Mueller report summary sent to Congress

[Irwin Corey]

So you totally agree with President Trump that the report should be released, correct?

Yes, do you?

 

[Idiometer]

I think you need to go outside of this forum. Its very naïve to rely on this forum as the sole supplier of opinions of our nation. You asked me if I am willing to allow facts to rule the outcome. Yes...I am. I have not besmirched Muellers name, or reputation. I was willing to accept his determination of this case. Are you?

Sure. Always have been. I'm still looking forward to seeing the whole report.

What did I write that gave you the impression that I'm naive enough to get my views from this forum or any other forum? That was a tad arrogant, IMO. All I did was to explain that some assumptions are almost unavoidable given the stubbornly held views of many people.

 

[akyron]

No, she lost because

- "Basket of delporables"
- Ignoring a few key voting demographics/districts
- The electoral college
- A full-on anti-Clinton propaganda campaign carried out by the Russians at Putin's direction.

I think it's time for Trump supporters to admit that their boy had some help from an adversarial foreign government. Yes, he's the legitimate president, but to have been assisted, even unwittingly, by Putin is something Trump's ego would never allow him to believe, much less admit.

"After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats.

Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton."

This just goes on and on.....

 

[Idiometer]

Enough.

The Democrats didn't like the results of the 2016 election. Ever since then they are trying to undo this election and challenge the results of a democratic election.

They are creating their own facts to conform to their own twisted narrative.

Democrats demanded Obama fire Comey.

When Trump fires Comey it all of a sudden is an abuse of power?



If Trump were involved in Russian Collusion it would have been in the Mueller Report.

It is over. We should now investigate the investigators and see why Hillary Clinton got off despite this:



The 12 juiciest bits from the FBI's Clinton report - POLITICO

"If Trump were involved in Russian Collusion it would have been in the Mueller Report."

Sigh ...

We haven't seen the report yet, just Barr's summary with a couple of his hand-picked quotes. It would seem that Mueller does not have enough solid evidence of conspiracy in order to indict anyone else. A prosecutor generally charges cases he thinks he can actually win.

If Trump didn't coordinate anything about the hacking or the propaganda deluge leading up to the election, I'm fine with that.

If his remarks to Lester Holt about firing Comey were off the cuff from a sitting president too stupid to understand what he was implying, which is how it always seemed to me, I'm fine with no obstruction charge.

But for those staunch defenders who insist on seeing Trump as some sort of failure, remember: his crimes, throughout his entire b life, have been financial crimes, and since those types of crimes were not in Mueller's mandate, perhaps he will turn all of those investigations over to other venues, like the State of New York. Oh, wait ... yeah, he did that already, didn't he?

I don't care how good of a job his die hards think he's doing, Trump is a crook and his presence in our highest office is disgraceful.

 

[TamleeB]

Sure. Always have been. I'm still looking forward to seeing the whole report.

What did I write that gave you the impression that I'm naive enough to get my views from this forum or any other forum? That was a tad arrogant, IMO. All I did was to explain that some assumptions are almost unavoidable given the stubbornly held views of many people.

I think there is an assumption by some that those who are accepting of Muellers results besmirched his name in the past, which is not necessarily the case. If I came across arrogant that was truly not my intention. I am glad the Mueller investigation is complete.

 

[haymarket]

no collusion
no obstruction

and unlike the hillary investigation.

you guys can't came that it was rigged or obstructed.
like the hillary investigation was.

From what page of the Mueller Report are you quoting from?

 

[KLATTU]

Until we read the complete report, nobody knows what it might contain.

You're sounding like that little weasel Schiff.

Face it, you got played.

 

[Tangmo]

From The Hill:

Former Clinton independent counsel Ken Starr wrote Friday that special counsel Robert Mueller is barred from producing a public report detailing his findings from the investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

In an op-ed for The Atlantic, the former U.S. solicitor general cited current Justice Department regulations to write that Mueller must "remain quiet" and not violate what he called one of the fundamental principles of public prosecution: "Thou shalt not drag a subject or target of the investigation through the mud via public criticism."

