More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[TimothyC]

Report from the Special Counsel Investigation into Russian Interference During and Before the 2016 Presidential Election - Leakers gonna leak.

[Mr Bean]

Report from the Special Counsel Investigation into Russian Interference During and Before the 2016 Presidential Election - Leakers gonna leak.

*clap calp clap well done

[The Romulan Republic]

This just looks worse and worse the longer it goes on.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/pl ... ing-413618

WHY MUELLER IS ONLY THE BEGINNING … IF YOU TALK TO CAPITOL HILL DEMOCRATS PRIVATELY, you will hear something surprising about what they expect from ROBERT MUELLER: Many of them expect absolutely nothing. Several top Democratic lawmakers and aides tell us privately that they are certain the report will be a dud.

There's only one explanation that makes sense. PUTLER has gotten to Mueller.

You're just trolling at this point. No one here is saying Mueller is compromised, and if that is meant to be a parody of my view, it is a false one.

Now, as to the actual news...

I acknowledge that I am surprised that it finished up so quickly (but then, that's what happens when people have been crying wolf for a year). I am also surprised, and disappointed, to see no further indictments preceding it (though since Mueller farmed a number of aspects of the investigation out to other jurisdictions, those investigations may yet yield further indictments).

I have no doubt that Trump and his apologists will be crowing triumphantly that this completely vindicates Trump, proves the witch hunt/fake news narrative, shows that all allegations against Trump are a Democratic lie, etc. I am sure that they will be demanding investigations into all the Democrats, etc. Mueller will suddenly become their greatest hero, after a year of calling him a Democratic stooge. Meanwhile, Pelosi will have her excuse to sit on her ass and neglect her duty to impeach. Democracy will pay a steep price if there is nothing more there.

But is it all there is? Well, that depends one what's in the report. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, or even a summary, yet, so I'll have to see what it says before drawing any conclusions. There will also be Mueller's inevitable testimony before Congress. I've said all along that it was possible that Mueller would be unable to prove collusion by Trump, and that I'd accept that conclusion unless there was very good reason to doubt its integrity. I've also said, however, that there is enough grounds to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice on publicly available evidence, and that if Mueller failed to do so, that would destroy his credibility. I stand by that.

Regardless, there are ample grounds to impeach Trump on at least a half dozen other issues. It is deeply unfortunate that those grounds will now likely be dismissed as well, if the report does not validate collusion allegations.

[The Romulan Republic]

11 looming questions now that Mueller's investigation is over:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller has finished his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and turned over his final report to Attorney General William Barr.
In a letter to lawmakers Friday afternoon, Barr said he might be ready to share Mueller's "principal conclusions" with Congress "as soon as this weekend," and a Justice Department official said that information may be made public. But it's unclear how much of Mueller's full work the public will see -- or when it will be released.

Here are the looming questions:

Was there a conspiracy to collude?

In the court of public opinion, this is the ball game. Prosecutors crafted a mosaic of how collusion could have played out. But if Mueller stops short of producing a smoking gun, President Donald Trump is sure to declare all-out victory and claim total vindication.
Of course, the reality is more nuanced. Court filings and news reports have already established that senior Trump associates were eager to accept assistance from, or share sensitive election data with, the Russians. It's the second half of the equation that is still shrouded in mystery.

Mueller's team has left a trail of breadcrumbs suggesting that if there was collusion with the Russians, then Trump's campaign chairman Paul Manafort may have played a key role. Trump and Manafort deny any collusion, and in dozens of public filings, Mueller never produced any evidence implicating them in collusion. But prosecutors repeatedly alleged that Manafort worked for free, was desperate for cash, and tried to monetize his position with influential oligarchs.

In addition, Mueller laid out how Trump acolyte Roger Stone sought information from WikiLeaks with prodding from Trump's campaign, as to when the website would release politically damaging documents. Those documents were stolen by Russian government hackers. But Mueller never accused Stone of directly working in cahoots with WikiLeaks or the Russians.
Trump's ex-attorney Michael Cohen recently testified on Capitol Hill that he witnessed Stone and Trump discussing WikiLeaks in summer 2016. During a gripping daylong hearing, Cohen also described how he and Trump pursued a massive business deal with a Russian company during the campaign. Mueller's team has suggested that this could be a motive for collusion, outlining in court filings how the deal would have enriched Trump with Russian help.

If there was collusion, and it rose to the level of criminality, it's safe to assume that Mueller would have brought indictments. The Russia investigation is now over, and nobody in Trump's orbit was charged with conspiring with the Russian government. A Justice Department official told CNN on Friday that no additional indictments are coming from the Mueller investigation.
But Mueller could have also found things resembling collusion that aren't prosecutable. Federal rules require Mueller to provide the attorney general with a report explaining why he did not bring charges against people who were under investigation. It's up to Barr to decide how much should become public, but hopefully the report gives a definitive answer to the question of collusion.

Why didn't Mueller interview Trump in person?

Another element of the unfolding Russia drama was the on-again, off-again dance between Mueller's team and Trump's lawyers regarding the President's testimony. Trump provided Mueller with written responses about his 2016 campaign, but nothing that happened after Election Day, viewing the transition and his time in office as subject to executive privilege.
With the investigation over, it appears that Trump's lawyers succeeded in staving off an in-person interview.

Trump's lawyers knew their client regularly strays from the truth and sometimes flat-out lies. So, preventing an interview was tantamount to preventing perjury.
Mueller could have subpoenaed Trump, though this would have carried risks of its own, like a lengthy court battle ending with a ruling in Trump's favor. Mueller might have found ways to get what he needed from other witnesses. Or perhaps he was ultimately swayed by Trump's lawyers that they cooperated so extensively that a sit-down interview wouldn't add much value.

