Robert Mueller investigation

[Bernie Brewer]

What's disheartening is how effective the petulant childishness is. I hope/believe that in the long run character matters more. But I agree with Mith that the temptation is always there to take the easier way and we all succumb to it at times.

On this we can all agree. In sports I think they call it “playing down to the level of your opponent.” Unfortunately, it didn’t start with Trump. It’s been going on for a longtime and is only exacerbated by Trump.

[Bernie Brewer]

Loved the Congressman who showed up today with a ceramic Chicken statue and a bucket of KFC to taunt Barr for not showing up. That’ll show ‘em!

This is exactly what I was referencing about the circus. Followed by the gaggle of Democrat congresscritters posturing before cameras so they could bloviate and pontificate on Barr’s character and the GOP for whatever they could think of in the moment. It doesn’t matter that Mueller didn’t say that what Barr wrote was incorrect, it certainly wasn’t him lying as the Dems have characterized it. Not does it matter that the attachments Mueller included with the letter have already been released to the public, and apparently it doesn't matter that the full report is available to several people to read in a secure room. What matters is political spin.

[Bernie Brewer]

Apparently there is a letter from the White House Counsel that is pretty scathing of the report for failing to make a decision. In it the white counsel counsel is saying if you felt you couldn’t indict, why did you investigate? If you investigated, you should have made a decision to not let this fester. Ya think that will get the same traction the Mueller Letter got on MSM? CNN who went hard on the Mueller letter for the last couple of days and is nothing short of bias, is dismissing this as not valid. Hmm w

[Kevin Seitzer]

Apparently there is a letter from the White House Counsel that is pretty scathing of the report for failing to make a decision. In it the white counsel counsel is saying if you felt you couldn’t indict, why did you investigate? If you investigated, you should have made a decision to not let this fester. Ya think that will get the same traction the Mueller Letter got on MSM? CNN who went hard on the Mueller letter for the last couple of days and is nothing short of bias, is dismissing this as not valid. Hmm w

I don't see how the two letters are in any way comparable.

One letter is Mueller effectively telling Barr, "How you presented the results of my investigation isn't aboveboard, you're twisting the results to favor Trump." Which is kind of a big deal, no?

The other letter is Trump telling Mueller, "A special counsel has no purpose. I have you trapped coming and going. You can't indict me because the Justice Department says you can't, and if you can't indict me, then, q.e.d., you have no purpose. I can do what I want and you can't do anything about it."

One is a letter protesting a partisan cover-up. The other is a letter egging Mueller on for not being able to overcome a partisan cover-up.

[Bernie Brewer]

I don't see how the two letters are in any way comparable.

One letter is Mueller effectively telling Barr, ”How you presented the results of my investigation isn't aboveboard, you're twisting the results to favor Trump." Which is kind of a big deal, no?

The other letter is Trump telling Mueller, "A special counsel has no purpose. I have you trapped coming and going. You can't indict me because the Justice Department says you can't, and if you can't indict me, then, q.e.d., you have no purpose. I can do what I want and you can't do anything about it."

One is a letter protesting a partisan cover-up. The other is a letter egging Mueller on for not being able to overcome a partisan cover-up.

First off, i don’t think that’s what either letter says but if that’s how you read them, we’ll never agree.

But, I agree they are different letters. I don’t agree about one being a partisan cover up. That’s an opinion shared by less than 50% of Americans. And, it certainly not mine.

If you were “falsely” accused of a serious crime, and an investigation found some embarrassing things, and all your family and neighbors began to question whether you were capable of such things only to never have your day in court to clear your name, you’d do the same.

[nots]

I don't see how the two letters are in any way comparable.

One letter is Mueller effectively telling Barr, "How you presented the results of my investigation isn't aboveboard, you're twisting the results to favor Trump." Which is kind of a big deal, no?

The other letter is Trump telling Mueller, "A special counsel has no purpose. I have you trapped coming and going. You can't indict me because the Justice Department says you can't, and if you can't indict me, then, q.e.d., you have no purpose. I can do what I want and you can't do anything about it."

One is a letter protesting a partisan cover-up. The other is a letter egging Mueller on for not being able to overcome a partisan cover-up.

That’s a pretty partisan interpretation of both letters. Mueller’s letter to Barr is much more nuanced than how you’ve categorized it.

[onejayhawk]

The big thing to take away is that Mueller did not do his job under the statute which is to recommend action or to give reasons for declining action. Instead he states that innocence is not proven. In our system of law, innocence is assumed.

This is a political statement masquerading as a report, written by a never-Trump hack.

J

[revo]

Over 400 prosecutors who worked for the Justice Department across different administrations wrote a collective letter that ALL would have indicted Donald Trump on felony obstruction charges were he not the President of the US.

[Bernie Brewer]

Over 400 prosecutors who worked for the Justice Department across different administrations wrote a collective letter that ALL would have indicted Donald Trump on felony obstruction charges were he not the President of the US.

Also from the article on CNN:

The letter was posted to Medium and said it was being updated by the group Protect Democracy, a nonprofit group that has combated the Trump administration.

