The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Gormwood]

"Not enough to indict" is kind of a roadblock here. That was a concession within the first five tweets. Are Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice not trustworthy enough to make that decision? If not, then who is?

So you're going to ignore the rest of it for precisely the reasons it suggests.

Barr had a choice here: he could summarize the evidence or summarize the *summary* of the evidence. The decision he made was to summarize the summary, knowing that him doing so would feed into Team Trump's false narrative that criminal evidence exists in an all-or-none binary.

With that sort of "logic" no mobster would ever get convicted.

[Fahran]

So you're going to ignore the rest of it for precisely the reasons it suggests.

Barr had a choice here: he could summarize the evidence or summarize the *summary* of the evidence. The decision he made was to summarize the summary, knowing that him doing so would feed into Team Trump's false narrative that criminal evidence exists in an all-or-none binary.

"Mueller might have had some evidence of wrong-doing, but he didn't have enough to impeach Trump or demonstrate that any criminal conspiracy occurred to fix elections." That's not an especially convincing argument. Barr could have cut evidence that would have been insufficient to validate the allegations or he could have just summarized a report where that evidence was absent. The point remains: there still wasn't enough to confirm anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

With that sort of "logic" no mobster would ever get convicted.

Mobsters only get convicted when you can actually win the court case. Mueller determined that wasn't a possibility here according to the source that was posted. He might have even determined that it was unfeasible to even bring a case. I get wanting to see the full report, but the idle speculation here is going a bit far. Even if Mueller's report is made public, which the GOP would allow if the scope of investigations was broadened to wreak chaos on the DNC for their dossier and irregularities, it wouldn't change anything unless Barr completely tore up the script - which no one is maintaining.

[Tobleste]

It seems to be an anti climax. Mueller (apparently) didn't conclude one way or the other regarding obstruction of justice. Obviously the more stupid right wingers will claim he's exonerated but they'd have done that no matter what.



If you think top Democrats are progressive, you have no idea about what left wing politicians are actually like.

let me correct that actually

top democrats: Super corrupt double talking politicians

Progressives: Backhanded Socialist's who nut at the possibility of 1984

Ah, so you don't know what left wing politicians or mainstream Democrats are like.

[Tobleste]

Man the reactions to this on places like reddit are amusing to say the least. So many people who previously adored Mueller are now convinced he's a Trump and Russian puppet.

And after years of insisting Mueller is a Clinton puppet in a deep state coup, he's now a paragon of integrity to Trump and co. It's how things work. The about face from both is ridiculous. What is true is that one ridiculous conspiracy theory about Mueller was spread by the Republican president and the left wing equivalent other was something I only just heard you mention that you saw on reddit and hasn't been uttered by any important Democrat which is a pretty good example of how disproportionately crazier the American right is than the left now.

[Mystic Warriors]

University of New Hampshire professor deconstructs the Barr report.

"Not enough to indict" is kind of a roadblock here. That was a concession within the first five tweets. Are Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice not trustworthy enough to make that decision? If not, then who is?

A neutral party, not a Republican

[Vassenor]

So the guy who got the AG job by saying no one can investigate the president, whose son-in-law recently got a job as a legal adviser to the president, says the president can take the report about his wrongdoings and scribble out any parts he doesn't like before the public sees it

[Tobleste]

University of New Hampshire professor deconstructs the Barr report.

"Not enough to indict" is kind of a roadblock here. That was a concession within the first five tweets. Are Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice not trustworthy enough to make that decision? If not, then who is?

Trump is a politician so "not guilty of a crime" isn't really "exoneration" as he's claimed. Politicians have destroyed their careers without ever breaking a law.

[Mystic Warriors]

So the guy who got the AG job by saying no one can investigate the president, whose son-in-law recently got a job as a legal adviser to the president, says the president can take the report about his wrongdoings and scribble out any parts he doesn't like before the public sees it

The report is a fraud. He is guilty and abused his power to cover himself.

[Gravlen]

I agree with you.

Here's a viewpoint from a former federal prosecutor supporting what you're saying in your first paragraph:

But crucially, Mueller reported that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” whether expressly or tacitly. To use the popular cable-news vernacular, Mueller did not establish “collusion.” (Never mind that collusion is not a legal term, and that the special counsel’s mission was to investigate “links and/or coordination” with the Russians.)