If Mueller was deterred by the Justice Department from seeking a subpoena, a notification must go to Congress. Special counsel regulations require the attorney general to inform Congress if any prosecutorial steps were prevented from going forward. That is something to look for.

What will the public see of Mueller's report?

During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr pledged to "provide as much transparency as I can" when it comes to the Russia investigation. His comments satisfied Republicans, who control the Senate and confirmed him with ease to lead the Justice Department.
But Barr left plenty of wiggle room in his testimony, and there isn't anything in the special counsel regulations that requires Barr to release the full report to the public. Democrats have drawn a line in the sand, demanding more promises from Barr and total transparency.
There is no indication that Barr is in the mood to cave to Democratic complaints. But his hands could be tied if Democrats subpoena the report or invite Mueller for a public hearing. A potential lawsuit by House Democrats could trigger lengthy court battles around the report. California Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, recently said all these options are on the table. In this respect, the "end" is only the beginning.

Were there even more contacts with Russians?

After the election, Trump's team maintained that there were zero contacts between the campaign and Russians. It didn't take long for this story to completely fall apart. Since then, at least 16 Trump associates have been identified as having contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition. There were dozens and dozens of Trump-Russia contacts.

That list of 16 includes senior people from Trump's campaign, senior Trump administration officials, members of Trump's family, and people who were part of Trump's trusted inner circle.
Stunningly, we're still learning about some of these contacts. It was only a few weeks ago when we learned that Manafort shared internal campaign polls with one of his Russian associates, Konstantin Kilimnik, who is suspected by the FBI of having active ties to Russian intelligence.
The lie of "no contacts" was debunked a long time ago. Perhaps there are even more contacts between Trump-world and Russia that will be revealed for the first time in Mueller's report.

Did Trump or anyone else obstruct justice?

The saying goes, "the cover-up is worse than the crime." That could be true once more.
Obstruction can be a lot of things. Already, members of Trump's inner circle pleaded guilty to witness tampering, lying to the FBI and misleading congressional investigators. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and testified to lawmakers that he did so at Trump's direction, though Trump didn't explicitly use those words. Prosecutors say these actions by Cohen and former Trump campaign aides impeded the Russia investigation time and time again.

Many of Trump's detractors already think he is guilty of obstruction. They point to his firing of FBI Director James Comey, his role in misleading the public about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, attempts to remove Mueller from his post, relentless public attacks against witnesses, and more.

Whether this meets the legal threshold of obstruction is up to Mueller. But even then, Justice Department rules say a sitting president cannot be indicted. And unlike independent counsel Ken Starr's investigation of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, it isn't Mueller's job to tee up impeachment in Congress.

House Democrats, however, are ready to pick up where Mueller leaves off. The Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee said recently he believes it's already "very clear" that Trump obstructed justice.

Are there more big lies that will be exposed?

Lies are a major theme of this two-year saga. Time after time, Trump and his allies have changed their stories, spread false information or been forced to disavow past comments. Six Trump associates have been accused by Mueller's team of lying about their Russian ties.
Regardless of the legal implications, Mueller might have uncovered more lies as he interviewed dozens of witnesses. And it's possible some of those revelations could be in his final report.

For instance, even some of the most stalwart Trump supporters have cast doubt on Donald Trump Jr.'s testimony that he never told his father about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting. And Cohen publicly testified that he witnessed a June 2016 conversation between Trump and Trump Jr. that he believes was about the Trump Tower meeting.

Others found it hard to believe that Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos didn't tell anyone on the campaign that he was tipped off about the Russians having damaging Hillary Clinton emails. (Papadopoulos has told CNN he "can't guarantee" that it never came up.)
Then there was the controversial move by Trump campaign staff to block language in the Republican party platform at their 2016 convention about arming Ukraine to counter Russia. At the time, Manafort and Trump denied any involvement, despite Manafort's extensive ties to Ukrainian interests. Since then, Mueller asked witness about this situation, and reportedly wanted to ask Trump about it too.

Was Trump deemed a counterintelligence threat?

Beyond the criminal probe, investigators at the FBI looked into the possibility that Trump was working for the Russians. Details of this investigation were publicly confirmed this week by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who opened the investigation in May 2017.
McCabe said in interviews that the counterintelligence investigation was spurred by Trump's bizarre public statements and comments -- not some damning classified information. But once the probe was opened, the FBI could use a wide array of tools to investigate the President.
The FBI general counsel at the time, James Baker, told Congress it was not a clear-cut suspicion. He said FBI officials considered the whole range of possibilities, from Trump "acting at the behest of and somehow following directions, somehow executing their will" to the possibility of Trump being totally innocent. Either way, Baker said, it needed to be investigated.

Still, analysts have noted that it would be strange for investigators to deem Trump a national security threat, but then sit on that information for months while Mueller continued his work.
Republicans have been extremely critical of McCabe and regularly accuse the FBI and Justice Department of anti-Trump bias. The report could thoroughly explain why McCabe and others took this drastic step and describe the safeguards that were in place to ensure a fair investigation.

How much of the dossier could Mueller confirm?

It's impossible to discuss the Russia probe without bringing up "the dossier," the infamous memos written in 2016 by retired British spy Christopher Steele. The reports, which he said contained raw intelligence from trusted sources, alleged a widespread conspiracy of collusion.
The most salacious elements of the dossier are unproven, yet many of the allegations contained in the memos have held up over time, or at least proven partially true. The memos accurately described Russia meddling and said Trump's campaign was hiding contacts with Russians and that the Kremlin was involved in potential real estate deals for the Trump Organization.

