The NYT reports.
UPDATE: The headline (at the same link) is now updated to: "Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy but Stops Shorts of Exonerating President on Obstruction of Justice" (NYT). From the article:
The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.AND: You can read Barr's summary here. The line "does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" refers to the obstruction of justice issue. The Mueller report, we're told, says that it looked at the facts relevant to an obstruction of justice charge but only set out the evidence and noted that there were "'difficult issues' of law and fact about whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction." The report "leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct" it describes "constitutes a crime."
The summary also said that the special counsel’s team lacked sufficient evidence to establish that President Trump illegally obstructed justice, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.
“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.
Barr writes that he (along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) has concluded that the evidence is "not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
Posts
333 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 333 of 333An underlying crime is NOT required for Obstruction of Justice to have occurred.
It is just as illegal for a rich man to sleep under the overpass as it is a poor one.
What was that bump? Oh, we just brushed up against Donald Trump. Let the investigations continue. Let the band play on. The good ship Lefty Fools is the most advanced design in the world. God himself could not sink this ship.
What is that strange tilt to the right?
Suborning of perjury was no problem for the Democrats then, yet oddly, this “obstruction” that Mueller couldn’t even figure out if it was a crime is an impeach and remove offense.
It’s almost as if there is a double standard...
Drago -- I was saying in my opinion congress should not spend time and resources investigating what Mueller investigated for the past two years. And you want to give me crap for saying that? How is that a "perfect example of lefty dishonesty." What did I say that was dishonest? You think that I want Congress to continue investigating despite having just said that I don't want them to? If I thought that why would I say the opposite? Am I only honest when I say something you disagree with?
BTW, Inga et al, prosecutors don't exonerate.
The job of exoneration lies with judges and juries AFTER a person is charged with a crime. Even then, a "not guilty" verdict may mean that the accused did some unsavory things, but not enough to be convicted for the specific crimes he been charged with. "Acquitted" means essentially the same thing, with some exceptions not applicable to this case.
Oh no... there go the troll's paydays. As Glen Greenwald pointed out, all the bullshit that has been paying the media "experts" and those mindless trolls salaries... POOF! Gotta huddle up behind Maxine Waters and pretend to be serious adults. Any wonder your kids are punching out on opioids? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Oj-eZqpHE
"stops short of exonerating..." would seem to apply to almost all legal investigations.
No avocados for Inga! Sad!
Soviet style leftist Democratics in the MSM/corporate press are desperately trying to purge and silence one of their own.
Glenn Greenwald
"And just for future reference: documenting the falsehoods, baseless conspiracies, and deceitful narratives being peddled without dissent by the major corporate media isn't "blogging" or "media criticism." It's journalism. It's reporting. And it's vital."
Honest leftists are hard to find. And the corrupt democratic press will do everything they can to silence him.
Per Drago above- let's not....
In next 1 1/2 years, Democrats will continue to pop up Dead Horse Impeachment to jin up support. Sad!
“Trump was not exonerated on Obstruction of Justice. Barr and Mueller will be testifying in front of the House. This is the least Americans deserve, no whitewashes will be accepted.”
No doubt Nadler and his flock of partisan hacks will try. But they have no way of making them talk. Sure, they can find Barr and Mueller in contempt of Congress if they follow the law and refuse to divulge more. But then the Contempt of Congress is trurned over to the DoJ, run by AG Barr, for enforcement. How well do you think that is going to go? The law is the law, and posturing by the Dems in Congress isn’t going to make it legal to divulge more. They could, of course, attempt to change the law. I think though that getting it changed wouldn’t make it through the Republican controlled Senate, and then overcome a Trump veto. And, yes, the regulations can be changed. That would, of course, require the DoJ to utilize the Notice and Comment process required by the APA to promulgate regulations that would allow Barr and Mueller to do what Nadler and the other Dems want them to do and say. Did I mention that AG Barr is in charge of the department that is bound by those rules, and employees reporting to him would have to be the ones promulgating the new rules?
AG Barr could, of course, ignore the current law and regulations and do what the Democrats want. After all, that is precisely what DAG Rosenstein did to start and oversee the Mueller investigation. And that, of course, would have been grounds to have fired him for cause, if the President, or his AG, had wanted to. It was a political, and not legal, decision not to fire him. But why should AG Barr do that? The House Dems cannot legally force Barr and Mueller to do their bidding. Not even close. All they have is politics, and I suspect that is a fairly weak reed to suspend the sort of investigation that Nadler and the Dems want so desperately, as they face Trump claiming vindication, and the FISAgate evidence now being unsealed and unredacted since there is no longer any ongoing investigation to protect.
Aunty Trump said...
Trump was not exonerated on Obstruction of Justice.
In Inga’s America, if accused of a crime, you will have to prove your innocence. Sounds like a great place. A lot like East Germany."
That's Inga's spiritual home.
The quaint American belief in due process is completely foreign to her. The authorities handled things much better back in the Vaterland, ja, Inga?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance
Greenwald is savoring this hit piece on him with a glass of brandy and a fine cigar. I think, other than Trump, he might be the most vindicated man today. Kicked off of MSNBC for questioning the cash cow’s obsession with Russia, banished from polite liberal company, he seems to be taking it OK.
