The Mueller Report Is Out

[redwood66]

https://ips-dc.org/911_commission_t...n_lacked_focus_on_terrorism_prior_to_attacks/
The bush administration was at fault. It's an uncomfortable truth but bush and his advisors wouldn't even meet with counter terrorism task force for months. And when they did, rice and cheney downplayed and did not act on the intelligence. Multiple warnings, and they blew it big time. They doubled down after the attack, starting a war with Saddam, over targeting al queda and Osama. It took Obama to take him out . TheTbush administration presented faulty and unreliable information, that Powell was told to present, to legitimize the war. They knew it was bs (aka they lied to congress). I'm sorry, there is no comparison, between what happened under Hillary, and what happened under Republican presidents. I'm not going to even get into the iran contra affair, where Reagan did not implicate himself because of quote "I don't remember".

Yep. Lots of intelligence failures led up to that. If you want to play tit for tat partisan style we can do it all day long but it gets us nowhere but mad. I won't do it. Government does terrible things and we don't know much of it at all.

 

[House Cat]

What makes me feel better? I was trying to have a decent conversation with you.

I know that’s why I deleted my remarks.

 

[redwood66]

I know that’s why I deleted my remarks.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Because you should know that they aren't the ones with the power to release it. The AG is based on the special counsel rules set up after Clinton. The rules are there to protect grand jury testimony, unindicted persons, and classified information. He has said he will release as much as he can.

The Dems. are asking Barr to break the law.

 

[Octo2005]

What I don't understand is that the Republicans can put an end to every bit of this fighting and suspicion --shut it down permanently in a matter of days--simply by releasing the report. Surely that would be the best thing for the entire country, regardless of which side of the political aisle you're on?

Why don't they just do that?

Don't you think that question answers itself. I believe that they don't want it released is because while whatever is in the report might not rise to a level of criminal prosecutable behavior, it certainly will show him and possibly members of his party in a very negative light. I suspect that the court of public opinion might find many guilty in undermining our democratic process.

 

[Octo2005]

The Dems. are asking Barr to break the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...elease-mueller-report/?utm_term=.15b8772fc462
Neal Kumar Katyal is the Saunders Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. He was acting solicitor general of the United States from 2010 to 2011.

The public has every right to see Robert S. Mueller III's conclusions. Absolutely nothing in the law or the regulations prevents the report from becoming public. Indeed, the relevant sources of law give Attorney General P. William Barr all the latitude in the world to make it public.

Those regulations, which I had the privilege of drafting in 1998 and 1999 as a young Justice Department lawyer, require three types of reports. First, the special counsel must give the attorney general “Urgent Reports” during the course of an investigation regarding things such as proposed indictments. Second, the special counsel must provide a report to the attorney general at the end of the investigation, which Mueller delivered on Friday. And third, the attorney general must furnish Congress with a report containing “an explanation for each action … upon conclusion of the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/SOMNIA-idUSKCN1QM1CG
The rules do not require release of the entire report, but they do not explicitly prevent Barr from giving it to Congress. The rules also give Barr latitude to disclose parts of the report if it is in the public interest.

 

[redwood66]

And he has said he will. We have waited 2 years, we can wait a bit more for it.

 

[Calliecake]

@Redwood, I’m not trying to start a fight and I’m not trying to bait you. It is obvious to anyone reading that we have different political views. How am I setting traps and getting you kicked off this forum? Really????

 

[Dancing Fire]

The Dems, MSNBC and CNN betted the farm on Russian collusion but Mueller pissed

on their faces.

 

[AGBF]

The Dems, MSNBC and CNN betted the farm on Russian collusion but Mueller pissed

on their faces.

You really should try to to do more than start arguments on this forum, Dancing Fire, or in the case of this topic, where the argument has already started, do more than foment arguments. I am sure that you are capable of adding something of substance to political discussions. In the case of what you posted above, all you did was to try whip up emotions on each side of the debate on whether President Trump had inappropriate dealings with the Russians.

AGBF

 

[Maria D]

You really should try to to do more than start arguments on this forum, Dancing Fire, or in the case of this topic, where the argument has already started, do more than foment arguments. I am sure that you are capable of adding something of substance to political discussions. In the case of what you posted above, all you did was to try whip up emotions on each side of the debate on whether President Trump had inappropriate dealings with the Russians.

