November 25, 2018

Alan Dershowitz says, "I think the [Mueller] report is going to be devastating to the president and I know that the president's team is already working on a response to the report."

On ABC's "This Week Today."

Devastating, really? It depends on what the meaning of "devastating" is:
"When I say devastating, I mean it's going to paint a picture that's going to be politically very devastating. I still don't think it's going to make a criminal case."
I looked up "devastating" in the OED and thought it was funny that it said "Frequently fig., esp. in trivial or hyperbolical use: very effective or upsetting; astounding, overwhelming, ‘stunning’...."

Especially in trivial or hyperbolical use.... From the OED's historical examples:
1925 New Yorker 8 Aug. 4/2 Not since the Tango provided luscious livelihoods for many svelte youths has so devastating a dance agitated the town....
1927 H. T. Lowe-Porter tr. T. Mann Magic Mountain (London ed.) I. v. 378 Everything, whether in jest or earnest, was ‘devastating’, the bob-run, the sweet for dinner, her own temperature.
1933 E. Shanks Enchanted Village ix. 133 Oh yes, poor old Julian—I think, to be honest, that he's a devastating bore.
1936 R. Lehmann Weather in Streets i. 11 Oh, darling have you got to go? How devastating.

220 comments:

1 – 200 of 220   Newer›   Newest»
Dave Begley said...

How does he know? Has he read it?

Pure speculation. His inner Dem comes to the surface.

Original Mike said...

I don’t expect to ever see a report. It’s too politically useful to just keep “investigating”.

Bill Peschel said...

Remember when the news used to report news? As in "this is what happened."

Not "this is someone whose politics we agree with telling you what we want you to think about what will happen."

Ann Althouse said...

"How does he know? Has he read it?"

There's too much news of the future, but it's legit as a present report on the emotional weather inside the head of Dershowitz.

chuck said...

I doubt is will make a difference, if there was anything truly "devastating" it would have leaked by now. Whatever is in the report will also be seen as mostly political because Muller stacked his team with Democrats and mostly limited his investigation to Trump associates.

Sebastian said...

"paint a picture that's going to be politically very devastating. I still don't think it's going to make a criminal case."

True. If there is no criminal case, and the collusion narrative collapses, it is going to be very devastating to the Dems, the FBI, and the fake-news MSM.

As we await a "report," it is still not clear what Trump was supposed to have done with the Russians. Conspire to have them steal Dem emails and release them? Have Jr. take a dirt-digging meeting arranged via a UK promoter and orchestrated by GPS Fusion? Suggest lines to drive progs crazy on Facebook?

stevew said...

How does a Mueller report that fails to find criminal activity create a devastating political problem for Trump? Can Trump's critics and detractors be more so? Will the motivation of the #resistance be renewed and increased? Will the Democrats in Congress do more and new things to slow down the progress of Trump's agenda?

James K said...

I can confidently predict that if and when there is a report made public, CNN will characterize it as "devastating." And then life will go on, and Trump's political standing will be unaffected.

Earnest Prole said...

I agree if they had Trump dead to rights it already would have leaked.

Lem said...

When the comments were shut down, Althousiana was devastated.

Seeing Red said...

It’s going to be devastating to Britain. Their hands were caught in the cookie jar and I read they’re starting to fight daylight and disinfectant.

Curious George said...

"Dave Begley said...
How does he know? Has he read it? "

Well his quote said "He thinks...? so obviously he didn't read it. And of course "his team" is working on a response. This is "non-news".

Random Onlooker said...

When Mueller finally releases his report, CNN and MSNBC will work overtime to paint it as devastating to Trump. They will have a long dais full of political experts, including the usual fake Republicans, all of whom will gnash their teeth and tell us it's a constitutional crisis.

Everyone else will shrug it off.

Fernandistein said...

When Mueller finally releases his report, CNN and MSNBC will work overtime to paint it as devastating to Trump.

It looks like ABC beat them to the punch by yammering before seeing.

Hagar said...

Althouse is right. The report - if any appears - will be "devastating" in the minds of all faithful Democrats, and the Republicans will still be asking just what the hell this was supposed to have been about.

tim in vermont said...

Has he seen it?

If there is no criminal case, it better be pretty convincing that Donald J Trump colluded with the Russkies. I would even accept a “If you guys take it easy on me until after the election, I will have more flexibility” as evidence of 'collusion.'

rcocean said...

Look: the whole point of the Mueller investigation was to harass and put Trump on the defensive.

Now that the Democrats control the House, they don't need Mueller, so the whole thing will wrap up quickly, and the House Dems will start to work on "investigating" Trump.

If there was anything to the Mueller Bullshit we'd have heard about it in the last 1.5 years.

Sessions deserved to be fired over this, and I'm glad he's gone. I wonder if he was an Uniparty "plant" or just stupid.

tim in vermont said...

As long as he can keep the kimono closed, Democrats can use their sweet imagination to dream about what it’s hiding.

rcocean said...

For some reason the R's are always stupid when it comes to these phony, special prosecutors.

The D's paint the SP are Republican partisan hacks, refuse to cooperate, and brazen it out.

The R's always pat themselves on the back for "Following the Rules" and cooperate 100% - and these damn investigations then go on forever. Judge Walsh was indicting people in the Bush Administration!

Trump should wait for the Report, and then Pardon everyone.

rcocean said...

Has Mitt spoken yet?

That dummy was talking about 'Imperative' it was for Mueller to finish his report.

No doubt he'll get on his high-horse and blather about how bad Trump is, when its released. And then demand a Senate investigation.

The Damn phony.

cubanbob said...

Great. Now Trump can stop fooling around and direct the DoJ to fully investigate the crimes of the Obama Administration. While that is going on the House will conduct it's investigations and the Senate will conduct theirs. The process of both sides scorching the earth will have the salutary effect of clearing the underbrush of corruption in DC.

steve uhr said...

If it doesn't make out a criminal case then I have trouble understanding how it can be devastating. Sounds more like exoneration.

tim in vermont said...

If Mit Romney gets the nomination, I am done with the Republican Party. All I am saying. He is part of the whole Bush, Romney, Clinton, Kennedy dynastic family cabal dead set on ruling the US no matter what.

The only thing that would change my mind is if Hillary were the opponent.

Trumpit said...

Unless it mentions "high crimes..." then it won't change a thing. Trump's a dashing, devastating devil who we all love. Make America Great Again! Hillary's email server! Lock her up! Build the wall! Obama was born in Africa! Bill Clinton is a rapist. It's all Soros's fault! Global warming is a hoax.

tim in vermont said...

If it doesn't make out a criminal case then I have trouble understanding how it can be devastating. Sounds more like exoneration.

Silly steve, you are using the rules as applied to Democrats...

tim in vermont said...

Bill Clinton’s not a rapist, Strumpit?

EDH said...

