More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[The Romulan Republic]

Basically, here's a summary of why the Trumpist/Putinist/Denialist gloating is premature:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-r ... heating-up

The Russia investigation is over. Or is it?

Attorney General William Barr has notified Congress that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has “concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters,” as required under Justice Department regulations. Mueller has submitted to Barr a confidential report of “prosecution or declination decisions he has reached,” and Barr has promised to review the report and advise Congress of Mueller’s “principal conclusions” as soon as this weekend. Barr further stated that he would determine whether other information can be released to Congress and the public, committing to “as much transparency as possible.”

So what comes next?

It appears that Mueller and a small staff will close up shop in the near future. But that does not mean that the investigation into President Donald Trump is over.

Depending on the contents of Mueller’s report, Congress may have some work to do. Mueller’s original mandate required him to comply with all policies of the Justice Department. It seems likely, then, that he would adhere to the DOJ opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. If so, then even if Mueller found evidence of conspiracy between Trump and Russia to defraud the United States by interfering with the fair administration of elections (sometimes referred to as “collusion”), he would refrain from filing an indictment, and instead provide his findings to members of Congress for them to consider whether impeachment is appropriate. If that is the case, then Congress’s work will just be beginning.

Other prosecutors may also have more work to do. During the course of his investigation, Mueller has kept a narrow focus on his own mission and farmed out related cases to at least four U.S. Attorney’s Offices. Those investigations remain ongoing. It is possible that Mueller has handed off additional investigations in which charges have not yet been filed, and so would be unknown to the public.

For example, the investigation of fraud and campaign finance violations against former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was handed off to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Cohen pleaded guilty in that case and was sentenced to three years in prison, but it appears that work on that case continues.

Earlier this week, a judge approved the release of redacted search warrants in the Cohen case, permitting prosecutors to keep more than 18 pages of text from public disclosure. The redacted pages appeared under the heading “Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme.” The court stated that redaction was necessary because “disclosure would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.” This language suggests that the work of SDNY is far from over. Subjects of the investigation could include Donald Trump, Jr., who reportedly signed at least one of the checks that were provided to Cohen as reimbursement for his illegal payments to silence woman from publicly accusing Trump of extramarital affairs. Reports have indicated that Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer for the Trump Organization, has received immunity in exchange for his cooperation. Even if Mueller’s work is done, the work of the SDNY continues.

In addition to SDNY, other U.S. Attorney’s Offices are also known to be working on matters that arose from Mueller’s work. In December, the Eastern District of Virginia charged two associates of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn with conspiring to act as agents of a foreign government and related charges. In that case, Flynn’s former business partner Bijan Kian and Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim were charged with agreeing to lobby U.S. officials and influence public opinion against Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen, an outspoken critic of Turkish President Recep Erdogan.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia is handling the pending case against Roger Stone for lying to Congress Congress, making false statements and tampering with witnesses. That case is set for trial in November. If Stone should decide to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of others, prosecutors would follow those leads as well.

In addition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia has been handling cases against Sam Patten and Maria Butina, respectively. Patten pleaded guilty in August to violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and has agreed to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of others. Patten pleaded guilty to lobbying on behalf of a pro-Russia Ukrainian political party and concealing his role from the U.S. government. Patten further pleaded guilty to illegally using straw purchasers to buy tickets to the Trump inauguration for a Ukrainian oligarch for $50,000. The law prohibits inaugural committees from accepting money from foreign nationals.

Butina pleaded guilty in December to conspiring to act as an agent of Russia. She has been cooperating with the government.

In February, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of South Dakota indicted her boyfriend, Republican operative Paul Erickson, on wire fraud and money laundering charges.

These cases will continue, as will any cases that they spawn. It may be a long time before the work of Mueller is really complete.

[Vympel]

Basically, here's a summary of why the Trumpist/Putinist/Denialist gloating is premature:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-r ... heating-up

The Russia investigation is over. Or is it?

Attorney General William Barr has notified Congress that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has “concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters,” as required under Justice Department regulations. Mueller has submitted to Barr a confidential report of “prosecution or declination decisions he has reached,” and Barr has promised to review the report and advise Congress of Mueller’s “principal conclusions” as soon as this weekend. Barr further stated that he would determine whether other information can be released to Congress and the public, committing to “as much transparency as possible.”

So what comes next?

It appears that Mueller and a small staff will close up shop in the near future. But that does not mean that the investigation into President Donald Trump is over.

Depending on the contents of Mueller’s report, Congress may have some work to do. Mueller’s original mandate required him to comply with all policies of the Justice Department. It seems likely, then, that he would adhere to the DOJ opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. If so, then even if Mueller found evidence of conspiracy between Trump and Russia to defraud the United States by interfering with the fair administration of elections (sometimes referred to as “collusion”), he would refrain from filing an indictment, and instead provide his findings to members of Congress for them to consider whether impeachment is appropriate. If that is the case, then Congress’s work will just be beginning.

Other prosecutors may also have more work to do. During the course of his investigation, Mueller has kept a narrow focus on his own mission and farmed out related cases to at least four U.S. Attorney’s Offices. Those investigations remain ongoing. It is possible that Mueller has handed off additional investigations in which charges have not yet been filed, and so would be unknown to the public.

For example, the investigation of fraud and campaign finance violations against former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was handed off to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Cohen pleaded guilty in that case and was sentenced to three years in prison, but it appears that work on that case continues.

Earlier this week, a judge approved the release of redacted search warrants in the Cohen case, permitting prosecutors to keep more than 18 pages of text from public disclosure. The redacted pages appeared under the heading “Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme.” The court stated that redaction was necessary because “disclosure would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.” This language suggests that the work of SDNY is far from over. Subjects of the investigation could include Donald Trump, Jr., who reportedly signed at least one of the checks that were provided to Cohen as reimbursement for his illegal payments to silence woman from publicly accusing Trump of extramarital affairs. Reports have indicated that Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer for the Trump Organization, has received immunity in exchange for his cooperation. Even if Mueller’s work is done, the work of the SDNY continues.

