimony was a masterclass in evasion and obfuscation.

disappointed in the republican's defense of barr but not surprised.

So in that case, do you believe that Mueller is going to come out and say that there is enough evidence to indict Trump on crimes?
Will Trump or any of his associates be indicted for anything related to Russian collusion to alter the results of the US election?
Or will they be indicted for any other unrelated crimes, in your opinion? If so, ,which ones?

this also sounds like it may also open investigations into how this investigation was brought about and if Gov't leaders were acting morally, ethically, and legally preceding Trump's election. Should those topics be discussed here, since the Mueller investigation and report are what is spawning these (if they occur), or will such topics require their own thread(s).

Way ahead of you! Once people finally accept that Trump did not collude with Russians to influence the election - then the focus will be on how/why this investigation was even able to begin in the first place, and all the illegal activity surrounding that (currently that is conspiracy theory status to the Dems, but I know that you have a good idea as to what went on there).

 

[mal3volent]

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

 

[JGrimez]

^their scope was so broad and they STILL couldn't find anything on Trump.

I'm actually surprised by this, I thought with Trump's history as a business mogul they'd find SOMEthing anything illegal that he's done.

It seems that if he did do some illegal business, the people he did it with are going to protect themselves and not risk exposure.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

The Mueller report (allegedly) did not find collusion

One would have to be ignorant to not understand the intricate workings behind the Trump cartel and the illegal occupied government in Russia.

You don't need a report to tell you. This isn't some HIV test where you need a negative to know. It's not a microscopic thing. It's macroscopic. This is something you can see when Trump is a national traitor.

On the other hand, the middle east is going nicely, and I'm sure there's a connection there...

^their scope was so broad and they STILL couldn't find anything on Trump.

The investigations dug up TONS of mud on Trump and his family. You're living under a rock.

SOMEONE was too busy doing something stupid with their real life to not watch Manafort testify the second time. I didn't even see all of it myself, but a few hours' worth and totally worth it.

I feel bad for the people who choose to live under a rock. Choose that when you're dead. You're living. <SNIP>

 

[JGrimez]

<SNIP>

One would have to be ignorant to not understand the intricate workings behind the Trump cartel and the illegal occupied government in Russia.

how is the government in Russia "illegal occupied"?
How does Uranium One fit into your theory

his is something you can see when Trump is a national traitor.

Trump has made a ton of moves that go directly against Russia or Russian interests. How does that fit into nyour theory?

The investigations dug up TONS of mud on Trump and his family. You're living under a rock.

Cool, indict him. Or at the very least present me some evidence.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

All the Republicans were behind Uranium One, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill which, ironically, is something complain of the left doing against your wanna-be neo-con savior.

He's collaborated with Russia in exactly the ways that have allowed it to illegally occupy Crimea, without a global response. They are ecologically ruining their nation. They are ruining the electoral integrity of many countries THAT AREN'T AMERICA. I am not going to even touch that one because we have the first amendment and I don't think what they did with their little ad campaign here was that serious. WHAT RUSSIA HAS BEEN DOING, with technology and hacking and interfering in national/private affairs OUTSIDE OF ELECTIONS IS A MAJOR CONCERN. DPRK/RUS and China are the major world powers to fear right now and their imperial push outward is dangerous.

Why do you think we're allying ourselves with Saudi Arabia, Israel, India?

They're waiting until he's out of office, or they aren't going to indict and I don't care.

The gov't of Russia is illegitimate and has been ever since the revolutions in 1917. The Russian Empire is what existed prior to then, and what should exist now. The Russian Federation and everything in the last 102 years has been a real shitshow. I invite you to pick up any number of books to self-educate on this.