Mueller's Report

[Timsup2nothin]

While DNC emails was technically a meddling, this is not even remotely close to what has been fed to American public for two years.

I think what has been "fed" to the public is that a crime was committed...which it was. Technically, of course. I guess with Putin as long as the crimes didn't reach murder it's pretty much small change.

 

[red_elk]

I think what has been "fed" to the public is that a crime was committed...which it was.

Unthinkable crime. Nobody gets to influence American internal affairs, ever.

 

[El_Machinae]

Me neither. Before Clinton, every Secretary of anything used private e-mail to keep things out of the public record, sometimes personal things, sometimes mundane things, sometimes embarrassing things...just things. So Clinton had absolutely no reason to expect an ambush by political rivals trying to turn her doing the same thing into the greatest crime since Booth shot Lincoln. But Kushner, being a direct beneficiary of such an outrageous misuse of propaganda to smear a political figure, should certainly be as aware as anyone on the planet of the relevant rules, written and unwritten, and for him to blatantly violate them speaks volumes about the sense of entitlement that comes with marrying a Trump.

Kushner and Clinton aren't in the same category. I don't know if Kushner is in a category where he is subject to Future Freedom of Information requests. I also don't have good evidence that previous secretaries of State used a private email service as aggressively as Clinton did.

I remember Sarah Palin getting righteously raked over the coals for using a private email service while she was governor.

I think that expressing a tolerance for it is not the right track. If you show me that Kushner is beholden to future Freedom of Information standards similar to Clinton's, I will change my tune on him. But I won't change my tune on Clinton.

 

[metalhead]

I'm not going to hold Jared to the same standard that I hold Hillary, but that is partially out of ignorance. How much of Jared's communication is fundamentally discoverable by a freedom of information request?

Maybe you aren't, but the Republican complaint and the one lodged in this thread was about information security. On that score Jared is almost certainly worse.

 

[onejayhawk]

Maybe you aren't, but the Republican complaint and the one lodged in this thread was about information security. On that score Jared is almost certainly worse.

Certainly not worse. There are no allegations of top secret information even being in his possession much less being remotely accessible. Those are known to be true concerning the email server.

J

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm happy to allege it. There. There's an allegation. Now it's been alleged.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unthinkable crime. Nobody gets to influence American internal affairs, ever.

No, just a perfectly ordinary crime. Hacking is a crime. If *I* had been involved in hacking the DNC *I* would be in jail. Receiving stolen property is also a crime, and has a sentencing enhancement if you directed the theft; as in I am committing a crime if you give me a stolen watch to pay off a debt, but it is more of a crime if you owe me and I say "hey, rather than pay me cash you don't have I could do with a good bottle of Scotch" and you then go out and steal one. So on at least one of two fronts there was definitely a crime committed, by Russians, who almost certainly didn't just come up with their scheme without Putin's knowledge and direction. You can sling all the "the US influences other governments" mud that you want, and I won't even disagree...but quit playing the "no crime here" card, because it's a deuce in an off suit and isn't doing your hand any good.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Kushner and Clinton aren't in the same category. I don't know if Kushner is in a category where he is subject to Future Freedom of Information requests. I also don't have good evidence that previous secretaries of State used a private email service as aggressively as Clinton did.

I remember Sarah Palin getting righteously raked over the coals for using a private email service while she was governor.

I think that expressing a tolerance for it is not the right track. If you show me that Kushner is beholden to future Freedom of Information standards similar to Clinton's, I will change my tune on him. But I won't change my tune on Clinton.

Kushner is some sort of "white house staff member" so he is effectively indistinguishable from the Secretary of State for the matter at hand. And if Clinton had Palin as an example I'm less inclined to go easy on her too, though Colin Powell was certainly a more direct and known example for her to follow. So, here we are, after Faux News ran an "expose" on the subject of government office holders using private e-mail over 500 times in 2016 and somehow we're supposed to think that Jerrod Kushner never saw it once? Never heard tell of such a thing?

 

[rah]

And not even going to bring up he should never have had access to look at any top secret stuff in the first place.

 

[El_Machinae]

Kushner is some sort of "white house staff member" so he is effectively indistinguishable from the Secretary of State for the matter at hand.

I don't accept that, because it's too easy to be wrong. Either his communications are future targets of FOI requests, or not. All similarities to Clinton begin and end on that. Clinton was deliberately dodging FOI requests. Successfully. And then she got partisan cover from 'her' team.

And if Clinton had Palin as an example I'm less inclined to go easy on her too, though Colin Powell was certainly a more direct and known example for her to follow.

Yes, she had Palin as an example. And Powell also did the same thing, but less egregiously. Clinton ramped it up to 11. She (maybe) didn't do it in a criminal way, but she abused it sufficiently that the laws should have been changed. IMO, Clinton's email 'thing' was a disqualifying event for her to be President. It showed too much contempt for the people. If it wasn't for the existence of Trump, I'd have said it more loudly.

It's just completely different scales of the problem. I'm not defending the kids. I'm resisting the idea that Clinton's behaviour was defendable.

 

[red_elk]

No, just a perfectly ordinary crime. Hacking is a crime.