One would think that any honest person would be pleased that an independent investigator like Muller found that the president didn't commit treason with Russia. But the comments above show that not everyone is pleased. They seem to want our president to be a traitor. They seem to want to know he committed a crime. Apparently, they would rather live in a country in which our president conspires with our enemies than one in which he doesn't.
Our long national nightmare is over. No, scratch that. The most meaningless, pointless investigation ever is over. But glad we finally know that Trump may - or may not - have obstructed an investigation into a crime he didn't commit.
As others have stated, Flynn should be immediately pardoned. And Rosenstein should be immediately fired.
"That's Inga's spiritual home. The quaint American belief in due process is completely foreign to her."
We didn't need today's news and reactions to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that in lefty/LLR Smear Merchant land, any accusation by a dem/lefty against any republican or conservative immediately establishes guilt.
Rush calls the media "the drive by media"
Not good enough.
The MSM corporate media are corrupt. They are the DEMOCRATIC MEDIA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. They are the BURN THE WITCH MEDIA, They are the very Soviet-Russians they blame.
Guess McCain was LYING again. It wasn't "worse then Watergate". Although John Dean will still disagree.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
An underlying crime is NOT required for Obstruction of Justice to have occurred.
It does make it a lot tougher to prove though, especially if there is another explanation for the same actions. Comey lied to a number of people. His firing can be justified.
Uhr: "Am I only honest when I say something you disagree with?"
Now that is an interesting question.
I'm afraid I don't have enough "evidence" at this time to exonerate you of that charge.
Carry on.
Nadler of course pivoted to the standard fascist lies that the dems are fully on board with, then, suddenly, he unhinged his jaw and swallowed whole 3 reporters, 2 bystanders and bus heading downtown.
wholelottasplainin' said...
BTW, Inga et al, prosecutors don't exonerate.
The job of exoneration lies with judges and juries AFTER a person is charged with a crime. Even then, a "not guilty" verdict may mean that the accused did some unsavory things, but not enough to be convicted for the specific crimes he been charged with. "Acquitted" means essentially the same thing, with some exceptions not applicable to this case.
3/24/19, 6:17 PM
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Inga, did you ever happen to notice that juries find people either "guilty" or "not guilty," not "guilty" or "innocent?" Why is that, do you think?
Schiff & Nadler should be re-called.
We deserve better than this banana congress.
BREAKING:Rep. Devin Nunes says House Intel has evidence Clinton operatives & hi-level FBI & DOJ officials started Trump-Russia investigation in "late 2015/early 2016" &that House GOP will be making criminal referrals to AG Barr for officials who "perpetuated this hoax" for 3+ yrs
Guilty until proven innocent? How quaint and I think French. Napoleonic law?
Paul Sperry @paulsperry_
Follow Follow @paulsperry_
More
BREAKING:Rep. Devin Nunes says House Intel has evidence Clinton operatives & hi-level FBI & DOJ officials started Trump-Russia investigation in "late 2015/early 2016" &that House GOP will be making criminal referrals to AG Barr for officials who "perpetuated this hoax" for 3+ yrs
This is the very story that we are hearing from multiple sources now that the Mueller Hoax-hunt is over.
I suspect we will soon that evidence (someone has been counter-leaking against the fascist dems for sometime now) that shows conclusively that the "investigation" (snort- anti-democratic domestic opposition suppression operations) begun by the obama deep state hacks really did begin far earlier (late 2015) than any of the democrat/LLR fascist apologist Collusion Truthers have been saying.
And if that's the case....well.....now that would be an "Inconvenient Truth" now, wouldn't it?......
Moderation has made this thread feel like a trip to the DMV.
Throw in the "Whoops factor" from Blogger and it looks like time for a walk.
"Folks, this is a total legal exoneration of the president. Congress will want to know more, of course. But the topline: No conspiracy, no obstruction."
-Ken Dilanian
I just heard a frazzled lib (perhaps it was Inga) on a call-in radio show exclaim breathlessly, "You can't trust Barr! He's Trump's hand-picked AG!!!"
Can anybody tell me of an AG who was NOT chosen by the president? 'Cause apparently this caller thinks a crime was committed because Trump didn't let Pelosi and Schumer pick the AG.
Lets all recall who started this garbage: Mr Cornhole himself.
Via Tiabli
Glenn Greenwald
Verified account @ggreenwald
32m32 minutes ago
"Among the many great things this @mTaibbi article from yesterday did - in which he says the Trump/Russia debacle is equal in media humiliation to Iraq - is remind everyone of the key role played by @DavidCornDC & @MotherJones in starting it. Go on Inga - Read it:
We dare you.
John O. Brennan
Verified account @JohnBrennan
Mar 20
John O. Brennan Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Hmmm...your bizarre tweets and recent temper tantrums reveal your panic over the likelihood the Special Counsel will soon further complicate your life, putting your political & financial future in jeopardy. Fortunately, Lady Justice does not do NDAs.
--
Brennan's dentist should check for consecutive open spots Monday.
Don’t ever change Inga, you guys will find the crime that justice demands be found, I am sure. But the punchbowl is empty.
