Mueller Delivers Report on Russia to Attorney General

Robert Mueller has turned in his report on Russia. What's in it? No one knows. Attorney General Robert Barr says he will update Congress this weekend.

Since there have been no announcements of new arrests, I assume D.Jr. skated on charges of lying to Congress. As soon as Trump announced it's okay with him if Mueller's report gets released, I figured that would be the anti-climatic ending.

< Joe Biden: Your Father's Oldsmobile is Honking at Us | Barr's Letter on Mueller Report: Donnie Can't Read >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    We have know for a while (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 11:24:33 AM EST
    The the Mueller "report" was not the biggest threat to the Trump mob.  Mueller was very smart to keep his report, it appears now, very tightly focused on the task he was given.  

    But it also allowed him to look at "any other crimes" arising from that.  So very shrewdly he has been passing off the most explosive charges to various prosecutors.  

    If Mueller subpoenaed DJTJ or other family members Trump would have done what's necessary to end the Mueller enterprise.  If the SDNY does it he has far fewer options.  And few we still if it state or city prosecutors.

    IMO anyone who think this means anything is over is in denial

    Agreed, (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    but not so much denial as fodder for the Republicans propaganda machine.  As above, Rachel cried and similar to come.  Of course. the hunt already has yielded the witches Cohn, Gates,Flynn ---at the top levels and many more at other levels, with the products of their cooperation still to come.  Need to be prepared.

    Lots of good analysis (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 09:15:22 PM EST
    And the press of course (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by smott on Tue Mar 26, 2019 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    Is completely f*ckimg this up as we, and likely Mueller, knew they would.
    Ken Dilanian is an embarrassment. Among many others.

    NYT with their "clouds lifted" headlines, are literally trolling Clinton and the Dems.

    Thanks, Bob.

    Lots of talking heads (3.50 / 2) (#5)
    by ragebot on Fri Mar 22, 2019 at 10:48:38 PM EST
    at completely different ends of possibilities.

    I have seen peeps say Mueller's report will be 400-500 pages long while others claim it will be bare bones and quite short.

    Problem is that a lot of what Mueller did was grand jury stuff which by law is quite hard to make public.  Some folks are saying 80%+ is grand jury related.  Not to mention legit classified stuff and any legit privilege stuff Trump might claim (not saying he can claim it for every thing but there might be some legit).

    In addition to that Barr may limit what can be released for what he considers legit reasons.

    Bottom line is that does not leave a lot to be released.

    While I have seen lots of pix of Mueller there are very few vids of him talking.  Not sure just what, or how much, he would say testifying before congress.

    One big take away will be what Mueller says, or does not say, about Cohen.  A lot of the House investigations are based on what Cohen has said.  But Mueller never really seemed to have much interest in him and sent him to 2NDNY for some obvious crimes related to shady money deals and then seemed to let him plea to some stuff with marginal proof compared to his obvious taxi and loan crimes.

    Maybe someone like Peter G can answer this.  Mueller is suppose to justify the charges and to a lesser extent explain why some peeps were not charged.  Question is what is Mueller required to say about peeps he asked 2NDNY to charge like Cohen, or peeps he maybe did not ask 2NDNY to charge, maybe like some Trump family members.

    Nobody on TV has seen the report (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    So we get hours of pointless speculation about what is in it.

    i refuse to watch that, and you should also.


    It is a bad report (none / 0) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    Big layoffs in the conspiracy theory industry. Plus it made Rachel cry. 🙁

    Troll (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    Full employment act tho

    Rachel is on YouTube (none / 0) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    Not crying.

    Why would you repeat a bogus accusation, when you can see for yourself that it is bogus?


    Spiking the ball (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 08:50:13 PM EST
    are ya?

    Let's see how that works out.....


    Mueller (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 22, 2019 at 07:59:07 PM EST
    might be leaving it up to DOJ to indict Don Jr. I think Trump said he wanted the report released because he thinks the GOP will cover for him and not release the report.