Trump should name any report the "Mueller Dossier" -- a continuation of the "Steele Dossier" -- as a pivot to question why Mueller entirely omitted that lawless predicate for the independent counsel's investigation into matters unrelated to the actual Russian collusion by Clinton and the DNC.

tcrosse said...

Anything "devastating" would have been leaked before the mid-terms.

Bruce Hayden said...

“As we await a "report," it is still not clear what Trump was supposed to have done with the Russians. Conspire to have them steal Dem emails and release them? Have Jr. take a dirt-digging meeting arranged via a UK promoter and orchestrated by GPS Fusion? Suggest lines to drive progs crazy on Facebook?”

The only articulate, almost plausible thing that I have heard, from a close Dem friend of mine, is that back when he ran into financial problems several decades ago, and some of his companies went under, the Russians bailed him out, and they can hold that over his head when they need to. Which is why, he believes it is essential that they get ahold of his tax returns., because of the apparent widespread belief over there on fetid left that they will find a smoking gun, showing a continuing financial dependence on the Russians. When I bring up the massive contributions by Russians to the Clinton Foundation in order to buy up a bunch of our uranium, he responds that she isn’t President (though he happily voted for her, and would probably do so again). I tell him that he deeply mired in cognitive dissonance. Then we switch topics.

Achilles said...

This is the beginning of the end.

A turning point for the Trump Administration.

Add This report will be devastating to Trump to the program.

The owners of the MSM have spoken the words they want their tools to repeat.

chillblaine said...

I believe Dershowitz is just giving it to us, unvarnished. They will be coming so hard for everyone, Jr., Ivanka, and it will be merciless. LOL Trump 2020!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

After a 2 year investment - the left NEED it to be devastating.
I'm sure it will be as devastating as possible.

Will there be anything real in there to back it up?

So far - the big scary thing is the meeting with the Trump family with a Russian who supposed had "dirt" on Hillary.

We all know dirt on Hillary is illegal. Dirt on anyone else - perfectly fine.


Teh hacked e-mails. Again- it's illegal to embarrass the Clintons and the WAssermans.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

What is Rachel Saying? Best to parrot her.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"I know the presidents team is already working on a response"

how?

narciso said...

I pointed out how assuanges lawyer was the exwife of two rabidly anti American, kunstler who defended the blind sheikh and ratner, the che fan who defended Gitmo detainees

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Bottom line: It's illegal to beat Hillary. Russia, like, totally helped Trump and Trump colluded with Putin to trick the deplorables into voting Trump because, like, Hillary is just so dazzling. and that dastardly facebook let the sneaky Russians through the Hillary-barrier.

Nobody crosses the Hillary barrier.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Up next - Hillary to drone to Assange. but- she'll use her surrogates so her hands stay clean.


Can we send Mueller in to find out more about this:

"The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum."

narciso said...

The hacked emails were given to everyone as it was with the manning and Snowden episodes.

One of the freed detainees was blown up in 2013, the other was detainee last june.

narciso said...

Communicating with ambassador Kislyak during the transition wasnt illegal,

Ken B said...

If it doesn’t report collusion then it can only be “devastating ‘ if it’s corrupt. The remit was to investigate alleged collusion.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Communicating with Russians is only fine if you are team re-set button.
Or on team Clinton-Uranium One.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Mueller Maelstrom will Equal to the devastation from Roberts Rebuke

Rusty said...

I would like to know what was on A Wiener's laptop.

tim in vermont said...

I am trying to guess which is going to show up first, Global Warming to turn Bangor into Bangkok or the blow that strikes down Trump.

tim in vermont said...

Let’s put it this way Rusty, you would want it “wiped, like with a cloth” first.

richard mcenroe said...

If it was going to be devastating it would have been "leaked" before the midterms and Mueller wouldn't be grubbing for scraps like Jerome Corsi. Dershowitz is just tacking back left after the results of the midterms.

mccullough said...

The response will be to declassify the FBI probe that was the basis of the silly FBI “Russia investigation” in the first place.

Then go after Mueller like Clinton went after Starr. Mueller will have Comey’s reputation in a few months. He better start upping his Twitter game.



Jim at said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mccullough said...

Trump will start calling it Obama’s FBI.

Start putting the cards on the table.

These institutions, just like John Roberts, burned up tgeir credibility awhile ago. Trump will exploit that. Start reminding people that Obama’s FBI under Mueller and Comey didn’t arrest any Wall Street bankers. The same Wall Street guys who are funding Obama’s retirement.

Sheridan said...

"A devastating firestorm destroyed the California city of Paradise." "The Mueller report is going to be devastating...". I can understand and accept the use of the adjective "devastating" for a fire or a hurricane or a typhoon. But anything related to politics should never use that adjective. In fact, I'd love to see the media go cold turkey for a time and greatly restrict the use of all adjectives. Maybe we could then formulate our own, individual emotional responses (if any) to the data presented.

richard mcenroe said...

THIS REPORT WILL BE DEVASTATING BECAUSE IT WILL PROVE HOW BADLY TRUMP WASTED THE GOVERNMENT'S TIME AND MONEY BY MAKING US SUSPECT HIM! ATTICA! ATTICA!

Bruce Hayden said...

“Great. Now Trump can stop fooling around and direct the DoJ to fully investigate the crimes of the Obama Administration. While that is going on the House will conduct it's investigations and the Senate will conduct theirs. The process of both sides scorching the earth will have the salutary effect of clearing the underbrush of corruption in DC.”

Has anyone on the left thought this through? The Dems will have the House come January, and are talking about investigating everything Trump when they do. Dan Bongino, author of Spygate, predicts that a number of the non-politicos involved will be prosecuted, starting with at least Andrew McCabe, and maybe even Jim Comey, but that most of the politically connected will likely walk. But Trump is a counterpuncher. And that suggests to me that if they go after him, like they have promised, that he may just have one or more special prosecutors appointed to go after the Dems. At a minimum, I would suggest that the following are vulnerable, with the information we know right now:
- Crooked Hillary: lying to the FBI, authorizing destruction of evidence, bribery, etc
- Samantha Powers
- Susan Rice
- Loretta Lynch
- Sally Yates, who not only approved the first fraudulent FISA warrant app for the DoJ on Carter Page, but also appears to have authorized the two hop rule that allowed the FBI to go two hops from Page, which means giving them access to most of the Trump campaign, transition, and maybe even WH communications. She also loosened up FISA Title VII access and unmasking. Moreover, she appears to have been in the loop throughout the entire second half of 2016 with Spygate.
- John Brennan: leaking classified information, fabricating the legal predicate for the FBI investigation that ended up with the illegal FISA warrants. It is his end of the plot that is causing the Brits and the Aussies to scream, right now, like stuck pigs. Misfyp, Downer, and Halper were CIA assets, and he had to be the one authorizing their use.
- Clapper: orchestrating much of the Spygate scandal, plus leaking classified information.
- Andrew Weismann(my favorite): he was apparently in the Spygate loop starting in maybe August, 2016, possibly because of working (I believe) for AAG Bruce Ohr. He had no “need to know”, but was still involved in the meetings with Steele, Simpson, both Ohrs, etc, throughout the fall of 2016 and into 2017 when he went to work for Mueller.

