Mueller's Report

[hobbsyoyo]

It's not behind a paywall at least on a laptop. I've noticed that with big Trump pieces, NYT and Washington Post both lower their paywalls.

NPR did a similar infographic piece:
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/713974980/see-how-much-of-the-mueller-report-is-redacted

 

[Birdjaguar]

It also might move out from behind it in a few days.

 

[onejayhawk]

Steele's background was detailed on the FISA application with regards to surveillance on Carter Page.

That is not the disclosure that was missing. There was no disclosure to the Judge that the report was unverified even though that is a material matter. Nor was it disclosed that no attempt was made to verify the report.

It's a classic blind eye tactic. Since the Department/Bureau had good reason to disbelieve the report, they chose to not risk finding out. Whether this amounts to felonious misconduct is still under investigation. Regardless, it is easy to see why Barr is so upset with the abuses of procedure prior to his term.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

That is not the disclosure that was missing. There was no disclosure to the Judge that the report was unverified even though that is a material matter. Nor was it disclosed that no attempt was made to verify the report.

J

Can you provide verification of the statements made here?

 

[Ajidica]

There was no disclosure to the Judge that the report was unverified even though that is a material matter. Nor was it disclosed that no attempt was made to verify the report.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
Here is the Carter Page FISA application. As you can see, extensive redactions are present on pg 16, which provides background to Steele. We do not know what sort of information was contained within those redactions.

Additionally, the security services rely almost exclusively on unverified information. The freaking point of wiretapping is to gain additional information to determine whether the initial unverified information can be shown to be inaccurate or not. The FBI had unverified information that Carter Page might have been working as a Russian intelligence asset, and presented to the FISA court for review an application to surveil Carter Page for additional information.

I'm not sure if you just got confused about the FISA court or are trying to actively mislead, but the FISA court is NOT A COURT OF LAW. The FISA court exists to review (generally electronic) surveillance activities as part of foreign intelligence operations. The FISA court does not exist to make judgments on whether unverified information is true, merely that the security service presents clear and compelling reasons for why a person needs to be wiretapped.
It is like a search warrant. For example, if the police were to search my apartment on the grounds they believed I might be engaged in arms trafficking, they would have to present to a judge their reasons for believing I am an arms trafficker. The judge would review their reasons and if the judge believed the police had compelling support, they would authorize the search warrant. At no point in the process to obtain a search warrant would the police have to verify that I am, in fact, an arms dealer prior to receiving the warrant. (Indeed, an investigation into arms trafficking would likely rely, at least initially, on unverified information made by some very dubious people.) Now, there are rules against lying on the search warrant, and I would presume similar rules exist for FISA applications, but you would need to present a lot more information that what we know of from the Carter PAge FISA application to support the idea the FBI was lying on the application.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure if you just got confused about the FISA court or are trying to actively mislead...

If you haven't come to a conclusion regarding what @onejayhawk is all about by now you never will, so I assume this is rhetorical. The "well maybe he is really that devoid of facts and out of touch with reality" option expired a long time ago.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you haven't come to a conclusion regarding what @onejayhawk is all about by now you never will, so I assume this is rhetorical. The "well maybe he is really that devoid of facts and out of touch with reality" option expired a long time ago.

But Jay, Berserker, TristanC, and Old Hippy are getting a free education of how things actually work in the real world. No college loans are needed. Their inability or unwillingness to do more than troll says more about them than us.

 

[El_Machinae]

But Jay, Berserker, TristanC, and Old Hippy are getting a free education of how things actually work in the real world. No college loans are needed. Their inability or unwillingness to do more than troll says more about them than us.

I find their insights valuable

 

[Pangaea]

I don't venture much into the Off-topic section so haven't followed this thread. Hopefully this article has been posted previously, but if not here is an excellent run-down by Glenn Greenwald, where he of course touches on the hysteria that has been raging about alleged Russian interference, and alleged Trump-Putin cooperation.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18...ssia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

I wish we had more journalists like him. Obviously all won't like what he writes, especially in the top echelons of the Democratic party, but it's well worth a read.

 

[bernie14]

Oh my such unchained anger....

I see that you subscribe to the old adage: When you have nothing, the best defense is to make lame attacks. i salute your desperateness. It is quite clear that you are unable to make an actual case for what you claim and at best just recycle the standard lies we've heard/seen for the past few years.

