One more great pick by Trump

[DrLove]

As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions
Judge Bashes Barr's Rollout Of Mueller Report As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions

A federal judge said Thursday that Attorney General Bill Barr’s “lack of candor” about special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings — in representations of Mueller’s report that “distorted” its conclusions — had prompted the judge to decide to review an unredacted version of the report behind closed doors.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a Buzzfeed reporter and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. They’re seeking an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, and have pointed to Barr’s misleading statements about the report before it was released to raised doubts about what the Department had decided to redact.

Judge Walton said on Thursday that he agreed with the challengers’ assessment that the Department “dubious[ly] handl[ed] … the public release of the Mueller Report” and the judge said he had “grave concerns about the objectivity” of that process.
.................................................................................................................
Everyone (but Trumpette's) knows Billy the Bagman "distorted" Mueller's findings.

But everyone knows that this is an OBAMA JUDGE!!

Nice to see Billy the Bagman get his fat ass spanked - Real hard!

Walton served as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and from 1991 to 2001. He also served as associate director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In 2001, he was nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, and subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate. In 2004, Bush appointed him to chair the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, investigating ways to curb prison rape. In May 2007, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts appointed him to a seat on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[4] His term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ended May 18, 2014. He assumed senior status on December 31, 2015.

During his FISC tenure, Judge Walton was "exceptionally concerned" about the NSA's "flagrant violation" of the court orders regarding privacy, and he accused the agency of "misinterpretations."[5]

The Washington Post reported, "fellow judges and lawyers who appear before him say Walton's decisions do not appear to be guided by politics but by a tough-on-crime mentality." Walton is known by local defense attorneys as a "long ball hitter" – a judge willing to impose long sentences in order to deter future crimes.[4] In fall 2005, the judge was driving his wife and daughter to the airport for a vacation when he came across an assailant attacking a cab driver on the side of the road. Walton tackled the assailant and subdued him until police arrived. The D.C. police spokesperson noted in response, "God bless Judge Walton. I surely wouldn't want to mess with him."[4]

 

[Oddball]

The record is straight. NO collusion, NO obstruction

That's the Trumpette mantra. But...........there was rampant obstruction as revealed by Mueller's report. 10 instances in fact. As for "collusion".......................

Stop Using the Word “Collusion”—How to Frame the Critical Question at the Heart of Trump-Russia
Stop Using the Word “Collusion”—How to Frame the Critical Question at the Heart of Trump-Russia - Just Security

Much of the discussion surrounding the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia in the months leading up to the 2016 election has been mystifying for the American public. As the country prepares for the Mueller probe to reach its final stage and for congressional investigations to ramp up, it’s important to develop a more accurate and effective vocabulary for assessing the information that these bodies produce.

A problem emerged over the past two years partly as a result of the unique combination of a counterintelligence and criminal investigation presented by the Mueller probe. This hybrid investigation has led to two linguistic extremes, neither of which accurately conveys the problematic national security issues raised by the Trump campaign’s actions. The lack of precision in the language used to report on the campaign’s activities has obscured their importance and even the magnitude of the threat they posed.

At one end of the spectrum is an overreliance on the word “collusion.” The word is a slippery one essentially without any legal or settled meaning outside of very specific contexts, like antitrust law. The general definition of collusion, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, is a “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal deceitful purpose.” But because this definition is not necessarily well-known or agreed upon, it allows some people to claim they have seen no direct evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia, and others to claim they have. Journalists still ask members of Congress, the White House, and witnesses in the Russia investigation about “collusion” or allow officials and others to invoke the term “collusion” without specifying what they mean.

On the other end of the spectrum is the more precise legal definition of “collusion,” which is “conspiracy.” But because conspiracy is a criminal law term, it may be too narrow: The legal definition of conspiracy requires specific behaviors and states of mind that may not be present in various forms of coordinated activity against the interests of the United States. Further, focusing only on the criminal aspect does not capture the policy and national security concerns at the heart of the Special Counsel’s counterintelligence investigation, concerns that remain whether or not crimes were committed.

We suggest a different way of asking and framing “the question of collusion” to obtain more analytic precision, and to get to the heart of Trump campaign associates’ possible relationships with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

To wit, we recommend the following five kinds of questions instead. These are stylized as questions a journalist might pose to an interviewee, such as a member of a congressional committee. We believe that these formulations better describe the problematic behavior, actions, and activities at the heart of Mueller’s investigation, and avoid both the ambiguity of the word “collusion” and the legalese associated with the word “conspiracy.” We also hope these five lines of inquiry may help commentators in analyzing and writing about these issues.

1. Are you aware of any direct or circumstantial evidence that Trump campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to Russia’s 2016 election interference activities?

