Mueller report: It doesn't tell us how it knows some things.

Discussion in 'United States' started by chris155au, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no stated requirement in the statute . Here's the wording:

    Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
     
  2. Cal-Pak

    Cal-Pak Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Why don't you read up on the reasons why the House Ways and Means Committee can request Trump's taxes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal

    What the Teapot Dome Scandal Has to Do With Trump’s Tax Returns
    https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/what-teapot-dome-scandal-has-do-trump-tax-returns
     
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IF Mueller DEFINITELY said it, then you think that it would be a contradiction to what he said in his report, right?

    If Barr didn't at least accurately paraphrase Mueller, do you suppose that Mueller would've stayed silent?

    I'm not sure how you haven't understood by now. I can reconcile it PERFECTLY, by saying that it is possible that Muller STILL wouldn't have come to a conclusion if there was no such OLC opinion. Therefore, he wouldn't have passed judgement and disclosed it to Barr.

    It just seemed that you were trying to say that yours was the only valid opinion.

    No, I asked, why did he have to explain the reason Mueller did not make a judgment. You said:
    I replied by asking, "why the hell did he need to? Its in the MUELLER REPORT!"

    Somehow you took this to mean why the hell did he need to MISLEAD. Do you see where you went wrong? So then, why did Barr have to explain the reason that Mueller did not make a judgment?

    So you have referred to two "misled" situations, so which one are you referring to now? Misled by quoting what Mueller said about the OLC opinion or misled by not mentioning in his summary letter the reason that Mueller did not make a judgment?

    The task they're charged with? What are you talking about? They are FORMER prosecutors. Who has given them any such task?

    Because why would they NEED to? They are not active prosecutors. I'm sure that some of them might, but even if they came to the conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient, there was nothing stopping them from signing the statement for any number of reasons, one being to piss off Trump and another being not wanting to be seen by their old law buddies as defending Trump. "Hey Bob, I didn't see your name on the statement! We thought that you were one of us!" I'm sure that many of them genuinely saw sufficient evidence after a thorough read of the report, but not all 800, sorry.

    5th paragraph an onward:

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...st-without-missing-element-of-criminal-intent

    I assume that you agree that there was never any justice that needed to be done, but you disagree that the investigation didn't achieve anything.

    How is this anything that the coalition of intelligence agencies hadn't already concluded back in 2017?

    Suggestive? Okay, so no actually criminal conspiracy was found?
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2019
  4. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After

    He considered building in russia but didn't. Not exactly massive and it is none of our business.

    That's right. I do.
     
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. For legislative purposes.
    Not to snoop around to see if they can find something illegal.
     
  6. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Mueller could have said those exact words and still not be contradicting what he said in the report. Here's a hypothetical exchange that illustrates:

    Barr: In your report, you noted that you couldn't indict because of the OLC opinion, then lay out a case for obstruction. Are you saying you would have indicted if not for this?

    Mueller: No, Bill. I'm not saying but for the OLC opinion i would have found obstruction. I'm saying that I decided in advance that I would not make the judgment.
    Too many unknowns to have an opinion on that hypothetical. I think Barr accurately paraphrased something Mueller said, but did not fully explain what Mueller was doing. Mueller's actual words, in the report and in his "snitty" letter to Barr, are probative of Mueller's position. Second hand reports of what he said are not.
    Merely possible, or do you think that probable? I agree that is possible, but I think it improbable -because a preponderance of the evidence available to us (i.e. the opinions of those former prosecutors) points to this meeting the prosecutorial standard.
    Reasonable people can disagree. I'm just explaining my opinion. I find it interesting to try and understand a contrary opinion - it helps one be more open-minded.
    Sorry I misunderstood. Barr wanted to influence public opinion. Most people won't read the report. Those who support Trump can accept Barr's rendition and be satisfied Trump is fully exonerated - as Trump has said. Even a supporter who reads the report can continue to accept Barr's rendition, because as you say-it is possible.
    In their careers they are charged with, and trained to, assess evidence with sufficient objectivity to make sound judgments about when to prosecute. These skills would be sharpened over the course of a career through successes and failures. One doesn't unlearn such a skill.
    Sorry, but this sounds like looking for an excuse to dismiss their collective statement from consideration. Obviously, anything is possible, but there is zero basis thinking it probable that any (much less a significant number) of these former prosecutors did this. This is like saying it's possible LAPD conspired to frame O.J.for killing Nicole.

    There is one instance of being misleading, not two. He misled (whether intentional or not) by quoting/paraphrasing Mueller out of context. You seem to be treating the quote/paraphrase as one situation and the absence of additional context as a second.
    Great article. Thanks for that. I'll re-think what I said before about the liklihood that Mueller would have chosen to indict. This provides a good reason to think he might not, but then it is puzzling as to why Mueller would not say that. This is a good line of questioning for Mueller when he testifies before the House Judiciary.