What am I supposed to disprove? Make me a list.

Nah, you don't have to prove your innocence, not in the U.S. at least...right?

But Jay, Berserker, TristanC, and Old Hippy are getting a free education of how things actually work in the real world. No college loans are needed. Their inability or unwillingness to do more than troll says more about them than us.

I am honestly hurt that you forgot me...

 

[Farm Boy]

Whatever.

 

[Berzerker]

No; according to Mueller. Read the report.

I said the Dems and their media are telling us Mueller wants the House/Congress to deal with obstruction of justice.

He recommended that Congress impeach Trump. He went to some length to make the impeachment case for Congress.

Thats what I've been hearing... We'll have to get his word on the matter. But he might decline that invitation, I cant see him testifying yay or nay on impeachment and he does not like Trump.

For the House to impeach Hillary, they would have to have an investigation and find evidence of a crime. Then she would be tried in the senate. For 8 years the Republicans controlled the House, 2011-2018. They did not bring any bill of impeachment forward even though the Republicans spent 4 years investigating her. From 2015 through now, they have controlled the senate. And they could have impeached her and tried her. Why didn't they? If she was actually guilty and there was a case, what happened?

They didn't do it because they knew there was no case. It was all political show.

The oaths are not actually the same.

Yes, I should have said they both took an oath to uphold the same Constitution, not the same oaths. As for Hillary, the Dems would not impeach her for the same offenses nor did they vote to impeach Bill and the Republicans wont vote to impeach Trump. Thats why this is just partisan politics and why I think Pelosi will try to avoid impeachment because the Senate will acquit and Trump will get a bump in approval like Bill did.

I'm on the fence myself, I wouldn't care one way or the other. Trump deserves worse and impeachment would be more entertaining of course but there's just a stink of hypocrisy about it. I mean, we're in this situation because the Dems are corrupt too and they're mad because Russia and wikileaks showed us the proof.

If it was Trump's emails that were stolen the Dems would be applauding Putin and Assange... Wait a sec, wasn't Assange popular with the left at one time? Whistle blowers become the enemy when they're tattling on our friends.

But Jay, Berserker, TristanC, and Old Hippy are getting a free education of how things actually work in the real world. No college loans are needed. Their inability or unwillingness to do more than troll says more about them than us.

According to the people who run this forum accusing people of trolling is trolling. You might consider that before casting stones. But that aside, why do you think its trolling to disagree with you?

agree with me, agree with me, Kali Ma Shakti de

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"This is the greatest report of all time! It totally exonerates me!!! What? Oh, wait, you've read it? Well, it's nothing but a pack of lies. Total BS." - Donald Trump

 

[Kyriakos]

I recall how some in this forum were so enthusiastic about this report, a few months ago. "It's Mueller time!" one even typed. Much like with the pornstar issue before this, this too produced next to nothing. US political climate is way too polarized to allow for any main figure to face much, as outsiders to glorious USA have been noting for aeons.
So, what's next? Is this the end of attempting to remove Trump and his ilk? I guess elections aren't that far away now. I hope Bernie can be elected, though with the democrat party being what it is i am not optimistic - and his time really should have been in 2016 anyway.
AOC is nice, yet again who knows if she will be allowed to be elected.

 

[Camikaze]

I think the Democrats are in a pretty tough political spot with this one, partly because the Republicans have so successfully shifted the goalposts that a lot of the views expressed in this thread are probably genuinely representative of what many people in the US actually think - that this report is somehow exonerating and not a completely damning call for impeachment. But also because the Democrats backed themselves into a corner by repeatedly saying "wait for the Mueller report", when almost all knowledgeable commentators have for a long time been saying that the real danger for Trump is from his financial entanglements, which were outside the scope of the Mueller investigation. I think there was an assumption that Mueller would go beyond his remit to look into a lot of the broader potential criminality, rather than farming it out to other agencies, resulting in many people simultaneously having a) not believed for a very long time that there would be any finding of collusion or conspiracy or co-operation against Trump concerning the direct interference with the election, and b) thinking that the Mueller report would provide the final answer in relation to all areas of concern. But then to be fair to knowledgeable commentators, it was pretty much gospel before the Mueller report was finalised that it could not be everything everyone hoped it would be, that it should not be relied upon as the basis for taking action against Trump, and that Democrats were making a mistake by setting it up to be.

