Official Mueller Report Thread

[McRocket]

Interesting.

This confirms what I saw earlier.

Trump tried to obstruct justice (though clearly Trump is FAR too stupid to realize what he was doing was obstruction)...but his people were smart enough/had so little respect for Trump that they FLAT OUT, IGNORED TRUMP'S ORDERS (and Trump was too stupid/lazy to even realize they had not carried out his orders).

They probably saved Trump's bacon.

And we know from Woodward's book 'Fear' that numerous times Trump's people just ignore what he says.

Trump should send HUGE thank you notes to all of his people who ignored his orders in this case.

 

[Slyhunter]

The only thing better than reading osts from the lefties on here is watching MSNBC. Holy shit they’re all on the verge of tears and total freak out. It’s glorious.

I can't even force myself to watch them or CNN anymore, past their youtube clip headlines. We need a show to break each day into 20 minutes called "We Watch MSM So You Don't Have To".

That would be Hannity. His show is all about how rotten the mainstream media is.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Dems lost the 2016 election, then Mueller flushed their Russian Collusion Conspiracy, and now they have lost their friggin minds.

 

[Slyhunter]

2019 WILL be the worst year of Trump's life.

2020 is going to be awesome.
Trump is going to win in a landslide.

 

[Hale]

Mueller's statement, I encourage all to actually read it:

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Questions:

1. Why did Mueller decide NOT to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgement?
2. Why does the evidence obtained have "unresolved issues"?
3. Why did Mueller NOT make a "thorough investigation of the facts"?

Conclusions:

1. Mueller is trying to avoid any accountability at all for his own investigation.
2. The absolute worst Mueller can say is "this does not exonerate the President" - and that's because Mueller admits he didn't do his job.

Two years of chaos, then the investigator bails?

 

[SweetSue92]

The Dems lost the 2016 election, then Mueller flushed their Russian Collusion Conspiracy, and now they have lost their friggin minds.

Twitter is....insane right now. I mean it's always on the edge but these people have lost their minds for real

 

[boedicca]

Mueller's wordsmithing attempts are pathetically transparent.

The investigation was charged with proving a crime exists - not with setting up Trump to have to prove his innocence. The "does not exonerate" phrase is unethical, imo.

 

[boedicca]

The Dems lost the 2016 election, then Mueller flushed their Russian Collusion Conspiracy, and now they have lost their friggin minds.

Twitter is....insane right now. I mean it's always on the edge but these people have lost their minds for real

It's too bad the Twitter swarm doesn't have a Queen Bee we could shoot to put it out of its misery.

 

[Jitss617]

Barr’s News Presser COMPLETELY VINDICATED President Trump!

No it didn't idiot. Barr has no credibility and his word is meaningless.

The only thing that can vindicate Trump is Mueller's (NOT BARR'S) report, and Barr has speciifically said that the report DOES NOT exonorate Trump.

Yes it did idiot....you have no credibility and your word is meaningless. See how easy that is?

Oh and BTW you protozoan twit, if Barr has no credibility how can you believe him if he says the report doesn't exonerate Trump?
You have the IQ of a garden tomato.

Jo

Umm yes dummy, my word is meaningless, though only a bit more so than Barr’s.

That’s why we need to see the report.

Lol see what there was NO collusion! Why wouldn’t trump want to fire mueller? You attack a guy he’s proven innocent and instead of apologizing you want to attack more?? Wow no honor in your lose

 

[justoffal]

Barr’s News Presser COMPLETELY VINDICATED President Trump!

No it didn't idiot. Barr has no credibility and his word is meaningless.

The only thing that can vindicate Trump is Mueller's (NOT BARR'S) report, and Barr has speciifically said that the report DOES NOT exonorate Trump.

Yes it did idiot....you have no credibility and your word is meaningless. See how easy that is?

Oh and BTW you protozoan twit, if Barr has no credibility how can you believe him if he says the report doesn't exonerate Trump?
You have the IQ of a garden tomato.

Jo

Umm yes dummy, my word is meaningless, though only a bit more so than Barr’s.

That’s why we need to see the report.

Lol see what there was NO collusion! Why wouldn’t trump want to fire mueller? You attack a guy he’s proven innocent and instead of apologizing you want to attack more?? Wow no honor in your lose

They might as well start counting Generals now because that's where it's heading.
In effect the Dems are succeeding because Trump won the election ...and that's the only reason....good let them go.