    Ben Wittes and others (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 22, 2019 at 08:23:19 PM EST
    Have said Mueller almost certainly submitted along with the report a summary suitable for public release, with redactions for intelligence stuff, and that Barr will release that as soon as he reads it.

    They will probably be a row about the definition of suitable.

    Not sure how much of an ending it is.  Or the begining of the end or end of the beginning

    Also (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 22, 2019 at 08:24:27 PM EST
    It's it just me or is there something weird with the Biden post?

    Meaning (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 22, 2019 at 08:28:26 PM EST
    It appears weird in the browser.  Not weird content.

    It was not you, it was the coding (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 03:59:19 AM EST
    of one of the C-span videos, I deleted it from the post.

    Ehhh (none / 0) (#48)
    by smott on Tue Mar 26, 2019 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    I think Barr is going to redact a sh-t load and claim Exec Private or Natl Security or Because I Said So or whatever

    The best bet (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 26, 2019 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    is going back to what we thought we were going to have to do in the first place and that is to call Mueller to testify to his findings.

    Yes (none / 0) (#52)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 26, 2019 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    The House of Representatives needs to call Mueller to testify.  
    Also Barr.

    If necessary, subpoena them both.


    NOT (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 23, 2019 at 12:40:05 PM EST

    Maybe (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 08:21:02 AM EST

    It's now (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    Up to SDNY and the others.   And most importantly the voters.

    Clear as mud (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 03:05:48 PM EST

    (((Rep. Nadler)))

     · 31m
    Replying to @RepJerryNadler
    The Department of Justice "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement."

    (((Rep. Nadler)))

    "The Special Counsel states that `while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

    2:38 PM - Mar 24, 2019

    This is a total mess (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    We are in for 2 years of pure hell.

    It does appear (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 03:29:23 PM EST
    The worst assumptions about Barr have been confirmed.

    Neil Katyal, the most even tempered guy ever, who has for weeks been saying he trusts Barr, was just interviewed and he was using expletives

    "After two years Mueller can't decide if Trump obstructed justice and Barr decides he did not in 48 hours without testimony from Trump"

    We are in for months and months of pure hell.

    Maybe we should all go fishing with Dadler.

    I need a vodka.


    Looks like (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    Mueller and Barr will be subpoenaed by the House.

    I fear that it's going to be... (none / 0) (#42)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 08:53:26 PM EST
    2yrs of Trump Unleashed.  And, he's got a lot of payback to dish out.

    That will (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 08:59:44 PM EST
    just make him more hated by the voters. He will look petty and smaller than he already does. The worrisome thing is the terrorism he spawns on POC in this country. I expect many more mass killings using him as inspiration and more Nazis marching in support of him.

    Nothing will happen (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 09:04:14 AM EST
    The United States hasn't been a functioning democracy for some time. I have a soon to be 19 y.o. son who knows how empty his future is. Fiddle fiddle, burn burn. Our children are doomed.

    Sounds like you need to take a week... (none / 0) (#17)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 02:28:29 PM EST
    and go fishing Dadler.  

    So, here's... (none / 0) (#21)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    Pretty (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    thin on specifics.

    Cleared of conspiring with Russians the two specific crimes(hacking and bots) which nobody thought he had a hand in in the first place.

    the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian
    government in these efforts
    Then blows off all the rest of it as  
    despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist
    the Trump campaign.
    They only danced with the devil,they did not take him home...or some thing.

    At least my question about sealed indictments (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 03:33:58 PM EST
    Was answered.  There are none.

    Need legal advice (none / 0) (#26)
    by ragebot on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 04:45:17 PM EST
    Talking heads are taking two positions on the question of obstruction; is an underlying crime required for someone to be charged with obstruction.

    Since there does not seem to be an underlying crime by Trump can he be charged with obstruction.  Seems the dems are saying yea and the pubs no.

    Lets assume for the sake of argument Trump committed no underlying crime; can he be charged with obstruction.