In addition to SDNY, other U.S. Attorney’s Offices are also known to be working on matters that arose from Mueller’s work. In December, the Eastern District of Virginia charged two associates of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn with conspiring to act as agents of a foreign government and related charges. In that case, Flynn’s former business partner Bijan Kian and Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim were charged with agreeing to lobby U.S. officials and influence public opinion against Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen, an outspoken critic of Turkish President Recep Erdogan.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia is handling the pending case against Roger Stone for lying to Congress Congress, making false statements and tampering with witnesses. That case is set for trial in November. If Stone should decide to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of others, prosecutors would follow those leads as well.

In addition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia has been handling cases against Sam Patten and Maria Butina, respectively. Patten pleaded guilty in August to violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and has agreed to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of others. Patten pleaded guilty to lobbying on behalf of a pro-Russia Ukrainian political party and concealing his role from the U.S. government. Patten further pleaded guilty to illegally using straw purchasers to buy tickets to the Trump inauguration for a Ukrainian oligarch for $50,000. The law prohibits inaugural committees from accepting money from foreign nationals.

Butina pleaded guilty in December to conspiring to act as an agent of Russia. She has been cooperating with the government.

In February, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of South Dakota indicted her boyfriend, Republican operative Paul Erickson, on wire fraud and money laundering charges.

These cases will continue, as will any cases that they spawn. It may be a long time before the work of Mueller is really complete.

Mostly, only if you're total shithouse at reading things properly.

Mueller had way more power than any Congressional investigation would. If he didn't find shit on collusion, it's highly unlikely any Congressional investigation would either.

The other investigations have nothing at all to do with the 'collusion' question - hey, if they find evidence of Trump's criminality, good for them.

As to 'can't indict a sitting President', this is just fart-huffing bullshit. Only a blithering idiot would sincerely believe that Mueller is sitting on information worth indicting Trump on re: criminal conspiracy with a forieng power and telling nobody about it. Heck, he could have indicted everyone around Trump. Didn't happen.

[The Romulan Republic]

Only a blithering idiot would assume Mueller isn't telling anyone about it when the report hasn't been released yet.

But let's say that you're right- let's say that Mueller fully exonerates Trump and all of his subordinates and family of any crime regarding conspiring with Russia or obstructing the investigation (highly implausible, at best it'll probably be "they did a bunch of shady shit but we couldn't prove anything criminal, like Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton). But let's just say...

That would still leave us with the follow proven facts:

1. We know that Russia intervened in the election. This is based not only on indictments, but on the unanimous conclusions of the US intelligence community, as well as evidence uncovered in separate investigations (ie the Butina case). We can't say for sure that it changed the outcome, but given how close it was...

2. We know that Trump has regularly engaged in apologetics for Russia despite this, throughout his Presidency, beyond any requirements of diplomatic courtesy.

3. We know that multiple high-level Trump campaign officials attempted to coordinate with Russia to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. We know this, based not only on the alleged actions of Manafort and Stone in the indictments, but based on the emails discussing the Trump Tower meeting, which are public record. The best defense that can be made, without outright ignoring evidence or fabricating conspiracy theories is "They tried to collude, but they were too shit at it for it to go anywhere".

4. We know that Trump has routinely tried to impede and discredit the investigation. In short, he has behaved like a guilty man. Recall that there would never have BEEN a special counsel investigation, had he not fired Comey under highly suspicious circumstances.

You don't care, and will ignore all of the above, because you're not debating in good faith. But to anyone remotely impartial, the results thus far should be utterly damning, even if there's never anything more. And if they're not... then what does it say about our society if we just shrug all that off? If we say "Yay, the President (probably) didn't literally commit Treason or Espionage! Everything's fine!" Have we really set the bar for Presidential conduct that fucking low, that "Trump's campaign was aided by a hostile foreign power, one the President remains frequently overtly friendly towards, a bunch of his top campaign officials tried to collude and were just really bad at it, and he then systematically tried to impede the investigation" is seen as a vindication?

[Vympel]

Only a blithering idiot would assume Mueller isn't telling anyone about it when the report hasn't been released yet.

God, have you actually absorbed anything in the reporting?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/p ... eport.html

A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments, a statement aimed at ending speculation that Mr. Trump or other key figures might be charged down the line.

Who reads that and goes "oh yeah, it's totally possible that the report actually blows this thing wide open! Trump's going down!"

Stop fanatically clinging to "this thing is not over!" and pay attention to both the content and tone of what is being reported. The idea that Trump has been found to be engaged in criminal conduct with regard to Russia and the election and somehow no new indictments are going to be issued in relation to anyone around him is obviously absurd. Just .. stop.

But let's say that you're right- let's say that Mueller fully exonerates Trump and all of his subordinates and family of any crime regarding conspiring with Russia or obstructing the investigation (highly implausible, at best it'll probably be "they did a bunch of shady shit but we couldn't prove anything criminal, like Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton). But let's just say...

I didn't say anything about Mueller "fully exonerating Trump" in the way you alleged. I fully expect the report to contain some mealy-mouthed go-nowhere criticism about poor judgement and what not.

That would still leave us with the follow proven facts:

1. We know that Russia intervened in the election. This is based not only on indictments, but on the unanimous conclusions of the US intelligence community, as well as evidence uncovered in separate investigations (ie the Butina case). We can't say for sure that it changed the outcome, but given how close it was...