AGBF

Trolls will be trolls Deb. DF is our resident troll. Just pat him on the head and pet his troll belly, I think it's supposed to be good luck.

 

[redwood66]

@Redwood, I’m not trying to start a fight and I’m not trying to bait you. It is obvious to anyone reading that we have different political views. How am I setting traps and getting you kicked off this forum? Really????

Comments on me personally with loaded opinions that attempt to impugn my character by anyone will no longer be responded to. I have enough respect for people on this forum and do not do that. If you cannot respect me enough to have a discussion about the thread topic, then we have no more to say to each other. Now provide the proof of my support of Trump's heinous actions or back off. This is the last time I will say it. If you just desire to make jabs with your opinion, that is not discussion and a complete waste of my time.

 

[jaaron]

Here is a for instance.. that trial I was helping MIL with— she is the defendant.

The plaintiff only has a story, which is why it took 14 years to bring to trial.

The defendant in this case (my MIL) doesn’t have to prove she didn’t do it (she didn’t do it). The plaintiff has to prove she did (they can’t, which is why they only have a story).

They won’t have enough evidence to prove their case.

Does this mean my MIl was really guilty and they just don’t have enough envicence to prove it?

Not at all. Their story never happened.

Well, again, with all due respect...

I really fail to understand your logic that because your mother in law didn't do something of which she has been accused, no case that doesn't go to court warrants investigation?

You said
"Right, that means they only have a theory that can’t be proven or can’t even be begun to be investigated. That means nothing or close to nothing. Not even a spark."

And I replied to that. "No reputable prosecutor would bring a case without believing they could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. They're not always right, but they have to believe that, and it's a heavy burden of proof (assumption of innocence is quite right and as it should be). That's a long, long, long way away from your assertion."

My point is that prosecutors choose not to bring criminal cases for lots of reasons - compromise of national security (in this instance, a possibility), a subject that can't be indicted (in this instance, also a possibility), evidence that is present but doesn't look like it can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. These are all reasons that have nothing to do with 'only a theory that can't be proven or can't even be begun to be investigated.'

I'm sorry that your mother-in-law is on the defendant end of things, but the sounds like it must be a civil rather than criminal case (?), in which different standards apply. Prosecutorial decision-making isn't part of that at all. All it requires is a plaintiff who can either bring the case themselves or find a lawyer willing to take it on. Judges, however, tend to not like it when people waste court time and resources, so hopefully your m-i-l's case will be dealt with swiftly.

 

[Dancing Fire]

You really should try to to do more than start arguments on this forum, Dancing Fire, or in the case of this topic, where the argument has already started, do more than foment arguments. I am sure that you are capable of adding something of substance to political discussions. In the case of what you posted above, all you did was to try whip up emotions on each side of the debate on whether President Trump had inappropriate dealings with the Russians.

AGBF

Deb
Why can't the dems just accept the fact that there was no collusion with the Russians after two yrs of investigation?

 

[jaaron]

Because you should know that they aren't the ones with the power to release it. The AG is based on the special counsel rules set up after Clinton. The rules are there to protect grand jury testimony, unindicted persons, and classified information. He has said he will release as much as he can.

Of course they can. First of all, those rules are debatable, second of all, they chose to ignore them when they wanted to (anyone remember Devin Nunes?). If they were truly interested in healing divisions and dealing with this in an open way that settles these questions, they could easily form a bipartisan group with security clearance to go through the entire together and agree on redactions. I think the American people would be willing to accept that.

 

[redwood66]

Of course they can. First of all, those rules are debatable, second of all, they chose to ignore them when they wanted to (anyone remember Devin Nunes?). If they were truly interested in healing divisions and dealing with this in an open way that settles these questions, they could easily form a bipartisan group with security clearance to go through the entire together and agree on redactions. I think the American people would be willing to accept that.

I agree it should be released and have always said so. The Gang of Eight already has security clearance and will probably see most of it. We shouldn't kid ourselves that we will see all of it though.

 

[AGBF]

Deb
Why can't the dems just accept the fact that there was no collusion with the Russians after two yrs of investigation?