Actually there is a big turd floating in a punchbowl filled with DeepState Corruption stew. That big turd is called:
Lack of evidence of any crime
Leave Inga alone with her delusions. It is all the lefties have.
So chuck's taking points are firmly established:
https://thebulwark.com/four-arguments-about-the-mueller-report-you-should-ignore/
BREAKING NEWS: Spokesperson for the DNC announces that any rumors that Team Trump has tanks inside Dem City are completely false and that very very soon Field Marshall Schiff-ty, Supreme Moron Commander "Fluffy" Nadler and possibly People's Private First Class LLR Chuck will be announcing total victory over the running dog-capitalist imperialist swine-lackeys of Team Trump.
Stay tuned for further announcements....
Interesting that Barr brings in Rosenstein on obstruction analysis. Wonder if he was kept on past the specified date for his departure for this purpose?
@ Exiled..
Geez - the stupidity. Or perhaps Barr is lying about what he is reading. Yeah - that must be it. How would that stand up? It wouldn't.
The corrupt democratic press have destroyed the brains of millions of Americans.
There's the conspiracy right there. And it's real.
If anything will serve as the bracing clue bat that certain people on this thread need, it might be that you have lost stevew.
There are similar tweets from “Maddow fans” in a similar vein on the Greenwald twitter thread. I find it hard to believe that I saw the only examples today of such sentiment. This is where we separate the propagandist trolls from the honest liberals, if you ask me.
I will not be telling my mom in law about the Mueller report findings. She is 87 years old and a committed leftist, by which I mean wholly accepting of the left's narrative and ignorant of the counter arguments, aka: facts. She is a fine woman that aside from the lefty commitment I like very much and whose company I enjoy. Plus she is responsible for bringing into this world my wife of 38+ years. Oh, and I am a guest in her FL home at present.
We shall talk about gardens and weather and movies and anything other than Trump or Mueller's report. Does that make me a poor advocate of conservatism?
" it might be that you have lost stevew."
?
There has to be a intent to obstruck justice in contemplation of a crime. He is exonerated. But the bait for Nadler and the Dem's owned Cable Channels has been put out there to tempt them to spend the next two years harrasing an innocent President.
We are watching a game of Trump Chess , not easy Dem checkers.
I sure hope a bunch of redneck racist Trump supporters in MAGA hats and pickup trucks,in a celebratory mood, dont take to streets of our major cities to run down beautiful and perfectly demographically balanced groups of minority children, physically assault gay african american actors who are just heading to a Subway for a 2am tuna on rye, join up with a current Supreme Court member and well known gang-rape leader to sow havoc against hundreds of innocent future baby-talker blond women, and especially dont seek out and threaten innocent tribal elders who are Vietnam War "heroes" and just want to bring a different perspective to horrific white male pro-life catholic high-schoolers.
Because that would be terrible...given how often it is clearly happening....
Bernie past: "The American people are sick and tired about hearing about your damn emails"
---
Bernie Sanders
Verified account @BernieSanders
Bernie Sanders Retweeted NBC News
I don’t want a summary of the Mueller report. I want the whole damn report.
2:18 PM - 24 Mar 2019 from San Francisco, CA
--
Watch where you step, Berno.
Interesting that Barr brings in Rosenstein on obstruction analysis. Wonder if he was kept on past the specified date for his departure for this purpose?
This is how Rachael Maddow got so rich, BTW.
Attorney General William Barr just engaged in utterly cowardly dereliction of duty. Here’s the thing, though: at least given what they lay out here, they only considered whether Trump was covering up his involvement in the hack-and-leak operation. It doesn’t consider whether Trump was covering up a quid pro quo, which is what there is abundant evidence of.
They didn’t consider whether Trump obstructed the crime that he appears to have obstructed. They considered whether he obstructed a different crime. And having considered whether Trump obstructed the crime he didn’t commit, rather than considering whether he obstructed the crime he did commit, they decided not to charge him with a crime.
Update: Corrected that these fuckers didn’t even spend two days reviewing the report.
I saw a VW beetle today with a lot of lefty bumper stickers. One said, "In Mueller we trust." It made me laugh.
Surely, there are persons I dont discuss politics with even in my family, but that is their triumph, the left does not reciprocate.
“On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.
That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.
As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.”
Neal Katyal
NYT link
I've been watching CNN and MSNBC this afternoon. I can't remember which channel, but one of the talking heads wondered if we were sure that Mueller doesn't have Russian ties, and he needed to be investigated. I kid you not. I feel sorry for these folks.
Trump is a "burden," deplorable, and an orange supremacist. Under evermore liberal rules of choice, and constitutional rites of summary judgment, he can be deemed unworthy and planned for the sake of social progress and other unqualified measures.
Meanwhile, there is an investigation in post-coup Kiev, to determine whether there was collusion between coup actors, the DNC, maverick Republicans, and perhaps anti-Putin Russian interests, to influence our election(s).
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so it 's proof that Trump is guilty.
That was the atty for bin laden's driver:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2019/03/24/msnbcs-tur-mueller-report-vindicates-president-collusion
Inga the Collusion Truther digs deeper......