    Yes, absolutely. One can endeavor to obstruct (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    or impede the due administration of justice (which is how the federal criminal statute reads) as long as the target of the alleged obstruction is an existing, legitimate investigation within the jurisdiction of a federal court or grand jury. Which the Mueller investigation most certainly was. And there are other statutes that reach attempts to influence or impede agency investigations (such as an FBI investigation prior to the convening of a grand jury).

    So (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 25, 2019 at 05:25:30 AM EST
    this is pure tripe then?
    In making this determination, we noted that the 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.
    IANAL but that always sounded like a totally bogus argument.

    This seems to be shaping up as (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 25, 2019 at 08:28:50 AM EST
    The most interesting question.  From the letter we seem to know Mueller decided there was not a case t be made for conspiracy.

    He DID NOT make that decision about obstruction.  

    The question becomes, was his intent to leave that decision up to the House.  As has been past experience.  Ken Starr did not leave that decision up to Janet Reno.  Walsh did not leave it up to Mitchell.  

    It appears Barr decided on his own to make that decision.  What if anything will Mueller say about that.

    But yes, tripe I would say.

    Why have all these people gone to jail for lying if there was "nothing to obstruct"

    Leaving aside all the stuff that's happening elsewhere I think this is far from over.  And for me the biggest question is why, after being appointed to make a non political decision that the whole country could have faith in, Mueller did exactly the opposite.  

    Was that his choice?  Will we ever know?


    No, it's not "pure tripe." It's only (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 25, 2019 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    about 84% tripe. Rosenstein and Barr are saying that a prosecutor would not feel s/he had a slam dunk case -- which is what the feds like to think they have when they indict -- of corrupt intent (as required to prove obstruction of justice) if the defendant cannot also be shown to have been actively engaged in the underlying criminal activity. But they are saying it in a way that is designed to imply that such evidence is required, which it is not.

    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    He can.  Not a lawyer but I've picked that up along the way.  Obstruction can be committed and charged even if there is no underlying crime.

    Or so I've been told several time on cable news.


    VOX (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 05:12:46 PM EST
    Corse (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 05:16:37 PM EST
    Aside from obstruction being difficult to prove because of the whole state of mind thing we have Barr famously saying a president can't be indicted.  For anything.

    So this will just become a bigger mess as the House tries to figure out what really happened.

    My 2 cents.  And worth every penny.


    ... the underlying crime itself, you can nevertheless be indicted for obstruction of justice, among other things, if you are clearly so concerned about the subsequent investigation -- regardless of your personal motive or rationale -- that you endeavor to mislead and / or misdirect said investigation by:
    • Withholding, manufacturing, misrepresenting or otherwise tampering with evidence;
    • Interfering with efforts by investigators to perform their official duties;
    • Lying to an officer of the law under direct questioning; or
    • Lying under oath during a legal deposition, grand jury proceeding or criminal trial.

    You are also guilty of obstruction if you exert an inappropriate and undue personal influence upon law enforcement personnel or the Court, e.g., offering a bribe to an LEO, in an effort to deflect, impede, forestall or terminate an otherwise legitimate line of public inquiry, or if you abuse your position as a government official by misusing the powers of your office to do the same.

    And depending upon the circumstances and the evidence against you regarding your own actions, you may further be vulnerable to additional charges of public corruption and / or being accessory to that crime after the fact.



    Financial Crimes (none / 0) (#30)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 05:19:34 PM EST
    Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were convicted of financial crimes, like money laundering and tax evasion, which had nothing to do with the Trump presidential campaign.  Can one find it credible that the Mueller report didn't discuss Trumps possible involvement with similar malfeasance?

    The Special Counsel may have ... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 06:27:20 PM EST
    ... referred similar cases to other jurisdictions, such as when they referred all matters relating to Michael Cohen to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York for disposition.

    So, just because Robert Mueller didn't inquire personally into such matters in his capacity as Special Counsel, it doesn't therefore mean that Trump's out of legal jeopardy. Far from it. Remember, he's already been directly implicated as "Individual 1" in the commission of two separate felony campaign violations.