1. Indictments are the assertions of the prosecutor, not proof, and they'll never be tested in court;
2. The 'unanimous conclusion of the US intelligence community' is worth exactly nothing. The evidence actually presented in relation to this 'interference' is nothing but unsubstantiated assertions about things like wikileaks being a Russian front and comically inept arguments about shit like a few hundred thousand dollars worth of Facebook memes, most of which were posted after the election.
3. The Butina case? There's no suggestion that Butina 'intervened in the election'. That allegation was never made in relation to her case.

Is it implausible? No. Was it at all significant in any way? No reason to think so.

2. We know that Trump has regularly engaged in apologetics for Russia despite this, throughout his Presidency, beyond any requirements of diplomatic courtesy.

Who gives a shit? If you actually know anything about how Trump has conducted US foreign policy, Trump's administration policy has been decidedly against Russian interests at every turn.

3. We know that multiple high-level Trump campaign officials attempted to coordinate with Russia to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. We know this, based not only on the alleged actions of Manafort and Stone in the indictments, but based on the emails discussing the Trump Tower meeting, which are public record. The best defense that can be made, without outright ignoring evidence or fabricating conspiracy theories is "They tried to collude, but they were too shit at it for it to go anywhere".

Obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton (about her own dealings with Russia) was never going to attract a 'collusion' (i.e. criminal conspiracy with Russia to influence the election) charge. I've told you this. And now Mueller ain't charging, indicting or convicting a single. solitary. participant in that meeting. So who was right on that point? Yup, its me.

4. We know that Trump has routinely tried to impede and discredit the investigation. In short, he has behaved like a guilty man. Recall that there would never have BEEN a special counsel investigation, had he not fired Comey under highly suspicious circumstances.

No, Trump never 'impeded' the investigation. Mueller put out a letter confirming that he was never impeded from doing so. As for discrediting it, that's ill-advised (like so much of what Trump does), but entirely understandable given what he was being accused of.

You don't care, and will ignore all of the above, because you're not debating in good faith. But to anyone remotely impartial, the results thus far should be utterly damning, even if there's never anything more. And if they're not... then what does it say about our society if we just shrug all that off? If we say "Yay, the President (probably) didn't literally commit Treason or Espionage! Everything's fine!" Have we really set the bar for Presidential conduct that fucking low, that "Trump's campaign was aided by a hostile foreign power, one the President remains frequently overtly friendly towards, a bunch of his top campaign officials tried to collude and were just really bad at it, and he then systematically tried to impede the investigation" is seen as a vindication?

Not debating in good faith? My views are entirely sincere. I called the idea that Trump was going down for this horseshit, and its pretty clear right now that I'm right. Now you're lashing out about how I'm not sufficiently scandalised by all the inneuendo, irrelevancies and half-truths that you think supposedly justified your beliefs. Oh well.

[The Romulan Republic]

Only a blithering idiot would assume Mueller isn't telling anyone about it when the report hasn't been released yet.

God, have you actually absorbed anything in the reporting?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/p ... eport.html

A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments, a statement aimed at ending speculation that Mr. Trump or other key figures might be charged down the line.

Who reads that and goes "oh yeah, it's totally possible that the report actually blows this thing wide open! Trump's going down!"

Stop fanatically clinging to "this thing is not over!" and pay attention to both the content and tone of what is being reported. The idea that Trump has been found to be engaged in criminal conduct with regard to Russia and the election and somehow no new indictments are going to be issued in relation to anyone around him is obviously absurd. Just .. stop.

I am aware, of course, that the word is "no new indictments". Just as we are both aware that Justice Department policy is that you cannot indict a sitting President. So, theoretically, there could be no new indictments, and Mueller could still lay out a detailed road map for impeachment.

Is that likely? Maybe not. But there's no inherent contradiction in what I said.

I didn't say anything about Mueller "fully exonerating Trump" in the way you alleged. I fully expect the report to contain some mealy-mouthed go-nowhere criticism about poor judgement and what not.

Fair enough as far as how you describe your position is concerned. I'm just saying, even if it exonerated Trump fully, he would still come out of it smelling like shit.

1. Indictments are the assertions of the prosecutor, not proof, and they'll never be tested in court;

Which is why I cited other additional sources.

2. The 'unanimous conclusion of the US intelligence community' is worth exactly nothing. The evidence actually presented in relation to this 'interference' is nothing but unsubstantiated assertions about things like wikileaks being a Russian front and comically inept arguments about shit like a few hundred thousand dollars worth of Facebook memes, most of which were posted after the election.
3. The Butina case? There's no suggestion that Butina 'intervened in the election'. That allegation was never made in relation to her case.

You dismiss the conclusions of the intelligence community because your ideology requires you to do so.

I'll double-check the Butina allegations. Its pretty clear, IIRC, that she was at any rate attempting to infiltrate Right-wing organizations in the US.

Is it implausible? No. Was it at all significant in any way? No reason to think so.

So you acknowledge Russian interference is plausible. I'll remember that.

As to its significance- the very fact that a major hostile power tried to affect the election is in and of itself significant, especially when its one the PotUS who benefited from their interference has an unseemly habit of praising and defending. I will also remind you that the difference between where we are now and a Hillary Clinton Presidency was only a few tens of thousands of votes- and that you don't have to spend a lot of money to have a big impact on social media.

Who gives a shit? If you actually know anything about how Trump has conducted US foreign policy, Trump's administration policy has been decidedly against Russian interests at every turn.

It is notable that the anti-Russia policies are often imposed on Trump by Congress, or things he's been pressured into by others in his administration.

I "give a shit" because it is embarrassing to the US to have its PotUS engaging in apologetics for a hostile dictator, it plays into the hands of Putin and other dictators who wish to gain legitimacy for their crimes and undermine democracy, and because it suggests that Trump may have ulterior motives in his dealings with Russia, or be favoring them because they helped him out (whether he directly coordinated with them or not). Plus its part of his larger pattern of dictator fetishism.

Obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton (about her own dealings with Russia) was never going to attract a 'collusion' (i.e. criminal conspiracy with Russia to influence the election) charge. I've told you this. And now Mueller ain't charging, indicting or convicting a single. solitary. participant in that meeting. So who was right on that point? Yup, its me.

Material aid from a foreign government to a campaign is a violation of campaign finance laws.

If Mueller isn't charging, its because he's not confident he can prove it, not because it isn't a crime.

Also, I will point out that your defense here that you're so smug about is not "Trump didn't collude"- its "he colluded, but it wasn't technically a crime". Which again is right out of the Trumper playbook.

No, Trump never 'impeded' the investigation. Mueller put out a letter confirming that he was never impeded from doing so. As for discrediting it, that's ill-advised (like so much of what Trump does), but entirely understandable given what he was being accused of.

In point of fact, he called on Sessions to end the probe:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... witch-hunt

He also repeatedly tried to get Sessions to un-recuse himself, and (though not directly part of the Mueller probe) made threatening comments toward Cohen that could be interpreted as witness intimidation. Among other things.

And no, it is not "understandable", unless you consider being a thin-skinned prick an excuse for conduct that is at best grossly unpresidential, and possibly illegal.

Not debating in good faith? My views are entirely sincere. I called the idea that Trump was going down for this horseshit, and its pretty clear right now that I'm right. Now you're lashing out about how I'm not sufficiently scandalised by all the inneuendo, irrelevancies and half-truths that you think supposedly justified your beliefs. Oh well.

I'll grant that your motives may be sincere (if idiotic). Your tactics, often, are not.

Edit: On the interfering in the investigation, I forgot to mention again the stuff before Mueller took over, ie the pressuring and subsequent firing of Comey (said firing Trump admitted was over the Russia investigation). You know, the reason why there was a special counsel investigation in the first place (but I forget, according to you it was all a plot by Crooked Hillary).

[Ace Pace]

Look, bottom line, there's enough shit to kill the Trump presidency if the GOP actually cared about who their leader is, but that won't happen. The Mueller report was never going to give you a smoking gun given it's startlingly limited mandate.

Emptywheel created a fantastic summary of what we know so far, regardless of the final content of the report.

Vympel will hopefully allow me to liberally quote from the piece but not in full, for length reasons.

First off, on the different options on what the report can contain

But I can think of five mutually non-exclusive possibilities for the report:

[*]Mueller ultimately found there was little fire behind the considerable amounts of smoke generated by Trump’s paranoia
[*]The report will be very damning — showing a great deal of corruption — which nevertheless doesn’t amount to criminal behavior
[*]Evidence that Manafort and Stone conspired with Russia to affect the election, but Mueller decided not to prosecute conspiracy itself because they’re both on the hook for the same prison sentence a conspiracy would net anyway, with far less evidentiary exposure
[*]There’s evidence that others entered into a conspiracy with Russia to affect the election, but that couldn’t be charged because of evidentiary reasons that include classification concerns and presidential prerogatives over foreign policy, pardons, and firing employees
[*]Mueller found strong evidence of a conspiracy with Russia, but Corsi, Manafort, and Stone’s lies (and Trump’s limited cooperation) prevented charging it

More importantly, what resulted from the investigation and is public and currently working it's way through the justice system.

• Trump pursued a ridiculously lucrative $300 million real estate deal even though the deal would use sanctioned banks, involve a former GRU officer as a broker, and require Putin’s personal involvement at least through July 2016.
• The Russians chose to alert the campaign that they planned to dump Hillary emails, again packaging it with the promise of a meeting with Putin.
• After the Russians had offered those emails and at a time when the family was pursuing that $300 million real estate deal, Don Jr took a meeting offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end (per the sworn testimony of four people at the meeting) he said his father would revisit Magnitsky sanctions relief if he won. Contrary to the claim made in a statement authored by Trump, there was some effort to follow up on Jr’s assurances after the election.
• The campaign asked rat-fucker Roger Stone to optimize the WikiLeaks releases and according to Jerome Corsi he had some success doing so.
• In what Andrew Weissmann called a win-win (presumably meaning it could help Trump’s campaign or lead to a future business gig for him), Manafort provided Konstantin Kilimnik with polling data that got shared with Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs. At the same meeting, he discussed a “peace” plan for Ukraine that would amount to sanctions relief.
• Trump undercut Obama’s response to the Russian hacks in December 2016, in part because he believed retaliation for the hacks devalued his victory. Either for that reason, to pay off Russia, and/or to pursue his preferred policy, Trump tried to mitigate any sanctions, an attempt that has (with the notable exception of those targeting Oleg Deripaska) been thwarted by Congress.

We know all of these things — save the Stone optimization detail, which will be litigated at trial unless Trump pardons him first — to be true, either because Trump’s aides and others have already sworn they are true, and/or because we’ve seen documentary evidence proving it.

And I'd like to quote part of her conclusion.

We don’t know what the Mueller report will say about Trump’s role in all this, and how that will affect the rest of his presidency. We do know he remains under investigation for his cheating (as an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing hush money investigation) and his venality (in the inauguration investigation, at a minimum).

We do know, however, that whatever is in that report is what Mueller wants in it; none of the (Acting) Attorneys General supervising him thwarted his work, though Trump’s refusal to be interviewed may have.

But we also know that Russia succeeded wildly with its attack in 2016 and since.

Democrats and Republicans are going to continue being at each other’s throats over Trump’s policies and judges. Trump will continue to be a venal narcissist who obstructs legitimate oversight into his mismanagement of government.