LOL
LOL, well Inga is clearly impervious to shame. Russia Russia Russia, for two years, now she is on about something that Mueller wasn’t even sure was a crime and which in any case he couldn’t prove.
It’s another tree with no raccoon, like Covington, like Kavanaugh, like “RussiaGate.” But hers is not to reason, and once more into the breech!
Neal Katyal!!!
Well, I guess we'd all better stand up and take notice!!
Too funny.
All that's left now is furious posting as many lunatic lefty "hot takes" as she can find on "teh interwebs".
LOL
Maybe I am confusing you with steve uhr.
Go ahead Inga.
Say it: Trump did not collude. Trump's campaign did not collude. Trump is not a traitor.
Go ahead!
Say it!!
It will help when you kick your next set of lies into overdrive!
More fake news from the New York Times. What a surprise. They make it so easy for Trump. The NYT has delegitimized themselves.
The stupid straw was drawn by (name redacted) and we must allow her to recover her sanity on her schedule.
Royal ass Inga, do your worst!
On May 22, 2017, Hodgkinson wrote "Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co." above his repost of a Change.org petition demanding "the legal removal" of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for "treason". He belonged to numerous political Facebook groups, including those named "Terminate the Republican Party," "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans," and "Donald Trump is not my President."[58]. -WikiPedia
Remember when the Maddow fan became so incensed with Trump as a “traitor” that he took a gun down to a Republican softball practice?
Nothing to see here, move along...
This must be painful for him to admit:
https://mobile.twitter.com/peterbakernyt
It doesn’t consider whether Trump was covering up a quid pro quo, which is what there is abundant evidence of.
Any "quid pro quo" would require at least tacit agreement, and the letter was absolutely clear that among the things that Mueller investigated as coordination was an "agreement--tacit or express--between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference".
So, no, the letter is clear that there was no quid pro quo to cover up. It's time to join the reality-based community and give up the Trump-Russia fantasies.
Just think, we have obama literally stroking the inner thigh of Putin's boy Medvedev on camera and lovingly and soothingly promising so so much more "flexibility" for "Vladimir" after his last election.
Remember Medvedev's response: "I will relay this message to Vladimir."
I wonder if that response sent the same sort of tingle up obama's leg as obama's candidacy sent up Chrissy Mathews leg?
With respect to the report, Mueller acquitted himself admirably enough. In light of the full battle rattle raid on Stone, maximum pressure on Pecker/Corsi et al, and similar Stasi-style tactics, I surmise he turned up absolutely nothing he could use to hurt Trump more than it would hurt himself or his allies. It's fair to infer a de facto exoneration from this outcome. Also fair to conclude Trump is one clean dude, notwithstanding what we've already learned, and that aside from Michael Cohen he's chosen his friends and allies wisely. Manafort was merely a temporary political adviser, likely recommended by other swamp creatures early in the swamp tramp. If the next few weeks pass without significant malfeasance revealed from IRS submissions, sealed judicial proceedings past or the current Southern District investigations, I will infer that Trump is as punctilious in his business dealings as he's been in politics. That's somewhat of a surprise given his kinetic, spontaneous habits, though it probably shouldn't be at this point. Apparently his confidence, his willingness to wing it, is borne of a confidence more than being a confidence man. The man's game is to be underestimated, and it works even after you know it. He took the "bridge and tunnel" thing and turned into a secret weapon starting with the snobs of New York. As world champion snobs, they seem to have been excellent practice. It's a shame Howard Stern, who used to relate to Trump very well, is not on board anymore. His much younger wife and her interests, his foothold in respectable society have made him soft. This vulgar, popular revolution is one he helped bring about, and he's too soft to get up on stage with Trump and enjoy its glory. What a pussy. Trump is the King of All Media, and Stern is too fancy these days even to be nasty about his crown getting lifted.
Rosenstein was kept on for a week to sign on the the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of obstruction. I imagine that was not a tasty sandwich for him, and it shows which side is now pulling the strings.
For Inga and her ilk.
The big 8 year old boy man brain on the left.
t doesn’t consider whether Trump was covering up a quid pro quo, which is what there is abundant evidence of.
You mean like promising Putin that if he takes the pressure off before the election, he would be “more flexible” with the Russians “after the rubes have spoken” (OK, not a direct quote.)
Inga is writing in blue ink, I must read further.
What a great day to be an American!
Washing vehicles, cooking chicken and dumplings and just enjoying life as The founders intended. Oh and and some beers are on tap. MAGA
OK, now the Collusion Troofers are on the case.
Someone needs to explain this to everyone at CNN and msnbc.
Ha bleachbit, the ad that showed before that clip was to raise money off of collusion bitter clingers. Send them your money! They will get Trump the impeachment he deserves!
Inga has said for months, "Just wait till the Mueller report appears!" Now that it's appeared, it's "Just wait for the Nadler investigation!" As if Nadler is going to find something that Mueller and his 19 Democrat zealots couldn't find. Nadler hasn't even seen his own feet for 40 years.
It’s a good day for America.
Somehow that is a bad day for a lot of people.
Sad.
Bernie wantsthe report.
I want the names of the FISA judges.