However, it would be a dereliction of duty to not impeach Trump simply because it would be politically difficult to subsequently secure a conviction. There is moral value in taking clear condemnatory action, even where it will not actually oust Trump from office.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thats what I've been hearing... We'll have to get his word on the matter. But he might decline that invitation, I cant see him testifying yay or nay on impeachment and he does not like Trump.

I think he'll show up to testify before Congress but I sort of expect him to punt on questions of impeachment given how he's seemingly gone along with Barr undermining the findings of his report. I think he thinks he can stay above it all even though his actions and words (or lack thereof) will inevitably have an impact. He can't stay above it and his attempts so far to do so have played into Trump's defense even though that was likely not his intent.

However, it would be a dereliction of duty to not impeach Trump simply because it would be politically difficult to subsequently secure a conviction. There is moral value in taking clear condemnatory action, even where it will not actually oust Trump from office.

They don't have the votes in House to impeach. Thanks to gerrymandering, Democrats got 50% less seats for 1/3 more votes than Republicans did in their last sweep in 2010. They won the House but I believe are pretty short of the threshold to impeach and the remaining Republican caucus is even more extremist than before as most of the moderates were pushed out by Democrats last year.

 

[Camikaze]

Impeachment only requires a simple majority. It's conviction in the Senate which requires a two-thirds majority. So impeachment could probably be done quite easily ASAP.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oh my bad then, thanks for the correction.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think the Democrats are in a pretty tough political spot with this one, partly because the Republicans have so successfully shifted the goalposts that a lot of the views expressed in this thread are probably genuinely representative of what many people in the US actually think - that this report is somehow exonerating and not a completely damning call for impeachment. But also because the Democrats backed themselves into a corner by repeatedly saying "wait for the Mueller report", when almost all knowledgeable commentators have for a long time been saying that the real danger for Trump is from his financial entanglements, which were outside the scope of the Mueller investigation. I think there was an assumption that Mueller would go beyond his remit to look into a lot of the broader potential criminality, rather than farming it out to other agencies, resulting in many people simultaneously having a) not believed for a very long time that there would be any finding of collusion or conspiracy or co-operation against Trump concerning the direct interference with the election, and b) thinking that the Mueller report would provide the final answer in relation to all areas of concern. But then to be fair to knowledgeable commentators, it was pretty much gospel before the Mueller report was finalised that it could not be everything everyone hoped it would be, that it should not be relied upon as the basis for taking action against Trump, and that Democrats were making a mistake by setting it up to be.

However, it would be a dereliction of duty to not impeach Trump simply because it would be politically difficult to subsequently secure a conviction. There is moral value in taking clear condemnatory action, even where it will not actually oust Trump from office.

The position is the same as it was during Watergate. The difference is in the integrity of the senate. The current senate Republicans might be among the "if I shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue I wouldn't lose their support" crowd. The only viable political move here is to destroy the senate Republicans. Impeach Trump, forcing the Senate to hold a trial. Present the evidence, which is compelling. Force senate Republicans into the untenable choice...vote to convict and alienate the 80% of their own party who just flatly doesn't care about the rule of law and wants to let Trump shoot Democrats on Fifth Avenue, or clearly demonstrate to 70% of the voting public that they and their party are so badly corrupted that they need to be removed from all access to power.

Nixon resigned to protect the party from the consequences of facing that no win choice. Trump will never put the party ahead of himself, so this is the opportunity to destroy the GOP once and for all. It can't be passed up.

 

[Hrothbern]

The position is the same as it was during Watergate. The difference is in the integrity of the senate. The current senate Republicans might be among the "if I shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue I wouldn't lose their support" crowd. The only viable political move here is to destroy the senate Republicans. Impeach Trump, forcing the Senate to hold a trial. Present the evidence, which is compelling. Force senate Republicans into the untenable choice...vote to convict and alienate the 80% of their own party who just flatly doesn't care about the rule of law and wants to let Trump shoot Democrats on Fifth Avenue, or clearly demonstrate to 70% of the voting public that they and their party are so badly corrupted that they need to be removed from all access to power.

Nixon resigned to protect the party from the consequences of facing that no win choice. Trump will never put the party ahead of himself, so this is the opportunity to destroy the GOP once and for all. It can't be passed up.

Yes
Make sure the fish is really hooked before you start landing him