2. Wikileaks

Are you aware of any direct or circumstantial evidence of Trump campaign associates’ coordinating with, cooperating with, encouraging, or giving support to Wikileaks’ election-related activities?

Relatedly, do you agree with the U.S. Intelligence Community’s report that Wikileaks was used by the Russian government as an arm of the Kremlin’s 2016 election interference activities?

3. Are you aware of any direct or circumstantial evidence that Trump campaign associates attempted to coordinate with, cooperate with, encourage, or give support to Russia’s 2016 election interference activities?

4. Are you aware of any direct or circumstantial evidence that Trump campaign associates were willing to coordinate with, cooperate with, encourage, or give support to Russia’s 2016 election interference activities, or were receptive to doing so?

5. What is your definition of “Trump campaign associates”?

Do you consider people like Roger Stone and Michael Cohen part of the Trump campaign? Do you consider people like Roger Stone and Michael Cohen to be Trump campaign associates?

tl;dr

Get a hobby.

 

[DrLove]

As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions
Judge Bashes Barr's Rollout Of Mueller Report As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions

A federal judge said Thursday that Attorney General Bill Barr’s “lack of candor” about special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings — in representations of Mueller’s report that “distorted” its conclusions — had prompted the judge to decide to review an unredacted version of the report behind closed doors.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a Buzzfeed reporter and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. They’re seeking an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, and have pointed to Barr’s misleading statements about the report before it was released to raised doubts about what the Department had decided to redact.

Judge Walton said on Thursday that he agreed with the challengers’ assessment that the Department “dubious[ly] handl[ed] … the public release of the Mueller Report” and the judge said he had “grave concerns about the objectivity” of that process.
.................................................................................................................
Everyone (but Trumpette's) knows Billy the Bagman "distorted" Mueller's findings.

What a crock, even Mueller testified that Barr didn't misrepresent his report, he was upset how the media was portraying it. The DOJ should provide the judge with a copy of Mueller's testimony along with their appeal.

.

That was NOT Mueller's testimony.

Mueller to Barr: You "did not fully capture" Trump-Russia report

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions
Judge Bashes Barr's Rollout Of Mueller Report As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions

A federal judge said Thursday that Attorney General Bill Barr’s “lack of candor” about special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings — in representations of Mueller’s report that “distorted” its conclusions — had prompted the judge to decide to review an unredacted version of the report behind closed doors.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a Buzzfeed reporter and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. They’re seeking an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, and have pointed to Barr’s misleading statements about the report before it was released to raised doubts about what the Department had decided to redact.

Judge Walton said on Thursday that he agreed with the challengers’ assessment that the Department “dubious[ly] handl[ed] … the public release of the Mueller Report” and the judge said he had “grave concerns about the objectivity” of that process.
.................................................................................................................
Everyone (but Trumpette's) knows Billy the Bagman "distorted" Mueller's findings.

Barr redacted all references to: Stormy Daniels, Emoluments, the democrat Ukrainian Money Laundering Operation and Hillary's uranium .

You got him this time!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions
Judge Bashes Barr's Rollout Of Mueller Report As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions

A federal judge said Thursday that Attorney General Bill Barr’s “lack of candor” about special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings — in representations of Mueller’s report that “distorted” its conclusions — had prompted the judge to decide to review an unredacted version of the report behind closed doors.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a Buzzfeed reporter and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. They’re seeking an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, and have pointed to Barr’s misleading statements about the report before it was released to raised doubts about what the Department had decided to redact.

Judge Walton said on Thursday that he agreed with the challengers’ assessment that the Department “dubious[ly] handl[ed] … the public release of the Mueller Report” and the judge said he had “grave concerns about the objectivity” of that process.
.................................................................................................................
Everyone (but Trumpette's) knows Billy the Bagman "distorted" Mueller's findings.

What a crock, even Mueller testified that Barr didn't misrepresent his report, he was upset how the media was portraying it. The DOJ should provide the judge with a copy of Mueller's testimony along with their appeal.

.

That was NOT Mueller's testimony.

Mueller to Barr: You "did not fully capture" Trump-Russia report

Mueller didnt seem to know anything about his report

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The record is straight. NO collusion, NO obstruction

That's the Trumpette mantra. But...........there was rampant obstruction as revealed by Mueller's report. 10 instances in fact. As for "collusion".......................

Stop Using the Word “Collusion”—How to Frame the Critical Question at the Heart of Trump-Russia
Stop Using the Word “Collusion”—How to Frame the Critical Question at the Heart of Trump-Russia - Just Security

Much of the discussion surrounding the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia in the months leading up to the 2016 election has been mystifying for the American public. As the country prepares for the Mueller probe to reach its final stage and for congressional investigations to ramp up, it’s important to develop a more accurate and effective vocabulary for assessing the information that these bodies produce.