John Kasich
Verified account @JohnKasich
5h5 hours ago
I’ll be on @CNN @AC360 tonight around 9:30pm ET to discuss the Mueller report. Tune in!
On the charge of obstruction of justice, Bob Mueller’s report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime”. That’s an important finding because that is what prosecutors do—they prosecute, they do not exonerate. Why? Because we all enjoy the presumption of innocence.
Heh, I see the butthurt from the left and particularly MSNBC was the fact Barr didn't spend weeks drafting a summary letter but a mere day and 1/2. They are trying to insinuate that Barr didn't read the report carefully or missed some details in Mueller's report. How would they even know? This is really the equivalent of a jury coming back with a verdict "not guilty" in under an hour.
Manafort was merely a temporary political adviser, likely recommended by other swamp creatures early in the swamp tramp.
According to Lewandowski, the kids hired him thinking he was a wizard on the convention. It turned out his info was a decade old and he was greedy, trying to get Trump's financial guy to give him $5 million for "walking around money." Trump got rid of him quickly once they realized his usefulness was nil. It was expensive for Manafort as the leftist hysteria ensnared him. Podesta got away clean as he has a "D" after his name.
Fell for it again and the list keeps getting longer.
What is the definition of insanity?
"Exoneration is NOT the job of a federal prosecutor. You either indict someone or not. If indicted and the person is not convicted, that's it."
Which makes me wonder why Mueller specifically said he wasn't exonerating Trump, as if exonerating or not exonerating had anything to do with the task he was assigned as Very Special Prosecutor. Why would he include that, except to cast aspersions and smear Trump, or to pass the job of hounding him on to others, maybe at the state level? Do prosecutors, however special, find conclusions in terms of exoneration?
Jamesk: "As if Nadler is going to find something that Mueller and his 19 Democrat zealots couldn't find."
19 hardened democrat partisan lawyers...and 40 (40!!) FBI Investigators.
And they found........ZERO collusion.
Duh.
But of course, it's not a surprise to us. We aren't the lefty and LLR idiots buying into the hoax dossier and hoax collusion and every other lefty/LLR hoax ploy.
A quote from C.S. Lewis is very appropriate today. Some commentators might want to take it heart, but I doubt that they will.
“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible?
If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Seeing Red: "What is the definition of insanity?"
Visually?
Any picture of Freder or Inga or LLR Chuck will do.
James K said...
Inga has said for months, "Just wait till the Mueller report appears!" Now that it's appeared, it's "Just wait for the Nadler investigation!" As if Nadler is going to find something that Mueller and his 19 Democrat zealots couldn't find. Nadler hasn't even seen his own feet for 40 years.
************
But he brags that he can still wash himself with a rag on a stick!
As for this:
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.
**************
Inga is oblivious to the fact that TWO DOJ legal memoranda, issued during the Nixon anc Clinton era, also concluded that the POTUS can not be indicted while in office. Hw would need to be impeached, and THEN indicted.
As the saying goes, "You can indict a ham sandwich". EVERY POTUS would thus be a target for a prosecutor trying to make his political bones. But w/o the Congress removing the POTUS first, his indictment would be swatted down.
For one thing, blowing off House subpoenas is so easy even Obama could do it, and he did it a lot.
Last year's dress to this year's party.
I was watching Nadler and Maxine Waters this afternoon, shouting that the investigations in Congress must go on. They are clowns, groping and stumbling for thoughts and words while defter pols like Pelosi and Schumer dart for cover. I don't think the Dems will let such incompetence be the face of the party for the next two years and even CNN won't cover them. The investigations, all of them, will lurch about like toys with dying batteries, suddenly shouting out broken phrases when somebody trips on them in their corner and then grinding into silence.
Which makes me wonder why Mueller specifically said he wasn't exonerating Trump
It’s like you have a Gila Monster clamped onto your leg for two years, you finally get it off, and for a parting shot, it infects you with nasty bacteria. Mueller gave the Democrats a fig leaf for impeachment because he is what we said he was, a partisan hack.
CCB: "Which makes me wonder why Mueller specifically said he wasn't exonerating Trump, as if exonerating or not exonerating had anything to do with the task he was assigned as Very Special Prosecutor."
That was no doubt, at a minimum, the work of the partisan dems on Mueller's staff. That he let it go thru, in complete violation of DOJ policy, is a sign of what a s***heel he really is.
He is essentially pulling a Reverse Comey:
Comey: Hillary clearly violated the law, but I've discerned an angle that the law doesn't address that I will use called "intent", and I will use that made up thing to let her off the hook. And, oh yeah, I'm usurping the authority of the DOJ by doing so.
Mueller: There is zero evidence Trump broke the law in any way, but I've discerned an angle that the DOJ rules does address but I will ignore, called don't insert opinion when you aren't going to indict, and I will use that made up thing to keep Trump on the hook. And, oh yeah, I'm usurping the authority of the DOJ by doing so.
Kudos to Althouse and Meade. 283 comments so far on this thread alone. All of them moderated. That's a lot of work. Tip of the hat.
Irony: Manafort made his living playing heady politics with Slavic oligarch types, among dangerous characters in a region famous for violent politics, and he ends up not dead of an unlikely suicide, but imprisoned as collateral damage in a domestic political squabble in our civilized country.
