Mueller indictments (split from Collusion with Russia)

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 In Barr's letter he outlined that Russian intelligence did work to influence the election and Mueller had not founding evidence that members of Trump campaign knowingly coordinated with those Russian efforts. This leaves the door open that Trumps campaign did coordinate with Russia but do so unwittingly. 

It's more specific than that. Barr is conveying that the report says campaign did not conspire with IRA, or with the Russian government about the hacking. 

"the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts"

"the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts"

IOW, anything about other Russian interference was not investigated, nor was quid-pro-quo for sanctions relief.

49 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Ultimately we all need to wait to see the report. I think Trump and his defenders have done a excellent job moving the goal posts on this whole thing. During the campaign and for a year plus after they argued maybe it was China or some fat guy or whatever. They argued Trump won and Democrats are just sore losers. Now they are conceding Russia influenced in Trump's favor but are celebrating that there is no proof Trump's team knowingly helped. 

If he is exonerated, as he is claiming, there is no reason not to release the report. And, as you point out, the report concludes that Russia interfered, and the administration has done precious little to protect future from interference.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

If he is exonerated, as he is claiming, there is no reason not to release the report. And, as you point out, the report concludes that Russia interfered, and the administration has done precious little to protect future from interference.

Right. Whether or not Trump specifically colluded isn't where this conversation started. It started during the campaign when numerous people including Clinton herself pointed out Russia was interfering and Trump denied, denied, denied. It is now undeniable Russia interfered, undeniable Trump was made aware of the interference throughout, and as you point out Trump has done nothing about it but obfuscate the issue. 

 

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is an implication in this that it does exonerate him of collusion with the Russian government.

Not quite, or at least a grey zone. The quote was 

Quote

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

While open to some level of interpretation, it stops before actually stating that there was no evidence. Just insufficient to establish a conspiracy. I.e. it would be closer to an acquittal than an actual exoneration, though without details it is not clear what is meant. OTOH I would be surprised if the choice of word was not carefully crafted.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not quite, or at least a grey zone. The quote was 

While open to some level of interpretation, it stops before actually stating that there was no evidence. Just insufficient to establish a conspiracy. I.e. it would be closer to an acquittal than an actual exoneration, though without details it is not clear what is meant. OTOH I would be surprised if the choice of word was not carefully crafted.

My point was that it was specifically stated that Trump was not exonerated of obstruction of justice. This doesn't mean he was exonerated of collusion with the Russian Government but it does imply that, correctly or not, and intentionally or not.

The statement seemed odd in any case. If they don't have enough evidence to indict, or recommend indictment, are they supposed to make that type of comment?

[Raider5678]

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

Citation?

If only that worked with the Hillary investigations. 

"We've found no evidence that she's guilty."

"What that really means is that she covered her tracks!"

 

My favorite part of today was reading on Facebook about how many people were "disappointed in the results of the Muller investigation." 

Okay...... Perhaps you'd rather the report tell you your president committed treason? Because that's a good thing?

And Republicans changing their mind saying "Muller is a great honest guy" when just a few weeks ago he was "the lowest piece of shit on earth", while my more liberal friends change their mind about him in the complete opposite direction.

[iNow]

Just to be clear, nobody has yet seen the Mueller report. We’ve seen the Barr letter. For now, that ought to matter

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This doesn't mean he was exonerated of collusion with the Russian Government but it does imply that, correctly or not, and intentionally or not.

The statement seemed odd in any case. If they don't have enough evidence to indict, or recommend indictment, are they supposed to make that type of comment?

I think the statement as quoted from the Muller report is a careful framing of their finding. The issue as iNow pointed out is that without the context of a fuller report the summary is open to interpretation. E.g. the mentioning of lack of exoneration could mean what you mentioned. Or the juxtaposition in the summary maybe a consequence of how Barr created the summary. What is certain is that there is certainly not enough meat to for criminal persecution. Though whether that is more an acquittal or an exoneration would highly depend on the overall substance of the report.

[swansont]

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not quite, or at least a grey zone. The quote was 

While open to some level of interpretation, it stops before actually stating that there was no evidence. Just insufficient to establish a conspiracy. I.e. it would be closer to an acquittal than an actual exoneration, though without details it is not clear what is meant. OTOH I would be surprised if the choice of word was not carefully crafted.

And that was written by Barr, and not Mueller. It could very well mean that there is evidence but insufficient (in Barr's opinion) to bring an indictment. And his opinion may not be objective.