    Remember, RickyJ, that Mueller's mandate was (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 06:35:43 PM EST
    not to investigate any possible wrongdoing by Tr*mp, but rather to investigate efforts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Anything else he turned up during his pursuit of that investigation, he could handle himself if he deemed it sufficiently related, or refer to other prosecutorial authorities.

    My Question Was, (none / 0) (#35)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 06:44:05 PM EST
    in essence, if Manafort's financial crimes were within Mueller's purview, why would Trump's be also?  As far as I can tell, he didn't accuse Manafort of collusion with the Russians.

    I would speculate (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 06:54:49 PM EST
    That he might have thought Manafort did.  In fact Manaforts refusal to flip may be why they couldn't make a case against Trump.

    There Is Nothing So Far (none / 0) (#37)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 07:06:53 PM EST
    that proves that the Mueller report doesn't go into Trump's financial crimes. How Trump got the money to do so much buying during the financial crisis has never been explained.  This link indicates that Manafort didn't have that much to do with it.

    When the report is released, then you will know (none / 0) (#38)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 07:38:19 PM EST
    In the meanwhile, I would say there is something that proves at least circumstantially that Mueller did not "go into Tr*mp's financial crimes" ten years before running for President. To wit: Mueller is a person of high professional integrity, who stayed strictly within the boundaries of his mandate.

    So What Did Manafort's Crimes (none / 0) (#39)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 07:41:28 PM EST
    have to do with Mueller's mandate?

    See Howdy #36 (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 08:02:55 PM EST
    Manafort originally agreed to cooperate in the core investigation, with a plea agreement that included pleading to at least some of the offenses for which he was eventually convicted. When he reneged on the agreement, the Mueller team proceeded to prosecute him for those and other offenses, as his agreement said they could in that situation. At least, that's how I understand it.

    Washington Post 2018 Article (none / 0) (#41)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 24, 2019 at 08:21:51 PM EST
    gives a list of Trump's cash deals during the 2006-2014 period.  I don't buy Eric's explanation,
    Instead, Eric Trump said, the firm's existing businesses -- commercial buildings in New York, licensing deals for Trump-branded hotels and clothes -- produced so much cash that the Trumps could tap that flow for spending money.

    "He had incredible cash flow and built incredible wealth," Eric Trump said. "He didn't need to think about borrowing for every transaction. We invested in ourselves."

    Since Mueller looked into Manafort's history of dealings with the Ukraine in the same period, why not Trump's with Deutche Bank, Russian Banks or whatever?

    Huge dereliction of duty by Mueller IMO (none / 0) (#49)
    by smott on Tue Mar 26, 2019 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    He exists to maintain a somewhat apolitical atmosphere. It was his job to make a recommendation and NOT let politics take over.
    This is the most perilous point for our democratic experiment in a couple of centuries.
    Mueller choked.
    He punted to an obviously political hack appointee and in doing so allowed Barr to step in,fill the gap Mueller allowed, and give Trump a gigantic spin advantage. And oh BTW f*ck the Democrats who foolishly thought Mueller was a straight shooter.
    He may have even given Barr a 3-week head start if reports are correct that Mueller already had  told Barr he'd have no obstruction advisory.
    Mueller had to know Barr would do this, and he was fine with it.
    Incredible failure by Mueller IMO.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 27, 2019 at 02:46:11 PM EST
    And, a dereliction of journalistic duty.  No explanation of the differences between the Independent Counsel (which was allowed to expire in 1999) and the Special Counsel, appointed by the Trump Attorney General (or Deputy, in case of recusal) with the report, considered confidential, to go to the Trump AG and a bare bones notification to Congress.  The public's information is up to the AG.  

    Much was made over the past two years about Congress protecting the Special Counsel, when, of equal concern, should have been the public dissemination of the report.