Mueller's team met with Steele in summer 2017, and CNN previously reported on efforts by the FBI to assess the intelligence memos. But it's unclear whether Mueller felt compelled to include a full accounting of the dossier in his final report. A lot of that work likely came from highly classified sources and clandestine surveillance that US intelligence agencies want to keep secret.

What did Mueller find when he crossed Trump's "red line?"

Trump famously declared in a July 2017 interview with The New York Times that Mueller would be crossing a "red line" if he investigated Trump's personal finances and his family's business.
Mueller blew past Trump's rhetorical line. He scrutinized potential efforts by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner to mix his business interests with his government role. And he handed off the wide-ranging Cohen investigation to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. That case put the Trump Organization squarely in the crosshairs of federal investigators.

That is some of what we know. We also know that Mueller never indicted any members of Trump's family -- the closest he got to Trump's innermost circle was Cohen. But there might be things we don't know.

It would not have been difficult for Mueller to obtain Trump's tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service. Trump has worked hard to keep his taxes out of public view -- perhaps Mueller's report will change that. If not, the onus will fall on eager House Democrats.

Will Mueller knock down left-wing conspiracies?

A cottage industry of left-wing conspiracy theorists blossomed in the Mueller Era.
Anti-Trump conspiracy sites started popping up in 2017, rivaling right-wing counterparts like Infowars. Academics with little to no insight into the Mueller investigation have breathlessly posted Trump-Russia theories, creating viral Twitter threads that were barely tethered to reality.

On a few occasions, these uninformed influencers spread word of Trump's imminent arrest, explosive surveillance wiretaps, or that dozens of new indictments were approved against Trump's family. Obviously, none of it was true.

Mueller is required to explain why he brought charges against some people and why he didn't prosecute others. He doesn't need to delve into these dark corners of the Internet. But if he doesn't knock down any of these conspiracies, they'll continue bouncing around forever.

How many related investigations are still active?

Mueller's work gave birth to an entire ecosystem of related investigations. Some of those investigations are over, others are underway, and others might still be unknown to the public.
Prosecutors in Manhattan picked up the mantle on the Cohen case, and he's heading to prison this spring for a three-year stint. Prosecutors there are also weighing charges in a foreign lobbying probe against Manafort associate Greg Craig, who once served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama.

Michael Flynn, Trump's short-lived national security adviser, cut a deal with Mueller and provided evidence against one of his former lobbying partners. Bijan Kian was charged with illegally lobbying for Turkey and is set to go on trial this summer. He pleaded not guilty.
Other key players -- like Manafort's longtime deputy Rick Gates and influential DC lobbyist Sam Patten -- have been cooperating with Mueller for a while. Gates was a senior official on Trump's inaugural committee, which is now under scrutiny by federal investigators in Manhattan.

The same US attorney's office in Manhattan is separately seeking to talk to executives from the Trump Organization, though the reason for those interviews has yet to be disclosed.
Prosecutors say Gates, Patten, Cohen and Flynn have been helpful beyond the special counsel investigations. But redactions have kept the details secret. Mueller's team worked closely with prosecutors who will remain at the Justice Department and can continue pursuing these cases.

Additionally, Mueller has aggressively pursued evidence from an unnamed company that is owned by a foreign country. The battle over that subpoena has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. Now that the investigation is over, will they continue fighting? And what does it mean that Mueller was able to wrap up without getting any evidence from this mystery company?

Mueller's investigation was never just about Russia. There was an entire component that looked at how Middle East countries potentially tried to improperly influence Trump's team, perhaps through emissaries like Blackwater founder Erik Prince. Mueller didn't bring any charges from that swath of the probe, though parts could have been handed off to other investigators.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.

One thing I will say... Congress better not leave it at just a summary from Bill Barr. The full report MUST be made public, if the result (whichever side it favors) is to have any credibility. If the Trump regime will not release it, Congress must subpoena it. Mueller and his team should also be questioned under oath, as should Barr.

This will hold true even in light of the report being leaked, because we have to be certain that what's leaked is actually the full, authentic report, and not an edited or selectively leaked version.

[Vympel]

You're just trolling at this point. No one here is saying Mueller is compromised, and if that is meant to be a parody of my view, it is a false one.

No, I'm not trolling. I posted something that again, directly undermined the fantasy narrative you've constructed about this investigation. And of course now, it's time for me to have a good old gloat.

I was right, and you were wrong.

I told you so.

(also, that bullshit line you made up about people saying the report was going to be over for a year - I challenged you to provide sources on that and I still haven't seen a single damn one)

Now let's watch the stages of grief play out - hopefully to completion - as you and your compatriots grapple with the fact that no one has been indicted for conspiring with the Russians in relation to the 2016 election.

[The Romulan Republic]

You're just trolling at this point. No one here is saying Mueller is compromised, and if that is meant to be a parody of my view, it is a false one.

No, I'm not trolling. I posted something that again, directly undermined the fantasy narrative you've constructed about this investigation. And of course now, it's time for me to have a good old gloat.

I was right, and you were wrong.

I told you so.

Trump may have just won a huge pr victory that will bring us measurably closer to global fascism, but the important thing is that you get to gloat.

Of course, that's presuming that the rise of global neo-fascism isn't something you support.

Now let's watch the stages of grief play out - hopefully to completion - as you and your compatriots grapple with the fact that no one has been indicted for conspiring with the Russians in relation to the 2016 election.

The responsible thing to do would be to wait to see what the report actually says. No more indictments, I'll give you that. What we don't know is why there were no more indictments, whether the report will reveal anything that, while not indictable, is politically damaging, whether Mueller will draw any conclusions regarding Trump's actions or make any recommendations regarding impeachment (remember, Justice Department policy is not to indict a sitting President), and whether there will be any further indictments from any separate investigations.