"This former FBI director—now a special counsel—has a specific reporting obligation. That solemn obligation is not to produce a public report. He cannot seek an indictment. And he must remain quiet," Starr wrote. Ken Starr: Mueller 'cannot indict,' should remain 'quiet' | TheHill

He's right.

So is Mueller right in not seeking, considering or trying to himself publicize his report. Mueller did indeed do the only thing he is authorized to do -- mandated to do -- which is to send his report to the attorney general, Wm. Barr. Then Mueller drove off into the sunset. Starr meanwhile is having Clinton flashbacks.

Barr is authorized to make the report public under certain circumstances. Trump as Potus is able to declassify the report and to order its release to the public either in full or with redactions. Which places me among the very many waiting for Trump to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak. Because when we think about it Starr and Barr rhyme with scar.

 

[Slyfox696]

You do that. And you also be sure you never entertain a contrarian point of view.

Did you notice I actually copied and pasted the "contrarian point of view" for you this time, since I knew you wouldn't click on any link which conflicts with what you want to believe? You are welcome.

And, again, Starr is a hack who essentially covered up the sexual assault of college students because he wanted a good football team. He also chose to represent a man who trafficked underaged prostitutes in Jeffrey Epstein. Starr is ALSO the person who very publicly pursued a case against Bill Clinton when he was an independent counsel.

So why in the world would I believe Ken Starr on this particular matter, when Ken Starr's own past makes him completely unbelievable?

And considering you cant comprehend what you read, your opinion is meaningless. Starr said Muellar is prohibited from releasing the report and said nothing about Barr.

I actually read the entire article. Did you? How about you try that and then get back to me with your apology?

 

[haymarket]

You're sounding like that little weasel Schiff.

Face it, you got played.

From what page of the Mueller Report are you quoting?

 

[j-mac]

From what page of the Mueller Report are you quoting?

Don't think the report has "haymarket is a weasel like Schiff" in it...I could be wrong, your reputation does precede you....lol

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[Plus Ultra]

I know lots of Democrats (few Republicans where I live) and all of them believe Hillary lost because Trump made some secret deal with the Russians. There is evidence of Russian meddling (those 13 trolls at that chef's outfit in St. Petersburg) but if Barr is accurately summarizing Mueller's report, there's nothing on Trump and his team arranging for this. Mueller issued 2,800 subpoenas, had 500 hours of interviews with suspects, 19 attorneys (apparently all Democrats) and 40 high-ranking agents (some quite biased like Strzok and his mistress), but they couldn't find that smoking gun.

If as thorough and comprehensive a federal investigation as this one has failed to establish conclusive evidence of “collusion” as Mueller defines it, it is highly unlikely that a congressional investigation is going to strike paydirt on this point. Congress might reach different conclusions regarding the significance of evidence Mueller’s team identified, but it probably isn’t going to sound depths that Mueller didn’t plumb. The working presumption should be that the Mueller report contains the complete factual record, at least on the points he purports to address.

Apparently Mueller's report is thurough and comprehensive, it recounts the facts and evidence in support of and against every charge against each person investigated. One of the issues covered is the claim of Trump's obstruction, on which Mueller inexplicably did not offer a conclusion, though it has been highlighted he specifically said his investigation does not exonerate Trump on this charge.

Barr notes Mueller’s determination that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian electoral interference” and argues that the lack of evidence of an underlying crime, though not dispositive, “bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.” The report does not identify any actions that, in Barr’s and Rosenstein’s view, “constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent,” each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the crime of obstruction of justice under Justice Department guidelines. What to Make of Bill Barr’s Letter - Lawfare