Someone in the Obama WH was in the loop on Spygate. The Strzok/Page text messages make this clear. Was Obama himself? If he did, he is probably safe. But anyone else, up to Valarie Jarrett, won’t have his Constitutional protections. This answer is known by, at least, the DoJ OIG, which means that it would be known by any special prosecutor. Did they get secret pardons before Obama left office? That may protect them criminally, but it won’t help Obama’s legacy one bit.

Should be interesting. Pass the popcorn.

narciso said...

'Its a travesty of two mockeries of a sham' bananas, 1975

Sheridan said...

Oh, and maybe the media could stop using the term "some say". That's bull crap for "I don't have a named source that I can quote in my piece so I'll just make up a vague source ("some") to lend my piece of crap more credibility.

n.n said...

The warlock trials, journolistic braying, and foreign intrigue will be merciless. Basically, a persistence of the same, for at least six more trimesters.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add that if the gloves come off, with Trump, probably no one below Obama in his WH is safe. Mueller went after Trump’s National Security Advisor, Gen Flynn, with a bogus process crime, where the FBI agents met with the NSA under false pretenses, and even then didn’t really believe that he had lied to them. That is the precedent here that has been set: WH staff, up to the NSA, are fair game.

Hagar said...

They could also begin "investigating" Clinton Inc.'s doings with regard to speculation in Russian pipelines.

chuck said...

> showing a continuing financial dependence on the Russians.

This seems a pretty common take on the left. Someone had to push it out there, I wonder who?

James K said...

I'd love to see the media go cold turkey for a time and greatly restrict the use of all adjectives.

CNN and MSNBC would be at a loss for words.

These terms get so overused they lose their value. Every day there is a new "bombshell" (another word that should be banned--why not let the audience judge how big a deal something is?).

traditionalguy said...

Dershowitz is trying to suck back up to the Never Trumpers that are very mad at him for giving legal opinions that favor the Presidency.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Trump should name any report the "Mueller Dossier" -- a continuation of the "Steele Dossier" -- as a pivot to question why Mueller entirely omitted that lawless predicate for the independent counsel's investigation into matters unrelated to the actual Russian collusion by Clinton and the DNC.”

As I noted above, Mueller’s lead prosecutor, Andrew Weismann, was a participant in a number of meetings with Steele, Simpson, and the Ohrs, starting in August 2016. My understanding is that both AAG Ohr and Weismann worked in organized crime, which means that they had no reason whatsoever to be the least bit involved. This was a national security, a counterintelligence, matter, not having anything to do with the criminal side, and esp with organized crime. But they were both involved, up to their eyeballs. I have little doubt that Bruce Ohr will very likely be prosecuted, and is only still employed by the DoJ so that he can’t refuse to talk to the OIG. Weismann though is still safe, as long as he sticks with Mueller, and Mueller continues to have a job. After that? We can just hope that, in the end, this is a just world, and he gets the Justice that he deserves.

robother said...

Quelle dommage! Je suis désolé,.

Hagar said...

I would love to see Lanny Davis and the Podestas given the Manafort treatment.

Howard said...

Althouse buried the lede

Dershowitz argued that Mueller is unlikely to accuse Trump of crime, but will instead lay out the facts of the case. He suggested that the president is more legally vulnerable in matters related to his business.

wildswan said...

Under Trump the House led by Paul Ryan turned in budgets on time and prepared, committeed, reported and voted on 15 major bills of the type Ryan promised. But all died in the Senate. Still that's the benchmark for how a House of Representatives should operate. But the Dems won't be like that. They will be grandstanding and running for Pres. and leaking two devastations a day. At hearings, Trump's appointees can just request the questions in advance so that the Dems can have the info they need to prepare a budget and write legislation which the Republicans are eager to help them with because the country needs to be considered. But the info must be accurate so the questions must be known in advance. No questions, no answers. Lawyer up. But the Dems will hold the hearings and blather on and on and on, anyhow. Because, "me wish to be President Me". And the Dems won't ask intelligent questions or produce a budget or write legislation. Just devastating, devastating in the media and building up underbrush by laziness. Basically fighting each other for the microphone to talk about new provocations and new devastatings. Meanwhile the Republicans can try to pass Ryan's Bills and Ryan's Budgets. If the Reublicans got a bill or a budget through the House they could get it through the Senate and get it signed - they could negotiate on which to do to see that happens. And they can ask where the budget is. Where? Real bills, like ours - where? Jobs - where? Due process - where? Housing permits in California - where? California poop - where?

narciso said...

Davis represented firtash who is a midlevel player.

narciso said...

As did Chertoff lisa page tried to extradite him, on a bribery charge but this lobbying outfit headed by a fmr polish premier vouched for firtash.

narciso said...

This shows what a joke this investigation is.

Bruce Hayden said...

Ask yourself, what would be more devastating to Trump than selling 1/5 of our uranium to the Russians for a $500k speaking fee and $145 million to the Clinton charities? Something that Mueller has now, that he didn’t have earlier? That hasn’t leaked? Sure, the MSM/Dem talking point is going to be that whatever they have on Trump, big or small, is going to be characterized as “devastating”. But his response, to his Twitter followers, is going to include that Clinton was far, far, worse. Not only the Russians, but the Chinese too, who have been funding the Clintons at least since the 1996 election. And the ChiComs are a far more serious strategic enemy than the Russians are these days, who can’t get their one aircraft carrier operational because their dry dock sank, and are having to buy jet engines from the Chinese for their latest generation fighter jets.

Jack Wayne said...

Does anyone know where Buwaya is? I haven’t seen seen a comment in a while.

Sarah said...

So now Dershowitz regresses from "sage Constitution expert" to "mere partisan hack". I guess for Dershowitz it's whatever suits the Democrats' agenda. And like most every other "talking head" on the tube nothing authentic is ever emitted from their orifices, not a word of it is credible or without ideological contamination.

Disappointing but not surprising that Dershowitz willfully constructs himself as yet another talking point-spewing bot in the vast pantheon of Democrat-programmed bots.

Kinda like an old Twilight Zone episode where all Democrats turn out to be bots. Which of them could ever be trusted by thinking non-bot Americans? Certainly not Dershowitz, he's made it all to clear where he stands.

eric said...

I think he's playing a game here.

Now, after the report comes out, he can say, "Well, I really thought this report was going to be devastating for the President, and it's actually quite the dud."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Each new week brings a new coordinated talking point (Schiff/Demcorat media) that explains the NEW reason why Trump should be impeached.

