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

Have you read the FISA warrant. Seems the dossier wasn't even remotely close to the sole reason for it being issued.

for your edfication it rather succinctly puts the fruit of the poison tree conspiracy theory to rest.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html



Recall Carter Page was already "known" to the intell community and named by two russian spies that barely got outta town ahead of the Feds. meanwhile the Feds KNEW the trump campaign was lying about russian contacts. But by all means, ignore such evidence since its just fodder for the usual suspects and the partisan faithful.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I believe there was probably enough evidence for Mueller to indict, and I also believe it likely that Mueller would indeed have indicted had he felt free to indict and thus free to judge. I think this because the evidence appears strong. This is my personal opinion, based on my (amateur) reading of the statute on obstruction of justice and on the fact that 802 former Justice Dept prosecutors believe the evidence was ample to indict.

You asked how Barr misled. Here's how: he did not fully explain the reason Mueller did not make a judgment. While his statement was consistent with the facts, it left a false impression with many. As James Comey put it last week, Barr did not speak with full candor.

I know what Mueller put in the report, and it is unlikely Mueller contradicted those statements in conversation with Barr. I also noted "we can verify this when Mueller testifies"; i.e. I could certainly be wrong, but we'll know soon.

That's possible, but I think it's unlikely Mueller would weigh the evidence differently than the 802 prosecutors I keep mentioning.

Trump haters can still interpret laws correctly. We don't even know that Barr would interpret the evidence differently than those prosecutors. These prosecutors assert that this evidence would be sufficient to indict a person who was not President. Bar MIGHT agree with that, but simply thinks different rules apply to a President - i.e. he can lawfully perform acts that obstruct because he is the President.

I share that opinion. Certainly nobody knows for sure that Mueller would have indicted - Mueller does not SAY he would have, but he felt he couldn't. The fact that he said the President is not exonerated is telling. I see only 2 possible interpretations of that statement; either: 1) he believed the evidence sufficient to indict; or 2) it was too close to call. As I've stated, I think #1 more likely.

Your turn. Explain why you disagree. Was it because of a reading of the law? Was it just because of what Barr said? Was it because of analyses by legal experts? We can have differing opinions, but why do you regard my opinion as "garbage".

Absolutely. In the 90's I was fine with investigating Whitewater. Why do you have a problem with investigating Trump? I wouldn't deny that there's political motivation - there always is, so that's not a good reason to refrain from investigating. What's wrong with exposing truth, as long as it's done legally? Consider what we learned about the Democrats from the stolen emails that were posted. While it was unfair to the Democrats during the election, it shed some light on some terrible practices - and by doing so, there's a decent chance they will improve those practices.

I'm glad to hear you actually do think there's something wrong with Trump's behavior.

I have several friends who own small businesses. Personally, I'm a retiree of a major oil Company based in Texas. What's your point? Is it that you would rather have a person of Trump's character who does the right policy, than a saint who does bad policy?

 

And this is in direct conflict with what he said to Barr in that meeting. Again:

"Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning,
that he emphatically was not saying, that but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction." - Barr testimony.

Why the hell did he need to? Its in the MUELLER REPORT!

How is it contradictory?

What I meant was that they could've just signed the thing because they hate Trump, even if they haven't looked into things in detail.

Isn't that a legitimate interpretation, that different rules apply to a President? And do you acknowledge that Barr might NOT agree with these prosecutors?

Also, keep in mind that if such a statement existed in the opposite direction, it could also attract a few hundred signatures.
So lets not get carried away here. This statement is null and void in the absence of an equivalent statement which opposes it.

My opinion centers entirely on what Barr testified that Mueller said to him. To be honest, if it wasn't for this, then I would likely lean the other way.

All that I was calling "garbage" was using the 802 former federal prosecutors to say that if it wasn't for the OLC opinion, Mueller would've indicted Trump.

Did I say that? What makes you think that I have a problem with it?

Are you seriously a Democrat? You're way too honest.

Although I can certainly understand it. The investigation was based on something that he did not do.