C.S. Lewis has words of wisdom for every occasion.
Incidentally, that gem from CS Lewis would be right at home in the Matt Taibbi thread, since that's the same sentiment behind his message re discovering our president is not a spy and being bummed about it.
Senator Mitt Romney
Verified account @SenatorRomney
6h6 hours ago
It is good news that the Special Counsel has concluded that neither the President nor his campaign colluded with the Russian government. It is now time for the country to move forward.
239 replies 219 retweets 1,227 likes
Senator Mitt Romney
Verified account @SenatorRomney
6h6 hours ago
The Mueller investigation, led by a person of such honor and integrity, has faithfully applied the rule of law despite accusations and fears to the contrary.
"'difficult issues' of law and fact about whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction."
Trump knew he had done nothing wrong. Comey told him he was not under investigation. Only a malicious witch hunter could view his actions as "obstructing" anything.
Re Lewis: "or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils."
Lewis seems to think people would recoil at the prospect of being devils, of wallowing in pure hatred. If so, American progs shows was wrong.
Char Char Binks said...
"Exoneration is NOT the job of a federal prosecutor. You either indict someone or not. If indicted and the person is not convicted, that's it."
Which makes me wonder why Mueller specifically said he wasn't exonerating Trump, as if exonerating or not exonerating had anything to do with the task he was assigned as Very Special Prosecutor. Why would he include that, except to cast aspersions and smear Trump, or to pass the job of hounding him on to others, maybe at the state level? Do prosecutors, however special, find conclusions in terms of exoneration?
*******************
He said he wasn't exonerating Trump because:
1. He does not have the legal power to do so.
2. the matters he investigated were NOT potentially state level offenses. "Russian interference" and "collusion" are federal matters.
Barb Mikuslki and Jerrold Nadler ought unless, ,bigotry, have the poqwer the grotesquely obese have morally.
Those grotestuesquly obese ought have power. They have numbers.
Pelosi has given more than Adam Smith or Chigago's Friedman (Milt) ever thought dirty shit could compile.
Pelosi's Trillions v. Friedmans' decency is us.
What will do we?
(eaglebeak)
Trump's maxim, enunciated many times over the years, is: If someone screws you, screw them back 10 times as hard.
Looks as if he's getting set:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-team-turns-tables-after-mueller-report-calls-for-investigation-into-probe
"Also fair to conclude Trump is one clean dude, notwithstanding what we've already learned...."
I've been thinking of what Julian Assange said about Trump during the 2016 campaign:
"We do have some information about the Republican campaign….I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day….I mean, that’s a very strange reality for most of the media to be in…."
Insty has a tweet by Bret Hume commenting on Beta’s comment yesterday:
The Hill
@thehill
Beto O'Rourke campaigns in Charleston, SC: "You have a president who, in my opinion, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sought to, however ham-handedly, collude with the Russian government or foreign power to undermine and influence our.....
Loser Zoolander.
And I’m
Still NOT TIRED OF WINNING!!!!!!
It’s like the ACME company is making a fortune selling to Wile E. Coyote.
BEEP BEEP!
This is just so enjoyable.
James Comey sent out a tweet today: "So many questions."
Lindsey Graham replied:
@LindseyGrahamSC
Could not agree more.
See you soon.
To whomever upthread mentioned “bribing a juror” as being an occasion when obstruction wouldn’t involve a crime, please rethink your premise, especially the part with a JUROR and consider that JUROR might be employed in the act of fact finding a CRIME; thereby proving my point for me again. Thank you. Don’t know what you thought you were saying, but thank you all the same.
Trump has indeed been exonerated of obstruction, Barr and Rosenstein said so in the very report we are discussing. If Inga can prove they didn’t exonerate Trump then I’d love to see that “evidence.” LOL
"He said he wasn't exonerating Trump because:
1. He does not have the legal power to do so."
Nor does he have the power to travel back in time, hold back the tides, or bring the dead back to life, so why didn't he mention those things?
"2. the matters he investigated were NOT potentially state level offenses. "Russian interference" and "collusion" are federal matters."
I never said they were state-level offenses, but Lefties are atwitter with speculation about other ways to get Trump, including charges in other jurisdictions, and impeachment for the very same charges that Mueller found no probable cause to prosecute.
trump-team-turns-tables-after-mueller-report-calls-for-investigation-into-probe
If you can make it New York City, you can make it anywhere, even in DC, which explains the DNC and establishment's acutely phobic response to his presidential conception and birth, and nine trimesters of viable administration. He was one of them. He knows himself. He knows them. He knows their means, their methods, their selective and opportunistic nature. He knows they cannot be moderated, but confronted with equal and greater force.
Mittens says team Mueller's inability to come up with the goods means Mueller's now an honorable man.
Mittens just wants us to move us forward now.
Thanks Mittens.
Really hope Trump/Barr is pulling a Veritas.
You know, the undercover film guys. They post a vid of dems
lying, cheating,and generally acting like dems. Then, they let the subjects cry for a week or so how the vid was selectively edited.
Then Project Veritas posts complete un-edited video making dems look even worse than before.