Last week it was "RIVAL" - Trump cannot go after a "rival", and if he does - we impeach him. All that is code for "Stay away from Hillary we might run her again." Nothing more. and it's total BS. Hillary MUST be investigated fully. She wasn't before. It was all a Strozk-Deep State gloss over.

It's all a big production. What ever is in Mueller's report - the media will advertise and exaggerate the devastation. the talking points will be parroted.

DAN said...

It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas.

rcocean said...

The only thing that would change my mind is if Hillary were the opponent.

Not me. I wouldn't care if Mitt was running against Hillary. I'd vote for Hillary over him.

After all, if Hillary was good enough for Mitt in 2016, she's good enough for me.

narciso said...

The dems have moved on to khashoggi, maybe they might ask general Asiri to testify.

Earnest Prole said...

Althouse buried the lede

I'll say it again: If a corrupt prosecutor can't find something in Trump's tax returns, he belongs in another line of work.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Rachel is ready! Impeach! and insert Hillary.

EDH said...

Howard said...
Althouse buried the lede...He suggested that the president is more legally vulnerable in matters related to his business.

Which is true of anyone who produces economic value rather than exercise the power of the state to redistribute it, a self-enforcing barrier to entry for the Deep State.

In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.

Marc said...

Nobody is ever going to convince me that Harriet Lowe-Porter's translation of Thomas Mann's Der Zauberberg is anything less than perfect. "Everything, whether in jest or earnest, was ‘devastating’, the bob-run, the sweet for dinner, her own temperature"-- but I cannot recall off the top of my head which character that is, Frau... Frau....

James K said...

All that is code for "Stay away from Hillary we might run her again."

The flaw in Schiff's argument is that Trump probably wants nothing more than to have Hillary as his 2020 opponent. Prosecuting her would be counter to his own interest.

Howard said...

When Dersh defends Trump, he is world-class scholar and a gentleman... when he paints a negative picture of a potential Trump future, he's a partisan hack trying to suck Rachael Maddow's ronson to get back into the fold.

Cultists must be able to withstand the effects of whiplash to keep their self esteem above water

rhhardin said...

VP Quayle, visiting the site of the 1980s San Francisco earthquake, remarked, "Devastating."

Robert Cook said...

"Remember when the news used to report news? As in 'this is what happened.'

"Not 'this is someone whose politics we agree with telling you what we want you to think about what will happen.'"


There is a difference between news, commentary, and features. The shows hosted by the likes of Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, etc., are not news shows, they're commentary programs...broadcast opinion pages. A show such as CBS Sunday Morning is features, informative stories about people of interest.

Are you seeing the sort of thing you paraphrase above on straight news shows, such as CBS Evening New or NBC Evening News, etc.?

I'm not asking rhetorically, as I do not watch the evening news (or the commentary shows I listed above). I do like CBS Sunday Morning.

Marc said...

Frau Stohr.

Howard said...

Blogger EDH said...

Howard said...
Althouse buried the lede...He suggested that the president is more legally vulnerable in matters related to his business.

Which is true of anyone who produces economic value rather than exercise the power of the state to redistribute it, a self-enforcing barrier to entry for the Deep State.


Yeah, that plus the Russian and Saudi deals. can you say emoluments?

All past is prologue... from 2016

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306990-trump-appeared-to-register-eight-companies-in-saudi-arabia

Robert Cook said...

"How does a Mueller report that fails to find criminal activity create a devastating political problem for Trump?"

Perhaps he thinks it will reveal something that will alienate Trump's supporters. Dershowitz doesn't know that Trump's supporters are true believers who will not turn away from him for any reason, even if he were to be found, as the old saw has it, with a live boy or a dead woman in his bed.

narciso said...

Actually none of them, are objective, CBS checked their copy with Ben rhodes in accordance with his brother David, this is why they had Atkinson and Logan purged.

LYNNDH said...

I would have thought that if the report has criminal "misdoings" it would have been released a week before the mid terms. Yes, it can be "damaging" because of possible financial dealings of Trump. Those financial dealings cannot be worse than that of the Clintons. Either way the Dems will latch onto it and use it for more attacks (if that is really possible) on Trump. The big looser is America. Nothing will happen to any Dem, FBI, IC people, and their hangerons.

Kevin said...

I still don't think it's going to make a criminal case.

The American people and the FISA court were promised high crimes.

tom said...

He's playing with expectations. If the report turns out to be less than devastating, then he gets to pretend that the whole thing was a sham all along and he got fooled along with everyone else. Darn that clever Mueller!

But it's probably true that it won't have much effect on Trump's political standing. Members of the Trump coalition have made their peace with being led by a con-man because they've talked themselves into believing that they aren't the marks. The people at the bottom of the pyramid scheme always believe there's someone below them.

The only thing that will shake Trump's political support is the collapse of the pyramid. That may not be far off. And then we'll get to hear all about how Trump was always a Clintonian conspiracy to discredit true conservatism.

Seeing Red said...

Trump isn’t a conservative. He’s a doer.

Jess said...

I doubt it. If the Trump administration is doing anything, it's preparing legal challenges to the Muellor investigation, and revealing the criminal conspiracy to remove Trump from office.

Seeing Red said...

I'll say it again: If a corrupt prosecutor can't find something in Trump's tax returns, he belongs in another line of work.

435 members of Congress. Bring it on.

Good for the goose good for the gander.

Unknown said...

If you watched the full segment, overall derzowitz did a masterful job this morning defending Trump on the George stepanopoulous show. Really. Watch the whole thing
George and the other legal guy looked foolish next to Alan D defining the legal issues here.

gilbar said...

"How does a Mueller report that fails to find criminal activity"

Find criminal activity? The 'special' investigator has YET to say criminal activity he's looking for. You Know what IS devastating?

Rosenstein failed to adhere to regulations that require a clear statement of the basis for a criminal investigation. It's NOT a special counsel it's a fishing expedition. a 2 year long one

chuck said...

> their peace with being led by a con-man

I'm pretty happy with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and the other court picks. The economy is always a guestion, especially with the increasing interest rates, but is doing well. So far I'm not seeing the con. What am I missing?

Lewis Wetzel said...

Dershowitz doesn't know that Trump's supporters are true believers who will not turn away from him for any reason
Isn't the opposite also true? If Mueller's report shows no evidence of illegal actions, won't the Trump haters demand that Trump be investigated until they find an actual crime?

Seeing Red said...

BTW. Just as I expect the Armed forces to have plans for all comers against the US, and it seems zombies are included, it’s a DUH moment and to be expected that ANY president’s team should be working on responses.

Kevin said...

What’s devastating these days?

Congressmen who beat women?
Treasury Secretaries who don’t pay their taxes?
Attorney Generals who burn innocent women and children to death?
Secretaries of State who enrich themselves while leaking the nation’s secrets?
Presidents who who ejaculate on the interns?
IRS employees who investigate political opponents?
Handing over billions in cash without Senate approval to the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism?