What if the IRS began investigating one of your friends over alleged wrongdoing. It is all over the national news, and their company's reputation risks being
completely destroyed. However, your friend hasn't done a THING wrong! What state of mind do you suppose your friend might be in? And would you sympathise with them?

 

Are you linking these Saudis to 9/11?

 

Not necessarily. I am not privy to what those specific Saudis may or may not have done in that regard.

However, their financial affiliation with the criminal Bush family increases the odds of their being guilty somehow.

 

Are you linking these Saudis to Mueller’s Report???

 

Have you seen me link them to Mueller's report?

I'm not linking them to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either.

 

No it isn't. I already explained that. Again: I am taking Mueller at his written word that he was not making a judgment. Had Mueller said, "but for the OLC opinion, I would have found obstruction", he would be making a judgment of guilt but just keeping it a secret. Is that your interpretation?

He didn't NEED to, he CHOSE to. If my interpretation of the above is correct, then it means YOU were misled. When Mueller testifies, we'll know if I was right or you were. I've given you the basis of my opinion. You disagree, and you've state the basis of your opinion is your interpretation of Barr's comment. We will see.

Anything's possible, but there's no evidence of this because lots of Republican appointed prosecutors agree. Even if you strike off all the Democratic appointed prosecutors, there's still a large number that interpret the evidence this way - and still precious little public disagreement. We don't know that ANYONE actually disagrees, even Barr - as I said.

Yes, it's a legitimate interpretation - although that interpretation carries zero weight with regard to impeachment. And yes, I absolutely agree that Barr might not agree with those prosecutors. Best case, the score is 802 to 2.

I will happily take into account any new data that comes forth. Until it does, you can't wish it into existence. I also point out that Trump's attorneys (likely at Trump's behest) tried to get McGahn to assert that HE didn't consider it obstruction, and he declined to do so. That suggests two things: the President's people are trying to get people to sign such a counter-list, and it also suggests McGahn may very well agree with the 802 prosecutors (but maybe not; he may just be recusing himself).

I think it's the logical conclusion: 1) The weight of expert opinion (in the public domain anyway) is that Trump's behavior constitutes obstruction. 2) this implies Trump actually committed obstruction; 3) Mueller would draw the same conclusion; 4) therefore Mueller would have indicted.

Just asking. You seem reasonable.

LOL! Frankly, I'm sick of partisan nonsense from all sides. I want truth, not spin, and it's crazy to always assume that one's "side" is always right and the other side always wrong.

My brother-in-law worked for Arthur Andersen, which went out of business solely because it was associated with Enron. It was eventually cleared of wrongdoing, but only after it was bankrupt. It's not fair.
I can certainly get why an Innocent Trump would be outraged at being investigated, but that doesn't excuse breaking the law (obstruction). Arthur Andersen cooperated fully, but the damage to their reputation was fatal. With Mueller completing his investigation before mid-2019, Trump had ample time to recover any loss of reputation before it mattered (the 2020 election). But he shot himself in the foot with his behavior.

This reminds me of arguments with my childish ex-wife. If she would feel wronged, she was liable to do anything (kick me, pull my hair, insult me to the children...). But she was "justified" because she had been wronged. Trump reminds me of her.

 

The report undoubtedly does tell us how it knows everything it asserts, however AG Barr is concealing much of the report from the US Congress and the public. Now he and his master Trump are acting in concert to block witnesses from testifying. I wonder why?

 

No need to wonder. You are wrong. Mueller has made 99% of the report available to congress people. The remaining 1% is grand jury testimony which can't be released by law. The congressional committees can ask for information required for developing legislation. They are not entitled to information that they can rummage through to torment Trump. All they have to do is announce that they are investigating to possibly bring impeachment charges and they can and should get everything they need. Ask your representatives to mount an impeachment and you and they will get what you want.