Raise an army and let's get going.. why wait?

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Mueller's wordsmithing attempts are pathetically transparent.

The investigation was charged with proving a crime exists - not with setting up Trump to have to prove his innocence. The "does not exonerate" phrase is unethical, imo.

Yeah the report also doesn't make chicken soup, it doesn't detect asteroids and it doesn't whistle at hot chicks....so fuckin what?

 

[boedicca]

Mueller's wordsmithing attempts are pathetically transparent.

The investigation was charged with proving a crime exists - not with setting up Trump to have to prove his innocence. The "does not exonerate" phrase is unethical, imo.

Yeah the report also doesn't make chicken soup, it doesn't detect asteroids and it doesn't whistle at hot chicks....so fuckin what?

My biggest complaint is that it doesn't provide winning lotto numbers.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is the TRANSCRIPT of Attorney General's press conference, that was done earlier today, all black and red boldings in the transcript are mine

"Good Morning. Thank you all for being here today.

On March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation of matters related to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and submitted his confidential report to me pursuant to Department of Justice regulations.

As I said during my Senate confirmation hearing and since, I am committed to ensuring the greatest possible degree of transparency concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation, consistent with the law.

At 11:00 this morning, I will transmit copies of a public version of the Special Counsel’s report to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Department of Justice will also make the report available to the American public by posting it on the Department’s website after it has been delivered to Congress.

I would like to offer a few comments today on the report.

But before I do that, I want to thank Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for joining me here today and for his assistance and counsel throughout this process. Rod has served the Department of Justice for many years with dedication and distinction, and it has been a great privilege and pleasure to work with him since my confirmation. He had well-deserved plans to step back from public service that I interrupted by asking him to help in my transition. Rod has been an invaluable partner, and I am grateful that he was willing to help me and has been able to see the Special Counsel’s investigation to its conclusion. Thank you, Rod.

I would also like to thank Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our electoral process.

As you know, one of the primary purposes of the Special Counsel’s investigation was to determine whether members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, or any individuals associated with that campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report describes the results of that investigation. As you will see, the Special Counsel’s report states that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I am sure that all Americans share my concerns about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.

The Special Counsel’s report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election:

First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations.

Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.

But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme.

Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.

Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime.

Following a thorough investigation of these hacking operations, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian military officers for their respective roles in these illegal hacking activities. Those charges are still pending and the defendants remain at large.

But again, the Special Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with the Russian government’s hacking.

The Special Counsel’s investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet. The Special Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication. Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps.

The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.

Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.

So that is the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.

After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.

After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.

In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability.

Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.

Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.

Now, before I take questions, I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report that I am releasing today. As I said several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.

As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing upon ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case.

These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product.

Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so.

Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice. Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report. Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.

In addition, earlier this week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication. The President’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions.

In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also committed to working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the Special Counsel’s investigation. We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler throughout this process, and we will continue to do so.

Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information. Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves – with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared.

I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation.

Once again, I would like to thank you all for being here today. I now have a few minutes for questions."

=====================================================================================================

As you can see that AG Barr was fair and consistent with disclosure rules he was operating under. President Trump never used Executive privilege at all against the report. What the public see is what is allowed to be seen by law.

 

[karpenter]

All Clinton did was lie about getting a BJ. And getting a BJ was not illegal. Monica was well past the age of consent. And she admitted that she made the first moves.

That's Pure Horse-Shit
And You All Know It
She And The Others Were Witnesses
In The Paula Jones Civil Suit

The Other Clinton Received A Subpoena
Then Ran Around Destroying As Much Evidence As She Could

Comey Exonerated Her
By Saying She Was 'Too Unsophisticated'
To Know What She Was Doing
^ ^ ^ Let That Sink In ^ ^ ^

And You're All Wigged Out
It Didn't Become President

All Evidence Of 'Collusion' With Russians
Points Straight At Hillary's State Dept
Fusion GPS, The Clinton Campaign
And The Fake Steele Dossier

The Ukrainians Are Dying To Tell Us More...

 

[imawhosure]

This is the OFFICIAL Mueller Report thread.


Please put all threads about the Mueller Report here.

Mueller Report threads not in this thread could end up being deleted.

there it is boys,, read a weep! No collusion no obstruction right from the horses mouth!

