Mueller investigation

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I heard this morning that Mitch, aka the Turtle who runs the Senate is already trying to keep the report secret. Gee. Why is that?

In light of the fact that Trump has already publicly declared it a full exoneration, that will be exceedingly difficult for Murtle to argue it.

No it won't. He'll just say some stuff and that'll be that.

There's no argument he's going to have to make about factual matters or anything else having to do with reality. He won't have to answer for what he says. He could say for example, "A fire demon swept through Barr's office and done burnt up that ra-port, but I already reddit and it said Trump wasn't guilty of anything ever."

And that will fly.

In the Senate and Judiciary Committee, perhaps. Not in the House. They get a copy too.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Does the house at least get an un-redacted (by Barr?) copy?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Does the house at least get an un-redacted (by Barr?) copy?

Well, here's (evidently) the key (or at least one of them that I can find):

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -
...
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

Since Mueller punted, yet used language like "does not exonerate" and the like, it could be argued (in my armchair opinion) by the House that they need a complete un-redacted copy of the report in order to understand Barr's "description and explanation of instances" that led Barr (and Rosenstein) to what they concluded in the four page summation letter.

 

[ronburgundy]

I expect that this exoneration of Trump by the FBI will boost him enough to get him a second term...

WHAT "exoneration"? The one he is crowing about even as his own toady tells us he is NOT exonerated? Lol!
Nothing has changed - Cheato is still Cheato, still a criminal ("INDIVIDUAL-1"), still cheating, still lying - and those facts are still apparent to anyone paying attention.

No: to the public, which has been enduring the incessant calls for Trump's indictment/arrest/execution by Russia-obsessed liberals, anything less than that is exoneration. The legal definition doesn't matter. If, at the end of the day, Trump gets to continue being President while not being in jail or impeached, then the whole thing was a giant waste of time and misplaced political fervor.

Whether the president goes to jail has no relevance to the value of the investigation since that is determined by the AG he appointed who has an established track record of pardoning the treasonous conspirators of past Republican presidents (e.g. 6 members of the Reagan administration who sold weapons to US enemies to fund an illegal war).

For the same reason, what Barr has to say about the report has zero relevance to the value of the investigation or what the report actually says, because no one but the mentally disabled would trust a word he says on the matter (and that is an insult to the mentally disabled).

The fact that 8 of Trump's campaign associates have been charged or convicted of campaign-related crimes proves an organized effort to engage in criminal activity, which combined with known facts about their meetings and interactions with Russian operatives makes it makes it extremely probable to all reasonable people that Trump was involved in a conspiracy to aid a foreign government in influencing a US election. That is extremely important information to be known to the public, regardless of whether Trump personally gets prosecuted or impeached as a result, neither of which speak to his guilt but only to what Mueller and Barr chose to do with the information they have.

In addition, if the full report is not made public that will further prove to all reasonable people that it contained additional details supporting Trump's guilt.

 

[James Brown]

I recall the hullabaloo that people made because Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs weren't made public.

 

[Angry Floof]

I recall the hullabaloo that people made because Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs weren't made public.

??? How is that related? Those were hers to choose to release or not. They were not reports on an investigation of a national security threat.

No matter how much you wanted her to release them (I did, as a matter of fact), you can't compare that to the Mueller report. It's apples to kangaroos.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I recall the hullabaloo that people made because Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs weren't made public.

??? How is that related? Those were hers to choose to release or not. They were not reports on an investigation of a national security threat.

No matter how much you wanted her to release them (I did, as a matter of fact), you can't compare that to the Mueller report. It's apples to kangaroos.

I think their point was, the right-wing was clamoring, messing pants over the non-release of said speech. A speech in which it was unlikely that Clinton tried to collude with anyone or undermine American security for personal gain. Yes, she'd help them out for personal gain, but not at the expense of American security.

Now we are seeing the right-wing kind of coy about releasing a document regarding potential threats to American security.

 

[PyramidHead]

I recall the hullabaloo that people made because Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs weren't made public.

??? How is that related? Those were hers to choose to release or not. They were not reports on an investigation of a national security threat.

No matter how much you wanted her to release them (I did, as a matter of fact), you can't compare that to the Mueller report. It's apples to kangaroos.

Honestly I think the comparison works, and I'm a lot more worried about the influence of Goldman Sachs on our elections than Russia's influence.

 

[Angry Floof]

I recall the hullabaloo that people made because Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs weren't made public.

??? How is that related? Those were hers to choose to release or not. They were not reports on an investigation of a national security threat.

No matter how much you wanted her to release them (I did, as a matter of fact), you can't compare that to the Mueller report. It's apples to kangaroos.

Honestly I think the comparison works, and I'm a lot more worried about the influence of Goldman Sachs on our elections than Russia's influence.

We should all be worried about Goldman Sachs, but a candidate's speech for them isn't an investigative report by any stretch.

 

[Toni]

Honestly I think the comparison works, and I'm a lot more worried about the influence of Goldman Sachs on our elections than Russia's influence.

We should all be worried about Goldman Sachs, but a candidate's speech for them isn't an investigative report by any stretch.

Absolutely.

 

[Opoponax]

No it won't. He'll just say some stuff and that'll be that.

There's no argument he's going to have to make about factual matters or anything else having to do with reality. He won't have to answer for what he says. He could say for example, "A fire demon swept through Barr's office and done burnt up that ra-port, but I already reddit and it said Trump wasn't guilty of anything ever."

And that will fly.

In the Senate and Judiciary Committee, perhaps. Not in the House. They get a copy too.

And it won't matter. I'm talking about end results. Trump, McConnell, Hannity*, they can all say whatever they want. The world is their blank page to write upon and their fictions will render them no ill consequences. No past or current acts, no proof of dishonesty and self-dealing will bring them harm.

For Trump, I allowed myself to think that maybe the SDNY would hold him accountable. But I've changed my mind and guessing nothing ever comes of it. McConnell is similarly insulated. If that report says that he was the spit roast in a Trump/Putin/McConnell three-way and there's video to prove it, he just has to say it never happened. Insert GOP talking point/conspiracy, and he'll win reelection in 2020.

*Hannity is for all practical purposes a government mouthpiece, so he's part of this administration.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Honestly I think the comparison works, and I'm a lot more worried about the influence of Goldman Sachs on our elections than Russia's influence.

We should all be worried about Goldman Sachs

I really wish you guys would stop drinking the false equivalence water: Goldman Turns Tables on Obama Campaign

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No it won't. He'll just say some stuff and that'll be that.

There's no argument he's going to have to make about factual matters or anything else having to do with reality. He won't have to answer for what he says. He could say for example, "A fire demon swept through Barr's office and done burnt up that ra-port, but I already reddit and it said Trump wasn't guilty of anything ever."

And that will fly.

In the Senate and Judiciary Committee, perhaps. Not in the House. They get a copy too.

And it won't matter. I'm talking about end results.

Quite possibly. But cheer up. Trump doesn’t have anywhere near the numbers to win in 2020.

And here’s a funny tweet. Maybe not “ha-ha” funny...

 

[James Brown]

I recall the hullabaloo that people made because Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs weren't made public.

??? How is that related? Those were hers to choose to release or not. They were not reports on an investigation of a national security threat.

No matter how much you wanted her to release them (I did, as a matter of fact), you can't compare that to the Mueller report. It's apples to kangaroos.

Jimmy Higgins has it exactly right. Right-wing members were taking Clinton's refusal to release a speech as evidence that she had something to hide. Now they're happy with a summary by a Trump-appointed AG who says "Nothing to see here, folks. Let's change the subject."

For the record, I also agree that the Big Banks didn't get their just rewards for their part in the Great Recession. But I also see how my analogy isn't perfect, so I won't belabor the point or derail the thread.

 

[Angry Floof]

I recall the hullabaloo that people made because Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs weren't made public.

??? How is that related? Those were hers to choose to release or not. They were not reports on an investigation of a national security threat.

No matter how much you wanted her to release them (I did, as a matter of fact), you can't compare that to the Mueller report. It's apples to kangaroos.

Jimmy Higgins has it exactly right. Right-wing members were taking Clinton's refusal to release a speech as evidence that she had something to hide. Now they're happy with a summary by a Trump-appointed AG who says "Nothing to see here, folks. Let's change the subject."

For the record, I also agree that the Big Banks didn't get their just rewards for their part in the Great Recession. But I also see how my analogy isn't perfect, so I won't belabor the point or derail the thread.

Ah, ok.

 

[PyramidHead]

Honestly I think the comparison works, and I'm a lot more worried about the influence of Goldman Sachs on our elections than Russia's influence.

We should all be worried about Goldman Sachs

I really wish you guys would stop drinking the false equivalence water: Goldman Turns Tables on Obama Campaign

Obama was a bad president.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I really wish you guys would stop drinking the false equivalence water: Goldman Turns Tables on Obama Campaign

Obama was a bad president.

In very simplistic terms? Maybe. He was also, sadly, probably the best president the US has had since Carter. Also, a lot of the 'bad' in his presidency has to be laid at the feet of the GOP and much of the wishy washy 'centrist' (fucking red dog) dems. I think Obama was and is a good person, and he is one of the few presidents we've had in my lifetime that really wanted to do good for all of america (even the racist shitheels that opposed everything he did, much of it to their own detriment).

So in the grand scheme of things, if Obama was 'bad', that puts every other president since at least Carter, and most of the previous presidents back to about FDR as much worse. It also makes a significant chunk of the GOP much, much worse...as in they're a waste of oxygen....by comparison.

So your rather simplistic view is a bit, well, simplistic.

 

[PyramidHead]

I really wish you guys would stop drinking the false equivalence water: Goldman Turns Tables on Obama Campaign

Obama was a bad president.

In very simplistic terms? Maybe. He was also, sadly, probably the best president the US has had since Carter. Also, a lot of the 'bad' in his presidency has to be laid at the feet of the GOP and much of the wishy washy 'centrist' (fucking red dog) dems. I think Obama was and is a good person, and he is one of the few presidents we've had in my lifetime that really wanted to do good for all of america (even the racist shitheels that opposed everything he did, much of it to their own detriment).

So in the grand scheme of things, if Obama was 'bad', that puts every other president since at least Carter, and most of the previous presidents back to about FDR as much worse. It also makes a significant chunk of the GOP much, much worse...as in they're a waste of oxygen....by comparison.

So your rather simplistic view is a bit, well, simplistic.

Also true

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I really wish you guys would stop drinking the false equivalence water: Goldman Turns Tables on Obama Campaign

Obama was a bad president.

You have abundantly demonstrated a lack of intellectual vigor and profound ignorance in regard to any such political opinions, but that, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that the false equivalence fallacy constantly employed by the right has, disturbingly, infected the left as well, which was, of course, my point.

As the link showed, Goldman Sachs was Obama's top contributor in 2008. The exact same baseless accusations of axiomatic corruption was labeled against him as well, accordingly, but far from being their rent boy because "MONEY" he publicly rebuked them and basically told them to go fuck themselves (but in a polite, more dignified way).

Goldman Sachs responded by taking their ball (of cash) and petulantly giving it to Romney in 2012 to show Obama (and the world) who was boss! It did nothing for them. They ended up wasting millions trying to--presumably--buy special treatment.

That is, after all, the always implied never proved accusation that is at the heart of anyone's argument from incredulity about corporate donations right? Hillary got paid for making speeches, therefore the payment was a payoff. That's just an accepted fallacy that the GOP and the Sanders bots kept vomiting over and over and over again. Hillary was a "corporate whore" and "friend of Wall Street" for the audacity of being paid to give a speech (which was actually more a Q&A); etc., etc., etc. ALL based on nothing more than dude, come on, you just know it's true sophistry.

The biggest irony of it all, of course, was that Trump AND Sanders ran on the "I'm not corruptible/I'm not the establishment" idiocy based almost exclusively on the notion that they were not corruptible by money. Trump because he supposedly had it (he didn't) and Sanders because he supposedly didn't need it (in spite of the fact he raised more than Hillary and spent more than Hillary and yet suffered a massive defeat thereby conclusively proving that "big money" does not just axiomatically mean a win).

Yet, here were the Clintons, both of which made the majority of their money only out of office and primarily through books and giving speeches. You know, like practically EVERYBODY does if given the opportunity and assuming they have opinions people want to pay to hear?

Iow, going into the 2016 general, Hillary Clinton was also so rich that she didn't need to "sell" her vote/influence to anyone. The exact same logic that Trump and Sanders leveraged in their strategies applied equally to Clinton. Yet, somehow that fact just bounces off those blinded by fanaticism and ignorance.

So, Trump was incorruptible because he was rich. Sanders was incorruptible because he got his campaign millions from "the people." Hillary Clinton gave speeches when she was a private citizen again (and to many other organizations and institutions that somehow don't command her doing their blind, nefarious bidding without any choice in the matter), and that somehow translated into corporate whoring that--wink, wink, dude, come on--just axiomatically meant she was guilty of selling her vote to the highest bidder.

I mean, no one could possibly take millions from Goldman Sachs and NOT be bought and paid for. And not in some out of public office and therefore having no power any more to do their bidding kind of way like with Clinton. Put into the highest office in the land kind of way.

Oh, wait...

 

[Elixir]

Obama was a bad president.

Compared to WHAT?
Zero scandals, pulled the country out of the worst recession since 1929, got the CA passed despite a rethuglican congress headed up by Myrtle who vowed to oppose the President even if he offered up rethuglicans' own ideas...
Are you complaining about him because he failed to build The Wall, or because he is black, or ... what? Even his worst policies were carry-overs from eight disastrous years of Bushism.