 

You are wrong. Barr and Trump are pulling the old Mitchell and Nixon gag of stalling and concealing. It landed Mitchell in jail and got Nixon booted. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Congress will continue to legally get the information they seek and the witnesses they need to do their oversight. The more we all know about how Trump and his criminal associates operate, the better it is for America.

 

I provided facts. You provided opinions - incorrect ones at that.

 

We need Mueller to testify to clear up these issues. How long do you think it will take Barr to redact the information in Mueller's brain?

 

Upthread (in this thread about the Mueller Report) a couple of days ago, you referred to some Saudis (with omnious ties to the Carlyle Group), since we're discussing the Mueller Report it seems like a natural follow up, how are Saudis related to the subject of Mueller's Report (Trump's collusion with Russians to defeat Hillary). I saw no reference to Saudis in that Report, hence my question (with its three interrogation points).

Evidently you disapprove of friendly ties to Saudi Arabia, and there are good reasons (Wahabism, atrocious human rights, discrimination against women, cruel and unusual punishment...), but friendly relations with the Saudis has a history and context.

We've moved from a US corporate natural resource exploitative relationship, through a fanatical religious antagonism vis-a-vis Israel, with an oil embargo, to a much improved relationship with a greatly diminished oil dependence and a sensitive appreciation (and exploitation) of religious. ethnic and cultural antagonism of Iran. One needs to situate oneself in the evolving contexts to appreciate the sense of these relations.

Half a century ago US relations with Iran were great, there was no need to support a culturally adverse regional power (Saudi Arabia) against them. Now we've got Iran fostering terrorism all over the Middle East, its a very different environment.

 

True.

At this poibt, Mueller's report is a textbook example of "Streisand Effect".

The more that Trump stonewalls it (and Barr is complicit uncovering it up) the more people want the Absolute Truth.

 

LOL. It all goes back to the below post, which was in reply to yours. I then picked it up from there:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ows-some-things.554756/page-6#post-1070538865

 

What do you mean? You clearly DO think that it is in conflict, you just don't accept that this is what Muller said. The reason that I say that you clearly do think that it is in conflict, is because you said this:

So you believe that if Mueller DID say what Barr testified, then he would have contradicted what he said in his report. Correct?

No, but you're not entirely convinced of that yourself, considering that I asked you:

And you replied:

So which is it? By saying "but for the OLC opinion, I would have found obstruction", would he, as you said, "be making a judgment of guilt" or is that unclear, with the possibility that he STILL wouldn't have come to a conclusion if there was no such OLC opinion?

He chose to what?

You don't think that Republican Trump haters exist? Think again.

You don't think that there are legal experts out there who have disagreed publicly? Surely you can't be serious.

How can it be a numbers game without a counter-statement that people have the opportunity to sign? You're comparing 802 signatories to Trump and Barr who aren't signatories to any counter-statement. Its apples and oranges. There are no signatories on the other side, so its actually 802 to 0.

Do you have a source for this?

And you understand that there was never any justice that needed to be done, so any investigation was never going to achieve anything? The whole thing turned out to be a grotesque waste of tax payers money.

Do you know WHY she felt wronged?

 

No. There's only a contradiction between what you infer from Barr's words (paraphrasing Mueller) and what Mueller wrote and believes. I'm not blaming you for drawing that false inference because I suspect that was Barr's intent. It's conceivable that Barr simply gave an awkward answer that inadvertently misled, but unlikely if he's the smart lawyer he's made out to be. If I'm right - then he was being deceptive despite not technically lying. I may very well be wrong, but if I'm wrong - I don't see how you can reconcile what Mueller wrote with your interpretation of Barr's paraphrase, unless you're assuming Mueller actually passed judgement, concealed that in his report, but disclosed it to Barr in their conversation. That seems bizarre.

I stated my opinion and have not changed it, but was responding to your question, "Why can't it mean that if it wasn't for the OLC opinion, he STILL wouldn't have come to a conclusion?" It COULD mean that - it's not impossible, but I don't think so - you haven't convinced me, and I apparently haven't convinced you. They're just opinions.