I, for one, will way for the final report and Mueller's testimony.

[Vympel]

Trump may have just won a huge pr victory that will bring us measurably closer to global fascism, but the important thing is that you get to gloat.

Of course, that's presuming that the rise of global neo-fascism isn't something you support.

ROFL yeah dude, the rise of global fascism is my fault because I'm taking the time to point out just how wrong you were to think that this dime store spy novel stupid ass horseshit was going to stop Trump. And why would it be a huge PR victory? Oh yeah - because you and others made this insane conspiratorial bullshit the centrepiece of your efforts to oppose Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump may have just won a huge pr victory that will bring us measurably closer to global fascism, but the important thing is that you get to gloat.

Of course, that's presuming that the rise of global neo-fascism isn't something you support.

ROFL yeah dude, the rise of global fascism is my fault because I'm taking the time to point out just how wrong you were to think that this dime store spy novel stupid ass horseshit was going to stop Trump. And why would it be a huge PR victory? Oh yeah - because you and others made this insane conspiratorial bullshit the centrepiece of your efforts to oppose Trump.

Of course I didn't say that that fascism was your fault, jack ass. I just think its pretty pathetic that your first response to a potential major crisis is "how I can score gloating points on a web forum". It says something about your smallness and pettiness as a person.

And let's be honest, if you're capable of that- the moment that the DNC emails were hacked, and Trump went on TV and publicly called on Putin to release more emails on Clinton ("joke" or not), this was going to be a serious question that was asked. And the moment he fired Comey and then boasted to Russian officials in the Oval Office that he fired him over the Russia investigation, it was justifiably going to be a huge question. For all of your desperate pushing of Putin/Trump's FAKE NEWS DEEP STATE WITCH HUNT CLINTONS narrative, this is an investigation that needed to happen, and that is entirely due to Trump's actions. Maybe it'll exonerate Trump (of collusion, at least, although I reiterate that there are grounds for obstruction charges based on publicly-available information). But it needed to happen, so that we could know. One way or the other. Nobody "made it a centerpiece" of anything, except for Trump and his own actions. Trying to bury it at the outset (as Trump repeatedly did) would only make him look more guilty, and make it more of a question.

If you are seriously arguing (as you evidently are) that the question should never even have been asked, then you have no respect for or belief in truth or the rule of law.

And opposition to Trump never depended on proving collusion with the Kremlin- it is but one of many grievances against the Trump Regime. Should others have been given more emphasis? Perhaps. Did some people (both of us included, I'm sure) overplay their hand at times? Undoubtably. Hell, I spent a lot of time reminding people that literal Treason charges were unlikely. But I think that you overstate the extent to which Russian collusion formed the basis for opposition to Trump, in keeping with your usual role as this board's unofficial chief Trump propagandist. However, Trump will of course spin any small or partial vindication as a total one, aided and abetted by his faithful internet accomplices. That is what concerns me.

I will also point out that (contrary to your repeated denials), the investigation HAS thoroughly validated suspicions that Russia interfered in the election, and that they did so while in communication with members of the Trump team, even if Mueller does not feel that he has a case for indicting them for it.

Well, I'm not going to keep arguing the point. The report will show what it shows, and until then, there's no point in you and me going back and forth any more. If you're right, then I suppose on one level that would be a cause for relief, but on the other hand, Trump will have gained a major political advantage, and there will be much bigger things to worry about than who gets bragging points on a web forum. If I'm right... then there will be much bigger things to worry about than who gets to gloat on a web forum.

[Vympel]

Of course I didn't say that that fascism was your fault, jack ass. I just think its pretty pathetic that your first response to a potential major crisis is "how I can score gloating points on a web forum". It says something about your smallness and pettiness as a person.

And let's be honest, if you're capable of that- the moment that the DNC emails were hacked, and Trump went on TV and publicly called on Putin to release more emails on Clinton ("joke" or not), this was going to be a serious question that was asked. And the moment he fired Comey and then boasted to Russian officials in the Oval Office that he fired him over the Russia investigation, it was justifiably going to be a huge question. For all of your desperate pushing of Putin/Trump's FAKE NEWS DEEP STATE WITCH HUNT CLINTONS narrative, this is an investigation that needed to happen, and that is entirely due to Trump's actions. Maybe it'll exonerate Trump (of collusion, at least, although I reiterate that there are grounds for obstruction charges based on publicly-available information). But it needed to happen, so that we could know. One way or the other. Nobody "made it a centerpiece" of anything, except for Trump and his own actions. Trying to bury it at the outset (as Trump repeatedly did) would only make him look more guilty, and make it more of a question.

No, everyone who thought Donald Trump was actually, sincerely "calling on Putin to release more emails" was either a paranoid fucking moron who couldn't tell an obvious joke from a mile off or a partisan using it as a political attack. This isn't a difficult issue.

As for your ludicrous claim that nobody made it a centerpiece - that is such transparent bullshit. Media coverage of Trump's presidency has been consumed with nothing but Russiagate for two fucking years. That's a glaringly obvious fact. The only time any other issue has gotten oxygen is when there's been a lull in Russiagate nonsense.

If you are seriously arguing (as you evidently are) that the question should never even have been asked, then you have no respect for or belief in truth or the rule of law.

Yeah dude, that's definitely what I'm saying. It shouldn't be surprising that you're still turning criticism of an all-consuming paranoid national hysteria based on huge quantities of obvious bullshit into "the question should never even have been asked".