None of these were devastating.

Rabel said...

George S.:

"We're" getting information from Manafort.
"We're" getting information from Corsi.
"We're" getting information from Gates and Cohen.

His cruel neutrality is slipping.

Also, would someone get Dersh a tissue.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Why can't we know about the Clinton Russian business deals? While she was sec of state? Why aren't the one-air talent at MSNBC curious?

Is it illegal to ask? or know? or investigate?

James K said...

None of these were devastating.

And let's not forget an administration spying on the presidential campaign of the candidate from the rival party.

1972: Devastating!
2016: zzzz

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

You must be loyal to THE PARTY, or you will be purged from the alphabet D-channels.


“Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats."

-- Jim Treacher

Seeing Red said...

1972 impeachable

1998 took care of removal from office

Seeing Red said...

The vile Progs want a Constitutional Crisis. It looks like they may get one if they keep going along this path.

narciso said...

Clueless or complicit, yes:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/25/chaff-and-countermeasures-trey-gowdy-discusses-james-comey-justice-roberts-and-ivanka-trump/

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Howard - I generally like Dersh because he is usually smart and honest. No one is saying he's wrong. He's probably correct. We are pointing out the double standard when it comes to political theater and political BS.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"Constitutional crisis" - when Hillary smashes it with her Private Server while head of the State Dept - leftwing media (the media) go zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Birkel said...

Howard,
You are correct that any positive number is greater than zero.
Given Trump's vulnerability regarding Russian collusion is zero, Dershowitz is absolutely correct that Trump has greater liability related to any other matter. This includes his financial transactions.

Thin gruel. Doubtless you will request another bowl full.

Mueller cannot close his shop. His shop is the only thing between release of all Obama/CIA/FBI/State/FiveEyes corruption and Trump going to war with Leviathan State.

tom said...

The economy is precisely the issue. As we learned with Bush, right-wing economics don't work long-term. Those interviews with Trump supporters who will stick by Trump through every conceivable scenario never ask if they would stick by Trump through a financial crisis.

Robert Cook said...

"Isn't the opposite also true? If Mueller's report shows no evidence of illegal actions, won't the Trump haters demand that Trump be investigated until they find an actual crime?"

Sure, that's true.

Robert Cook said...

"BTW. Just as I expect the Armed forces to have plans for all comers against the US...."

???

None of the countries where we're involved militarily are or were "comers against the US." Quite the contrary.

tcrosse said...

As for Trump's business dealings, he has managed to stay one step ahead of the sheriff for decades, in a very tough environment. It is not his first time at the rodeo.

Robert Cook said...

"The economy is precisely the issue. As we learned with Bush, right-wing economics don't work long-term. Those interviews with Trump supporters who will stick by Trump through every conceivable scenario never ask if they would stick by Trump through a financial crisis."

Sure they will. He'll blame in on a convenient third party (or parties) and Trump's supporters will accept that without question.

Jim at said...

As we learned with Bush, right-wing economics don't work long-term.

Good grief.

Lewis Wetzel said...

He'll blame in on a convenient third party (or parties) and Trump's supporters will accept that without question.
Mind reading people he doesn't understand at all.

gadfly said...

The misuse of "devastating " is indeed, to say the very least, calamitous!

Lewis Wetzel said...

None of the countries where we're involved militarily are or were "comers against the US." Quite the contrary.
Afghanistan.
Make an intelligent comment some time, Robert Cook.

buster said...

If Muellier's report doesn't include criminal behavior by Trump or his close associates related to "collusion" with the Russians during the 2016 campaign, it will take a lot of wind out of the sails of the House Dems. Investigating his past business practices won't get them very far. It will just seem like smearing. Trump's reputation as a businessman was priced into the 2016 election. He's the president now, not a businessman.

Hagar said...

For Dershowitz not being invited to the right cocktail parties may be devastating; for Trump, not so much. He does not drink, anyway.

Birkel said...

tom,
Define "right wing economics" in a coherent way.
Your talking point is dumb.

Lewis Wetzel said...

As we learned with Bush, right-wing economics don't work long-term.
Sure! As long as you leave the terms "right wing economics," "work,", and "long-term" undefined. What kind of economics does work long-term, Tom? Neolithic economics was very stable.

n.n said...

Trump needs to address the decadal catastrophic anthropogenic resets forced by fiscal and social leverage, progressive costs (e.g. single-payer and monopolies and practices) of medical products, perpetual smoothing functions ("redistributive change") that enrich the 0.1% and normalize corruption of the population, diversity or color judgments (e.g. racism, sexism, anti-nativism), political congruence or selective exclusion ("="), conflation of logical domains (e.g. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), the most expensive education system in the world with a progressive product that's not even in the top ten, immigration reform that avoids emigration reform and enables the miscarriage of social justice adventures (e.g. elective regime change, abortion fields), and persistence of planned parenthood (e.g. selective-child) under a veil of privacy, etc.

Birkel said...

Leftist Collectivist economics, now that works every time to enrich the connected and deprive everybody else.
That free market stuff is less predictable and demands competitive behavior.

Thanks for playing, tom.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Trump and his admin will have to limp along under the cloud of exoneration.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"While she was sec of state?"
A better question is why was she secretary of state? What did she bring to the job, other than being married to Bill? Everyone, including the Dems, know that her resume was thin when she was appointed, and that Obama gave her the post as a means of dissuading her from running against him (or at to least refrain from attacking him) in 2012. But no one will say so. It's Kremlin politics.

n.n said...

What kind of economics does work long-term

American or "right-wing economics" (including capitalism or retained earnings) works in the near-term to assess costs and optimize distribution, and in the far-term to smooth minor perturbations. Right-wing economics suffers catastrophic failure when combined with left-wing economics, including monopolies and practices (e.g. single-whatever), and the latter is historically a first-order forcing of catastrophic anthropogenic economic misalignments that result in depressions, purges, and leaps. Right-wing economics includes market functions, as well as private (e.g. charity, insurance)and public (e.g. welfare) smoothing functions.

buster said...

As for crimes predating the 2016 campaign,if Mueller doesn't find them,they won't matter, assuming there are any. A Congressional committee isn't equipped to conduct a criminal investigation.

Lewis Wetzel said...

The report will be a political, not a legal, document, just as Ken Starr's report to congress was a political and not a legal document. The Dems want a document that politically damage Trump and the GOP. There is no upside to the report for the GOP, which was why Trump & the GOP were stupid to agree to an investigation in the first place, it's not a mistake Hillary & the Dems would have made, even if she had been caught red-handed colluding with the Russians, even if their was footage of her excepting a bulging bag of cash from Putin in return for a promise to disband NATO.
Take partisanship out of it and reduce the factions to Trump hatred/no Trump hatred. What contents of the Mueller report would satisfy #NeverTrumper Republicans that there was, in fact, no collusion between Trump and the Russkis?

cronus titan said...

