Postmortem on Mueller

[Tristan_C]

Wikileaks does the job our media is supposed to be doing.

Yeah, this. I do not even like much of what they do. The war log dump was only useful to ISIS. But acquiring and publishing real material still counts as investigative reporting. US media won't publish anything without a political motivation.

Apparently the IG and some guy from Connecticut appointed by Barr are investigating the investigators, that limits what Mueller can say about Steele and how his dossier triggered a fisa warrant. On the other hand, Mueller should be answering questions about that subject because it goes to the obstruction charge. The obstruction of justice =/ the obstruction of injustice. If the President has reason to believe his own DoJ is out to get him - and Trump had every reason to believe that - then he has moral authority to make sure its a fair process and getting rid of people who appear compromised can be justified.

The chronology is not right. This "investigation of the investigation" business only began with Barr, in 2019.

Information about Fusion GPS, suspicious activity by Comey/Strzok/Ohr/Clapper/Brennan, the FISA warrants and wiretapping, and the FBI and British MI6 agents who deployed against the Trump campaign, etc., etc., etc.... began trickling into public knowledge the entire span from 2016 through 2018. Mueller's report covers none of this stuff. The public knowledge bit means a choice was made by the investigators on the team. They decided to omit large amounts of relevant material from the report, even though it all sheds light on events described in both parts 1 and 2. This all occured well before there was any talk in the White House of a counter investigation. The omissions provide Mueller with cover; he can say something like the dossier is "outside of my purview." It makes his investigation seem kind of stupid and one sided, because it is, but it is still a legally feasible shield.

 

[innonimatu]

A friend of mine thinks Trump will contrive to start a war in order to "unite the country" about a year from now.

No way, he'd lose the election if he did. He has already walked away from an opportunity to start one with Iran.

 

[Zkribbler]

Mueller's report covers none of this stuff. The public knowledge bit means a choice was made by the investigators on the team. They decided to omit large amounts of relevant material from the report, even though it all sheds light on events described in both parts 1 and 2.

Here's the letter of appointment for the investigation. Upon what part are you relying in your argument Mueller had a duty to investigate "this stuff?"

 

[rah]

The 'ANY MATTERS THAT AROSE OR MAY ARISE DIRECTLY FROM THE INVESTIGATION' is pretty open ended and covers almost everything.

 

[Zkribbler]

The 'ANY MATTERS THAT AROSE OR MAY ARISE DIRECTLY FROM THE INVESTIGATION' is pretty open ended and covers almost everything.

I understand what you are saying. Mueller made clear at the hearing, he interprets his mandate more narrowly.

We could get into a glorious cat fight over the definition of the word "directly," but sadly, I don't have a cat.

 

[El_Machinae]

We should scroll through the posts. Who is complaining now that the investigation didn't cover certain things but also was complaining that the investigation was taking too long?

 

[Broken_Erika]

The investigation was a sham since it failed to investigate Her Emails or Banghazi!

 

[Tristan_C]

I understand what you are saying. Mueller made clear at the hearing, he interprets his mandate more narrowly.

Just as an example, information which supposedly tied Papadopulous to Russia was actually given to him by American and British officials. I would think that would be a relevant piece of exculpatory evidence to keep in mind and include in the report no matter how narrowly you interpreted your objective, at least if you were trying to build a case for conspiracy or espionage that wouldn't get eviscerated in court. So perhaps building a case is not what the investigators had in mind. The fact that all this was known externally to anyone who looks it up, but it isn't in the report, means that someone on this team wanted the wherewithal to say of any exculpatory evidence, "it's not in our purview." This would be strange and unethical, unless this was a politically motivated investigation.

 

[Estebonrober]

Just as an example, information which supposedly tied Papadopulous to Russia was actually given to him by American and British officials. I would think that would be a relevant piece of exculpatory evidence to keep in mind and include in the report no matter how narrowly you interpreted your objective, at least if you were trying to build a case for conspiracy or espionage that wouldn't get eviscerated in court. So perhaps building a case is not what the investigators had in mind. The fact that all this was known externally to anyone who looks it up, but it isn't in the report, means that someone on this team wanted the wherewithal to say of any exculpatory evidence, "it's not in our purview." This would be strange and unethical, unless this was a politically motivated investigation.

