That’s not happening. Mueller isn’t going to help make a case against Barr. In fact, I more than halfway expect that Mueller is going to be a for reluctant witness before Congress. He will provide the bare minimum required of him, and will resist everything else. He isn’t a man known for seeking the spotlight, quite the opposite.
Barr (and I assume at this point, to some degree, Rosenstein’s) obstruction is going to be the hardest to prove, even though in many ways, it will be the worst of this whole sordid mess.
Per what I’ve heard, Mueller is willing to testify. He’s not objecting to it. If he testifies under oath, I expect he’ll do so truthfully. He will tell us whether or not Barr demanded that he end his probe.
A week or so before Mueller’s investigation was concluded, didn’t he request an extension for the investigation? Am I remembering right and if so what happened?
More sloppy reporting. I guaran-fucking-tee you that the Mueller report doesn’t say they found no evidence of collusion. What it says and does is first choose a very narrow definition of what would constitute prosecutable “collusion” and then concludes that there’s insufficient evidence to meet that definition, i.e., direct or tacit agreement between Trump/Trump’s campaign and the Russian government regarding interference in the election.
It is fucking PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE that evidence exists of collusion and we all know about it. It is circumstantial evidence (meeting at Trump tower among MANY other things), but evidence nonetheless, so ANYONE, whether writing an article or speaking on TV or whatever, who states that Mueller “found no evidence” is a fucking liar, has no idea what the fuck they’re talking about and is doing the bidding of Trump and the GOP. Period. End of Story. Co-opted, negligent, Zombie Fourth Estate MSM is the propaganda arm of the GOP in full. Mueller’s report absolutely cites the circumstantial evidence. There is no doubt in my mind. He would have to be just as corrupt, dishonest and maybe almost as retarded as Trump and the rest of them to not have done so.
“Mueller found no evidence President Donald Trump’s campaign “conspired
or coordinated” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election”
Gee, I didn’t realize that Mueller actually stated that there was “no evidence”. I had thought that this was Barr’s second-hand spin on whatever the hell is actually in the report.
When I read the above quote, I had to do a double-take to make sure I hadn’t inadvertently stumbled onto the NYT or WaPo.
It’s incredible, the draw of the simple declarative to these simple declarers. God forbid they manage to avoid tying things up tidily and moving on to the scene of the next crime.
Barr’s letter about Mueller’s report quoted: “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Mueller’s quote did NOT SAY no collusion or no evidence of collusion.
Why did Mueller did NOT say no collusion or no evidence of collusion?
Does “did not establish” mean evidence beyond reasonable doubt? Or was it just a scintilla, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance, or clear/convincing evidence that was not established?
Mueller’s quote also said "with the Russian government"
What about the overt call to Russia to hack 30K emails, or the covert emails (I love it) to Russian Govt Atty et al, back channels w/Russian Oligarchs, and other Russian cutouts who pays homage to Putin?
What about Manafort (Trump’s campaign manager) who gave Kilimnik (Russian w/intelligence ties) election polling data…?
Oh, I fully expect he will testify. But its going to be very to the point, and relatively terse answers. But if you are building your hopes that he is going to “rat out” Barr, you are setting yourself up for a great deal of disappointment.
If he was going to do that, he would already be making public statements disclaiming Barr’s letter. He hasn’t said boo. He is going to be a good soldier and follow the direction and orders of his chain of command, which were Rosenstein and then Barr.
I suspect it went down something like, Barr made his argument based on the DoJ guidelines and guided by his worldview of a strong unitary Presidency. Mueller agreed with much of that argument, and more or less followed his direction, which was to wind up the investigation.
Keep in mind, that Mueller was undoubtedly also concerned that now there was a Democratic House conducting numerous investigations, that he was going to be getting in the way. That combination was probably more than enough to convince him to wrap things up quickly…even to the point that he left unfinished business, such as this, out there.
“Mueller found no evidence President Donald Trump’s campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice.”
Where does this come from? Barr’s letter actually says something quite different:
“As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’”
Statements like the quoted one from the TPM story seem to fall for Trump’s framing.
Mueller is a pro. He wanted to get his investigation done, not provoke a constitutional crisis with Trump. Either he (or Rosenstein or both of them) elected not to go after the “business fraud” part of the russia influence investigation, and instead to hand it off to the S.D. of NY. Can I fault him? Assuming that he actually did a comprehensive deep dive into other areas, I think his strategic decission to personally trim his sails was probably a good one for the Country.
Am I happy to have a criminal in the White House? No. But then I voted for and give lots of $$$ to the only candidate who could beat him (Hillary), unlike some of those who are sqwaking loudest at this point. So yes, Trump obstructed the investigation, but lets see what Mueller actually said, not go off on what Mueller did/did not due based upon Barr’s likely crooked write up.
And Schiff has seen stuff not many have seen. That’s why he can continue to speak with such confidence. Because that evidence is not gonna just disappear (although they’ll try like hell to keep it hidden from the rest of us).
Wow. On Fox?!? I guess they have to throw a chicken to the crocodiles now and then. I almost feel bad for the writer, who should actually be heard by others beyond the deafened cult.
Mueller will be asked if Barr told him to shut down the probe or had a drop dead date for a shutdown. Mueller will have to answer that question. That’s not ratting out. That’s telling the truth.
Mueller will also be asked whether Barr previewed his own prejudging of key questions around Trump’s liability. That is obstruction when combined with the fact that he is hiding the report from Congress and is also intending to mislead the public as to the findings of Mueller’s probe.
It is not clear to me that Mueller didn’t decide to shut down his own inquiry. It is perhaps the case that Mueller believed that because of the OLC memo and the Clinton/Nixon/Johnson precedent, that he had amassed enough evidence for Congress to consider as to Trump’s liability while allowing other cases to proceed through other USAOs. That is a constitutionally defensible position from Mueller.
The potential crime here is the action by Barr to intercept the report, hide it, and render his own judgment on a matter that he has no right to render a definitive judgment on.
It doesn’t matter what the Mueller report reveals. Trump can’t be indicted. The Senate will never convict him in the trial phase of an impeachment proceeding. Proving he committed crimes will not harm his reelection prospects, the electorate proved itself idiotic and gullible the first time around in voting for him, and they’re more than capable of repeating the mistake regardless whatever facts emerge. At this point photos of him sleeping with Putin would probably enhance his election prospects
Because collusion isn’t a legal term; there is no law regarding “collusion”. There are laws regarding conspiracy, and other actions that would typically be part of “collusion”…but there was no way that Mueller was going to “find Trump guilty of collusion”. That was something Trump’s PR team baked in from the beginning, and the media dutifully followed along.
No matter what Mueller may have found, Trump was always going to be able to say “See? No charges of collusion”
Because, apparently according to the Barr letter, Mueller set up an incredibly narrow focus of his investigation. Did the Trump campaign specifically work with the actual hackers, and is there direct evidence of that? Nobody was ever considering that to have happened. That would be like saying “Did Nixon hold the flashlight while the Watergate break in happened?”. Yet…that is apparently what Mueller chose to restrict his investigation to answering. (though it is very possible that he actually did cover a much broader range, but Barr has substituted his judgement to only considering that one very specific question. We just don’t know yet).