Dershowitz may be saying that Mueller and his merry band of Torquemadas will spin a yarn of intrigue and skullduggery that will have the cable shows all engorged and tingling. It will not survive the mildest of scrutiny but it will sound sexy. That has been Mueller's pattern -- he has been able to steamroll some targets through threats of bankruptcy and going after family members and the like, indicted a lot of Russians and the one Russian company to fight back has made Mueller's squad look silly ($100K in ads? In Russian? Accused of a conspiracy to commit a non-crime? Seriously, this is what he has?)

Lewis Wetzel said...

World GDP increased 19 fold from 1800 to 1900, and about 9 fold from 1900 to 2000 (source:Allen, Robert C. Global Economic History, a Very Short History, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2011).
The gain was uneven, most of the growth occurred in Western Europe and North America, but other nations, world wide, experienced GDP growth that they had never experienced for any two century period before 1800-2000. Colonialism was an economic success for the colonized as well as the colonizers.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"Show me the man, and I will show you...some...stuff."

Lewis Wetzel said...

This is why you have to define terms. Globalization has increased economic growth for the poor in China and India (two billion people), while flattening or reducing economic growth for the middle and working classes in the US (350 million people). Is that a success? Can neo-liberal economic policies properly be called "right wing economics"? I doubt if the neo-liberals consider their preferred policies to be "right-wing economics."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

the CNN-Schiff-Avanetti-Maddow media will find it very devastating.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

How come it's OK to run secret money making deals for your family foundation while Hillary is head of the State Dept?


Media no curious.

Static Ping said...

If they had something, it would have come out by now. A reveal at this date is about as low key as could possibly be.

Bruce Hayden said...

Blogger Lewis Wetzel said...
"While she was sec of state?"
“A better question is why was she secretary of state? What did she bring to the job, other than being married to Bill? Everyone, including the Dems, know that her resume was thin when she was appointed, and that Obama gave her the post as a means of dissuading her from running against him (or at to least refrain from attacking him) in 2012. But no one will say so. It's Kremlin politics.”

My long term opinion has been that Obama traded the State Dept for Clinton support, both before the official nomination, and later. He seemed to do that a lot - giving this constituency this department, and that constituency that department, all to be run as private fiefdoms. Of course, having ridden in the rodeo before the Clintons knew precisely which department would allow them to maximize their financial gains - the State Dept, where she could sell American foreign policy to the highest bidders.

James K said...

As we learned with Bush, right-wing economics don't work long-term.

What the hell was "right-wing" about Bush's economic policies? Huge increases in government spending? Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory overreach? Not standing up to Barney Frank to rein in the reckless Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Big Mike said...

I am already planning to ignore Mueller’s report.

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce Hayden said...

“Of course, having ridden in the rodeo before the Clintons knew precisely which department would allow them to maximize their financial gains - the State Dept, where she could sell American foreign policy to the highest bidders.”

The other advantage of running the State Dept for Crooked Hillary was that it allowed her 5o potentially pad her, otherwise less than stellar, reputation with some foreign policy successes, just in time for the 2016 election. Except that she chose poorly. What I think a lot of people would likely really like to know is whether her disastrous decisions in regards to Libya, Egypt, and maybe Syria, were a result of her listening too closely to her BFF Huma Abedelin, with her close family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. I suspect that we will never find this out, at least as long as Clinton is still breathing. Still, I think it humorous that despite all the money that the Clintons raked in, her worst decisions while Sec of State were probably not made through avarice but maybe lust, or at least friendship.

narciso said...

it's what fits on his cue card,

fascinating who were some of Hillary's contributors, which she had to reveal, as part of her appointment, the alamoudi bros, prince turki, the olayan family and bin Mahfouz, except for the olayans, all were targeted by prince salman, most were part of the golden chain,

Michael The Magnificent said...

Aaaaand the "asylum seekers" are storming the border.

This is what an invasion looks like, regardless of what that CNN twit says:

https://twitter.com/WendyFry_/status/1066773390562942978

https://twitter.com/WendyFry_/status/10667759672706211861

https://twitter.com/WendyFry_/status/1066783722547097607

https://twitter.com/WendyFry_/status/1066791682899959808

narciso said...

that's likely, abedin was the outside advisor, to the likes of power and rice, who shaped the decisions in Libya, Egypt Syria and yemen,

PackerBronco said...

Apparently the summary of Mueller's report has already leaked:

They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily,
they are slanders; sixth and lastly, they have
belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust
things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves.


But in face of those damning facts, the Republicans will just claim that it's "Much Ado about Nothing"

R.J. Chatt said...

This is a tough time of the year for many people, especially for "deplorables" who live in liberal enclaves. It's hard when you don't get invited to all the parties. I really don't blame Dershowitz for saying something seemingly anti-Trump to get back into the good graces and social scene of the elites. But being openminded towards Trump, let alone publicly defending Trump, is irredeemably "deplorable." Dersh, you're just going to have to tough it out. Maybe Trump will invite you to Mar-a- Lago? Better practice that golf swing.

Stephen Cooper said...

I can't disagree with anything Bruce Hayden has said, but I would like to add this.

Mueller does not seem to be an honorable person. I do not think he will be, as Nifong was, disbarred - for one thing, he has spent decades accruing power, and the protection such power brings, something poor Nifong forgot to do - but I think he (Mueller) is a disgrace to the legal profession, and what's more, I think he knows it.

If he is a friend of yours, feel free to ask him. If he isn't, well, be grateful for that, I guess.

stevew said...

Big Mike: I've been ignoring Mueller for quite some time now. Then again, he and his investigation have not been in the news much of late, so ignoring has been easy.

Howard said...

I still think the net-net will be nothingburger. This means the dems need to push their own rainbows and unicorns vision of maga, not sell themselves as opponents of dystrumpia

anti-de Sitter space said...

"Is that fresh mulch? Might have come with that. Could be worse - you could have stinkhorn mushrooms... you know - Phallus impudicus."

Big Mike said...

@Michael the Magnificent, they want to know where to go to register Republican

narciso said...

he is the grand inquisitor, very few speak against him, because he is likely to indict you,


the beatings will continue, until morale improves,

https://order-order.com/2018/11/25/blair-second-referendum-time-real/

Robert Lange said...

Impeachment is a political process and was always conceived as a political remedy for a President who was intolerable. There is no real criminal threshold or even a requirement for it to have any criminal basis at all. The only requirement is to have the votes. So that’s the aim of Mueller’s report: provide some pretense, any pretense, for the inevitable impeachment.

cubanbob said...

Bruce Hayden @ 1.36 well said. It will be Samson bringing down the temple. As for the Democrats going after then private businessman Trump over taxes, the door swings both ways. The road to Obama and his enrichment lies through the Clinton's. He blessed the Clinton's shenanigans, that makes him an accomplice and fellow obstructor of justice. Then there are a lot of Democrats in Congress that couldn't pass an IRS smell test either. As for Mueller, the FBI is in charge of counter espionage and he was FBI director during Hillary's term as SoS. He has a lot to account for.