On 3/24/2019 at 10:15 PM, Airbrush said:

  That means that Trump, and those around him, were aware enough that cooperating with Russians was a no-no, so they were extra careful to not leave evidence behind. 

Given what we've learned "careful to not leave evidence behind" seems dubious. But it doesn't eliminate dealing with non-governmental Russians who were intermediaries, and we know that such things happened. 

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Just to be clear, nobody has yet seen the Mueller report. We’ve seen the Barr letter. For now, that ought to matter

You are 100% correct. Sadly the media broadly is ignoring that. Far as I can tell Trump is receiving a full victory lap. Even news source I generally consider pretty good are running headlines with word like exonerated in them.

It is shocking to me.We have all seen Trump's administration outline lie about things  in the past. We have seen them come out is official statements and say things that we all know are untrue. It has happened so much many of the lies have already been forgotten. Lies about crowd size, lies about whether certain cabinet members are staying or going, lies about phone conversations with world leaders, lies about how Kushner got his clearance, and etc. Trump has even said things on camera and later claimed to have said something else despite it being on camera for us all to see. Trump stood in front of a room full of reports with a table full of stacked blank printer paper and proclaimed it was evidence he had signed over control of his businesses. The list goes on and on. It astonishes me that given this administration track record with the truth the media is so free running Barr's words absent of heavy skepticism or context. 

Moreover the Mueller investigation has already led to more criminal indictments than every Congressional probe and investigation into Obama and Hillary Clinton combined. Members of Trump campaign were proven to have committed felonies during the campaign and lied to congress and FBI about it. Lots of nasty stuff has already come out. Trump Jr publicly lied about the Trump tower meeting, Trump lied about Daniels, Trump lied about his Moscow real estate deal, and there are numerous questions regarding contacts with wikileaks and other payments to social media firms who circulated Russian propaganda. Yet Trump is taking a victory lap. What a crazy world. Mueller never even got to interview Trump.

[DrP]

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

If only that worked with the Hillary investigations. 

"We've found no evidence that she's guilty."

"What that really means is that she covered her tracks!"

Oh, don't you worry. Graham has announced that they now want to investigate the FBI and the Clinton campaign and the Steele dossier. The latter is a bit funny as apparently McCain delivered the dossier to the FBI after advise from Graham. Graham has also argued for another special counsel to this end, so the drama is far from over (even before the report has been fully viewed by folks). I think we are stuck in a perpetual re-run of 2016.

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Oh, don't you worry. Graham has announced that they now want to investigate the FBI and the Clinton campaign and the Steele dossier. The latter is a bit funny as apparently McCain delivered the dossier to the FBI after advise from Graham. Graham has also argued for another special counsel to this end, so the drama is far from over (even before the report has been fully viewed by folks). I think we are stuck in a perpetual re-run of 2016.

I would be surprised if the GOP actually start anything related to the Dossier. Currently they have convinced most it is a hoax. That Clinton seeking it invalidates it. Investigating it might reveal it is true or reveal other skeletons. 

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I would be surprised if the GOP actually start anything related to the Dossier. Currently they have convinced most it is a hoax. That Clinton seeking it invalidates it. Investigating it might reveal it is true or reveal other skeletons. 

I do not think that it is about the content of the dossier. Rather, it is about how it was handled. There is a conspiracy theory around that the dossier triggered scrutiny of the Trump campaign and a FISA warrant against Carter Page. The actual chain of events were quite a bit different but folks have tried their hardest to build it as a powerful narrative in order to tie the Clinton campaign into every investigation against Trump and his campaign. Thereby they can claim that it is not only a hoax, but an actual attack against the administration in a huge anti-Trump conspiracy. Folks love these stories. Too bad that this is actually not (just) on TV.

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I would be surprised if the GOP actually start anything related to the Dossier. Currently they have convinced most it is a hoax. That Clinton seeking it invalidates it. Investigating it might reveal it is true or reveal other skeletons. 

We already know that much of what can be determined from it is true. But that's not the story you get from the right.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I do not think that it is about the content of the dossier. Rather, it is about how it was handled. There is a conspiracy theory around that the dossier triggered scrutiny of the Trump campaign and a FISA warrant against Carter Page. The actual chain of events were quite a bit different but folks have tried their hardest to build it as a powerful narrative in order to tie the Clinton campaign into every investigation against Trump and his campaign. Thereby they can claim that it is not only a hoax, but an actual attack against the administration in a huge anti-Trump conspiracy. Folks love these stories. Too bad that this is actually not (just) on TV.