    I am persuaded by his closing paragraph:

    Congress clearly has a legitimate interest to hold hearings on some of these issues. With Trump now calling some of the findings “fabricated” and “total bullshit,” he has again opened the door to further inquiry. Yet the inability of the special counsel to resolve the question of intent should weigh heavily on any decision of the Democratic leadership to move from investigation to impeachment. Like indictable acts, impeachable acts demand a showing of intent, not simply an array of possible intents.

    Do YOU agree that Congress should hold such hearings, which entails obtaining all of Mueller's evidence?
    On the contary: justice is served by dispelling the suspicion Trump conspired with Russia.
    Those were trails of evidence, not the comprehensive narrative that Mueller produced. Furthermore, Trump repeatedly denied Russian involvement - consider his statement in Helsinki. I expect many of his supporters accepted his statements. My hope is that nearly everyone now accepts there was Russian interference. It would be nice if Trumpists also recognized Trump's failure to see this, denying what the intelligence community told him. Seems like pretty poor judgment.

    My point was that evidence like this can't be ignored and therefore an investigation was necessary based on what was known at the time. It is inappropriate and illogical to judge the need for the investigation (at the time) based on the post facto results of the investigation. Don't you agree?
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2019
    chris155au likes this.
  7. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mueller's report doesn't tell us how he knows some things because those things are "known" from Steele's dossier and acknowledging that is very problematic. Now we have evidence the FBI was aware of problems with Steele's reliability, yet used his uncorroborated assertions to justify surveillance and investigations. Nothing in that dossier has ever been confirmed; Carter Page never met up with Russian intelligence agents during his visit to give a commencement speech in Moscow, Cohen didn't have similar meetings in Prague, there's no "pee tape"... Steele explicitly expressed his strong opposition to the target of his 'research', he was unlawfully paid by Hillary's campaign and commissioned to write the dossier to help her gather 'dirt' on Trump she could use (and did) in her campaign. These are all facts that were glossed over as the dossier was used to justify surveillance of Trump's campaign.

    I think Mueller knew the dossier was baloney, he also knew some in the FBI truly believed the dossier was reliable and accurate, their reliance on it has been downplayed in the Report. The dossier justifies the FBI's conduct, but its now publicly verified unreliability is an embarrassment. The US intelligence community, at least its highest ranking members, has been 'totally played' -by Russians!
     
  8. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mueller confirmed some key aspects of Steele's report, and developed much more detail - note the many Russians that were indicted. Indictment requires evidence. His report was a summary of his conclusions, not a detailed case file.

    Since you agree that the actual evidence is important, join with the Democrats on demanding the full report and supporting evidence be released to the House.
     
    ronv likes this.
  9. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean a legal request from congress. And that is also part of constitutional powers of oversight. Might want to read it sometime.

    Obstruction of justice. Tax fraud. for starters.
     
  10. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m unaware of anything in Steele’s dossier that has been confirmed, please tell me what “key aspects” you find corroborated.

    Indictments require zero evidence, mere allegations suffice, it is much like a claim in a civil suit, the prosecutor only alleges certain facts, which he believes sustain probable cause to believe a crime was committed.

    I’ve noted the indicted Russians, none of which will ever challenge the bogus ‘evidence’ against them, and the one business entity which successfully did and has been denied discovery.

    Incidentally, this alleged Russian meddling was explicitly not at Trump’s instigation, with his cooperation or coordinated in any way with him or anyone on his campaign team.
     
  11. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mueller confirmed Russian interference, which Trump denied when he knew better. See this article for an analysis of Steele statements vs Mueller.

    That's not true. To get an indictment, a prosecutor has to present evidence to a grand jury to show there is probable cause.

    What's the basis for your claim the evidence is bogus?

    To be precise, there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute. There are some instances of coordination, but no meeting all the elements of criminal conspiracy. Collusion is not a crime, but this coordination is similar to what constitutes collusion under antitrust law, so Trumpists should refrain from saying "no collusion". You should say, "no criminal conspiracy could be proven".

    You may not care, but Mueller shows there's a culture of lying in the White House. Lying is not a crime unless it's under oath, but it confirms Trump is a serial liar.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
    ronv likes this.
  12. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.html
     
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yep, they should release more, all the data collected during the investigation, not just a report :)
     
  14. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How it knows some things:

    Did you guys know Papadopoulos says the FBI had his then girlfriend (an Italian he has married) wear a wire to try to entrap him? He said so in a recent interview.
     
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why?
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So then why did you say that there is a:

    Probable, considering that it is the ONLY way that Mueller's report doesn't conflict with what he said to Barr, as Barr testified.

    OR it was simply outside of his job description to report on anything other than the PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS! I don't know how people can't accept this!

    Okay, but do most people follow the media? What would people gain from reading the report that they don't already know by watching CNN?

    Was there over 800 prosecutors in the OJ case?

    Aren't you saying that his summary letter was also misleading?