Why would going over public information needlessly through a report that is laced with dozens of ongoing investigations be in their purview? What detective adds in bright side evidence to their report when going to a DA for a prosecution? I'm not clear on why this seems necessary to you? None of it counts as exculpatory as far as I could tell. Your complaint is that these crooks were surrounded by other crooks? Please. Surely if an investigation of your arch nemesis Clin-ton you would be quite offended if the investigator was like, but we got all this information from some sketchy sources so maybe its all nothing. . . Never mind there is no point in trying to get you to see your hypocrisy. I would like to so impeachment drawn up since I'm obviously convinced his law breaking is ongoing and worthy of impeachment for the sake of the future of the Republic. Nothing I heard today changed that opinion either. See you in 2020.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They're not gonna prosecute Trump for obstruction when he leaves office, they let Presidents walk away from war crimes. How do you prove intent when the investigation he supposedly obstructed was corrupted by political dirty tricks? Damn right I wanted to fire these people, they let my opponents oppo research become a fisa warrant to spy on innocent people. They should be on trial.

You impeached a President for lying over an extra marital affair ? You know the two thing Republicans cannot stand for ... oh wait

And re-opening the Clinton email investigation, having the FBI publicly announce this due to a leak inside the FBI to the media that helped Trump get elected ?

 

[Arwon]

information which supposedly tied Papadopulous to Russia

This would be this the guy who drunkenly bragged about the Russians helping Trump to Alexander Downer and is now claiming it was part of a vast sting conspiracy against him, right?

 

[FriendlyFire]

This would be this the guy who drunkenly bragged about the Russians helping Trump to Alexander Downer and is now claiming it was part of a vast sting conspiracy against him, right?

He was just a Covfefe Boy and hes wife is definitely Italian
Also Russian contact in the UK has gone missing and abandoned hes pregnant girlfriend

 

[Arwon]

I'm just fascinated by how stupid someone has to be to be duped by a bumbling aristrocratic oaf like Alexander Downer and come away claiming it was some mastermind scheme

 

[Zelig]

There is a theory among the Democrats that 'people don't read the book, they watch the movie'.

That's sad. Modern civilization is built on the written word.

 

[Tristan_C]

Why would going over public information needlessly through a report that is laced with dozens of ongoing investigations be in their purview? What detective adds in bright side evidence to their report when going to a DA for a prosecution? I'm not clear on why this seems necessary to you?

The common knowledge is that, X, Y, and Z happened. A report comes out which gives an account of events that omits Z. This makes the investigation strictly less accurate than common knowledge. It enables the investigator to opt not even to discuss Z. "It's outside of my purview," he says.

Normally you would have to wonder about the usefulness of such an investigation, one which is strictly less accurate than common knowledge, I mean. In court, the defense lawyers will have an absolute field day with it. But this is a politically motivated investigation, so the goal is not an indictment but something politically useful.

 

[bernie14]

I feel sorry for Mueller, looked like he was on thorazine at times...

 

[Commodore]

That's sad. Modern civilization is built on the written word.

Because movies didn't exist when civilizations were being built.

There is nothing to indicate that books are any better at transferring knowledge into a person's mind than movies. In fact, in cases like today's hearing, it is better that we can all see it happen live, first hand, rather than rely on some writer to tell us what happened and hope they get all the details right.

 

[Berzerker]

Mueller didn't know who Fusion was?

what the hell, that cant be right.

I'm getting the impression Mueller was just a figurehead and other people ran the investigation and wrote the report.

 

[Zelig]

There is nothing to indicate that books are any better at transferring knowledge into a person's mind than movies.

Movies are better at transferring knowledge related to audio or video phenomenon. (And then, you'd be better off with an interactive presentation that is primarily text, with audio and/or for only the specific information that requires audio/video) Otherwise they're dramatically worse - they're less information dense, contain irrelevant and spurious information that waste time and cognitive capacity while introducing distractions, and are nearly impossible to quickly reference for specific things.

In fact, in cases like today's hearing, it is better that we can all see it happen live, first hand, rather than rely on some writer to tell us what happened and hope they get all the details right.

As far as I can tell, there's been no worthwhile information gleaned from today's hearings.

 

[Arwon]

Plus we're probably in a brief historical interrenegum between video existing and video ceasing to be any more inherently trustworthy than other methods of recording info