First, Dancing Fire, I realize this may sound condescending, but this posting of yours is, in my opinion, more in line with what serious posters post in Hangout. You are not, simply, attempting to rile people up; you are asking a civil question. I wish you would post in this tone more often.

Second, my answer is (and others may answer differently) below.

The Democrats, and others who have followed Donald Trump's coziness with the Russians, including such incidents as meeting with their foreign minister the day after he fired FBI Director James Comey sand making disparaging remarks about the latter to the former, find it very alienating. In fact most American observers who have no need for Trump's imprimatur, find his homage to Vladimir Putin and his desire to remove sanctions on Russia strange and curious to the point of warranting another look.

I believe Robert Mueller if he said he did not find evidence of an actual conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russian government to influence the election. That does not mean that something is not rotten in the State of Denmark, however. Something has to explain the unusual behavior of those Russians in the Oval office; the Helsinki meeting in which Trump chose Putin over his own CIA, NSA, and FBI; the desire Trump has to lift sanctions on Russia and Russian oligarchs. Something is going on, although I do not know what that thing is. That is why I, as a Democrat cannot rest. Because I am curious. I have always been curious.

When I was in sixth grade I heard a reporter for "The New York Times", the late Nan Robertson speak. She said that if you wanted to be a journalist you had to be curious. I am glad that so many members of The Fourth Estate are curious and brave.

AGBF

 

[redwood66]

First, Dancing Fire, I realize this may sound condescending, but this posting of yours is, in my opinion, more in line with what serious posters post in Hangout. You are not, simply, attempting to rile people up; you are asking a civil question. I wish you would post in this tone more often.

Second, my answer is (and others may answer differently) below.

The Democrats, and others who have followed Donald Trump's coziness with the Russians, including such incidents as meeting with their foreign minister the day after he fired FBI Director James Comey sand making disparaging remarks about the latter to the former, find it very alienating. In fact most American observers who have no need for Trump's imprimatur, find his homage to Vladimir Putin and his desire to remove sanctions on Russia strange and curious to the point of warranting another look.

I believe Robert Mueller if he said he did not find evidence of an actual conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russian government to influence the election. That does not mean that something is not rotten in the State of Denmark, however. Something has to explain the unusual behavior of those Russians in the Oval office; the Helsinki meeting in which Trump chose Putin over his own CIA, NSA, and FBI; the desire Trump has to lift sanctions on Russia and Russian oligarchs. Something is going on, although I do not know what that thing is. That is why I, as a Democrat cannot rest. Because I am curious. I have always been curious.

When I was in sixth grade I heard a reporter for "The New York Times", the late Nan Robertson speak. She said that if you wanted to be a journalist you had to be curious. I am glad that so many members of The Fourth Estate are curious and brave.

AGBF

I completely understand this and IMO curiosity should cross all political boundaries when it comes to actions of our government and elected officials.

Edit - I hope your DH is doing better.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Schiff is still chasing Russians.

said he have proof of collusion which Mueller was unable to find after 2 yrs of investigating. If Dems kept on chasing Russians it'll only help Trump in 2020.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...on-claim-mueller-chris-cuomo-intv-cpt-vpx.cnn

 

[AGBF]

Schiff is still chasing Russians.

said he have proof of collusion which Mueller was unable to find after 2 yrs of investigating. If Dems kept on chasing Russians it'll only help Trump in 2020.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...on-claim-mueller-chris-cuomo-intv-cpt-vpx.cnn

We have not, yet, seen the Mueller report. We do not know if there was "collusion", as you put it. What we know, at least those of us who trust Robert Mueller, is that there was no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The reason that it is important for Congress to look deeper into what was going on behind the scenes is that we do not, yet, have an explanation for why Donald Trump did the things I mentioned above: asked Russians into the Oval Office the day after he fired James Comey; told the Russians that the problem he had had was solved because he had gotten rid of that "nut job" James Comey; sided with Vladimir Putin against our security forces when asked in Helsinksi; etc.

Something was wrong, as I said. Something was rotten. I am glad that it was not a criminal conspiracy, but I want to know what it was. I do not want Russians in the Oval Office hearing classified information and influencing who the Director of the FBI will be.

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

A touch of levity. (I, personally, did not like all the jokes about Trump's mispronunciation of the word "origins"-Colbert did not harp on that the way other comedians did-because I believe that it may be the result of a neurological impairment. I do not make fun of people's physical or mental disabilities.) I thought the political material was fair game, however.

