Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

[christiefan915]

Here are some highlights of the Mueller report from a legal journalist. It's a long article and worth reading and considering all of Wittes' points, not just the Russia ones.

A careful reading of the dense documents delivers some urgent insights.

"I spent the week after the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report going through it section by section and writing a kind of diary of the endeavor. My goal was less to summarize the report than to force myself to think about each factual, legal, and analytical portion of Mueller’s discussion, which covers a huge amount of ground. Here are five conclusions I drew from the exercise:

The president committed crimes.
Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. He doesn’t have to. But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior. They describe criminal behavior even if we allow the president’s—and the attorney general’s—argument that facially valid exercises of presidential authority cannot be obstructions of justice. They do this because they describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power at all.

The president also committed impeachable offenses.
Crimes and impeachable offenses are not the same thing, though they are overlapping categories. Some of the most obviously impeachable offenses described in the Mueller report are likely criminal as well. Some may not be. If I were a member of Congress, I would be thinking about which portions of the report describe, in my opinion, the most unacceptable abuses of power. A few stand out to me.

Trump was not complicit in the Russian social-media conspiracy.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is important, so let’s do so. While Trump has a great deal to answer for, Mueller unambiguously clears him—clears in the true sense of the word—of involvement in Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by means of the Internet Research Agency’s social-media campaign.

Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture.
No, Mueller does not appear to have developed evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was involved in the hacking operation itself. And no, the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy in the veritable blizzard of contacts between Trumpworld and the Russians. But this is an ugly story for Trump.

Here’s the key point: If there wasn’t collusion on the hacking, it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. Indeed, the Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers. Trump also personally engaged in discussions about coordinating public-relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails.

The counterintelligence dimensions of the entire affair remain a mystery.
Because the Mueller investigation was born out of a counterintelligence investigation, there has been an enduring impression that it had both criminal and counterintelligence elements. I have assumed this myself at times. How these two very different missions integrated within the Mueller probe has been much discussed.The Mueller report answers this question, and the answer is actually striking—and from my point of view alarming: The Mueller investigation was a criminal probe. Full stop.It was not a counterintelligence probe. Mueller both says this directly and also describes how the counterintelligence equities were handled.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...report/588259/

[dukkha]

Indeed, the Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails;

what?

The Mueller investigation was a criminal probe. Full stop.It was not a counterintelligence probe. Mueller both says this directly and also describes how the counterintelligence equities were handled.

incorrect. Mueller subsumed the FBI counterintelligence probe as well.
it was a bastardization of both because it was an SC. The article is riddled with inaccuracies ( typical of the Atlantic)

[dukkha]

Some of the most obviously impeachable offenses described in the Mueller report are likely criminal as well. Some may not be. If I were a member of Congress, I would be thinking about which portions of the report describe, in my opinion, the most unacceptable abuses of power. A few stand out to me.

oh please please do impeach. sensationalist hack crap. There were no abuses of powers -those require an act.

[christiefan915]

oh please please do impeach. sensationalist hack crap. There were no abuses of powers -those require an act.

The author laid out his arguments on the Lawfare site and I'm going to read them before commenting. https://www.lawfareblog.com/notes-mu...ton%20Campaign

Also, I'm still reading the actual Mueller report.

[tinfoil]

I learned that liberals don't care about facts... Oh wait,I already knew that.

[Bill]

Here are some highlights of the Mueller report from a legal journalist. It's a long article and worth reading and considering all of Wittes' points, not just the Russia ones.

A careful reading of the dense documents delivers some urgent insights.

"I spent the week after the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report going through it section by section and writing a kind of diary of the endeavor. My goal was less to summarize the report than to force myself to think about each factual, legal, and analytical portion of Mueller’s discussion, which covers a huge amount of ground. Here are five conclusions I drew from the exercise:

The president committed crimes.
Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. He doesn’t have to. But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior. They describe criminal behavior even if we allow the president’s—and the attorney general’s—argument that facially valid exercises of presidential authority cannot be obstructions of justice. They do this because they describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power at all.

The president also committed impeachable offenses.
Crimes and impeachable offenses are not the same thing, though they are overlapping categories. Some of the most obviously impeachable offenses described in the Mueller report are likely criminal as well. Some may not be. If I were a member of Congress, I would be thinking about which portions of the report describe, in my opinion, the most unacceptable abuses of power. A few stand out to me.

Trump was not complicit in the Russian social-media conspiracy.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is important, so let’s do so. While Trump has a great deal to answer for, Mueller unambiguously clears him—clears in the true sense of the word—of involvement in Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by means of the Internet Research Agency’s social-media campaign.

Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture.
No, Mueller does not appear to have developed evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was involved in the hacking operation itself. And no, the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy in the veritable blizzard of contacts between Trumpworld and the Russians. But this is an ugly story for Trump.

Here’s the key point: If there wasn’t collusion on the hacking, it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. Indeed, the Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers. Trump also personally engaged in discussions about coordinating public-relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails.

The counterintelligence dimensions of the entire affair remain a mystery.
Because the Mueller investigation was born out of a counterintelligence investigation, there has been an enduring impression that it had both criminal and counterintelligence elements. I have assumed this myself at times. How these two very different missions integrated within the Mueller probe has been much discussed.The Mueller report answers this question, and the answer is actually striking—and from my point of view alarming: The Mueller investigation was a criminal probe. Full stop.It was not a counterintelligence probe. Mueller both says this directly and also describes how the counterintelligence equities were handled.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...report/588259/

I agree he prob did not, but then he had no reason to do so, they were already doing his bidding.... The question should be did he know about it or ppl in his campaign & not report it??

[Cypress]

I learned that all those decades of conservatives calling liberals pro-Kremlin was all just a bunch of psychological projection.