Birkel said...

"...rainbows and unicorns vision of maga..."

Occasional Cortex has already promised to spend $32,000,000,000,000 so you are late to the game.
Might be the "Make America Inflate Again" to be an accurate description.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

Stephen Cooper at 5:38 PM
Mueller does not seem to be an honorable person

If Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller were an honorable person, he would have refused to serve as the Special Counsel, because of his conflicts of interest.

Rob Rosenstein offered him the position -- and Mueller accepted the position -- because both men knew that Mueller was the one person in the entire world who is most motivated and able to whitewash the FBI in this situation.

Birkel said...

Yeah, that doesn't look like an invasion at all. They're just attacking federal agents and tearing down a border fence.

/sarc

tim in vermont said...

Caravan was fake election year news.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkSKrikorian/status/1065848702160510976

narciso said...

from covering up bulger's body dumps, bureau authorized of course, to shutting down the inquiry into bcci, which surprise, has some of those players mentioned above, bin Mahfouz, kamal adham, his associate prince turki, then the anthrax inquiry, running intereference for gitmo detainees, the aipac executive witchhunt

Fritz said...

If you believe Dan Bongino, the purpose of the Mueller investigation is to make it impossible to investigate the FISA abuses, and other illegal spying on the incoming Trump administration by Obama/Clintonistas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag

Therefore, they have no interest in finishing the report and ending the investigation, and it will probably continue through Trumps two terms.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Hahaha, I love how everyone seemed to love Dershowitz as long as what he was saying was positive in regard to Trump.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Trump sychophants of course will desperately see Mueller’s report as either fake news or they will scream about revolution.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“I am already planning to ignore Mueller’s report.”

See what I mean?

LOL

Comanche Voter said...

Mueller doesn't like Trump. Mueller can't make a criminal case against Trump---after almost two effin' years---but Mueller will smear Trump.

Now if Mueller didn't like Hillary Clinton he could make a criminal case against her, and smear her as well. Some guys just won't get the job done.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Mueller doesn't like Trump.”

And how could you possibly know this?

“Mueller can't make a criminal case against Trump---after almost two effin' years---but Mueller will smear Trump.”

And how could you possibly know this?

You nor I know what Mueller has.

tim in vermont said...

I guess that when Inga Stasi listens to somebody, they are either 100% right or 100% wrong. It must be like being a small child to think like that.

Original Mike said...

”You nor I know what Mueller has.”

THIS is why Mueller will never issue his “report”.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Rob Rosenstein offered him the position -- and Mueller accepted the position -- because both men knew that Mueller was the one person in the entire world who is most motivated and able to whitewash the FBI in this situation.”

Except that I don’t think that Mueller was the one making the decisions here. The Strzok/Page text messages suggested that core of the team was picked first, and then Mueller was brought in as a figurehead. I think that it is far more than coincidental that his lead prosecutor, Andrew Weismann, was involved in Spygate starting at least two months before the original FISA warrant was obtained. He had no valid DoJ related reason to be dealing with the Steele Dossier, since he was on the criminal, not national security, side of the DoJ. Yet, there he was, through late summer, all the way up to when he “joined” the Mueller team attending meetings with all of the major participants - including Steele, Simpson, the Ohrs, as well as Strzok, Page, and probably McCabe on the FBI side. My guess is that he is the one to actually put the Mueller team together, and probably to pick Mueller to ostensibly lead it.

“If you believe Dan Bongino, the purpose of the Mueller investigation is to make it impossible to investigate the FISA abuses, and other illegal spying on the incoming Trump administration by Obama/Clintonistas.”

He breaks it into three parts: Plan A was the illegal FISA Title VII database searching. Plan B was the illegal FISA Title I warrants on Carter Page, that, thanks to the Obama DoJ rule changes, allowed two hop surveillance, which brings in probably the entirety of the Trump campaign, transition, and early WH. Plan C is the Mueller investigation. I would add that Plan D is probably the House investigations of everything Trump, which is provably why the Dems were willing to pull out all of the stops in their cheating this election, in order to get control of the House. In the future, cheating is likely to be a bit harder, with the Republicans ready for it, at least in Red and Purple states. The important thing though is to keep the Mueller investigation running up to the time that the new House committee chairs take over, so that there can be an easy transition (as there was with the transposition from Plan B to Plan C with both Weismann and Strzok joining the Mueller team (Strzok was removed after his text messages to Page became public)).

tim in vermont said...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-immigration-soros/george-soros-mastercard-to-partner-to-aid-migrants-refugees-idUSKBN1531H2

EDH said...

Inga said...
Hahaha, I love how everyone seemed to love Dershowitz as long as what he was saying was positive in regard to Trump.

Inga said (15 minutes later)...
You nor I know what Mueller has.

But wasn't the kind of speculation dismissed in Inga Comment 2 the exact criticism aimed at Dershowitz that Inga just derided in Inga Comment 1?

Ann Althouse said...
"How does he know? Has he read it?"

There's too much news of the future, but it's legit as a present report on the emotional weather inside the head of Dershowitz.

Birkel said...

Keep hope alive, Royal ass Inga.
President Hillary Clinton any day now.

EDH said...

That said, Dershowitz is probably right that Team Mueller will attempt to make the document as damaging politically as they can.

Not a badge of honor for an independent counsel.

anti-de Sitter space said...

birk = nonquitter = SAD!

Lewis Wetzel said...

tim in vermont said...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-immigration-soros/george-soros-mastercard-to-partner-to-aid-migrants-refugees-idUSKBN1531H2


C'mon TIV. You know that accusing Soros of conspiring to increase illegal immigration is the vilest sort of anti-Semitism, while accusing the Koch Bros. of trying to enrich themselves by cooking the world in fossil fuel emissions is just plain commonsense. Everyone knows that. Did you know that the wicked, hook-nosed Koch brothers actually tried to steal WEPCO's power plants with the help of Walker? It's true!

Birkel said...

Come on PB&J, hit us up with some of your outstanding sequiturs.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add that Bongino pointed out that the big problem that the miscreants have with Plan A and Plan B, above, is that there is a huge paper trail. This wouldn’t have been a problem if Crooked Hillary had won. She didn’t. The DoJ and FBI are large bureaucracies. There is paperwork for everything, from obtaining more paper clips to filing FISA warrant applications. Almost every minute of time has to be accounted for. Every trip, to London, Langley, or the White House has to be authorized and documented. Every interview has to be documented. Etc. There is very likely paperwork somewhere there authorizing the counterintelligence investigation that ended up as the FISA application. Every meeting between Comey and Brennan to set it up had to have been documented. And, paperwork documenting Carter Page offering to work with the FBI in 2016. There is paperwork authorizing FBI contractors to access their FISA Title VII databases, allowing them to do “about” queries without supervision, or justified need. At a minimum, the FBI and DoJ people who prepared the FISA warrant package for signing lied through their teeth. It’s all in the paperwork, and that is what the Deep State and the Dems so desperately want to keep hidden from both the Trump people and the public.