Seems quite extraordinary. Discussed by whole country for two years already.

You can sling all the "the US influences other governments" mud that you want

Nah, that's not crime at all. According to US laws.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't accept that, because it's too easy to be wrong. Either his communications are future targets of FOI requests, or not. All similarities to Clinton begin and end on that. Clinton was deliberately dodging FOI requests. Successfully. And then she got partisan cover from 'her' team.


Yes, she had Palin as an example. And Powell also did the same thing, but less egregiously. Clinton ramped it up to 11. She (maybe) didn't do it in a criminal way, but she abused it sufficiently that the laws should have been changed. IMO, Clinton's email 'thing' was a disqualifying event for her to be President. It showed too much contempt for the people. If it wasn't for the existence of Trump, I'd have said it more loudly.

It's just completely different scales of the problem. I'm not defending the kids. I'm resisting the idea that Clinton's behaviour was defendable.

There's a question with an answer that lies somewhere between 'dodging FOI requests' and 'allowing unprecedented access,' and that question has grown out of the wild expansion of communications media.

Let's say, since there's no way for you to really know, that I am the Undersecretary of Agriculture for Desert Projects. There was a time not that long ago where my predecessor could have called you on the phone, shot the breeze about some sort of common interests to set you both at ease, then gotten down to business with whatever the proposal of the moment was. After the call he would have entered a summary in his calendar like; "Spoke to El_Mac regarding desert bloom project. His input suggests the plan should be put back to step one as he does not believe the current plan will accomplish the desired objective. Given his expertise it is advisable to consider his opinion as well educated on the matter."

But if you and me have the same exchange today, it's in e-mails...every word. Someone with an FOI request finds out that we are connected by mutual interest in an obsolete computer game, and that we briefly discussed how various mods to that game compare, and in passing made a comment about a member of the modding community that I would rather not have to explain to my girlfriend...and then when we got around to the topic of note your response to the desert bloom project, without knowing that it was initially your own boss's brainchild, was "what idiot came up with this?"

So, maybe I just PM you about it on some anonymous game forum before I send you anything official about it...and I'm 'dodging FOI requests.' Worse things are happening every day.

 

[El_Machinae]

See, you're now justifying something the Powell, Rice, Biden, and Tillerson all didn't need to do. Clinton needed to be more shady than the rest? "Just trust her", her partisan allies say. Naw.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

See, you're now justifying something the Powell, Rice, Biden, and Tillerson all didn't need to do. Clinton needed to be more shady than the rest? "Just trust her", her partisan allies say. Naw.

Except Powell has not only acknowledged that he needed to, he's acknowledged that he did it, for the same reasons. Modern communications media has spontaneously shifted "freedom of information" beyond knowing what the government is up to into satisfying the prurient interest by recording every utterance for analysis and/or misrepresentation. Clinton dealt with that the same (admittedly wrong) way that everyone else has and does. But reworking the freedom of information act to make it compatible with current technology and practice would involve the proverbial act of congress, so we all just muddle along as best we can.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Barr is kicking off an investigation into the Mueller investigation and will likely go after Clinton again as well. Meanwhile he's continuing to sandbag on producing the report.

 

[Gori the Grey]

So now we do know that there's damaging stuff in there, if they're pulling the "investigation itself needs to be investigated" bit.

 

[rah]

Bingo

 

[metalhead]

Certainly not worse. There are no allegations of top secret information even being in his possession much less being remotely accessible.

Jared has a top secret clearance and uses private email to conduct government business. This is the exact same thing Hillary did, only Hillary actually made it through the security clearance process while Jared only got his because the president overruled security professionals who recommended denying him a clearance.

One is clearly worse than the other, but partisan brain rot will never allow you to see it.

See, you're now justifying something the Powell, Rice, Biden, and Tillerson all didn't need to do. Clinton needed to be more shady than the rest? "Just trust her", her partisan allies say. Naw.

We don't have to trust her, she was thoroughly investigated so we know the scope and extent of what she did.

 

[onejayhawk]

So now we do know that there's damaging stuff in there, if they're pulling the "investigation itself needs to be investigated" bit.

I think it is even deeper than that. This is the investigation is a coverup card. There were radio people saying this even before Mueller was appointed and the idea has found traction.

One thing that will get a lot of scrutiny is the timeline. When did the investigation start and why? What was the initial observed action that raised suspicion? There is at least the appearance of a group of people playing fast and loose with the rules and an FBI Director that didn't try to stop it.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's the nature of a double standard. The fundamental unjustness of an elitist like Clinton being able to flout the law, while a nobody like George Papadopolus goes to prison for much less, is not easily set aside. Literature is full of evil characters that evade prosecution until the end of the novel or play. Hillary Clinton is our devil in a pantsuit. If the same standards applied to Clinton and Trump, Mueller would have submitted a four-page report in March of 2017.
J

Why didn't a fully Republican congress, A Republican President and a Republican DOJ not indict her? They had two years to do so after two years of previous investigation.

Hillary was not indicted. Why didn't congress send criminal referrals to DOJ in those two years like Nunes just did this week? George was indicted and he chose to plead guilty. There is a difference.

Still waiting for a reply J.