Hmm.

I wonder when will the evitable letter from former and current Justice Department people who disagree with this be posted?

[Judge Jude]

I doubt there are many prosecutors at all who will say they would NOT indict.

but that's a bug, not a feature.

I think the average person who finds out that Martha Stewart was indicted on securities fraud, only to have it dismissed by the judge, yet went to jail for obstruction of an investigation lacking an underlying crime, thinks that is a crappy result - and rightly so. Stewart, like Trump, did all sorts of terribly unethical things. But just because prosecutors love to, well, prosecute doesn't make them the gold standard for right and wrong. They enjoy flexing their muscle even on a powerful figure like Stewart because they want people to fear their power (and we do).

The Trump issue gets even more complicated because the rationale for the origination of the investigation may in part have been based on a dossier that is strange and suspicious, to be charitable. If the original search - Trump colluding with Russia - doesn't pan out AND the justification for the investigation has any taint to it......

Trump's jury will be the American people in 2020.

[nullnor]

i didn't like that Martha Stewart went to jail. i couldn't get flannel bed sheets at kmart afterwards. there were probably many men that were committing worse crimes on wall street at the time but they went after her because she is a woman.

[revo]

Hmm.

I wonder when will the evitable letter from former and current Justice Department people who disagree with this be posted?

I guess the answer is "whenever they get the balls to write a letter and put their name on it like these 400+ did?"

[nots]

I doubt there are many prosecutors at all who will say they would NOT indict.

but that's a bug, not a feature.

I think the average person who finds out that Martha Stewart was indicted on securities fraud, only to have it dismissed by the judge, yet went to jail for obstruction of an investigation lacking an underlying crime, thinks that is a crappy result - and rightly so. Stewart, like Trump, did all sorts of terribly unethical things. But just because prosecutors love to, well, prosecute doesn't make them the gold standard for right and wrong. They enjoy flexing their muscle even on a powerful figure like Stewart because they want people to fear their power (and we do).

The Trump issue gets even more complicated because the rationale for the origination of the investigation may in part have been based on a dossier that is strange and suspicious, to be charitable. If the original search - Trump colluding with Russia - doesn't pan out AND the justification for the investigation has any taint to it......

Trump's jury will be the American people in 2020.

Very well stated, JJ.

[Bernie Brewer]

I guess the answer is "whenever they get the balls to write a letter and put their name on it like these 400+ did?"

Ya think CNN and other news media sources will report the existence of that letter, when it’s written (probably not if it’s written), and will they give it the same credence as this letter, despite it being counter to their narratives?

It seems to me there was once a letter written, similarly, by people who spoke poorly of SCOTUS nominee Kavanuagh's character only to be matched by a letter from people who favorably of Kavanaugh. That second letter, which didn't fit the desired narrative of CNN and others, was immediately dismissed.

Actually, at the end of the day, there has already been such a letter written; it was by AG Barr. And, his opinion is really one that counts, as it is in his purview as AG to make that determination, much to the disappointment and frustration of House and Senate Dems. In it, he decided there wasn't sufficient evidence. Mueller's testimony will be interesting to say the least. If the Dems cobble together enough support, I hope they will bring impeachment charges. But then again, I'm not sure I mean that, as the Dems have really one job to do right now and that is win in 2020, and while I'm not impressed with many of the primary candidates, I sure hope they don't screw it up. Impeachment will piss off many people currently sitting on the sidelines. That may actually re-elect Trump.

The truth is, they would be wise to, as JJ noted, let the voters in 2020 be the ones who decide if he is worthy of continuing to hold office.

[revo]

Ya think CNN and other news media sources will report the existence of that letter, when it’s written (probably not if it’s written), and will they give it the same credence as this letter, despite it being counter to their narratives?

It seems to me there was once a letter written, similarly, by people who spoke poorly of SCOTUS nominee Kavanuagh's character only to be matched by a letter from people who favorably of Kavanaugh. That second letter, which didn't fit the desired narrative of CNN and others, was immediately dismissed.

Actually, at the end of the day, there has already been such a letter written; it was by AG Barr. And, his opinion is really one that counts, as it is in his purview as AG to make that determination, much to the disappointment and frustration of House and Senate Dems. In it, he decided there wasn't sufficient evidence. Mueller's testimony will be interesting to say the least. If the Dems cobble together enough support, I hope they will bring impeachment charges. But then again, I'm not sure I mean that, as the Dems have really one job to do right now and that is win in 2020, and while I'm not impressed with many of the primary candidates, I sure hope they don't screw it up. Impeachment will piss off many people currently sitting on the sidelines. That may actually re-elect Trump.

The truth is, they would be wise to, as JJ noted, let the voters in 2020 be the ones who decide if he is worthy of continuing to hold office.

I agree, but when you get the Stable Genius himself floating out -- numerous times, I might add -- that he should have a six-year term, or that two years were "stollen" from him, or that there is a widespread conspiracy by Deep State Democrats to have literally millions of people vote numerous times -- can we be 100% confident that he will peacefully hand over power if he were to lose? I don't think Pelosi is wrong to fear this.