# The Mueller report. The week after its released **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 30, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699 "2019-01-30T23:39:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/262 "2019-04-01T15:01:26Z")
“You” as in the typical liberal. It’s what you all have done from the beginning. You take a shred of narrative from the indictments and label it as evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/263 "2019-04-01T15:24:20Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > “You” as in the typical liberal. It’s what you all have done from the beginning. You take a shred of narrative from the indictments and label it as evidence. Yes, how foolish to derive evidence from the actual legal documents rather than from preferred media narratives. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/264 "2019-04-01T15:45:26Z")
The Mueller narratives are there precisely to give the media their narrative. That’s how they assumed collusion up until the report came out. They should have instead focused on the substantiated claims in the indictments. Muellers narratives were wholly unsubstantiated that’s why there were no real collusion indictments and much collusion narrative. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/265 "2019-04-01T16:08:22Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The Mueller narratives are there precisely to give the media their narrative. That’s how they assumed collusion up until the report came out. They should have instead focused on the substantiated claims in the indictments. Muellers narratives were wholly unsubstantiated that’s why there were no real collusion indictments and much collusion narrative. There doesn’t seem to be enough to prosecute. That’s about all we really know at this point. Not enough to prosecute or indite isn’t the same thing as ‘wholly unsubstantiated’, however. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/266 "2019-04-01T16:18:05Z")
> [@XT](#): > > There doesn’t seem to be enough to prosecute. That’s about all we really know at this point. Not enough to prosecute or indite isn’t the same thing as ‘wholly unsubstantiated’, however. We know that Barr’s letter said this: > [@](#): > > … 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. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” … And we know that Mueller is not shy about correcting misinformation related to his investigation, to Buzzfeed’s everlasting shame. ETA - to review, the last poll option was: > [@](#): > > Mueller has hard evidence on collusion, including emails, and recordings. Trump gets a subpoena. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/267 "2019-04-01T16:22:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > We know that Barr’s letter said this: > > And we know that Mueller is not shy about correcting misinformation related to his investigation, to Buzzfeed’s everlasting shame. Correct me if I’m wrong here (seriously), but that summary didn’t come from or been endorsed by Muller or his team. Until we actually have the report and can dissect it we don’t know much more than there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute or indite Trump et al. And that’s it. But having sufficient evidence in a legal sense isn’t the same thing as have no evidence. I think people are jumping the gun on this whole thing at this point. We don’t know very much about what all is in a report that took over a year to compile and produce and has hundreds of pages in it. A few line summary by someone who isn’t on the team is not enough to draw any conclusions, IMHO. I’m no lawyer, of course, so perhaps I’m missing something here. ETA: I didn’t pick that option. Pretty obviously that isn’t going to happen, so those people who did pick it were, what we commonly call, wrong. Some of the mid-tier options though still might be true. There might be some evidence, but it doesn’t rise to the level where a prosecutor feels they can act. Until and unless we get the report we really won’t know. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/268 "2019-04-01T16:23:30Z")
Lol. That’s a lot of “what if’s” and “we all know’s”, all done without a single cite to the actual report. I’m not sure I agree with your police work there, Ditka. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/269 "2019-04-01T16:28:43Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Lol. That’s a lot of “what if’s” and “we all know’s”, all done without a single cite to the actual report. > > I’m not sure I agree with your police work there, Ditka. Barr’s letter was quoting the report. That’s why it said “As the report states…” Oh, sure, Mueller hasn’t yet hand-delivered you a copy of the report, and Barr didn’t tell us which page contained the quote, so I suppose you can maintain your skepticism if it suits you, but I’ve got no reason to believe he’s making up quotes whole-cloth. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/270 "2019-04-01T16:33:00Z")
Barr offered partial quotations of sentences within the report. Not a single complete sentence was quoted. Your police work is atrocious. But then, you have readily admitted you do not read that which you are arguing about, so why am I wasting my time? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/271 "2019-04-01T16:35:14Z")
Mueller Report: Not yet released, but perhaps a step closer. "“It is not the attorney general’s job to step in and substitute his judgment for the special counsel’s. That responsibility falls to Congress — and specifically to the House Judiciary Committee — as it has in every similar investigation in modern history.” “The Democratic-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee said it will vote on Wednesday on whether to authorize subpoenas to obtain Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full report investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.” > **[U.S. House Judiciary Committee poised to subpoena full Mueller report](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-subpoenas/house-judiciary-committee-poised-to-subpoena-full-mueller-report-idUSKCN1RD2AH)** > > The Democratic-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee said it will vote on Wednesday on whether to authorize subpoenas to obtain Special Counsel Robert Mueller's full report investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/272 "2019-04-01T16:39:14Z")