 

[partgypsy]

In retrospect, Barr releasing a 4 page summary 24 hours after a 300 page report was released, seems like damage control. Apparently the report did not even contain any sentences from the Mueller report.
The Mueller team even created summary reports of the various section that could be immediately released to the public, with nothing that needed to be redacted, Barr did not use those summary reports and is also refusing to release even that summary.
Stating that it will take at least a month to release the full report (and how much will be redacted, we do not know) is NOT typical procedure. (well, nor is not having the president's tax returns be publically available, nor not agreeing to divest from potential conflicts of interest before assuming the presidency...)

As someone else noted, both Both Ken Starr's report and the Watergate report were released to the public within 2 days of the completion of their investigations.

I hope we learn more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ckened-mueller-report/?utm_term=.ba9f5ec9dc7b

 

[AGBF]

The author of this piece, Vicki Divoli, is a former General Counsel of The Senate Intelligence Committee. She argues that if the law is being followed, the congressional intelligence committees should already have the Mueller report.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/...r-report-intelligence-.html#commentsContainer

AGBF

 

[Calliecake]

It was just reported that Mueller on Obstruction “Unable to conclude that No Criminal Conduct Occurred”. While it didn’t conclude that Trump committed a crime, it didn’t exonerate him.

Trump’s Campaign “expected” to benefit from Russia’s illegal actions.
How on earth is it acceptable to not go to the FBI and report this?

It will be interesting to see what Congress does with the information from the report.

 

[redwood66]

The actual report.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

 

[whitewave]

Well, again, with all due respect...

I really fail to understand your logic that because your mother in law didn't do something of which she has been accused, no case that doesn't go to court warrants investigation?

You said
"Right, that means they only have a theory that can’t be proven or can’t even be begun to be investigated. That means nothing or close to nothing. Not even a spark."

And I replied to that. "No reputable prosecutor would bring a case without believing they could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. They're not always right, but they have to believe that, and it's a heavy burden of proof (assumption of innocence is quite right and as it should be). That's a long, long, long way away from your assertion."

My point is that prosecutors choose not to bring criminal cases for lots of reasons - compromise of national security (in this instance, a possibility), a subject that can't be indicted (in this instance, also a possibility), evidence that is present but doesn't look like it can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. These are all reasons that have nothing to do with 'only a theory that can't be proven or can't even be begun to be investigated.'

I'm sorry that your mother-in-law is on the defendant end of things, but the sounds like it must be a civil rather than criminal case (?), in which different standards apply. Prosecutorial decision-making isn't part of that at all. All it requires is a plaintiff who can either bring the case themselves or find a lawyer willing to take it on. Judges, however, tend to not like it when people waste court time and resources, so hopefully your m-i-l's case will be dealt with swiftly.

Well, now we know it w1s a perfectly appropriate comparison.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

From today’s Washington Post:
In May 2017, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Trump that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein had just appointed Mueller as special counsel. Trump slumped back in his chair, according to notes from Jody Hunt, Sessions’s chief of staff. “Oh my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m f---ed,” Trump said. Trump further laid into Sessions for his recusal, saying Sessions had let him down.

 

[tkyasx78]

I will print it out this afternoon so I can read it, but I doubt I will learn much more than what I already do

——
1. When the report was given to Barr trump claimed
he was “Totally exonerated”.

2. trump and his team had to write a 140 page rebuttal to this “ total exoneration”.
——

You don’t need 140 pages of rebuttal to something you claim “ totally exonerates” you. trump is a liar and should be removed from office. Pence will be fine until 2020.

trump is unfit to be president. He likely worked with a foreign government to win the election and he is using the job to manipulate and cover his conspiracy.

I am glad Congress has invited Mr. Mueller to testify and I am genuinely grateful for his service to this country. Proving crimes beyond a reasonable doubt is not easy, and I am glad he tried his best to find the truth no matter where it lead.
We need more truth. I hope our next president is an honest person who will follow the law. This current one is an insult to the constitution and decency.
As a former republican I am disgusted by what has happened to the party. It is mind boggling to me.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Not from today’s Washington Post:

 

[Calliecake]

The actual report.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Thanks Redwood!