Original Mike said...

”Come on PB&J, hit us up with some of your outstanding sequiturs.”

Not really necessary.

eddie willers said...

That Rosenstein kept his job and Trump's lawyers allowed written questions tells me that Mueller has bupkis.

Expect a report with a lot of furious mumbo jumbo as a sop to the leftists but released before the new congress is installed

hombre said...

Everyone, everyone, has expected the Mueller report to be a political hit piece written by the Democrat button men on his team. It would be a mistake for Trump to overreact. If there is no indictment, who cares what the hacks, including Mueller the Whitewasher, have to say.

Waste of our tax dollars better spent prosecuting Hillary. Trump’s best response: “Now it’s our turn.”

Michael The Magnificent said...

Magnificent, they want to know where to go to register Republican

Yes they do!

Ignore your lying eyes, they aren't trying to breach the fence, throw rocks, or storm the border. Oh no! Those "stones" are manna from heaven, given to them by God as they spent 40 days crossing the Mexican desert to reach the promised land. They just want to share it with their new neighbors! They are now all peacefully standing in orderly lines patiently waiting their turn to apply for "asylum."

Mark said...

As I understand it, Mueller has ZERO authority to release a report to the public or even to Congress.

Birkel said...

Correct, Mark.
Mueller will submit his report to his supervisor, newly promoted AAG Matthew Whitaker.
Whitaker will decide what to do with the report.

The Gipper Lives said...

Does this mean Mueller is finally closing in on that dastardly Russian Super-Spy Carter Page?

The FISA judges did their "level best" to protect his rights.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“But wasn't the kind of speculation dismissed in Inga Comment 2 the exact criticism aimed at Dershowitz that Inga just derided in Inga Comment 1?”

No.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Funny how Trumpists are leaning toward Mueller not being allowed to release the report. What are you afraid of?

EDH said...

Mark and Birkel make an excellent point, especially following the removal of Rosenstein.

A Mueller report may never see the light of day

By Nelson W. Cunningham March 14, 2018

First, special counsel Mueller is not independent counsel Starr. They were appointed under different authorities, with radically different rules for reporting and disclosure. Starr was required by the independent counsel statute governing his appointment not only to conduct a criminal investigation but also to submit a report to Congress if he found any evidence of impeachable offenses.

However, that statute expired in 1999. Mueller was appointed under the far narrower Justice Department regulation for special counsels that replaced the independent counsel statute. Far from requiring a report to Congress of impeachable offenses, these regulations tightly circumscribe Mueller’s ability to do so.

Section 600.8(c) of the regulations provides that the special counsel shall provide the attorney general with a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” If the special counsel finds that “other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate,” (presumably, such as impeachment) he is empowered only to “consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action.”

How much of the special counsel’s “confidential” report on prosecution or declination decisions, or consultations an impeachment recommendation, might come to light? The regulations provide that the attorney general may release the special counsel’s report if he finds it would “be in the public interest.” But nothing requires him to do so. Moreover, any release must “comply with applicable legal restrictions,” which pose substantial barriers.

The only disclosure the attorney general is required to make, to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate judiciary committees, is if he concludes that “a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.”

So while Starr was required by statute to forward any findings of impeachable offenses to Congress, Mueller is forbidden to speak publicly and may only forward a “confidential report” to the attorney general (or, in this case, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein). While Rosenstein may feel obliged to make a limited disclosure to Congress of any disagreement with Mueller, there is no formal mechanism to transmit Mueller’s conclusions regarding impeachable offenses, much less the underlying evidence, to the Congress.

Moreover, even if Rosenstein wanted to pass Mueller’s report to Congress or to the public, it is not clear that he could. Much of Mueller’s evidence would have been gathered via the grand jury — and Rule 6(e) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure forbids the public release of grand-jury material, with no applicable exceptions. A report that excluded the underlying grand-jury material would include only a sliver of allegations.

Birkel said...

The law requires Mueller submit his report to his superior.
Does Royal ass Inga believe Mueller should ignore the law?
As a Hillary supporter, I appreciate Royal ass Inga's consistency.

#LawsAreForTheLittlePeople

Seeing Red said...

British Intelligence does not want this report to see the light of day since their hands are dirty.

Robert Cook said...

"'None of the countries where we're involved militarily are or were "comers against the US." Quite the contrary.'

"Afghanistan.
"Make an intelligent comment some time, Robert Cook."


Afghanistan did not attack us or have anything to do with 9/11.

walter said...

More importantly...
What was the devastating dance?

Birkel said...

Robert Cook is correct.
The land mass that we call Afghanistan did not attack the United States.
Robert Cook is an idiot.

narciso said...

It's an interesting question, not only the bases but the command and control operates out if there.

Howard said...

Birkel: The fatal mistake in Afghanistan was piggy-backing regime change democracy whiskey sexy pipe dream when the actual 911 culprits were Al Qaeda camps paid for by the Saudi ratfuckers. It's tragedy perpetuated by a classic case of making a mountain of death and debt out of a molehill. Now, the stupidity continues to with the fallacy of sunk costs at the expense of throwing good men and money after bad.

Robert Cook said...

"The land mass that we call Afghanistan did not attack the United States."

Neither the land mass nor the government of Afghanistan attacked us or had anything to do with 9/11. The U.S. never claimed that; the only reason given as a justification for us to invade Afghanistan was to pursue and apprehend bin Laden and his forces.

The precipitating reason for the invasion was that the Taliban "refused" to turn bin Lade over to us. This is not so. They simply asked for evidence to show bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks before handing him over. Bush did not even consider the request for evidence and sent in the troops. Can it be they did not have any evidence? Or were they simply so stupid and rash as to send men and material on a vaguely defined mission, sure to cause injuries and deaths of Americans, not to mention a fortune in taxpayers' money, than to try to work with the Taliban to capture bin Laden? (Answer: Yes)

GRW3 said...

If you don’t think Trumps tax returns were searched six ways to Sunday after Trump brought up the birther point then you don’t understand the Obama deep state. If there was something, it would have been released during the campaign.

narciso said...

Maybe enshrining Islam in the constitution was the mistake, furthermore that view of Afghanistan would not been out of place before 1978.

Last time, we underwrote the operation but channelled the operation through isi and general intelligence.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

#HillaryUpNextOnMaddow
#EraseAllClintonCriminalHistory
#IgnoreRussianRE-setBigClintonMoney

#WhatPrivateServer?

Original Mike said...

Are you claiming bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11, Cookie?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer› Newest»