A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1)

[UnwittingAmericans]

@asahi

Agreed. If the Dems are going to win in 2020, it’ll have to be by making the case that our country will be better off under their leadership. Pelosi gets it. I hope others do as well.

Or if a few hundred thousand people in PA, MI, WI who voted for Trump because they knew he’d be more entertaining are tired of the schtick yet.

[elucidator]

And what happens to our country in the meantime, with an unhinged President* with nothing more to lose? Wherefore checks and balances with a utterly corrupt executive, unchecked and unbalanced?

[bobot]

@UnwittingAmericans

Or if a few hundred thousand people in PA, MI, WI who voted for Trump because they knew he’d be more entertaining are tired of the schtick yet.

The heart of the matter, right there.

[dasmoocher]

@UnwittingAmericans

Or if a few hundred thousand people in PA, MI, WI who voted for Trump because they knew he’d be more entertaining are tired of the schtick yet.

Also, a lot of people were voting against Hillary rather than for Trump. At least Trump won’t be getting the “I despised the other candidate vote” on a level anywhere near last time. And I think a lot of people who were willing to give him a chance because he was a “successful” businessman now have their eyes open. I know people that now regret voting for Trump.

I also know people who thought Trump was the lesser of two evils. :smack:

And with some, the dissonance was amazing: Hillary was the liar, the criminal, the cheat, the person only out to enrich herself and family, the one who couldn’t be trusted with national security, had a fraudulent foundation, was all about pay-to-play, and to top it off–a murderer (seriously, Benghazi and all the Clinton-related “suicides” she’s responsible for).

[Walken_After_Midnight]

Steve Reilly, USA Today reporter:

The Special Counsel’s Office made 14 referrals of evidence of potential criminal activity to outside offices. Only two are publicly known at this point.

[Procrustus]

@dasmoocher

Also, a lot of people were voting against Hillary rather than for Trump. At least Trump won’t be getting the “I despised the other candidate vote” on a level anywhere near last time. And I think a lot of people who were willing to give him a chance because he was a “successful” businessman now have their eyes open. I know people that now regret voting for Trump.

I also know people who thought Trump was the lesser of two evils. :smack:

And with some, the dissonance was amazing: Hillary was the liar, the criminal, the cheat, the person only out to enrich herself and family, the one who couldn’t be trusted with national security, had a fraudulent foundation, was all about pay-to-play, and to top it off–a murderer (seriously, Benghazi and all the Clinton-related “suicides” she’s responsible for).

Such a view was incomprehensible in 2016. I think we need to invent a new word for those who continue to think this way after what we’ve seen over the past 2 years.

[snoe]

@Monty

Who was it who said, The current administration’s malice is only tempered by its incompetence", or words to that effect?

@dasmoocher

Me.

Ben Wittes used “malevolence tempered by incompetence” to describe the (first) Muslim ban back in January 2017. https://www.lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas

[asahi]

@bobot

The heart of the matter, right there.

Again, be careful not to underestimate Trump’s politics. Trump is no man of the cloth, but his relationship with evangelicals is only getting stronger, and this is a voting bloc that may well stand with Trump even if the economy falters. But Trump is also using economics as well. He’s fighting to save factories. He’s using tariffs to protect steel, and there has actually been a modest increase in steel production in some locations.

The one area - the area - where Trump and Republicans are most vulnerable right now is on healthcare. If you look at what happened in Louisiana and Kansas, two very deep red states, you’ll see how Republican hard-line fiscal austerity has backfired. Granted, in both states there were other fiscal and economic problems besides just access to affordable care, but there’s a reason why Medicaid expansion has been so popular even in states with Republican governments. It’s extra money that politicians can dole out to alleviate some of the burden of poverty and some of the strain on the working class. The smart thing for Trump to do would be to have a GOP retreat where he tells his donors that Obamacare is here to stay. Cutting Obamacare just seems like political suicide. But more power to 'em.

[Aspenglow]

@Walken_After_Midnight

Steve Reilly, USA Today reporter:

Yes, we know about two: Michael Cohen and Greg Craig (or is it Craig Greg?).

I’m sure Mueller has left quite a number of Easter eggs that will become unhidden from view in the run-up to the 2020 election.

[Walken_After_Midnight]

@Aspenglow

I’m sure Mueller has left quite a number of Easter eggs that will become unhidden from view in the run-up to the 2020 election.

What powers does Attorney General Barr have, as head of the Department of Justice, to sabotage DoJ investigations (such as SDNY)?

[asahi]

@Walken_After_Midnight

What powers does Attorney General Barr have, as head of the Department of Justice, to sabotage DoJ investigations (such as SDNY)?

Let’s put it this way: this entire experience seems to give the commander in chief the impression that he can’t be convicted for obstruction of justice based on anything he does while he’s in office, and Barr seems to have embraced that view of executive power. I’d be surprised if Trump doesn’t at some point try to fire prosecutors en mass in the various districts of New York. I’m surprised he’s not trying to do it right now.

[Fiveyearlurker]

If this report had come out all at once, with none of these stories having been public previously, I have little doubt we would be discussing how, not if, to remove this president. The frog is boiling.

[iiandyiiii]

@steronz

For the same reason that I think Barr’s summary to congress was essentially accurate – because if they’re not reasonable redactions then we’ll all find that out soon enough. Barr is not an idiot, if he allowed stuff to be redacted when it shouldn’t have been then someone would blow the whistle – either Congress when they get the less redacted report, or someone from Mueller’s team.