Keep hope alive, MAGA
Lindsey Graham (reply to comey)
✔
@LindseyGrahamSC
Could not agree more.
See you soon.
James Comey
✔
@Comey
So many questions.
"-- That is technically not true; an innocent man bribing a juror is obstructing justice as much as a guilty one."
Interesting. If the man is innocent, isn't he actually facilitating justice?
🚢🚢🚢🚢🚢!!!
Cap'n Billy Kristol taking credit for saving Mueller from dismissal!!
That's almost as bad as LLR Chuck giving the Surrendering Establishment Republican Hacks credit for Trump's conservative policies!!
Hit back. Make the rubble bounce. Nuke the moon. -CP
Oh my Fen at 4:28, be still my soul.
I wrote this earlier, and it got lost in the comments. Barr's letter makes it very clear exactly what it was Mueller was referring to- Mueller was referring to Trump's public attacks on the investigation itself. In short, what Trump was doing was proclaiming his innocence, his campaign's innocence, and that the investigation itself was illegitimate, without proper predicate, and was an attempt to frame him and his colleagues for a crime. If this is obstruction, then every defendant who publicly pronounces his innocence and claims he is being framed is guilty of obstruction, too. This sort of idea that you can't publicly defend yourself against a prosecutor or an investigator is so fucking dangerous, Mueller disgraces himself for even considering it. Barr and Rosenstein were absolutely correct in dismissing the idea altogether.
Readering asked above if this was why Rosenstein was told to stay on. I think so, and I wrote as much on this or one of the other threads. If you paid attention to things, then these statements lifted from the Mueller report tell me that Mueller and/or his team were planning to recommend an obstruction charge based on Trump's public statements regarding the investigation, and I think they had Rosenstein's support at one point in time, but I think that ended when McCabe let the cat out of the bag and fingered Rosenstein for being part of the coup plotters (and that is the right description of this cabal). Once Rosenstein was outed by McCabe, he no longer had the unsullied reputation required to support the coup from the DoJ. Sessions firing after the Republicans held the Senate and increased their margin on solidified this retreat by Rosenstein. I think Rosenstein knew late last year what the report was going to say, and had planned to skip town before it got turned in. I think Barr told him in no uncertain terms that he, Rosenstein started this mess, and Rosenstein was going to be there to help clean it up rather than running away like a little bitch.
What has transpired these mere hundred hours since the Special Counsel announced the conclusion of his investigation constitutes the Second Great Disappointment. The coming dawn will find millions of expectant Trump impeachers standing naked and destitute on hilltops and roofs, arms upraised to an empty, heedless sky. Many will wander down the slopes perplexed and confounded, lamenting their lost honor as decent citizens of a mighty republic. Others will remain, recalculating the advent of their redemption, adding here, subtracting there to derive the final, true, and veracious Fall of Trump the Great (Come out from him, o my people!).
And like unto those devotees of old the Muellerites will find no peace in their remaining days or in History.
This how you get more Trump, assholes. (I'm looking at you, Inga. And Ritmo. And the odious Chuck — "I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him.") And you're going to get him good and hard for six more years.
Blogger exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...
This is just so enjoyable.
James Comey sent out a tweet today: "So many questions."
The Comey tweet shows him from medium distance, walking in a forest.
Brit Hume responded "Who took the picture?"
The Mueller investigation, led by a person of such honor and integrity, has faithfully applied the rule of law despite accusations and fears to the contrary
Complete bullshit. Sure he didn’t trump up a charge without evidence, but that’s not a very high bar. He put that part about “doesn not exonerate as a hook for impeachment, even if he had zero evidence and wasn’t even sure it was a crime and couldn’t prove it if it were.
Mike: the point was it is still obstruction to bribe a juror in absence of any other crime.
I'm surprised that Mueller didn't discover the overdue library books.
And you thought Birthers were whack jobs! Colluders got em beat by miles. The desperation visible in their "arguments" is quite pleasing. Not guilty for R is more damning than "with a cloth?" for D. I'll get ahead of it right now... there ain't no Easter Bunny either.
Barr states he is reviewing the report still but wanted to put the final statement out there. The fact he read the report in two days to give us the bottom line up front is not damming in any way.
narciso said: From McCabe's potted plant
BTW, I wanted to mention that you have been a great read these last few months. Good analysis and interesting commentary. I put you up there with Hayden. Thanks for your effort.
And can we all agree to rise to toast Glenn Greenwald? I rarely agree with him, but he has been the epitome of intellectual integrity. If we avert a hot civil war, it will be due to people like him.
narciso said: From McCabe's potted plant
BTW, I wanted to mention that you have been a great read these last few months. Good analysis and interesting commentary. I put you up there with Hayden. Thanks for your effort.
And can we all agree to rise to toast Glenn Greenwald? I rarely agree with him, but he has been the epitome of intellectual integrity. If we avert a hot civil war, it will be due to people like him.
In the last hundred comments Inga gets two post but she's mentioned 27 times. She must be losing her mind. I can't imagine how many post you have declined. And obviously you don't need to post this but you can if you want
Face it. It won't be long before Trump supporters are called "Collusion Deniers".