[The Romulan Republic]

The summary has been sent to Congress:

https://ww.cbc.ca/news/world/mueller-ba ... -1.5069428

U.S. Justice Department summary of Mueller probe does not conclude Trump committed crime

House judiciary chairman said the summary also 'does not exonerate president

The chairman of the U.S. House judiciary committee says a letter from the Justice Department describing special counsel Robert Mueller's findings "does not conclude that the president committed a crime. It also does not exonerate him."

The department sent the letter to Rep. Jerrold Nadler on Sunday afternoon. Nadler tweeted that the Justice Department "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

The summary also said Mueller did not find that the Trump campaign or its associates "conspired or co-ordinated" with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 election.

U.S. Congress has been told to expect a summary of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation on Sunday afternoon, according to two people familiar with Justice Department's plans. The report is expected to reveal for the first time the main findings of Mueller's nearly two-year probe into President Donald Trump and Russian efforts to elect him.

It goes on, but that seems to be the key details.

So what does this mean? The Trump administration, and Trump and Russia apologists, will no doubt claim that this proves that Trump is innocent, that Russia is innocent, and that it proves that the entire investigation was a Democratic/Fake News witch hunt. Of course, it does nothing of the sort- Mueller has already previously concluded that there was large-scale interference by Russia on Trump's behalf, that Russia and Wikileaks communicated with various Americans including members of Trump's team, and that various individuals close to Trump lied about it to cover it up. Some of this, at least, is supported by evidence already in the public record (perhaps most notably Donald Trump Jr.'s emails about the Trump Tower meeting). If we are going to accept the integrity of the Mueller report, we cannot do so only when it fits our preferred conclusions.

Unfortunately, the lack of indictments will make it very easy to spin this as an exoneration. It will provide much fuel for the "witch hunt/Deep State/fake news" narrative, not only when it comes to Russiagate but in all investigations of Trump, and it will potentially provide a pretext for investigations and purges of the Justice Department and Democrats. It will likely boost Trump's poll numbers, and undermine Democratic opponents.

None of that is necessarily Mueller's fault. His job was to find the facts and make a decision in accordance with the law and Justice Department policy, and I won't fault him without knowing more about what went into his decision. I suspect that he found himself in much the same place as Comey did- that of a career Justice Department official trying to be politically neutral and doing what he felt his duty required, with an unintended consequence being an enormous victory to Trump and fascism in the process. That said, I have some genuine concerns about why Mueller alleged in past indictments that Stone communicated with Wikileaks and that the GRU engaged in their campaign in communication with unnamed Americans, and then delivered no indictments. I also want to know why the investigation concluded while a case over whether an unnamed foreign company would be required to hand over key documents was still awaiting a hearing by the Supreme Court, and why it was concluded without insisting on a face-to-face interview with Trump. For all these reasons, if the outcome is to have any credibility, the full report must be released. Keeping it quiet does Trump no favors- it will only convince even more people that the fix was in.

It remains to be seen what Mueller has farmed out to other jurisdictions/investigations, and what will come of it. But if this is all there is, at least on the questions of "collusion"/conspiracy with Russia and Obstruction then I think that in some sense we've gotten the worst of all possible worlds. No indictments, no proof of guilt- but no exoneration either. Just more ambiguity that can be spun however anyone wishes. And if Trump and his campaign can do the things that we KNOW they did -communicate with a hostile foreign government for the purpose of getting dirt on an opponent, and then lie to cover it, and fire public servants for being loyal to their office and the law instead of loyal to the President personally- and that is found to be legal, or at least not provably criminal, then that sets a disastrous precedent. We can now expect that every campaign will seek aid from foreign governments (and thus become in some sense beholden to them), and we can expect that every future President will purge officials who try to remain non-partisan rather than be loyal to them personally, because they know they can get away with it and that their opponents will be doing the same thing. The result will likely be a further (and in this case entirely justified) erosion of public confidence in Democracy and the rule of law, increasing radicalization, and increasing erosion of American legal and democratic norms. The floodgates have been opened. Welcome to the new normal.

The correct takeaway from no indictments or recommendation to impeach is not that Trump is vindicated. Its that our existing laws regulating political campaigns and Presidential power are grossly inadequate and must be tightened immediately.

Since the law is evidently unable to fully constrain Trump, and Congress is unwilling to, there is now only one body that can meaningfully do so: that being the People. It is up to us to stop this madness, preferably at the ballot box, or failing that, via mass protest and civil disobedience.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Actually, the situation is more... interesting than you would believe.

For example, Nadler is bringing Barr in to testify:
(((Rep. Nadler))) on Twitter

In light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report, where Mueller did not exonerate the President, we will be calling Attorney General Barr in to testify before @HouseJudiciary in the near future.

Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/08/al ... als-trump/
The above is all the investigations, and this report is simply A report, and more specifically the criminal report, not the reports for counterintell and other investigations out there.

[The Romulan Republic]

I believe I did note that there were some oddities in how the report was so suddenly wrapped up. It is entirely proper that Barr (as well as Mueller and his staff and Rosenstein) be called to testify.

I'd also to like to re-emphasize several key points, to preempt the inevitable "This proves it was all made up by the Democrats and you should just concede it."

1. The various investigations that were subsequently folded into the Mueller probe predated the outcome of the election, and the appointment of Mueller was a direct response to the firing of James Comey by Donald Trump. This is public record. The investigation was warranted, and had to happen, whatever the outcome, if the public was to have any trust in the integrity of the government. That loss of trust may happen anyway, due to the nature of the outcome and other factors, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. The investigation had to happen, and was thoroughly justified.

2. It is grimly amusing to see how rapidly the deniers start trusting Mueller's results when they can be spun as proving them right. Perhaps his prior findings of Russia interference on Trump's behalf, and of people close to Trump communicating with Russia and Wikileaks and then lying to cover it up, even if they cannot all be tested in court, should also be given at least some weight, if we're suddenly trusting what Robert Mueller says?