I can understand that it might take some time to redact material in the report that shouldn’t be public for various reasons - grand jury, intel, protecting privacy of third parties. BUT why hasn’t the Congressional “Gang of Eight” seen the report? They’re cleared for all of this, AFAIK. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/273 "2019-04-01T16:39:24Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Barr offered partial quotations of sentences within the report. > > Not a single complete sentence was quoted. … Is there some rule against quoting partial sentences? Some requirement that only complete sentences be quoted? Should we just ignore the quoted bits we do have? > [@JohnT](#): > > … you have readily admitted you do not read that which you are arguing about… To what does this refer? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/274 "2019-04-01T16:56:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And we know that Mueller is not shy about correcting misinformation related to his investigation, to Buzzfeed’s everlasting shame. So you’re characterizing one extremely broad statement indicating that some unspecified element in Buzzfeed’s story was not correct in its entirety as “Mueller is not shy about correcting misinformation related to his investigation”? I’d suggest that, given the vast amount that was written about the investigation and given that Mueller’s team released only that one - again, exceedingly vague - statement, I’d say Mueller was pretty damn shy about correcting misinformation. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Barr’s letter was quoting the report. That’s why it said “As the report states…” And yet Barr is now walking his original statement back. > [@](#): > > Oh, sure, Mueller hasn’t yet hand-delivered you a copy of the report, and Barr didn’t tell us which page contained the quote, so I suppose you can maintain your skepticism if it suits you, but I’ve got no reason to believe he’s making up quotes whole-cloth. And I do. So I guess we cancel each other out. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is there some rule against quoting partial sentences? Some requirement that only complete sentences be quoted? Should we just ignore the quoted bits we do have? Because removing a partial quote from their context allows people to write entirely new narratives around that quote, often with the intent of conveying the exact opposite of the meaning of the partial quote in its original content. That’s why it’s such a favorite tactic of FoxNews and other right-wing media. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/275 "2019-04-01T16:58:40Z")
The Mueller report is over 300 pages long. We have seen 101 words and none of those words is collusion. There is publicly available proof of collusion. There is zero probability that the Mueller report doesn’t contain a bunch of evidence of collusion. You don’t get to have it both ways on, “Collusion is not a crime.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/276 "2019-04-01T17:01:16Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > … And I do. So I guess we cancel each other out. … You seriously believe that when the full report is released, it will not contain the quotes from the Barr letter? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/277 "2019-04-01T17:02:25Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > … There is zero probability that the Mueller report doesn’t contain a bunch of evidence of collusion. … What do you think the probability is that it contains “hard evidence on collusion, including emails, and recordings”? ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/278 "2019-04-01T17:04:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > What do you think the probability is that it contains “hard evidence on collusion, including emails, and recordings”? Emails for sure. We already have publicly available emails that are evidence of collusion. Not sure about recordings. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/279 "2019-04-01T17:32:00Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > “You” as in the typical liberal. It’s what you all have done from the beginning. You take a shred of narrative from the indictments and label it as evidence. So just straw man bullshit, I guess? Silly me to assume that when _quoting my post_ in your response that you were responding to my post. ---
**Author:** ![Dacien](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dacien/32/5663_2.png) [@Dacien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dacien)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/280 "2019-04-01T18:09:54Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The poll at the top of this thread serves as a useful reminder of just how far off the SDMB’s predictions can be. I’m choosing to believe that many people voted for collusion evidence and subpoena as an act of defiance. This board is much too intelligent for me to believe otherwise. It’s worth asking, though: what is meant by evidence of collusion? You mean evidence of a conspiracy? Evidence of some crime that could be referred to as collusion? Because that’s a much, much higher bar than simply “Some people legally talked with Russians/foreign Individuals”, which is all collusion seems to mean anymore. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699/281 "2019-04-01T18:14:50Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Emails for sure. We already have publicly available emails that are evidence of collusion. Not sure about recordings. What, specifically, are you referring to? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mueller-report-the-week-after-its-released/828699.md?page=15)