So many comments by the time I wake up, I can't tell if anyone else noted this and asked Ann Althouse to comment on the basis of her understanding of the law.
"leaves it to the Attorney General to determine"
I thought the ENTIRE point of having a special counsel was the determination that the Attorney General and DOJ were too caught up in a potential conflict of interest to investigate the president. Yet here Mueller himself is perfectly okay leaving this matter up to the Attorney General. To me, this discredits the entire hit job, as if it were not already clear how discreditable it was anyway.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year..."
Take a quick break from reading lefty spin and actually read Barr's letter. It's shorter than many of the "news" articles commenting on it.
He explicitly states, in the very next sentence after the one you quoted third-hand with paraphrasing, that: "Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."
NOTE ON OBSTRUCTION:
One who knows one is innocent (and Mueller admits knowing of NO AMERICANS who colluded* with Russians) is terribly unlikely (READ: zero percent) to have the mental state required to commit obstruction of justice. What possible purpose would an innocent person, who happens to be the Chief Executive of the United States, have for obstruction? The answer is obvious. The intent to commit a crime in such a situation is lacking.
That and the obstruction Mueller investigated revolves around public statements made about the credibility of the investigators, themselves. So Mueller was investigating whether the First Amendment had been repealed? Whether the president could criticize Executive Branch employees is not in dispute. The First Amendment abides.
Or else I might be investigated by Deep State investigators for typing the above.
I think the next thing to do is to claim the Mueller is a Russian stooge or perhaps secretly a white supremacist. At the very least he was inappropriate with a woman in his office
John Burack makes a good point. Mueller punting his authority back to AG Barr allows for the continuation of the Democrats silly but dangerous game of suggesting a cover up is still ongoing. If Mueller's SC review was credible, then he had complete autonomy to make the decision to refer a crime of obstruction of justice.
It is time for Democrats to stop this foolish game. A continuation will only prove that this isn't about justice but advancement of ideology by any means. Any means can lead to a very dangerous outcome. A lot of us thought the investigation a scam, but it was allowed to play out. It's time for Democrats and their partisans to accept the 2016 election and now the 2019 Mueller report.
Thanks I try to be original in my contributions
@ Birkel
"Or else I might be investigated by Deep State investigators for typing the above."
That is the long term objective and aspiration of the corrupt Stalinist left. Stomping all speech that isn't properly progressive and properly leftwing. Stomping on all dissent against the corrupt leftist/fascist state.
Lindsey Graham (reply to comey)
✔
@LindseyGrahamSC
Could not agree more.
See you soon.
I do think that “See you soon” was a threat by someone who is in the know (chair of the Senate Judiciary committee) to someone who should, now, be very, very, worried. I think that Sen Graham was saying that it is our turn now. The key here is not precisely the report, but rather that the Mueller investigation is now officially over, without having touched Trump. The report just signals that the investigation is over. Why is that important? One of the threads that keeps showing up throughout the Congressional testimony last year by the DoJ and esp FBI people about FISAgate, the Steele Dossier, etc, was that they were not allowed by the government attorneys representing either organization to talk on this subject or that subject, because of an ongoing investigation - the Mueller investigation. With the recent publications of mostly unredacted Congressional testimony of Ohr, Page, etc, it is pretty clear that the Mueller investigation was being used by the Deep State, esp in the FBI, to hide their fairly egregious law breaking in these areas, probably running at least from late spring of 2016 up through much of 2017, and possibly extending, esp with the CIA, back into 2015. The big question for me is not whether the Mueller investigation was utilized to shield FBI (esp) and DoJ insiders from accountability for their criminal and highly partisan actions, but whether that was the primary purpose of the Mueller investigation. The other big reason behind it, in my mind, was bureaucratic revenge for firing the FBI director, who has been almost above the law since J Edgar Hoover.
I expect that the next shoe to drop will be another OIG report or two. They were tasked with investigating illegal leaking (hello, James Comey) and the FISA warrants on Carter Page. We were expecting a report late last summer, but that kept getting delayed. We don’t really know why, but the Mueller investigation seemingly did affect how much could be publicly disclose in the previous OIG reports. The big scandal, the elephant in the room, is the abuse of FISA in particular, both database searching under Title VII and electronic surveillance under Title I, by the Obama Administration working with elements of the Deep State. Both FISA scandals lead back to the Obama White House. UN Ambassador Power’s credentials were utilized hundreds of times to unmask US Persons with no discernible legitimate counterintelligence or counter terrorism rationale. She denies that she did it. That unmasking was thus very likely criminal. And text messages, between McCabe and Lisa Page (hidden from even Congress until very recently) and between Strzok and Page show White House meetings involving the original FISA warrant application for Carter Page in early October of 2016. Also of note, a lot of the paperwork for that warrant application was apparently rushed through and rubber stamped because it had been preapproved by DD McCabe and DAG Yates (according to Congressional testimony last fall by multiple people, including Page). Of course, it wasn’t just the FBI and DoJ, because the Brennan CIA appears to have provided the predicates required to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, as well as very likely having been behind running Misfyd, Downer, and Halper at the Trump campaign. And the Kerry State Dept provided the legitimate routing of the Steele Dossier from the CIA to the FBI.
Post a Comment