My opinion is that to think otherwise is to start using classic conservative cognitive dissonance. Either the Barr summary was accurate or Barr is a filthy liar. In order to him to have been a filthy liar about the summary, he would need to redact a bunch of stuff for bogus reasons. In order for those bogus redactions not to become public he’d have to release a fake “unredacted” report to congress. In order for that fake report not to be found out everyone on Mueller’s team would need to be complicit.

So either reality is what it appears to be there wasn’t a good case for indicting Trump, or I can’t trust anyone or anything.

Do you still think “Barr’s summary to Congress was essentially accurate”? It seems amazingly clear to me that it was extremely misleading, and probably deliberately so.

[Buck_Godot]

@El_Kabong

One thing that strikes me, and I can accept being told I’m off the mark, is that this whole sorry episode is yet another window into the nest of deer tick-ridden squirrels that occupy the interior of Trump’s thick skull. All of the back-room crap he pulled to try and derail the investigation, all the hundreds of incessant “WITCH HUNT! NO COLLUSION!” Tweets, all that fucking time he wasted on this, turns out to have been completely unnecessary. AFAI can see, it had no material effect whatsoever on the results of the investigation, except to nearly snatch an Obstruction of Justice charge from the jaws of victory.
.

I agree that the actual obstruction seems not to have totally worked, but the tweets definately did their job. His the media and his own department of justice among his supporters, means that the revelations outlined in the Mueller report will have no noticeable effect on his poll numbers rather than leading to Watergate 2.0.

@dasmoocher

Also, a lot of people were voting against Hillary rather than for Trump. At least Trump won’t be getting the “I despised the other candidate vote” on a level anywhere near last time. And I think a lot of people who were willing to give him a chance because he was a “successful” businessman now have their eyes open. I know people that now regret voting for Trump.

Also before there was the assumption that Trump simply couldn’t win. So that was the election to sit out, or launch a protest vote to show your displeasure. This time around everyone realizes the consequences and I don’t think that anyone is going to vote purely to send a message.

[dasmoocher]

@snoe

Ben Wittes used “malevolence tempered by incompetence” to describe the (first) Muslim ban back in January 2017. https://www.lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas

I probably saw that at the time. Give the guy credit. I was making the jest that it’s the Trump admin motto.

[Aspenglow]

@Walken_After_Midnight

What powers does Attorney General Barr have, as head of the Department of Justice, to sabotage DoJ investigations (such as SDNY)?

Well, he’s in a position to try. But it’s a heavy lift. If he is seen as attempting to obstruct justice too overtly, he can be impeached on such charges among others. Just ask John Mitchell (oh, wait, he’s dead). He went to prison for the exact same charges during Watergate. But this is a different time, for sure.

Unfortunately this time around, his efforts have the blessing of Republicans in congress. They will not impeach him.

On the plus side, it’s a very bad look in the run-up to an election.

[steronz]

@iiandyiiii

Do you still think “Barr’s summary to Congress was essentially accurate”? It seems amazingly clear to me that it was extremely misleading, and probably deliberately so.

This is obviously going to hinge on what you consider “essential.” I think the big, outstanding questions were whether or not there was any “collusion”, and whether or not Trump committed obstruction. (Note that while I personally think he did commit obstruction, my own opinion, and Barr’s, aren’t relevant – only his ability to accurate summarize what the report said). So let’s look at the big claims in Barr’s summary:

The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

That is true.

Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts

Also true.

The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.

Also true.

[T]he Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.

Seems fair based on what I read from the report.

I think in order for his summary to not be “essentially accurate” there would need to be some bombshell, like Mueller saying definitively that Trump obstructed justice but that declaration that being redacted out. I don’t think that’s the case.

[iiandyiiii]

Barr said explicitly that Mueller’s conclusion (or lack thereof) about obstruction was due to not enough evidence - that was a blatant lie. The report explicitly says that no conclusion was reached due to uncertain policies about prosecuting the president, and in between the lines, the report clearly (to me) says there was enough evidence to consider impeachment (the report even alludes to congress and their constitutional powers against a criminal president).

I think you’re really reaching for the scraps that may not be dishonest, and ignoring the great big chunks (both in his letter and from his public statements) that are, at best, highly misleading.

[DesertDog]

@Fiveyearlurker

For the record, here is the full quote:

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Anyone wanna argue that this is an honest parsing of that quote?

It’s a Hollywood quote.

@Some reputable critic

[This film] suffers the double whammy of a screenplay by John Clarkston, whose last success was twenty years ago, and direction by Alan Smithee, a newcomer who can’t direct his way out a wet paper bag yet. Poor Robert Banning gives his best performance in years but it’s barely enough to budge the needle above zero. Judith Watson gamely sparkles but she looks as embarrassed as when she did in her first nude scene two years ago.

What appears on the poster:
“Robert Banning gives his best performance in years… Judith Watson… sparkles”
–Some reputable critic

[steronz]

@iiandyiiii

Barr said explicitly that Mueller’s conclusion (or lack thereof) about obstruction was due to not enough evidence - that was a blatant lie.

That’s not what Barr said. I think you may be confused.

@iiandyiiii

I think you’re really reaching for the scraps that may not be dishonest, and ignoring the great big chunks (both in his letter and from his public statements) that are, at best, highly misleading.

What are these “great big chunks” then?