Trump’s triumphant supporters notwithstanding, we don’t yet know what that means. When prosecutors say that an investigation “did not establish” something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened. Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence. The difference is meaningful, both as a matter of history and because it might determine how much further Democrats in Congress are willing to push committee investigations of the matter.

Is there really an effective difference between exonerating Trump of conspiracy and failing to uncover substantial evidence pointing to conspiracy though? The result of the Mueller report is more or less the same when it comes to impeachment proceedings against Trump in that it strips away a good deal of the legitimacy from the media narratives of the last two years and makes it impossible to remove Trump from office with any legitimacy unless something else is uncovered. There's reason Pelosi stated that impeachment wouldn't occur unless something damning enough to elicit bipartisan support materialized. It's because this line of attack has more or less been a bust. We can speculate that the Department of Justice spun the report, but we have no evidence of that at the moment. At best, I think the Democrats might be able to jump on the obstruction train, but even that would entail obstructing an investigation that ultimately led nowhere and risks being remembered by posterity as a witch hunt.

Politically? Probably no difference. But that was a given from the beginning, to be honest, and cemented when Pelosi ruled out impeachment.

Legally? Absolutely. And that's why we should see the full report.

[Fahran]

A neutral party, not a Republican

Who would you recommend to assess such a matter neutrally? Honestly, at this point, cutting one's losses might serve better than dying on this particular hill in the absence of sufficient evidence.

So the guy who got the AG job by saying no one can investigate the president, whose son-in-law recently got a job as a legal adviser to the president, says the president can take the report about his wrongdoings and scribble out any parts he doesn't like before the public sees it

You're alleging that Barr misrepresented the Mueller report? Is it normal procedure to publish a full summary of an investigation when charges aren't pursued? Would we do this for other people for instance?

Trump is a politician so "not guilty of a crime" isn't really "exoneration" as he's claimed. Politicians have destroyed their careers without ever breaking a law.

So we're going to employ an investigation into perceived espionage and criminal wrong-doing to obtain political dirt? That doesn't seem altogether ethical.

Politically? Probably no difference. But that was a given from the beginning, to be honest, and cemented when Pelosi ruled out impeachment.

A lot of the clamoring to release Mueller's report seems to be politically charged. I'm more or less indifference because I'm skeptical that Barr misrepresented it in any dramatic way. And, if he did, it wouldn't change Mueller's final conclusion.

Legally? Absolutely. And that's why we should see the full report.

Not having enough evidence to even impeach a person isn't exactly a promising place to begin on a matter of legal consequence. Do you believe we need an additional investigation? And, if so, why?

[Vassenor]

A neutral party, not a Republican

Who would you recommend to assess such a matter neutrally? Honestly, at this point, cutting one's losses might serve better than dying on this particular hill in the absence of sufficient evidence.

So the guy who got the AG job by saying no one can investigate the president, whose son-in-law recently got a job as a legal adviser to the president, says the president can take the report about his wrongdoings and scribble out any parts he doesn't like before the public sees it

You're alleging that Barr misrepresented the Mueller report? Is it normal procedure to publish a full summary of an investigation when charges aren't pursued? Would we do this for other people for instance?

Trump is a politician so "not guilty of a crime" isn't really "exoneration" as he's claimed. Politicians have destroyed their careers without ever breaking a law.

So we're going to employ an investigation into perceived espionage and criminal wrong-doing to obtain political dirt? That doesn't seem altogether ethical.

So what is in the bits that have been omitted from the quoted sections?

[Valrifell]

So the guy who got the AG job by saying no one can investigate the president, whose son-in-law recently got a job as a legal adviser to the president, says the president can take the report about his wrongdoings and scribble out any parts he doesn't like before the public sees it

The report is a fraud. He is guilty and abused his power to cover himself.

If that were true Mueller would have probably said something by now. It probably is right but leaves out the other stuff.

[Fahran]

So what is in the bits that have been omitted from the quoted sections?

None of us can say at this time, but your argument is presently resting on ifs and maybes. The report can and probably will be published at some point in much the same way as the Starr Report was.

The report is a fraud. He is guilty and abused his power to cover himself.

So Mueller is a liar? Is there anything that would convince you that this isn't the case?

[Trollgaard]

I find it hilarious the left was screaming about this for years and guess what! Nothing happened. Thanks for giving Trump another term as you spent 3 years bitching about this!