To mislead. You had asked "why did he have to", my response was that he didn't HAVE to mislead but that he chose to. To be clear: I am pretty confident that Barr's words were actually misleading; I am somewhat less confident that he did so intentionally (that he chose to mislead), but sufficiently confident to believe that he did.

Sure, but so what? I believe 100% of those former prosecutors had political opinions during their active careers but those opinions have little relevance for the task their charged with: evaluating evidence to make an indictment decision. A prosecutor is not merely making a judgment of a crime, but rather judging that the evidence is sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I expect they are using the same standards here. Why would you NOT think that?

Seriously, I haven't read of any who have said "were I a prosecutor and evaluated such evidence for a person who was not President, I would certainly not indict because I believe the evidence falls short." This is quite different than making comments about Presidential powers (like Alan Dershowitz). But...point me at the experts who've done that. I'm open to reading what they have to say.

I'm judging the evidence that is available, and being generous by assuming Barr and Rosenstein MIGHT sign a counter-statement if they were free to do so. Why are you so dismissive of the statement of the Prosecutors?

Wall Street Journal.

I strongly disagree. Mueller's work verified that Russia endeavored to influence the election and identified specifically how they did this, which would be helpful for taking counter measures in the future. But there's something even more important that you seem be ignoring: there actually was a good bit of evidence suggestive of criminal conspiracy by members of the Trump campaign with Russia. Should this have been ignored? The system worked - no innocent men have been punished.

I used to work for a huge corporation, in low level management. Every year I had to attend training on legal compliance in dealing with outside companies. We were trained to avoid doing anything that could even give the appearance of wrongdoing. If in doubt, we had a company attorney on speeddial. My corporation valued its reputation and of course also wanted to avoid going to court.

Similarly, had Trump's campaign taken 10% the care that my corporation did, they would have avoided all problems. Trump is a victim of his and his campaign's incompetence. Boo hoo.

Sure, but it's irrelevant. I'm not planning to relive my 25 year-old marital problems for you. My point is that one is accountable for one's own behavior, and even if one is unjustly provoked that does not excuse bad behavior. Trump should have taken his oath of office seriously. Had he sought legal advice on what to do, there's no question that they would have told him to avoid even an appearance of obstructing justice. Perhaps he actually got that advice, but failed to follow it. Either way, there's really no excuse.

 

My reference to the Saudis was in context a comment about the poor character of Mueller himself. My point was that if Mueller already has a history of protecting foreign special interests, why should we expect dignity and defense of justice to suddenly become his goal? My point is that Mueller has long protected the status quo (yes, a broad term), and it would be naïve indeed to expect him to suddenly become the man seeking justice and truth.

 

apparently you are unfamiliar with the powers of congress as set out in the constitution. There is no requirement that the requested materials be for the sole purpose of developing legislation.

It seems republicans don't think congress has a role in "oversight" of the administration. Why bother with checks and balances - just hand it all over to their dear leader and let him dictate what will be.

Amazing ignorance coupled with adamantine partisanship - no wonder there's so much bullshit being shovelled these days.

 

You forgot to mention that this has nothing to do with oversight either. It is about tax returns prior to his entry into politics. Amazing ignorance coupled with adamantine partisanship. By the way I am not a partisan. I reject the very concept of political parties.

 

"prior to his entry into politics"? When was that exactly, before or after he became King Birther?

And considering the massive amount of evidence of Trump's sketchy interactions with Russians over the years, it is entirely within the scope of congressional oversight to investigate what conditions and results of those interactions were and are.

Reject the very concept of political organization? Sure you do.

 

No part of the government has the power to force the release of any private infiormation w/o probable cause.
Congress has no probable cause behind its attempt to obtain Trump's tax returns.

 

What? Of course they can. As for probable cause, bubby, there's TONS of probable cause. Where have you been?

Its not an attempt, its a done deal, and only a matter of time given the obstructive but hilariously bogus legal stylings of Trump.

 

Not according to the Constitution, and not w/o a warrant.

There is? Relating to what crime?