I understand but don't see how that could be flushed out without opening the door to what was in the Dossier. 

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I understand but don't see how that could be flushed out without opening the door to what was in the Dossier. 

I think the easiest way is to describe dossier as a simple smear job with no foundation in facts and weaponize its existence and wither not referring to details or just repeat the mantra that it is fact free. As long as there is not deeper analysis in the Muller report (or if it those details are not released) it is easy to refer to the Barr summary to discredit it wholesale. After all, the lines are drawn and those that go with it, most likely will not be bothered by details or context.

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think the easiest way is to describe dossier as a simple smear job with no foundation in facts and weaponize its existence and wither not referring to details or just repeat the mantra that it is fact free. As long as there is not deeper analysis in the Muller report (or if it those details are not released) it is easy to refer to the Barr summary to discredit it wholesale. After all, the lines are drawn and those that go with it, most likely will not be bothered by details or context.

I have some doubts that the Mueller Report gets released. It is being treated as such huge win for Trump currently that releasing it could only dull the shine. Any blowback from not releasing it almost has to be easier to deal with than blowback from the details it contains would be. 

At least that is what I worry. 

[John Cuthber]

19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

My favorite part of today was reading on Facebook about how many people were "disappointed in the results of the Muller investigation." 

Okay...... Perhaps you'd rather the report tell you your president committed treason? Because that's a good thing?

Well, if he did actually commit treason then yes, it's a good thing if the report tells you that.
That's the point of the report, isn't it?

If, on the other hand, it says " We can't prove that he did it" rather than " We exonerate him", that's bad.

And there's the interesting question of why not release it?

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, if he did actually commit treason then yes, it's a good thing if the report tells you that.
That's the point of the report, isn't it?

If, on the other hand, it says " We can't prove that he did it" rather than " We exonerate him", that's bad.

And there's the interesting question of why not release it?

Isn't there information in it that lacks reasonable collaboration? Why should a bunch of allegations considered unprovable be made public?

 

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why should a bunch of allegations considered unprovable be made public?

For the same reasons Ford pardoned Nixon... to help start the healing process. Anything less will deepen the divide in an already deeply divided country. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. 

[DrP]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why should a bunch of allegations considered unprovable be made public?

If it exonerates him then why hide anything? If it exonerates him as claimed then it won't contain 'un provable' allegations will it? If they had been aloud to investigate properly rather than only being restricted to interviewing certain people maybe they could have 'proved' the allegations false or true or whatever the natural run of a fair investigation would have throw up. If you are going to cover it all up then it just looks like a farce... especially when you look at their track record for straight out lying.

 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Isn't there information in it that lacks reasonable collaboration? Why should a bunch of allegations considered unprovable be made public?

 

Starting in the summer of 2016 it was popularly known that Russia was trying to influence the election in Trump's favor. There was numerous media reporting on it. Here is a Wired report From June of 2016 detailing the DNC hack. As the media were reporting on what was happening Trump aggressively denied the reports. Repeatedly Trump publicly argued that China or anyone else may have been responsible for the hacks. During this same time, summer of 2016, Trump won the nominee and was provided Secret Service protection well as security briefs. Candidate Trump was briefed by U.S. intelligence that the Russia was responsible for cyber attacks against Democrats. Candidate Trump continued to publicly claim it could be China. On Oct. 7th 2016 the Intelligence community released a Joint Agency statement saying Russia had cyber attacked Democrats in an attempt to influence the election. Trump continued to deny it. As President Trump continued to deny Russia's involved and pushed back against attempts by Congress to apply sanctions against Russia in response. Trump even stood at a podium just several months ago next to Putin and said he did not see any reason why Russia would have interfered and that he believed Putin. 

The Mueller report, which we have not seen, isn't claimed to exonerate Trump of lying to the U.S. public for years about Russian interference. It is claimed that Trump himself didn't knowingly coordinate his efforts with Russia. Do you not believe there are any other relevant ethical questions left to be answered? You  honestly do not believe that Trump lying about the intelligence aided in Russia's operation? Do you honestly think it is acceptable for a candidate or President to so brazenly ignore National Intelligence and lie to the public? 

Under Trump's leadership nothing has been done to educate the public about Russia propaganda. Nothing has been done to protect against further attack. You characterize the Mueller Report as "unprovable" allegations yet it investigated real crimes. Whether or not Trump was knowingly involved in conspiracy doesn't negate that the attacks happened, by design were meant to help Trump, and that Trump and his team knowingly have misled the public about it for years. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Ten oz

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why should a bunch of allegations considered unprovable be made public?