3. We know from information in the public record that multiple members of Trump's campaign sought Russian assistance against Clinton, and that Trump admitted to firing Comey over the Russia investigation. If all of that is legal, or at least not provably criminal, it is not a cause for celebration (for anyone who believes in democracy or the rule of law)- it is evidence that the existing laws are grossly inadequate.

4. If the report truly disproved any collusion or obstruction by Trump, it would seem to be in his interests to make it fully public, or as fully public as the minimum of redactions for the sake of national security would allow. If the full report is not made public, it will raise questions as to why Trump continues to act like a guilty man, and will rightfully cast doubt on the integrity of the probe and its conclusions.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another thing I've been seeing claimed (I have yet to verify it from a mainstream source) is that Mueller was basically only focusing on conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government- in other words, not whether there was coordination with non-state actors (ie Russian oligarchs, Wikileaks, Cambridge Analytica, etc.).

If so, that is a very big hole in the report's ultimate conclusions. Enough so as to render its conclusions all but meaningless, except as a PR point for Trump.

In short, the probe ended not with a bang but with a whimper, a big anti-climax that will leave a bunch of unanswered questions and continuing investigation.

[Patroklos]

TRRs rapid fire panic posting is hilarious, it’s like he thinks the more he doubles down will allow him to avoid accepting that he and anyone else who ever held water on the collusion conspiracy were the ones delivering an operational victory of historic proportiond to the Russian intelligence operatives who ran a minor election interference op. Russia spent at most a few hundred thousand dollars on some memes and shot posts, and TRR and friends did 99% of the work delivering a wildly successful domestic disruption result.

True to form, the conspiracy just moves the goal posts and lives on. You see, no evidence of collusion or conspiracy and no crime committed to obstruct justice on just means there WAS collusion and conspiracy and obstruction! ITS SO SIMPLE! Let me show you my cork board, I have all the links outlined convieniently with pins and string!

Gross literally posted a peg board of doom up thread.

And for the record I don’t trust Mueller any more than before. His inability to follow procedure and law were the issue, not his ability to call a nothingburger a nothingburger. He still has much to answer for, including using a small army with sea and air support to conduct a simple search warrant on completely non-threatening citizens with guns drawn. I dare you do defend that TRR.

Let’s get on with the breathless accusations of being a “apologist” of whatever sort now. It’s tiresome, but standard procedure these days. Then we can get on with him explaining how the President not being in cahoots with Russia is actually a bad thing. Does everyone have their popcorn?

[The Romulan Republic]

TRRs rapid fire panic posting is hilarious, it’s like he thinks the more he doubles down will allow him to avoid accepting that he and anyone else who ever held water on the collusion conspiracy were the ones delivering an operational victory of historic proportiond to the Russian intelligence operatives who ran a minor election interference op. Russia spent at most a few hundred thousand dollars on some memes and shot posts, and TRR and friends did 99% of the work delivering a wildly successful domestic disruption result.

So that's your game: blame Russian interference on the people who pointed it out. We're not the collaborators, you're the collaborators! I also love how you repeat Vymples' talking points as though "they only spent a few hundred thousand dollars means" something, when it doesn't take a vast amount of money to wield a highly effective propaganda campaign on-line. And how you pretend that an information campaign was the extent of the interference, and ignore both the hacking and the setting up of opposing rallies (a likely attempt to incite violence).

But its nice to know that you as (IIRC) a veteran are prepared to defend a hostile foreign tyrant's interference in your country's democracy, as long as you can pretend that it wasn't that big (and it benefitted your side).

The rest is just bog standard "Attack TRR rather than his arguments". I won't debate ad hominems.

True to form, the conspiracy just moves the goal posts and lives on. You see, no evidence of collusion or conspiracy and no crime committed to obstruct justice on just means there WAS collusion and conspiracy and obstruction! ITS SO SIMPLE! Let me show you my cork board, I have all the links outlined convieniently with pins and string!

Gross literally posted a peg board of doom up thread.

I didn't say that, of course. I said that collusion occurred based on publicly available information (a fact), and that if none of Trump's actions were proveably illegal, that says something pretty damning about the state of our laws.

If you really cared about your country, you would argue for reforming the legal loopholes that apparently allowed Trump and company to get away with their acts. But your actual motive is defending Trump, Trumpism, and Neo-fascism, and you would have done that whatever the report found.

And for the record I don’t trust Mueller any more than before. His inability to follow procedure and law were the issue, not his ability to call a nothingburger a nothingburger. He still has much to answer for, including using a small army with sea and air support to conduct a simple search warrant on completely non-threatening citizens with guns drawn. I dare you do defend that TRR.

So Mueller's the bad guy, he's completely corrupt, but we should totally take (a summary of) his report at face value, just this once when it benefits our side to do so.

Also, provide a source that Mueller violated procedure or law. And no, Trump tweets, RT, Fox, and Brietbart do not count as sources.

And provide a source for "...using a small army with sea and air support to conduct a simple search warrant on completely non-threatening citizens with guns drawn." Never mind that that sort of heavy-handed treatment is par for the course for American law enforcement when dealing with poor black men suspected of dealing drugs, and it'd be more than a little satisfying to at least see such tactics being applied even-handedly to some rich white men for a change.

Let’s get on with the breathless accusations of being a “apologist” of whatever sort now. It’s tiresome, but standard procedure these days. Then we can get on with him explaining how the President not being in cahoots with Russia is actually a bad thing. Does everyone have their popcorn?

You have ignored half the points I made entirely, quickly hand-waved the rest with unsupported assertions, and tried to compensate with the usual character smears, buzz words, and putting words in my mouth.