    How likely will it be that any democrat goes down this line of questioning?

    I agree, but doesn't this mean that the Democrats don't trust Mueller's judgement?

    Oh, so justice for Trump? No WAY that a democrat is going to say that!

    Alright, I can accept that it probably had some worth. Regarding Trump's mistrust of intel agencies, have they proven themselves to always be reliable?

    What makes you say that there was a "need" for the investigation?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We do not "Know" the details of this report because the attorney General has decided we should not. Unfortunately, transparency and adherence to the law do not seem important to the guy who runs our laws.
     
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't you trust Mueller's judgement?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  19. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not trust ANYONE anymore.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the people have a right to know the truth, we paid for the report

    why does Trump want to hide the truth from the public?
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't the truth in the report?
     
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    let's see the full report, let Congress have the full report, Trump wont let us see it
     
  23. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because my interpretation of Mueller's words is logically incompatible with your interpretation of Barr's - that constitutes a contradiction. I think I'm right about what Mueller was saying, you apparently think you're right about what Barr said. Belaboring this is pointless. What matters more is getting clarification from Mueller himself - don't you agree?

    Which shows that you are basing your interpretation of Mueller's report on your interpretation of Barr's words.

    His job description is full candor. If he actually misled then he's not fulfilling his duty. We disagree about whether he misled, but that will be settled when Mueller testifies.

    1. That there is a culture of lying in the White House; 2. That Trump committed acts that are consistent with engaging in obstruction of justice.

    There's simply no way to deny #1, and it's frankly pathetic to excuse it on the basis that Trump was outraged by an investigation into crimes he knew he was innocent of. Regarding #2, bear in mind that the best case (for Trump) interpretation of this is that Mueller found it too close to call - but this would be based on a criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No reasonable reading of the evidence could deny there's a preponderance of evidence that Trump tried to obstruct justice, and may have succeeded to some degree.

    Establishing intent would be a primary reason to investigate further. If they find Trump has actually committed past crimes, this will confirm that he was trying to prevent these from being uncovered. Aside from this, it's the line of questioning Republicans are likely to pursue in their efforts to exonerate Trump.

    My point was that in both cases, the evidence points in one direction - but one can always find some excuse to believe what one wants to believe. Your cited reason was an article that didn't really contradict their opinion, but focused on the "corrupt intent" issue. For that to be your true basis (rather than looking for excuses), then you should embrace the conclusion that further investigation is necessary - DO you embrace further investigation to see Trump truly had corrupt intent?

    Hypothetically, consider if Mueller had felt free to indict Trump and judged that Trump had committed a crime that warranted indictment. He couldn't simply go to court and base either the indictment, or the trial on his interpretation of evidence - he'd have to present the evidence. Exactly the same thing should be done for impeachment.

    Furthermore, as you brought up, more investigation is needed to establish intent (or exonerate Trump for lack of corrupt intent). This likely means pursuing investigation beyond where Mueller took it, and this would require them seeing exactly what Mueller already has. It's possible that Mueller's evidence already establishes this. Remains to be seen.

    No, they're not always reliable, but Trump is supposed to be a leader, not a pundit. A leader can challenge the conclusions that are brought to him, offer or seek alternative explanations of the evidence and demanding these outside-the-box ideas be given serious consideration. During my oil company career, I had to lead various studies and make recommendations. The leaders to whom I presented were usually quite adept at asking probing questions, and sometimes sent me back to analyze additional things. This is what I'd expect from a business leader, and it's reasonable to expect it in a President - particularly one who came from the business world.

    If there was a serious possibility that our President was compromised by Russia, we absolutely needed to know that because otherwise our system of governement is subverted.
     
  24. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no need to review all the evidence Mueller and his team considered when drafting his Report, in order to determine whether Barr misrepresented its conclusions.

    Barr didn't review all the evidence Mueller considered, all Barr did was read the report, quickly dash off a four page note of Mueller's two principal conclusions (no collusion and no decision on obstruction), and then deliver the entire report minus appropriate redactions required by law and in the interest of justice.

    Now that we've all read the Report and seen Mueller's conclusions, each of us can honestly determine if it is true that Mueller could not find adequate evidence of any collusion with Russia, and didn't make a decision on obstruction.

    If one thinks that Mueller reached the wrong conclusion regarding collusion based on one's own interpretation of the incidents described, and disagrees with his failure to make a decision regarding the obstruction, then it is not Barr's interpretation one has an issue with, it is with Mueller's Report.
     
  25. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On one level, it's irrelevant if Barr has misrepresented Mueller's conclusions, both because (as you said) we can each make our own conclusion, but also because Mueller can directly clear it up. On another level, it's relevant to know if Barr is performing his duties as Attorney General, and not behaving as Trump's defense attorney. On that latter front, it seems odd that Barr would repeat Trump's language ("collusion" instead of "conspiracy", and his inappropriate use of the word "spying").
     

Share This Page