I’m fine with the FBI and Mueller, working in tandem, to redact any specific information that would be damaging to national security. I’m less inclined to trust Barr and the DoJ to make those sorts of decisions, and similarly for Pelosi or Schumer.
Actually, what I would like to see is that Barr hold a press conference tomorrow, say that he’s disgusted to have accepted the job appointment from that traitor, and that he’s personally appointing Rosenstein the acting AG, regardless of whether that’s a thing he has the right to do. Then Rosenstein steps up, says that Mueller was more of a stickler for policy than him, indictments are a go, and everyone should go outside to watch the parade of FBI vehicles headed to the White House.
A report is nice and all, but there are better things in the world.
Not to say that I’m expecting that.
In that, you are wise.
Lol. Weak-assed pansy.
Could we not use this, please? There are plenty of ways to insult people without relying on slurring a minority group. Thanks.
Sorry.
Maybe it’s naive of me, but my impression of online petitions is that they’re worse than useless, at least wrt influencing political policy; first, because policy-makers and their staffs are conditioned to ignore them in favor of actual telephone calls and (more importantly) letters; and second, because they give the people who sign them the false idea that, having signed them, they have done enough to make their opinions heard.
If Senator Gillibrand is advocating that people sign online petitions with the goal of ensuring the public release of the report, that MAY BE a useful clue toward how you should think about her.
JohnT, thank you.
Have had a couple days to let my brain gnaw on the results of Mueller’s work and a few thoughts burbled up.
First, there’s a reason I and others are troubled by no new indictments: We can see based on evidence already known in the public sphere that “collusion” actually occurred. Anyone closely following Mueller’s investigation knows this is true, so I won’t recite the litany of evidence pointing toward this conclusion.
So why didn’t Mueller bring additional indictments? I can think of two possible reasons. Either he has the evidence but didn’t feel he could use it because it was too sensitive and would reveal too much about classified sources and methods; or he doesn’t have sufficient evidence to prove his case, full stop.
As an example of the first notion, suppose Mueller has evidence of Trump and Putin conspiring together at the Kremlin. Can he include such information in a public report without revealing too much about how he got it? Would he endanger someone’s life by doing so? I’m quite certain Mueller’s investigators learned many things about the depth of intrusion into our institutions by adversarial foreign interests. This knowledge will be invaluable to our national security agencies as they work to counteract the damage. But it may have been too costly in terms of using the information to make their case against Trump and/or Trump cohorts and family members.
As an example of the second notion, Mueller may have felt that Manafort’s testimony was the critical lynchpin required to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the conspiracy. Without that testimony, he was uncertain he could prevail in a trial/impeachment proceeding, so decided not to pursue such charges. Hard pill to swallow, but that’s what a good prosecutor does. He/she accepts the results of the evidence, no more and no less. Better than indicting members of Trump’s inner circle and bringing a circumstantial case only to lose, right before the 2020 election – a result guaranteed to tear the nation apart. The evidence had to guarantee a slam dunk in this case especially, else more harm than good would come of bringing it.
I tend more toward the second notion than the first. And of course both notions can be simultaneously true.
That said, I expect the report to indicate two things.
First, that Trump is compromised by Russian influence, even if it cannot be proved he actively conspired with Russians in the run-up to the election.
Second, that but for the DOJ policy that says you can’t indict a sitting president, Mueller would recommend that Trump be indicted on obstruction charges. There’s simply too much evidence of obstruction. It happened nearly daily out in the open.
Eagerly awaiting the Barr report to find out if these ruminations are in the ballpark.
Requisite disclaimer: IANAL.
Hang tough? What if there are genuine security reasons why some information is classified. Maybe the lives of assets in Russia depend on it being classified. Pelosi has no idea at this point because she is refusing to see it. That’s just political grandstanding.
Fair point about Pelosi. But hasn’t Trump himself directly given the Russians classified info? In the Oval Office the day after Comey was fired, for example.
Donald Trump’s disclosures of classified information
Apparently, if the Russians want to know something, they can just ask Trump (or, tell him to “share”). And who knows what goes on in those one-on-one meetings with Putin where there is no US personnel.
Jesus Christ. It’s not fucking ‘collusion’ it’s a conspiracy with a hostile government to commit election crimes and commit fraud against every single person in the United States. Understand?
I just can’t believe this shit. Information is every where. You can’t help to get information unless you only listen to FOX ‘news’.
Trump is not just a racist moron. He’s a misogynistic, narcistic crook.
The only conclusions that can be made is that SINCE this information is right in front of them, they like that he is a moron.
Trump is on their team. They must defend their team members, no matter if they are cheaters, crooks or morons.
Politics is a team sport, pure and simple.
Virginia Heffernan (via source): bad for president
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One possibility worth noting is the chance that Mueller’s solution to the problem of pardons was to issue all sealed indictments. As such, it could be that basically all of the report will need to be redacted since it will state that it had done so, and the reason for that. If there’s a big redaction issue, between Barr and the Democrats, that would possibly be an indication that he has to give a clean report because anything else would go against the laws for discussion of sealed indictments.
Who the hell is Virginia Heffernan?
I like the reply, “If it’s what you say, I love it!”
Her bio is in the link, but she is a reporter for the LA Times and MSNBC.
And how does she know anything?
Refusing to see it? Unlikely.