    It was for this reason that I have felt that the Special Counsel should have provided public information, including explanations of indictments, along the way. Most believed the silence of Mueller to be a great virtue--he speaks through his indictments, as interpreted by TV attorneys.  That should be enough. Just you wait.

    Now the Mueller Report, essentially, joins the Trump tax returns.  Both under "audit" and kept safely in Putin's storage locker, to be released the day after Melania's promised press conference on her immigration story.  

    Mueller's charge was to investigate---investigate any links/coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with Trump's campaign and matters that arose from such investigation. An appointment necessitated because of conflicts of interest in the DOJ, including the required recusal of AG Sessions, who lied to the Senate on Russian interactions.

    Was it OK for Trump to fire the  FBI director in order to obstruct an investigation into himself, confirming to Lester Holt on TV as well as to get rid of that "nut job" to ease the pressure as told to Sergey Kislyak and Sergey Lavorov in a weird Oval Office meeting, held without US media but reported by Russian media.

    And, of course, repeatedly threatening to fire Sessions for recusing himself rather than protecting him like a common Roy Cohn. And, Mueller, himself, we where led to believe, was in jeopardy. To top it off, there was the dangling of pardons to potential investigative witnesses against him. Some would see a pattern here.

    Mueller could draw no conclusions whether or not his two-year long investigation was obstructed. Rather, he left it to Trump's  AG to determine this over a weekend.  Barr's appointment, with his audition letter might even be, itself, an obstructive step.

     Mueller's need not have entered the DOJ fray of whether or not a president can be indicted. But, he was in the best position to determine if his investigation was corruptly thwarted.  Indictment,  could have been recommended, letting Barr deal with what to do about that.  Mueller has been a part of the hoodwinking of Americans.


    I realize my optimism is tiresome (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 27, 2019 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    And getting harder to maintain by the day but.

    I wish we could hold of on the suicide parties until we at least find out if, for example, it was Muellers intention to have the congress make any obstruction decisions.

    And until we get at least some idea what is actually in the report beyond the three partial sentences Barr has given us.

    I tend to think if Bar thought it necessary to include "he is not exonerated" there really could be some pretty bad stuff.

    Will we see it?  When will we see it?  Yeah.


    Certainly (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 27, 2019 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    not tiresome.  Indeed, your thoughtful optimism is buoying.  An antidote to my reading of the situation and incorporated subliminally into my comment.  Gosh only knows what that comment would look like without it.

    Certainly (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 27, 2019 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    not tiresome.  Indeed, your thoughtful optimism is buoying.  An antidote to my reading of the situation and incorporated subliminally into my comment.  Gosh only knows what that comment would look like without it.

    It (none / 0) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 26, 2019 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    does seem a bit cowardly at this moment but I will reserve final judgement until we see the report and hopefully congressional testimony.

    FOX Andrew Napolitano (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 27, 2019 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    Andrew Napolitano said on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation report is 700 pages long.

    During an interview with Fox Business host Neil Cavuto, Napolitano speculated that far more was in the report than Attorney General William Barr's summary to Congress has implied.

    "We saw on Sunday a four-page summary of a 700-page report," Napolitano explained. "The 700-page report is a summary of two million pages of documents, of raw evidence."

    The analyst went on to insist that the report "undoubtedly" details "some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction" by President Donald Trump.

    "In the 700-page summary of the two million pages of raw evidence, there is undoubtedly some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction of justice, just not enough evidence -- I'm thinking the way I believe Congressman [Adam] Schiff is thinking -- according to Attorney General Barr, not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard," Napolitano said.

    "There is something there," he added.

    And he pointed (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 27, 2019 at 07:54:46 PM EST
    out that and Cavuto too that we Dems are going to be taking all the bad things in that report and running with them for the next two years. I mean we already know a lot of bad stuff Trump or his campaign staff did like meet with Russian intelligence. Apparently the defense by Barr is he didn't collude with them because they did not have Russian intelligence tattooed on their forehead and Trump was too stupid to realize what was going on.

    Conservatives and the stupid defense. It seems to be the way they defend everything.