The Kremlin has made it known that it prefers the GOP,
and the Republican Party is unequivocally pro-KGB, pro-Kremlin, and pro-Putin.

[Legion]

I'm still reading the actual Mueller report.

I doubt it.

[Sailor]

I learned that all those decades of conservatives calling liberals pro-Kremlin was all just a bunch of psychological projection.

The Kremlin has made it known that it prefers the GOP,
and the Republican Party is unequivocally pro-KGB, pro-Kremlin, and pro-Putin.

Which is why they bent over backwards for the Clintons. You can do better.

[dukkha]

I learned that all those decades of conservatives calling liberals pro-Kremlin was all just a bunch of psychological projection.

The Kremlin has made it known that it prefers the GOP,
and the Republican Party is unequivocally pro-KGB, pro-Kremlin, and pro-Putin.

which Republicans? Not Trump nor Rubio not any of therm

[christiefan915]

I agree he prob did not, but then he had no reason to do so, they were already doing his bidding.... The question should be did he know about it or ppl in his campaign & not report it??

They're going to pick and choose what they take from the articles. They'll support the parts about no collusion and disregard the rest.

[christiefan915]

which Republicans? Not Trump nor Rubio not any of therm

This article from less than a year ago.

"The results of a recent Gallup Poll make the same point. Since 2014, the percentage of Republicans who consider Russia an ally has almost doubled from 22 percent to 40 percent. Democrats still have no illusions about Russian intentions since there are few Democrats now (28 percent) or four years ago (25 percent) who believe the Russians are our buddies.

The crossover point according to Gallup when more Republicans thought Russia was friend rather than foe came in March 2015. I don’t think it was a coincidence that was about the time Trump became a star on the GOP presidential stage and started his campaign to make his BFF, Vlad, a saint."

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ia-has-doubled

[dukkha]

there was no collusion there never was, any idiot should have figured that out on Day 1

Why would Putin enter into corrupt conspiracy for something he had no control over? American voting.
Russiaphobia has rotted many a brain

[Ralph]

Here are some highlights of the Mueller report from a legal journalist. It's a long article and worth reading and considering all of Wittes' points, not just the Russia ones.

A careful reading of the dense documents delivers some urgent insights.

"I spent the week after the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report going through it section by section and writing a kind of diary of the endeavor. My goal was less to summarize the report than to force myself to think about each factual, legal, and analytical portion of Mueller’s discussion, which covers a huge amount of ground. Here are five conclusions I drew from the exercise:

The president committed crimes.
Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. He doesn’t have to. But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior. They describe criminal behavior even if we allow the president’s—and the attorney general’s—argument that facially valid exercises of presidential authority cannot be obstructions of justice. They do this because they describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power at all.

The president also committed impeachable offenses.
Crimes and impeachable offenses are not the same thing, though they are overlapping categories. Some of the most obviously impeachable offenses described in the Mueller report are likely criminal as well. Some may not be. If I were a member of Congress, I would be thinking about which portions of the report describe, in my opinion, the most unacceptable abuses of power. A few stand out to me.

Trump was not complicit in the Russian social-media conspiracy.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is important, so let’s do so. While Trump has a great deal to answer for, Mueller unambiguously clears him—clears in the true sense of the word—of involvement in Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by means of the Internet Research Agency’s social-media campaign.

Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture.
No, Mueller does not appear to have developed evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was involved in the hacking operation itself. And no, the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy in the veritable blizzard of contacts between Trumpworld and the Russians. But this is an ugly story for Trump.

Here’s the key point: If there wasn’t collusion on the hacking, it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. Indeed, the Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers. Trump also personally engaged in discussions about coordinating public-relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails.

The counterintelligence dimensions of the entire affair remain a mystery.
Because the Mueller investigation was born out of a counterintelligence investigation, there has been an enduring impression that it had both criminal and counterintelligence elements. I have assumed this myself at times. How these two very different missions integrated within the Mueller probe has been much discussed.The Mueller report answers this question, and the answer is actually striking—and from my point of view alarming: The Mueller investigation was a criminal probe. Full stop.It was not a counterintelligence probe. Mueller both says this directly and also describes how the counterintelligence equities were handled.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...report/588259/

Funny as hell......The prosecutor who was appointed to prosecute CRIMES said, "We cannot conclude there was a crime committed...……" But you conclude "A crime was committed...." The rest of your bullshit is "moot"...as the AG already concluded there were no crimes of Collusion or Obstructed committed. Congress and the press can investigate until hell freezes over but neither have the power to convict anyone of a crime.....and they don't have the evidence or support to impeach.

The only choice you have is to promote PROPGANDA. FYI: SCOTUS has already concluded that the POTUS has the authority to fire who he will for whatever reason he wants, and as long as there no attempted to cover or obstruct a crime.....he is protected by his constitutional authority as per the decision made in the United States v. Nixon (Nixon fired the entire team that was investigating him and SCOTUS found it legal....but allowed Nixon to be charged because he was attempting to cover up and obstruct an investigation into a CRIME). What crime is Trump charged with by Mueller....who clearly said, "We cannot conclude that Trump or anyone on his team committed a crime...."

Again.....YOU CONCLUDE...but SCOTUS has already established precedence informing everyone that your conclusion if bat shit crazy.

Stick around the Comey report will soon hit the airwaves....and all this BS will be shortlived. If you don't believe Congress is a toothless tiger....watch Bill Barr give them the middle finger.

[Sailor]

there was no collusion there never was, any idiot should have figured that out on Day 1

Why would Putin enter into corrupt conspiracy for something he had no control over? American voting.
Russiaphobia has rotted many a brain

Just for the visual effect: