Slashdot Mirror
Mueller Report 'Summary' Delivered to US Congress (cnn.com)
America's recently-appointed Attorney General William Barr has submitted to Congress his summary of the main conclusions from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, CNN reports.
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," special counsel Robert Mueller says, as quoted in Barr's summary.
It does, however, reiterate that there was clear Russian interference in America's 2016 election: The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency, to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.... The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.
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.
Barr also writes that the report leaves it to him to determine whether president Trump is guilty of obstructing justice, then adds "I have concluded that the evidence...is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
CNN has the complete text of the four-page summary. Barr's letter concludes by saying he's still "determining what can be released."
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," special counsel Robert Mueller says, as quoted in Barr's summary.
It does, however, reiterate that there was clear Russian interference in America's 2016 election: The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency, to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.... The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.
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.
Barr also writes that the report leaves it to him to determine whether president Trump is guilty of obstructing justice, then adds "I have concluded that the evidence...is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
CNN has the complete text of the four-page summary. Barr's letter concludes by saying he's still "determining what can be released."
The report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion. it did not find that Trump's campaign or affiliates conspired or coordinated with the Russian government "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." Implication is that Russia offered but was turned away.
Also specifically states that the decision not to seek indictments was done "without regard to" the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President.
this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
Subsequently it also says the decision of whether to pursue obstruction is, therefore, left to the AG and the AG has declined.
It's over. Accept it.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.
Trump (not the Republicans) win because the Democrats ignored the "little people" on their quest for "progression". You know, the "little people" that work and pay taxes and wonder what the hell is it in for them? The Democrats don't even pay them lip service anymore. And no, I'm not a Republican or a Trump fan. But Hillary was a "progressive" idiot. And her husband was a shyster who should be selling used cars somewhere.
I don't think you read it in context. That quote is specific to the charge of obstruction of justice, and the report says that Mueller gathered up the facts and declined to evaluate whether the activity constituted a crime. That's the context of "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
The implication is that the President did things which are debatably criminal, but Mueller felt there were enough legal/constitutional issues that it was proper to have the AG decide whether those actions constituted a crime. We can't be sure why that is without having seen the report, but we could guess:
There's been an ongoing debate because the President explicitly stated that he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation, which is, in non-legal terms, obstructing an ongoing criminal investigation. On the other side, there have been variations of the Nixonian argument that "when the President does it, it's not illegal." Attempting to charge the President in this case would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court and create a bit of a constitutional crisis, and Mueller seems to have decided that it was simply "above his pay grade" as the special counsel, and a decision the AG should make.
It's also noteworthy that the AG decided not to prosecute on the grounds that it was a question of corrupt intent, and the President's intent couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh, he's done stuff. He's certainly committed crimes. This report was specifically addressing two questions:
1) Did Trump actively and knowingly conspire with the Russians to hack Hillary's emails in a way that constitutes a specific crime? The short answer here was, "We didn't find enough evidence to charge him with a crime."
2) Did Trump technically commit the crime of obstruction of justice? The short answer here was, "He at least kind of did, but it's a difficult legal question and I'll leave it to the Attorney General to decide."
So far, we only know those short answers, not the long answers. Either way, there's still work for Congress to do to investigate.
Let's remember why the special counsel was appointed by Rosenstein: Rosenstein signed off on a memo justifying to Trump why Comey should have been fired for his threatrics re: Hillary in the run-up to the 2016 election. This was the stated reason to fire him.
What came out after Comey was fired was that:
1. Comey had called up Preibus out of the blue, told him that the Russia-gate stuff being reported in the press about the FBI was nonsense. Preibus then asks if Comey can make a clarifying statement to the press to that effect. Comey says no, AND leaks to the press that he was being pressured by Preibus. Despite having been the one to initiate the conversation and bait Preibus into the ask. Classy.
2. Comey starts leaking his "memos" to the press via his law professor friend with the explicit and expressed purpose of getting a special counsel appointed to probe his firing. Despite some of those memos technically being classified by virtue of the fact that they described a conversation between Trump and Comey acting in their capacities as POTUS and FBI head, respectively and talking over classified matters (because counter-intelligence?). Classy.
3. Turns out that a number of people plead guilty and went to jail for far less than what Hillary was being accused of, but Comey pretty much says he quashed it because of political considerations. Classy.
So now we have the report of the special counsel, who was appointed to probe whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey...coming up completely empty on the question of whether a crime even occurred for Trump to have been covering up and absolutely declining to make a decision on whether obstruction occurred. Read that again: the thing he was mandated to investigate...he makes no determination of. Despite failing to find evidence that a crime even occurred.
But it gets better. Since Mueller declined to make a determination to either incriminate or exonerate Trump...it fell to Attorney General Barr to evaluate the evidence and make the call. Except Barr says he consulted with Rosenstein. The same exact Rosenstein who signed off on the memo to justify firing Comey to begin with. So Rosenstein's coming out of this smelling like a rose too: he appoints the special counsel to investigate whether the justification he wrote for firing Comey was actually part of an act of obstruction of justice...and now at the end he gets to make the decision on whether or not the thing he had his name all over constituted a crime.
Yeesh.
Never mind the Pee Dossier, never mind the trickle of less than flattering information about Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe and Evelyn Farkas and Brennan and Clapper the rest of them trying to tip the scales and leak shit to the press and out-and-out try to bait Trump officials into perjuring themselves. The basic fact is that the assistant AG wrote a memo justifying the firing an FBI head who clearly had it coming to him...then appointing a special counsel to investigate himself...and then declaring himself to have not taken part of a crime. Lovely.
Kids...if you're reading...this is not what accountable government looks like. In fact, this is what an out-of-control Deep State looks like: all court intrigue and a colossal circle-jerk for the purpose of...what for all the world looks like...generating a smoke screen in the press to divert attention away from wrong-doing by the very people claiming the mantle of Protectors of the Republic(TM).
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was ALSO convicted of campaign finance violations. And lying to congress (about the campaign).
Though to my knowledge you are correct that Manafort's convictions were unrelated to Trump's campaign.
Wow! That's the exact opposite of what you said! There was no underlying crime of "collusion" or "conspiracy", AND there was no evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct any investigation even if there had been one.
Actually, except for the Manafort bit, the AC was fairly on-base your counter is either irrelevant or overblown.
The AC didn't claim collusion, he claimed that Trump encouraged Russian attacks on TV, which is true.
As for the obstruction charge, there's definitely evidence. What Mueller basically said is that he didn't find evidence of collusion in the campaign, and if you don't have proof of the crime that was being investigated it's harder to prove that efforts to kill that investigation were obstruction of justice.
But he explicitly says that it doesn't exonerate Trump, and the AG could decide otherwise (though he naturally won't of course).
And while we're at it, since the Trumpists are so fond of playing this game, lets point out another few things.
1) Mueller established that Manafort lied after agreeing to cooperate, but didn't seem to try for additional info. Manafort had some very fishy ties to Russian oligarchs connected to Putin and very easily could have had more info.
2) Mueller doesn't seem to have tried questioning Trump Jr and Kushner about the Trump tower meeting.
3) Despite the fact there's judicial precedent to subpoena a sitting President for questioning Mueller never tried. Instead he negotiated a list of questions and let Trump and his lawyers craft answers.
4) Papadopoulos was bragging about the emails that Russia stole to the Greek Foreign Minister, do you really think he didn't blab about it to other members of the campaign? Who did he tell? How did they use that information?
5) You had a Republican investigator, reporting to a Republican supervisor, reporting to a Republican AG, investigating a Republican President. I'm not saying that Mueller was trying to cover anything up, but he certainly seems to have treated Trump with kid gloves.
I stole this Sig
We just found out that McCain was involved with spreading the known to be false rumor that Trump had colluded with Russia - a fact worthy of revealing to everyone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I do admit everything I've written only up Thomas Jefferson warning us of fake news at his inaugural address is dipped in hyperbole.
MSNBC kept trying not to read this part:
"The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. "
2 talking heads on there act like they are on verge of crying, and all solemnly make blatant false accusations by first insinuating Mueller was actually a Trump supporter or paid off. Then on top of that to get even more ridiculous and slanderous, that Joy Reid bitch actually claimed that Mueller could likely be a white supremacist and that there should be more lawsuits and Mueller needs to be investigated by a special counsel for ties into White supremacy.
Haha they are absolutely so stupid.
I wish the government would shut down all the 24 hour news channels by revoking their licenses.
Thomas Jefferson warned us of fake news during his inauguration. He did admit that other more pressing matters weighed on the states but he wanted fake news prosecuted under defamation and slander laws. To quote an excerpt from his second inauguration speech:
March 4, 1805
Excerpt :
"During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation. "
Things were a lot better before the 24 hour news channels began. Even into late 80s in their infancy before Gonzo journalism took hold.
One proof was the yearly NBC tribute to the president gala that aired after awards season wrapped up. Where Hollywood came out to celebrate the president. Seeing Don Rickles many years prior roast Reagan running for governor then again on stage roasting him as president was absolute gold.
Because dead man was a notorious scum that traded on propaganda that continues to damage US.
1. Dead man was contributory to almost sinking an aircraft carrier, skated and went on vacation;
2. Dead man aided the coverup of the abandonment of ~600 POWs and long bullied their families;
3. Dead man disgraced himself, aiding the enemy while a POW;
4. Dead man disgraced himself, dumping an injured, faithful wife that stood by him for a rich, newer model;
5. Dead man was involved in scandals that unfortunately didn't finish him;
6. Dead man's career was built on MSM propaganda not allowed to be exposed during his rotten life;
7. Dead man betrayed R voters and didn't relinquish his seat when unable to perform.
The Clinton campaign did the same thing. The difference is, we've had 2 years of investigation into the Trump campaign and it was found to not be collusion. Shall we now do the same with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who financed the dossier which was written by a foreigner, with Russian influences, to damage their opponent? Or is that not collusion?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Please look at Lisa Page testimony released last week.
DOJ told the FBI was not to criminally charge Hillary. They were denied access to laptops with deleted emails. They were told to stonewall the investigation, by Loretta Lynch.
Might be a reason nothing was done there. DOJ was corrupt. Its been found out by Congress and they chose to do nothing about it.
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.
No, Cohen ADMITTED to this, he was not tried in court. He entered into a Plea bargain deal, he wasn't convicted in court so nobody had to prove he violated campaign finance law. I know there is little practical difference for Cohen, but there IS a difference here.
Further, the "Russian Collusion" angel has nothing at all to do with Cohen and the campaign finance charges taken up by the Southern District of NY.
Cohen also plead guilty to tax evasion charges. And a plea bargain is technically a conviction. Yes they didn't have to prove it in court, the evidence was so overwhelming that Cohen would have been a fool to go to trial.
And the tax charges were ALSO brought by the SDNY.
See the AC was trying to claim "Cohen's crimes had nothing to do with the campaign", which people called BS because Cohen was convicted of a campaign finance violation.
So you tried moving the goal posts by claiming that this is a discussion of the Mueller investigation. But then the AC's statement makes no sense because they're referring to tax crimes which happened the SDNY. The only charges that Cohen was convicted from Mueller's office was lying to congress... about the campaign.
This is just some rhetorical game to make people think that when they hear of "Cohen's crimes" they somehow think it has nothing to do with the campaign. Unfortunately for you the meaningless distinctions that would usually help to confuse people don't actually apply here.
I stole this Sig
Legally, NOTHING about anyone not indicted can be released. The Democrats know this, they're hoping to muddy the waters by trying to demand something they know they can't have so they can claim "coverup". The REAL crimes remain to be prosecuted - using a dossier procured by a political opponent as the basis for obtaining FISA warrants, falsely certifying to the FISA court that the dossier had been corroborated, collusion with foreign governments in producing the dossier, etc... This is banana republic shit, using the full force of the US government to harass and interfere with a political campaign, including wiretaps of the candidate himself.
Given that Mueller spent two years and tens of millions of dollars checking on things like that with no resulting charges against anyone
Other than 23 people?