The President not being in cahoots with Russia would be a very good thing, if I were convinced that that were the case. I think, given that all we have is a suspiciously-quick wrap up a fairly narrow and inconclusive report summarized by the man who swept Iran-Contra under the rug, such conclusions are still premature. But if Trump did not collude, which I acknowledge is possible, that is indeed a very good thing. The President being in cahoots with Russia and it being technically legal (or not proveably criminal) is not, just like the President being guilty of a whole bunch of other shit he will use this result to shield himself from is not.

[Jub]

I think what this report really shows is that even if there was an external push to get Trump elected it didn't have to be much of one.

The groundwork of controlling the message, getting favorable districts lines drawn, and cultivating a strong base was already done by the Republicans. Toss in a dash of the Democrats running a very status quo candidate (also a woman) after an unexpected upstart sowed the idea of real change - and not Obama's somewhat empty words - and you had the setup for exactly what we saw. The scandals that came out were immaterial and the Democrats poor handling of them would have made even less impactful dirt almost as damaging.

Plus, I find it funny that anybody would be upset at America taking a big bite out of a shit sandwich if the election was as dirty as some people claim they are. The US specializes in doing exactly this to other nations, sometimes via force, so how is turnabout suddenly the end of days?

[The Romulan Republic]

While it now looks like the report pretty definitively rules out conspiracy between the campaign and the Russian government (but not the campaign and non-government entities such as Wikileaks or Russian oligarchs, which it reportedly doesn't really address), its a lot more ambiguous on the question of obstruction: while the report did not accuse Trump of obstruction, it pointedly did not exonerate him of it either, leaving the decision to prosecute up to Barr and Rosenstein. It was their decision, not Mueller's, that the evidence was not sufficient to prosecute:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... xoneration

"In his letter, Barr explains that Mueller decided there was sufficient evidence to "establish" whether Trump and his associates were involved in Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election. But according to Barr, Mueller didn't draw any conclusions or make any decisions about the second part of h is investigation: whether Trump obstructed justice by interfering in the investigation of Russian interference. This could have included firing FBI Director James Comey in May 2017, a decision that Comey said Trump made after asking Comey to "go easy" on Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Instead, Mueller simply laid out the facts of Trump's actions with regard to the investigation. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein used those facts, as well as conversations they'd had with Mueller over the course of the investigation, to draw a conclusion about whether Trump would meet the requirements to be charged with obstruction. Their conclusion, according to Barr, is that the facts they have wouldn't be enough to charge Trump with obstruction.

Trump is already claiming that Barr's letter is a "COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION" proving there was "no obstruction." But it's important to understand that Mueller didn't draw that conclusion; Barr and Rosenstein did."

The article goes on to quote the obstruction-related portions of Barr's letter- It claims that Mueller examined actions by the President, "most of which" were already public, that he "considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards regarding prosecution and conviction", that he "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment." but referred it to Barr and Rosenstein, and that he came to no conclusion on Trump's guilt or innocence, and that Barr and Rosenstein (not Mueller) supposedly reached the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute "without regard to" the Constitutionality of indicting a President.

So, Mueller drew no conclusion on obstruction, but left it up to Barr and Rosenstein. They made the call that it wasn't prosecutable. Mueller simply "laid out the facts". Which we and the Congress have yet to see.

We REALLY need to see the full report. Because forgive me if I am not taking the word of a Trump appointee critical of the investigation who was likely appointed to derail it, and who's resume includes "covering up Iran-Contra".

[The Romulan Republic]

Full text of Barr's letter available below:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics ... index.html

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Also people, Barr has every reason to spin this as favorably to Trump as possible, and Mueller has been having choice words with the summary...

[Jub]

So, TRR, is it fair to say that some of the people you've been dismissive of over the past few months were correct about the fact that this report would essentially bring nothing new to the table in spite of your insistence that this report would be a game-changing event? Is it also fair to say that your expectations for the report were inflated by the liberal media and your own desire to see Trump removed from power?

Given your long-held stance on both Trump and this report, I feel these are fair questions to ask you.

[Vympel]

I'm just - not going to needle TRR about this anymore. Given how often he's called me a Trump/Putin apologist I'd be fully justified in doing so, but I just can't.

Like I said earlier, there's multiple ways this can go for the most fervent of the believers:

1. They become dead-enders, telling literally anyone who will listen that Trump's a traitor who colluded/conspired/coordinated with the Russians, and will be insisting upon it well after he leaves office; or
2. They try and move the goalposts and pretend the Mueller Report was never that important; or
3. They admit reality and that this entire two-year fiasco was a hysterical embarassment.

[Oscar Wilde]

Mueller Claus came annnnnnd he brought coal

[Jub]

Mueller Claus came annnnnnd he brought coal

I think it's most apt to say that we all just saw that Mueller Claus was actually just a regular guy in a suit and that only in fantasy was he ever going to bring anything more than exactly what he brought.

[Gandalf]

People hyped him up, and effectively gambled against Trump's legitimacy on Mueller finding some ultimate smoking gun. With this ending with such an amticlimax, Trump gets to say that two years of Mueller Report coverage was a partisan witch hunt which found nothing.

This just made 2020 harder for the Democrats.

[Vympel]

https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/sta ... 86369?s=20

"The Mueller Report amounting to nothing will hopefully finally put to rest the liberal fantasy that the way to stop the rising tide of fascism is to call the cops and get them arrested on a technicality."

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just - not going to needle TRR about this anymore. Given how often he's called me a Trump/Putin apologist I'd be fully justified in doing so, but I just can't.

He says, while trying to needle me.

Like I said earlier, there's multiple ways this can go for the most fervent of the believers:

1. They become dead-enders, telling literally anyone who will listen that Trump's a traitor who colluded/conspired/coordinated with the Russians, and will be insisting upon it well after he leaves office; or
2. They try and move the goalposts and pretend the Mueller Report was never that important; or
3. They admit reality and that this entire two-year fiasco was a hysterical embarassment.