[Yusseria]

You can, but time and money are limited resources. Every minute spent reporting on a nothing burger is a minute that could have been spent reporting on genuine policy or social problems. Every dollar spent investigating someone for something that didn't happen is a dollar not spent on subsidizing a homeless shelter, commissioning a nuclear torpedo, or giving tax credits to a solar panel company. Never mind that the media narrative actually had people believing things that probably weren't grounded in any factual basis.

Not sure where the nothingburger thing is coming from given the number of people indicted.

None of the people were indicted for anything collusion-related. An inconvenient fact you always like to ignore.

[MGTOWia]

Now it's time for a second probe into the REAL Russia collusion and obstruction of justice. By the Clinton campaign and the Obama regime.

[Vassenor]

Now it's time for a second probe into the REAL Russia collusion and obstruction of justice. By the Clinton campaign and the Obama regime.

[Yusseria]

Now it's time for a second probe into the REAL Russia collusion and obstruction of justice. By the Clinton campaign and the Obama regime.

Hi Vass. Ukraine is now investigating government officials for trying to help Clinton.

[Tobleste]

I find it hilarious the left was screaming about this for years and guess what! Nothing happened. Thanks for giving Trump another term as you spent 3 years bitching about this!

34 indictments is nothing?

[Tobleste]

A neutral party, not a Republican

Who would you recommend to assess such a matter neutrally? Honestly, at this point, cutting one's losses might serve better than dying on this particular hill in the absence of sufficient evidence.

So the guy who got the AG job by saying no one can investigate the president, whose son-in-law recently got a job as a legal adviser to the president, says the president can take the report about his wrongdoings and scribble out any parts he doesn't like before the public sees it

You're alleging that Barr misrepresented the Mueller report? Is it normal procedure to publish a full summary of an investigation when charges aren't pursued? Would we do this for other people for instance?

Trump is a politician so "not guilty of a crime" isn't really "exoneration" as he's claimed. Politicians have destroyed their careers without ever breaking a law.

So we're going to employ an investigation into perceived espionage and criminal wrong-doing to obtain political dirt? That doesn't seem altogether ethical.

Politically? Probably no difference. But that was a given from the beginning, to be honest, and cemented when Pelosi ruled out impeachment.

A lot of the clamoring to release Mueller's report seems to be politically charged. I'm more or less indifference because I'm skeptical that Barr misrepresented it in any dramatic way. And, if he did, it wouldn't change Mueller's final conclusion.

Legally? Absolutely. And that's why we should see the full report.

Not having enough evidence to even impeach a person isn't exactly a promising place to begin on a matter of legal consequence. Do you believe we need an additional investigation? And, if so, why?

I'm saying there could be plenty of dirt in the report that would look bad for Trump without reaching the bar of criminal conspiracy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I find it hilarious the left was screaming about this for years and guess what! Nothing happened. Thanks for giving Trump another term as you spent 3 years bitching about this!

34 indictments is nothing?

When none of the Americans indicted had anything to do with collusion, well, yeah it kinda is nothing.

I mean was anyone really shocked to learn people like Manafort were committing financial crimes?

[Vassenor]

I find it hilarious the left was screaming about this for years and guess what! Nothing happened. Thanks for giving Trump another term as you spent 3 years bitching about this!

34 indictments is nothing?

We're not allowed to talk about those. Especially all the shit that's come out from Manafort's indictment including the Wikileaks stuff.

[Yusseria]

I find it hilarious the left was screaming about this for years and guess what! Nothing happened. Thanks for giving Trump another term as you spent 3 years bitching about this!

34 indictments is nothing?

None of those indictments had anything to do with collusion, so yeah.

[Tobleste]

34 indictments is nothing?

When none of the Americans indicted had anything to do with collusion, well, yeah it kinda is nothing.

I mean was anyone really shocked to learn people like Manafort were committing financial crimes?

Weren't his financial crimes about not disclosing financial ties with Russia backed Ukrainian oligarchs? And wasn't Trumps lawyer caught lying to congress while trump was being investigated for obstruction?

Only trump and his enablers could read that Trump is neither proven guilty of obstruction of justice nor proven innocent and scream vindication.

That such crimes are dismissed as nothing shows that trump supporters wouldn't care about anything Mueller could have found.

[Fahran]

I'm saying there could be plenty of dirt in the report that would look bad for Trump without reaching the bar of criminal conspiracy.

Perhaps, but the Mueller investigation wasn't a fact-finding mission for Trump's political opponents and shouldn't be used as such.