Two further, obvious, reasons.

(1) Why not? (though, I accept that might be regarded as one of the replies already given)

(2) someone may have the proof - one way or the other- about those allegations.

[Ten oz]

Quote

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked a resolution that called for special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to be publicly released for the second time this week. 

"I have consistently supported the proposition that his report ought to be released to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the law. … I think we should be consistent in letting the special counsel actually finish his work and not just when we think it may be politically advantageous to one side or the other," McConnell added. 

It's the third time Democrats have tried to pass the House resolution, which argues there is “overwhelming public interest” in the government releasing the contents of the high-profile report. The resolution calls on the Justice Department to fully release the report to Congress and to release it to the public “except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law.”

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/436006-mcconnell-blocks-resolution-calling-for-release-of-mueller-report

 

After Benghazi there was an FBI investigation, Five House Committee investigations,  Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, State Department Accountability Review Board review, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs investigation, and a House Select Committee investigation. There were 33 public hearing held. Hillary Clinton and the Sec. of Defense testified under oath publicly. Nothing was discovered.

Hillary Clinton's emails saw a FBI investigation, Internal State Department investigation, a Senate probe into possible interference by the Attorney General, and a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into the Attorney General. Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the FBI Directory all testified publicly under oath. Nothing was discovered.

The Mueller Investigation was initiated by Trump's own DOJ. Not by Democrats. It has led to over 30 indictments including members of Trump's team (Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Gates, etc). Several individuals have plead guilty to felonies. Trump was never directly questioned by Mueller and has provided squat in the way of public testimony of any kind. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 hours ago, DrP said:

If it exonerates him then why hide anything? If it exonerates him as claimed then it won't contain 'un provable' allegations will it? If they had been aloud to investigate properly rather than only being restricted to interviewing certain people maybe they could have 'proved' the allegations false or true or whatever the natural run of a fair investigation would have throw up. If you are going to cover it all up then it just looks like a farce... especially when you look at their track record for straight out lying.

 

Clearly it doesn't. Trump claims it does. That doesn't mean I do.

I did say exoneration of collusion with the Russian government was implied by the pointing out that he was not exonerated of obstruction, but I believe that was a mistake to offer that characterization in that manner.

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Starting in the summer of 2016 it was popularly known that Russia was trying to influence the election in Trump's favor. There was numerous media reporting on it. Here is a Wired report From June of 2016 detailing the DNC hack. As the media were reporting on what was happening Trump aggressively denied the reports. Repeatedly Trump publicly argued that China or anyone else may have been responsible for the hacks. During this same time, summer of 2016, Trump won the nominee and was provided Secret Service protection well as security briefs. Candidate Trump was briefed by U.S. intelligence that the Russia was responsible for cyber attacks against Democrats. Candidate Trump continued to publicly claim it could be China. On Oct. 7th 2016 the Intelligence community released a Joint Agency statement saying Russia had cyber attacked Democrats in an attempt to influence the election. Trump continued to deny it. As President Trump continued to deny Russia's involved and pushed back against attempts by Congress to apply sanctions against Russia in response. Trump even stood at a podium just several months ago next to Putin and said he did not see any reason why Russia would have interfered and that he believed Putin. 

The Mueller report, which we have not seen, isn't claimed to exonerate Trump of lying to the U.S. public for years about Russian interference. It is claimed that Trump himself didn't knowingly coordinate his efforts with Russia. Do you not believe there are any other relevant ethical questions left to be answered? You  honestly do not believe that Trump lying about the intelligence aided in Russia's operation? Do you honestly think it is acceptable for a candidate or President to so brazenly ignore National Intelligence and lie to the public? 

Under Trump's leadership nothing has been done to educate the public about Russia propaganda. Nothing has been done to protect against further attack. You characterize the Mueller Report as "unprovable" allegations yet it investigated real crimes. Whether or not Trump was knowingly involved in conspiracy doesn't negate that the attacks happened, by design were meant to help Trump, and that Trump and his team knowingly have misled the public about it for years. 

Trump is a somewhat obnoxious human being to put it mildly. That is not a reason to release all the information in the report unredacted. There are obvious legal reasons, and I think guidelines for special council not to IMO (I am hardly a legal expert, so grain of salt). It could be the equivalent of allowing libel if it's not indictable or worthy of it. Essentially nuisance allegations, most of which would be directed at someone other than Trump.