4. They correctly point out that the report, while important, is not the be-all and end all of the investigations of Trump, that we have not even seen the full report, just the brief summary of a political hack with a history of sweeping crimes by the executive branch under the rug, that what we do know leaves both the question of collusion with non-state actors, and the question of obstruction, somewhat open, and that ceaselessly attacking Mueller and the investigation and then insisting that everyone should accept Barr's summary of his conclusions at face value is the height of shameless, ideologically-motivated hypocrisy.

If you don't want "collusion was covered up" theorists to become as prolific and entrenched as Kennedy assassination theorists, by the way, it is in your interests to want the full report released immediately, and to have Barr, Rosenstein, and Mueller testify as to their reasons under oath. Only that will answer the unanswered questions. That is not shifting goal posts- we always wanted the full report. And if it really does clear Trump as thoroughly as Barr is trying to claim, then Trump and Barr have every reason to have it released, barring the minimum of redactions necessary for national security. If they do not, it begs the question: Why?

People hyped him up, and effectively gambled against Trump's legitimacy on Mueller finding some ultimate smoking gun. With this ending with such an amticlimax, Trump gets to say that two years of Mueller Report coverage was a partisan witch hunt which found nothing.

This just made 2020 harder for the Democrats.

Likely, yes, in part because Trump and his supporters, and the Kremlin apologists, will lie through their teeth (as they have already started doing) in claiming that this is a complete vindication. But I will reiterate that the investigation was justified by Trump's own actions, necessary to maintain any semblance of the rule of law in America, and that we still don't know Mueller's full conclusions, particularly on the question of obstruction of justice.

I will concede to a serious error, though, on the part of myself and many others. We raised our hopes in Mueller too high. We let ourselves believe that maybe he was the person to stop Trump. Clearly, we were wrong. That person isn't here yet, and the lesson we should take away from this, in part, is how dangerous it is to underestimate Trump. This is a man who has spent his life weaseling out of consequences, and he is evidently very skilled at it, despite his outward veneer of blustering imbecility.

I will also reiterate that anyone (not you) gloating and celebrating over this outcome is either extremely petty, or does not care for democracy and the rule of law. There is nothing to celebrate here. Only an ambiguous anti-climax that leaves the opposition, at least for the time being, in a weaker position as the battle continues.

Thank God it didn't happen right before election day.

In other news, Barr reportedly did not confer with Mueller before releasing the summary. Trump has also come out, claiming that he is completely exonerated on both collusion and obstruction (a lie) and calling the investigation illegal. Its pretty clear what's coming now: investigations of the investigation, of the Democrats, political purging of the DOJ...

[Jub]

If you don't want "collusion was covered up" theorists to become as prolific and entrenched as Kennedy assassination theorists, by the way, it is in your interests to want the full report released immediately, and to have Barr, Rosenstein, and Mueller testify as to their reasons under oath. Only that will answer the unanswered questions. That is not shifting goal posts- we always wanted the full report. And if it really does clear Trump as thoroughly as Barr is trying to claim, then Trump and Barr have every reason to have it released, barring the minimum of redactions necessary for national security. If they do not, it begs the question: Why?

It's not so much that we care if you become the Trump equivalent of a birther of it, it's that we're laughing at the fact that it's an inevitability The full report can come out and everybody knows you'll just jump on the next investigation until there are no more straws to grasp at.

As for why the report might not be released in a timely fashion, it actually works for Trump and co to hold it back, assuming that the summary is truthful, because the left calling for it's release only to have it say exactly what the summary says makes them look rabid and crazy. They're gaming the system to stir up your anger because your anger fits their narative that it's all a witch hunt.

You're being played by both sides except that the Democrats are shit at the game.

Likely, yes, in part because Trump and his supporters, and the Kremlin apologists, will lie through their teeth (as they have already started doing) in claiming that this is a complete vindication. But I will reiterate that the investigation was justified by Trump's own actions, necessary to maintain any semblance of the rule of law in America, and that we still don't know Mueller's full conclusions, particularly on the question of obstruction of justice.

Who in this thread is arguing that the investigation itself wasn't warranted? At most people have questioned the methods by which it was conducted which is an entirely fair question to ask.

I will concede to a serious error, though, on the part of myself and many others. We raised our hopes in Mueller too high. We let ourselves believe that maybe he was the person to stop Trump. Clearly, we were wrong. That person isn't here yet...

So what is your end game if that person doesn't come and Trump gets a full two terms and retires with no legal or governmental action taken against him?

In other news, Barr reportedly did not confer with Mueller before releasing the summary. Trump has also come out, claiming that he is completely exonerated on both collusion and obstruction (a lie) and calling the investigation illegal. Its pretty clear what's coming now: investigations of the investigation, of the Democrats, political purging of the DOJ...

And does any of this surprise you?

[Gandalf]

Jub, I think you should check your quote tags.

Likely, yes, in part because Trump and his supporters, and the Kremlin apologists, will lie through their teeth (as they have already started doing) in claiming that this is a complete vindication. But I will reiterate that the investigation was justified by Trump's own actions, necessary to maintain any semblance of the rule of law in America, and that we still don't know Mueller's full conclusions, particularly on the question of obstruction of justice.

In my head I keep likening this to a big film production. The Mueller Report was two years in the making, with a lot of hopes and dreams poured into it by those with a stake in it dealing a crippling blow to the Trump's presidency. It's like Snakes on a Plane. It wasn't meant to be more than a B film, but people picked up on it and talked it up like it was going to reinvent cinema. Then when it was only a meh film, it all fell down. All of the time and effort being spent on hyping Mueller should have gone elsewhere. If the report found the smoking gun, then it's found money. If not, then it's not an issue.