I will also point out that (contrary to your repeated denials), the investigation HAS thoroughly validated suspicions that Russia interfered in the election, and that they did so while in communication with members of the Trump team, even if Mueller does not feel that he has a case for indicting them for it.

LOL, no it hasn't. The case for that is as laughable and stupid now as it was in January 2017. The only thing that's changed is the conviction with which people assert it, so often has it been repeated its simply magically become true.

[The Romulan Republic]

Vymple: "HAH HAH, no indictments for collusion!"

Me: "There have been a bunch on indictments over Russian interference."

Vymple: "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

[Vympel]

Vymple: "HAH HAH, no indictments for collusion!"

Me: "There have been a bunch on indictments over Russian interference."

Vymple: "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

I like it how your petulant response avoids how many times I've talked about this. The 'indictments' you refer to - as I've said before - will never actually be tested in court. Mueller knew that when he made them. They're not evidence of jack shit, they're assertions. Learn what an indictment does maybe.

[Gandalf]

I'm just glad we won't have to keep hearing about it.

... any progress on those tax returns?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just glad we won't have to keep hearing about it.

Sorry mate, but there's a good chance that you're going to be hearing about it for weeks or months as the report gets subpoenaed, Mueller gets called to testify, etc.

... any progress on those tax returns?

The Dems are reportedly planning to request his tax returns. Also, eighteen states are currently considering legislation saying a candidate cannot be on the ballot if they don't release their tax returns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 423f504ba5

[The Romulan Republic]

I do think one thing to take away from this is that there probably (I say probably, because for all we know the report might include a recommendation to impeach for obstruction or something) isn't going to be one knock-out blow that takes down Trump. Its going to be death by a thousand scandals.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Also, please remember that this is only A report, not THE report folks. We still have New York, Counter Intel, among others going on.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/ar ... 709886.php

Barring a bombshell in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s just-delivered report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, impeaching President Trump should be off the table, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said Friday.
“I don’t see what’s good in putting the country through a racking impeachment if it’s not going to be a success,” Schiff, head of the House Intelligence Committee, told The Chronicle editorial board shortly before Mueller delivered his report to Attorney General William Barr. There was no immediate indication of what Mueller had concluded, but published reports quoted unidentified Justice Department officials as saying the special counsel was not recommending additional indictments.


Impeachment is a simple matter of numbers and partisanship, Schiff added: While there may be sufficient evidence coming out of Mueller’s investigation and elsewhere to show that Trump is not fit to be president, that’s not enough.
“I don’t think what we’ve seen yet would persuade this Congress or the Republicans in this Congress,” the Burbank congressman said. “The threshold of evidence the special counsel would have to produce would have to be very high to meet this.”
Related Stories

US & World
By Tal Kopan
Pelosi dismisses impeachment talk: ‘He’s just not worth it’

Politics & policy
By Tal Kopan
Democrats: Pelosi wasn’t closing the door on impeaching Trump
Support for impeachment among leading Democrats has been slipping, especially since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview last week that she opposed it because “it divides the country” and because Trump is “just not worth it.”
Although the San Francisco Democrat’s stance drew pushback from Democrats such as Tom Steyer, a leading party fundraiser who has spent millions organizing an impeachment effort, and freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who told supporters in January that “we’re going to impeach the mother—,” public sentiment has been trending against impeachment.
Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢
Read more articles like this by subscribing to the San Francisco Chronicle
SUBSCRIBE
A CNN poll released this week found support for impeachment among Democrats had dropped from 80 to 68 percent since December, with the national number for all adults falling from 43 to 36 percent.


While Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to Trump, the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, which mark the traditional start of the 2020 election season, are less than a year away. That gives opponents only a short wait before they can work to oust the president in the traditional way, at the ballot box.
Schiff, a former federal prosecutor elected to Congress in 2000, said there’s a huge difference between what seems obvious to partisans and what can be proved in court — or a congressional impeachment case.
“It was not my policy or the policy of the Department of Justice I worked for to indict someone just because they deserved it,” he said.

Also, Schiff said, given Republicans’ control of the Senate and Trump’s control of Republicans, it’s unlikely there would be GOP support for ousting Trump regardless of what’s in Mueller’s report.
Trump “is a terrible negotiator, I think he’s a terrible leader, but he’s a good marketer and relentlessly on message,” Schiff said. “That’s had the effect of shaping the perception of Bob Mueller’s work.”

That partisan polarization could make it virtually impossible for the report to change people’s minds, he said.
“It would have to be something quite breathtaking to move the needle in terms of public perception,” Schiff said.

Schiff downplayed expectations of what was likely to come out of the investigation into Russian election interference and the possibility that members of Trump’s campaign staff and political appointees were aware of it or abetted it.
People expecting Mueller to produce a “voluminous, highly opinionated” report like the one independent counsel Kenneth Starr put together on then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 are likely to be disappointed, Schiff said.

“I expect a matter-of-fact report from the special counsel,” he said. The attorney general then seems likely “to write a Cliffs Notes version and release it to Congress.”
That wouldn’t be nearly enough for House Democrats, who have concerns that extend well beyond what has been asked of Mueller.
If the report doesn’t include any indictments or accuse the president or his aides of colluding with the Russians, “that might mean (Mueller) has not found evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal conspiracy,” Schiff said. “His job is to decide who should be prosecuted. It is still the responsibility of the Congress to tell the public what we do know, whether it rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or not.”
That means Congress needs all the information from the report, including the underlying evidence behind the conclusions, Schiff said. Barr told congressional leaders Friday that he would release as much of the report as he could, “consistent with the law” and Justice Department practice.

If the attorney general won’t provide the full report, Schiff said, “we can subpoena the report, we can subpoena Bob Mueller or take it to court.”
That fight could be only days away.