View attachment 256481

I guess according to your logic, even daddies have daddies. Since Putin is trumps daddy.

Listen to the drivel he has to spew, since his whole political world just lit on fire. Wait till the indictments his side is going to face, and that will be the gasoline for the fire, from the American patriot arsonist, Barr-)

 

[imawhosure]

Are you listening to this analysis? The reason Mueller punted the decision of whether or not it’s obstruction of justice to Congress is because he felt that a president can not be indicted.

But in the report it says that Trump put all kinds of pressure on Jeff sessions to unrecuse himself. He told sessions that sessions would become a hero if he would unrecuse himself. Refused.

Trump tried to get people to write letters that they didn’t believe were truthful.

All Clinton did was lie about getting a BJ. And getting a BJ was not illegal. Monica was well past the age of consent. And she admitted that she made the first moves.

They said that if Trump tried to obstruct one or two times then OK it could be mistakes. But after a dozen time of doing everything he could to obstruct, then that’s the very definition of obstruction.

That IS NOT WHAT HE SAID! You are LYING, lol. He said SPECIFICALLY, that it had NOTHING to do with the DOJ decision.

Do you really have to make stuff up, you phony-e-baloney-)

OF COURSE YOU DO, you were one of the biggest hoaxers on here, lololol! CHECKMATE, you not only lost, your side is going to get run out of town on a rail!

 

[imawhosure]

Are you listening to this analysis? The reason Mueller punted the decision of whether or not it’s obstruction of justice to Congress is because he felt that a president can not be indicted.

But in the report it says that Trump put all kinds of pressure on Jeff sessions to unrecuse himself. He told sessions that sessions would become a hero if he would unrecuse himself. Refused.

Trump tried to get people to write letters that they didn’t believe were truthful.

All Clinton did was lie about getting a BJ. And getting a BJ was not illegal. Monica was well past the age of consent. And she admitted that she made the first moves.

They said that if Trump tried to obstruct one or two times then OK it could be mistakes. But after a dozen time of doing everything he could to obstruct, then that’s the very definition of obstruction.

Yep, and this is all coming from the Barr Report, Trump's paid lackey, right?

Another fool, commenting on facts from DEANNIE, lol. Don't lose your credibility, look up what the special counsel said, then find a NEW narrative, less you end up with more egg than Deannie-)

 

[imawhosure]

So I jumped to Volume II based on the statements on page 16.

On page 97 of Volume II (page 309 of the pdf), we find this:

a. Obstructive act. The President's effort to send Sessions a message through Lewandowski would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.


Mueller then lays down the facts which proves just that in the following paragraphs, until we come to this:

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.

And yet, Mueller found no collusion, go figure, amazing, lol. They should have hired a spinner like you-)

 

[edward37]

Mueller's statement, I encourage all to actually read it:

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Questions:

1. Why did Mueller decide NOT to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgement?
2. Why does the evidence obtained have "unresolved issues"?
3. Why did Mueller NOT make a "thorough investigation of the facts"?

Conclusions:

1. Mueller is trying to avoid any accountability at all for his own investigation.
2. The absolute worst Mueller can say is "this does not exonerate the President" - and that's because Mueller admits he didn't do his job.

Two years of chaos, then the investigator bails?

Mueller Spells Out Trump’s ‘Multiple Acts’ to Undermine Russia Probeupdated an hour ago
Here Are the Top Takeaways From Mueller’s Report So Far
‘No Recollection’: What Trump Said in His Written Answers to Mueller
Read Mueller’s Report on Trump, Russia and the 2016 Election

Politics
Mueller Weighed Charges Against Trump Jr. Over Tower Meetingupdated 7 minutes ago
Ex-White House Counsel Don McGahn Emerges as Key Obstruction Witness
Inside the Trump Campaign’s Frenzied Search for Clinton’s Emails
‘Oh My God...This Is Terrible’: Trump Called Mueller Appointment the ‘End of My Presidency’

 

[imawhosure]

On pages 111 - 112 of Volume 2, there is another documented example of Trump attempting to obstruct justice when he tried to force Sessions to unrecuse himself, fire Mueller, and restrict the scope of the investigation.

And no obstruction, hmmmm, wonder why, lol. Is there a law for THINKING about obstructing an investigation into a crime that was never committed? We should ask Prof Dershowitz, don't you think, lololol!