That "corrupt intent" element is the problem, but Congress doesn't need to establish such an intent in an impeachment proceeding, so I'd expect this is where their investigation will focus. They'll be looking at not just Comey's firing (which has a variety of explanations and not all of them indicating obstruction), but all so at countless declarations, statements and tweets from Trump at different junctures of this lengthy ordeal. I'd expect they'll skip the "no collusion" tweets, since evidently this was true, but the lack of any evidence to show collusion will have a significant effect on the claim of obstruction (as noted above). Obstruction of justice is impeding, interfering or influencing (with a corrupt intent), whether this was the case depends on circumstances and context, it works better if one can credibly maintain a suggested wrongful intent in the perpetrator. I think it will be difficult for Congress to credibly maintain Trump's wrongful intent in perceived efforts to impede, interfere and influence an investigation into something that never happened.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Take
Analysis
For Democrats, Mueller report turns their politics upside down
There are difficult questions about what investigations House Democrats should pursue and to what end.

• By Dan Balz

 

[Tangmo]

It will be nearly impossible to release the full report to the public without being redacted due to classified information and confidential procedures. Those waiting for that will be disappointed and a redacted report will not satisfy everyone.

I hadn't known you were a worry wart.

Be assured adult professionals who value integrity can work these things through. With Nunes out of the picture almost anything is possible as long as it's professional and above board. The latter are of course Nune's biggest failures.

 

[Jack Hays]

I hadn't known you were a worry wart.

Be assured adult professionals who value integrity can work these things through. With Nunes out of the picture almost anything is possible as long as it's professional and above board. The latter are of course Nune's biggest failures.

Devin Nunes: Hero
Christopher Buskirk, The Spectator

 

[Tangmo]

By all appearances, the Dem primaries are going to be a huge exercise of eating their own in a left-"progressive" purity contest.

Which they can do if they wish, but I think it's ill-advised.

Relax. Get some fresh air. Nothing's as bad as it seems.

 

[Tangmo]

you are on a roll since you entire 2016 debacle hillary in a landslide and courts are going to overturn the election.
lmao.

no collusion
no obstruction.

No report.

Not available to the public of the republic.

It's only you and Barr standing there masturbating and reading his four page love letter to Trump. Cause that's all you got. In other words you're holding nothing.

 

[haymarket]

Don't think the report has "haymarket is a weasel like Schiff" in it...I could be wrong, your reputation does precede you....lol

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

So you - like the other American people - have not read the Mueller Report because it is being kept secret from you. Got it.

 

[madasheck]

Here we go with the conservatives believing in Mueller all of a sudden.

I can't wait to see how the big mouths like Hannity, Carlson and Rush will have a love affair with him.

 

[Tangmo]

The Take
Analysis
For Democrats, Mueller report turns their politics upside down
There are difficult questions about what investigations House Democrats should pursue and to what end.

• By Dan Balz

I hadn't known you were a worry wart too. They're coming out of the woodwork now they are.

Devin Nunes: Hero
Christopher Buskirk, The Spectator

You too are holding nothing.

 

[antiquity]

Here we go with the conservatives believing in Mueller all of a sudden.

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

Funny...now it seems democrats don't believe a word of the Mueller report. I guess that democrats wish Trump had fired Mueller months ago...:lamo

 

[antiquity]

Here we go with the conservatives believing in Mueller all of a sudden.

I can't wait to see how the big mouths like Hannity, Carlson and Rush will have a love affair with him.

I can't wait for the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC to start their spin...wait they already have:roll:...they now hate Mueller with a passion after protecting him over the last two years..kind of reminds me of the love/hate/love for Comey.

 

[Tangmo]

There are a lot of fantasies occurring presently over on the Right.

Overwrought concerns for Democrats that are dreamed up.

One poster nearby said Democrats have now rejected every word of the Mueller report when the report is publicly unavailable because Barr and Trump are sitting on it. Republicans / Conservatives seem to be sitting on a lot of things judging by their posts.

 

[SLC]

Devin Nunes: Hero
Christopher Buskirk, The Spectator

Very good article. Thanks for finding it.

 

[SLC]

I can't wait for the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC to start their spin...wait they already have:roll:...they now hate Mueller with a passion after protecting him over the last two years..kind of reminds me of the love/hate/love for Comey.

I was thinking the same thing.