In a joint statement Friday, Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York called for Barr to “make the full report public and provide its underlying documentation and findings to Congress,” all without giving Trump, his attorneys or his staff “any ‘sneak preview’ of Special Counsel Mueller's findings or evidence.”
Rudy Guiliani, an attorney for Trump, suggested in January that the president’s team should be allowed to “correct” Mueller’s report before it is released to Congress — although he told the Hill on Friday that the president’s lawyers “have not made any demand” for a “special preview” of the report.
There’s little doubt the president will attack whatever the House Democrats decide to do. On Friday, Trump told reporters at Andrews Air Force Base that the congressional investigations are “just the continuation of the same witch hunt. They know it. Behind closed doors, they laugh at it. They ought to go to work and get something constructive done.”
As far as the president is concerned, Schiff said, “any oversight is too much oversight.”

Schiff’s fellow Californian and Intelligence Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Dublin, is among the Democrats working on legislation that would extend the statute of limitations for crimes committed by presidents. Schiff agrees that the chief executive should be able to be charged once his term ends.
“I certainly agree that no president should be able to evade justice by outlasting the statute of limitations,” Schiff said on The Chronicle’s “It’s All Political” podcast. “Who would have thought it would be necessary to pass such a law? But it very well may be. We are going to have to legislate all kinds of norms that we never thought would be necessary.”

San Francisco Chronicle Senior Political Writer Joe Garofoli contributed to this report.
John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @jfwildermuth

And this here is the problem. The cowards in the Dem. leadership will take anything less than accusations of major crimes by Trump in the Mueller report as an excuse not to do their duty and impeach. Which is outrageous, given that with or without the Mueller report there are multiple grounds for impeachment. It doesn't matter whether they think they have enough votes to convict or not- impeachment is THE unambiguous Constitutional check on a criminal President, which means that if we never use it because we're afraid of the political fallout, then the President is effectively above the law.

They're making a cynical political calculation that Trump will be easier to beat if they don't do their duty. Obama, I believe, made the same calculation when he avoided speaking up too loudly about Russian interference in the run-up to the 2016 election.

How'd that work out again?

[aerius]

The House report came up with nothing.
The Senate report came up with jack shit.
Mueller's report is almost certainly a nothingburger.

SURELY THE NEXT REPORT WILL BE THE SMOKING GUN THAT IMPEACHES HIM!!

Let's bring back zombie Joe McCarthy, I bet he can get the job done on Russia.

[The Romulan Republic]

The House report came up with nothing.
The Senate report came up with jack shit.
Mueller's report is almost certainly a nothingburger.

Just ignore the dozens of indictments.

Also, the fact that you would treat the blatantly partisan Republican House report as proving anything shows just how lacking in integrity you are. But I'm sure you consider Rep. Nunes and his ilk the paragons of integrity.

SURELY THE NEXT REPORT WILL BE THE SMOKING GUN THAT IMPEACHES HIM!!

I love how you gleefully taunt those who think Trump should be impeached (for which there are numerous grounds that have nothing to do with Russia). Gee, its almost like you think Trump being above the law is something that should be celebrated.

et's bring back zombie Joe McCarthy, I bet he can get the job done on Russia.

Label anyone who questions the Dear Leader a McCarthyist.

Here's a hint: the Cold War is over. Russia is no longer communist. Therefore, the term "McCarthyist" does not apply, you historical illiterate.

[The Romulan Republic]

If there is nothing substantial in the report (a conclusion that is highly premature), then that is not cause for celebration for anyone but the supporters of fascism. Because what it means is that in all likelihood, the very real and proven crimes and misconduct by Trump will become much easier to dismiss and sweep under the rug, the opposition will be robbed of much of its energy and support, and the people will be able (as Pelosi and company seem to hope) to keep pretending a little longer that everything is just business as usual. If the truth is that Mueller didn't feel he could prove anything more in court, so be it- its his duty to say as much, and I won't fault him for it. But there is no cause to celebrate in that, unless you are a fascist, or the sort of moral deviant who derives his satisfaction from pointing and laughing while the world burns.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another point to remember is that this sudden wrap up came before the ongoing court battle over documents from an unknown foreign company related to the investigation was concluded in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was set to consider that case shortly, and released statements from a lower-level judge indicated that it was considered key to the Russia investigation... and suddenly, its all over?

This raises very serious questions as to whether Mueller was pressured into wrapping it up before he was finished. I'm not saying that is the case, but I am saying it bears consideration. Barr, Mueller, and Rosenstein should all be called to testify under oath as to the reasons for its conclusion.

[Vympel]

If there is nothing substantial in the report (a conclusion that is highly premature), then that is not cause for celebration for anyone but the supporters of fascism. Because what it means is that in all likelihood, the very real and proven crimes and misconduct by Trump will become much easier to dismiss and sweep under the rug, the opposition will be robbed of much of its energy and support, and the people will be able (as Pelosi and company seem to hope) to keep pretending a little longer that everything is just business as usual. If the truth is that Mueller didn't feel he could prove anything more in court, so be it- its his duty to say as much, and I won't fault him for it. But there is no cause to celebrate in that, unless you are a fascist, or the sort of moral deviant who derives his satisfaction from pointing and laughing while the world burns.

Aka: blaming the people who warned you not to hype the shit out of this of the consequences of hyping the shit out of this.

Of course, in a just world, the people who cautioned about this would be considered more credible than the people who bought this story, but just like with Iraq in 2002-2003, there'll be no consequences for the people who sold this narrative because they followed the herd, while those who expressed skepticism were by definition unserious cranks even though they were right.

[The Romulan Republic]

If there is nothing substantial in the report (a conclusion that is highly premature), then that is not cause for celebration for anyone but the supporters of fascism. Because what it means is that in all likelihood, the very real and proven crimes and misconduct by Trump will become much easier to dismiss and sweep under the rug, the opposition will be robbed of much of its energy and support, and the people will be able (as Pelosi and company seem to hope) to keep pretending a little longer that everything is just business as usual. If the truth is that Mueller didn't feel he could prove anything more in court, so be it- its his duty to say as much, and I won't fault him for it. But there is no cause to celebrate in that, unless you are a fascist, or the sort of moral deviant who derives his satisfaction from pointing and laughing while the world burns.

Aka: blaming the people who warned you not to hype the shit out of this of the consequences of hyping the shit out of this.

Of course, in a just world, the people who cautioned about this would be considered more credible than the people who bought this story, but just like with Iraq in 2002-2003, there'll be no consequences for the people who sold this narrative because they followed the herd, while those who expressed skepticism were by definition unserious cranks even though they were right.

Are you seriously suggesting that arguing for investigation of collusion with the Kremlin is equivalent to lying to justify the Iraq War (aka, a war crime)? And that the two should carry equivalent "consequences" (presumably, in your ideal world, prison at minimum)?

Wow, you really are a full-fledged fascist, aren't you?

[The Romulan Republic]

Note that "no Mueller bombshell=no impeachment" is an apparent flip-flop on Schiff's position nine days ago:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... be-1219471

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said Wednesday that even if a report from special counsel Robert Mueller exonerates President Donald Trump, impeachment talk might remain on the table.

Schiff (D-Calif.), whose committee is still investigating the president’s ties to Russia during to the 2016 presidential election, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that if neither Mueller nor his panel find definitive evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice by Trump, he would consider that to be the end of the collusion inquiry, the most likely grounds for impeachment.

Still, he said, “there may be grounds for removal of office or there may be grounds for indictment after he leaves office that the Congress discovers.”

He pointed out that Mueller’s narrow mandate may have precluded the special counsel from investigating “whether the Russians were laundering money for the Trump Organization,” something Schiff said his committee is looking into.
“Our predominant concern on my committee is: Was this president, is this president compromised by a foreign power?” the California Democrat said.

He raised the Trump Tower Moscow project that the president has acknowledged continued through much of the 2016 campaign as one point of interest, calling it “one very graphic illustration that may or may not be criminal and would be … deeply deeply compromising.”

“The president was trying to negotiate the most lucrative business deal of his life during his presidential campaign, concealing it from the public, trying to get the Kremlin’s help and knowing that if he crossed [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, he would never get that money. Hundreds of millions of dollars,” Schiff argued. “And when it was discovered, his answer was, ‘Well, why should I miss out on those business opportunities?’”

Schiff also suggested that Trump, who faces dismal polling numbers heading into his reelection campaign, may take the same tack in 2020.

“It may still be the view of this president that if he’s not reelected, why should he miss out on that Trump Tower deal?” the congressman said. “And that may stay his hand when it comes to confronting Putin the way we need a president to do.”

Though Schiff indicated he plans to continue investigating the president for other potential wrongdoing if the Russia investigation ends quietly, he argued that “there is ample evidence of collusion” but noted “we have to wait” on Mueller to conclude his investigation to find out “whether that evidence amounts to beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal conspiracy.”

He also said Wednesday that he “wholly” concurs with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stance that lawmakers should not seek Trump’s impeachment without unambiguous evidence of wrongdoing, though he said making that determination when it comes to the Russia probe requires the Justice Department to share Mueller’s evidence with Congress.

Saying you won't support impeachment without unambiguous evidence is meaningless, since we already have that with or without Mueller.

Democratic leaders need to grow some spines, and do their Constitutional duty.

Edit: I really don't get what's going on here. They were taking some pretty unambiguous steps toward impeachment a couple of weeks ago, and now suddenly its "Quick, let's pin everything on the Mueller investigation so we have political cover".

[Vympel]

Are you seriously suggesting that arguing for investigation of collusion with the Kremlin is equivalent to lying to justify the Iraq War (aka, a war crime)? And that the two should carry equivalent "consequences" (presumably, in your ideal world, prison at minimum)?

Wow, you really are a full-fledged fascist, aren't you?

This is - unsurprisingly - the stupidest possible interpretation of what I said.

What I'm actually saying is that this story was excessively hyped for two years by virtually the entire media, analysed from every angle, and a parade of pundits and politicians preened in front of cameras day in, day out, that any time now, Trump, members of his family, and his compatriots would be indicted for criminal conspiracy with the Russians. That's simply a fact.

Similarly, the Iraq War was hyped for a year by - again - virtually the entire media - as a parade of pundits and politicians preened in front of cameras day in, day out, that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaeda, that Iraq connived in 9/11, that Iraq had a nuclear program and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That is - again - simply a fact.

And the consequences for the people who advocated the Iraq War? Zero. No loss in credibility. No contritition. No introspection. The consequences for the people who opposed the war before it happened? No increase in credibility, no increase in media exposure, no apology for the relentless atacks on them, nothing.

And it'll be the same with this goddamn fiasco. You think Rachel Maddow is going to pay a professional price for turning her show into a Glenn Beckian farce? Of course not. You think anyone will give credit to any of the journalists who expressed skepticism abou the outcome of this investigation and its predicates? No. They'll just be hated and ostracized even more. Because their existence is a standing embarassment to those who got it wrong.

But sure, you assume I'm talking about jailing journalists.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hey, you're the one who made a contextless comparison between collusion allegations and a war crime. If you don't want to be misinterpreted, don't be so obtuse.

Anyway, here's an interesting, if slightly out of date, take:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-m ... ref=scroll

Breathless media alerts notwithstanding, there is reason to be skeptical that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report is imminent. There are just too many loose ends, including the just-begun Roger Stone prosecution and the not-yet-finished litigation over “Corporation A” and other grand jury witnesses, not to mention the glaring absence of any testimony yet from Donald Trump himself. There may certainly be signs the Mueller investigation is entering its final phases—just not this week.

Still, it’s clearly time to consider the shape of what Mueller will produce as he finishes. The reporting requirements of the special counsel regulations have been exhaustively picked over. What must Mueller report to the attorney general? What may the attorney general do with the report? Will Congress and the public ever see it? The ins and outs of the special counsel report regulations played a significant role in Attorney General William Barr’s January confirmation hearings.

But we may be focusing on the wrong report. There may in fact be two Mueller reports. This is because from the very beginning, Mueller has worn two hats and borne two missions relating to the Russia investigation.

The most public and familiar one is as a criminal investigator under the special counsel regulations. But Mueller has also carried a second charge, as a counterintelligence expert, with a much broader charge to determine and report the scope of any interference and any links to the Trump campaign—what Trump himself might refer to as “collusion.”

In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey testified that the Russia investigation was commenced “as part of our counterintelligence mission . . . also includ[ing] an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 17, 2017 order appointing Mueller special counsel specifically and carefully incorporated this announced scope and mission.

From the start, then, Mueller has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation, while “also” assessing whether any crimes were committed. Not the other way around.

“The House and Senate intelligence committees are legally entitled to be given reports of significant intelligence and counterintelligence activities or failures. Mueller’s findings will certainly qualify.”

Comey and Rosenstein knew what they were doing. It is the mission of a criminal investigation to produce indictments and trials, which tell stories and render conclusions only imperfectly. Thanks to the special counsel regulations, there is also “a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions.” But what will go into this report and what the Congress and public may ultimately see is highly proscribed.

It is the central mission of a counterintelligence investigation, however, to produce . . . well, a report. These findings and conclusions are shared with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and relevant agencies of the 17-member intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.). The report may be honed into a formal IC “assessment” reflecting the consensus view of the 17 agencies. It was just such a report, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,” that on Jan. 7, 2017 was shared with incoming President Trump. Its disclosure brought into public view the Intelligence Community’s bombshell conclusion that Vladimir Putin had personally ordered an effort to discredit Hillary Clinton and to “help President-elect Trump’s election chances.”

Significantly, unlike a final criminal report, a Mueller counterintelligence report cannot be bottled up. By statute it must be shared with Congress. The House and Senate intelligence committees are legally entitled to be given reports, in writing, of significant intelligence and counterintelligence activities or failures. Mueller’s findings will certainly qualify.

Where matters are too delicate to share with all the members of the intelligence committees, statute and established practice provide that disclosure may be made to a smaller circle known as the “Gang of Eight:” the chair and ranking member of each intelligence committee, and the Democratic and Republican leaders of each chamber.

Already, these obligations have generated significant disclosures to Congress of Russia’s activities. In August 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed members of the Gang of Eight on the then-new signs of Russian interference and hacking. The explosive disclosure in the January 2017 IC assessment that Putin had ordered interference specifically to assist then-candidate Trump was also thanks to these provisions. And in May 2017, then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe informed the Gang of Eight that in the wake of Comey’s firing, the FBI had focused its counter-intelligence investigation on the president himself.

Mueller inherited this investigation just days later, and he inherited this reporting framework as well. Twenty-two months of relentless investigation have followed since.

The criminal side of the investigation has revealed bits and chunks of the investigation’s work: 34 individuals have been indicted or pleaded guilty, including six former Trump advisers. Lengthy speaking indictments, guilty pleas, trials and sentencing memoranda have publicly disclosed intermittent and unconnected swathes of Mueller’s investigative results. His final criminal report to Barr may tell us more, if we get to see it.

But it is Mueller’s counterintelligence report we should really be anticipating. Done well (and Mueller and his team seem to do everything well), it will provide a much richer, broader narrative description of Russia’s effort to interfere in 2016, the nature of any links or cooperation between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and whether Trump or his associates were witting or unwitting assets for the Russians (including by obstructing the investigation)—as well perhaps as conclusions for action.

Of course, any Mueller counterintelligence report will be heavily freighted with classified information. A non-classified summary is typically provided, but the full report and underlying evidence will remain highly sensitive. How the Intelligence Committees may choose to share critical aspects of the report with their Judiciary Committee counterparts and beyond will not be trivial.

Still, neither the special counsel regulations nor Attorney General Barr’s discretion will keep Mueller’s counterintelligence findings from Congress. The intelligence community knows its obligations. Mueller’s second report, larded surely with detailed findings and counterintelligence conclusions, will make its way to the Gang of Eight and the intelligence committees.

And then, the final inexorable chapter of Mueller’s Russia investigation—congressional consideration of the implications for the Trump presidency—may begin.

Nelson W. Cunningham served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York under Rudolph Giuliani, general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee under then-chair Joseph R. Biden, and general counsel of the White House Office of Administration under Bill Clinton.

Probably the most significant thing here is why Barr may not be able to legally keep any aspects of the report from the Congressional leadership.

"Significantly, unlike a final criminal report, a Mueller counterintelligence report cannot be bottled up. By statute it must be shared with Congress. The House and Senate intelligence committees are legally entitled to be given reports, in writing, of significant intelligence and counterintelligence activities or failures. Mueller's findings will certainly qualify."