A problem emerged over the past two years partly as a result of the unique combination of a counterintelligence and criminal investigation presented by the Mueller probe. This hybrid investigation has led to two linguistic extremes, neither of which accurately conveys the problematic national security issues raised by the Trump campaign’s actions. The lack of precision in the language used to report on the campaign’s activities has obscured their importance and even the magnitude of the threat they posed.

At one end of the spectrum is an overreliance on the word “collusion.” The word is a slippery one essentially without any legal or settled meaning outside of very specific contexts, like antitrust law. The general definition of collusion, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, is a “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal deceitful purpose.” But because this definition is not necessarily well-known or agreed upon, it allows some people to claim they have seen no direct evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia, and others to claim they have. Journalists still ask members of Congress, the White House, and witnesses in the Russia investigation about “collusion” or allow officials and others to invoke the term “collusion” without specifying what they mean.

On the other end of the spectrum is the more precise legal definition of “collusion,” which is “conspiracy.” But because conspiracy is a criminal law term, it may be too narrow: The legal definition of conspiracy requires specific behaviors and states of mind that may not be present in various forms of coordinated activity against the interests of the United States. Further, focusing only on the criminal aspect does not capture the policy and national security concerns at the heart of the Special Counsel’s counterintelligence investigation, concerns that remain whether or not crimes were committed.

We suggest a different way of asking and framing “the question of collusion” to obtain more analytic precision, and to get to the heart of Trump campaign associates’ possible relationships with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

To wit, we recommend the following five kinds of questions instead. These are stylized as questions a journalist might pose to an interviewee, such as a member of a congressional committee. We believe that these formulations better describe the problematic behavior, actions, and activities at the heart of Mueller’s investigation, and avoid both the ambiguity of the word “collusion” and the legalese associated with the word “conspiracy.” We also hope these five lines of inquiry may help commentators in analyzing and writing about these issues.

1. Are you aware of any direct or circumstantial evidence that Trump campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to Russia’s 2016 election interference activities?

2. Wikileaks

Are you aware of any direct or circumstantial evidence of Trump campaign associates’ coordinating with, cooperating with, encouraging, or giving support to Wikileaks’ election-related activities?

Relatedly, do you agree with the U.S. Intelligence Community’s report that Wikileaks was used by the Russian government as an arm of the Kremlin’s 2016 election interference activities?

3. Are you aware of any direct or circumstantial evidence that Trump campaign associates attempted to coordinate with, cooperate with, encourage, or give support to Russia’s 2016 election interference activities?

4. Are you aware of any direct or circumstantial evidence that Trump campaign associates were willing to coordinate with, cooperate with, encourage, or give support to Russia’s 2016 election interference activities, or were receptive to doing so?

5. What is your definition of “Trump campaign associates”?

Do you consider people like Roger Stone and Michael Cohen part of the Trump campaign? Do you consider people like Roger Stone and Michael Cohen to be Trump campaign associates?

Silliness

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

No worries for Barr, if he didn't misrepresent it, let the judge review it, in his office, so he can know if the lawsuit on redactions can be settled in court.

You got him this time!

 

[berg80]

View attachment 310636

There is no lack of evidence.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Here's a sampling.............

II. Analysis of Major Findings

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails

What the Mueller Report says:

At a March 31, 2016 meeting of the campaign’s foreign policy advisory group, one of the advisers George Papadopoulos “brought up a potential meeting with Russian Officials,” and told the group that he learned from his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet Trump. At the meeting, Trump was “interested in and receptive to” the idea of setting up a meeting with Putin.

In late April 2016, a Russian operative did not simply reveal to Papadopoulos that they had derogatory information on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The Kremlin operative previewed their plan for “anonymous release” of the information to help the Trump campaign.

Supplemental information/analysis:

A very significant question is what reception the Russians got from the Trump Campaign after making these revelations. The Mueller Report is silent on the Campaign’s/Papadopoulos’ response to the Russians informing them of the plan to disseminate the derogatory information. There is at least no indication that the Campaign said or did anything to dissuade the Russians. Instead, following the late April 2016 meeting, the Campaign supported Papadopoulos’s efforts to organize a back channel meeting with Russian officials and Campaign officials. The meeting would be highly secret. Papadopoulos’ hand-written notes state that Trump Campaign members “would attend without the official backing of the Campaign (‘no official letter/no message from Trump’).” That meeting, however, never ultimately took place.

Caveat:

Loose ends: The investigation could not establish whether Papadopoulos informed the Campaign about the Russian government’s having derogatory information on Clinton in the form of emails. That’s one feature of the Report’s being constrained by the burdens of proof in a criminal context. It is highly likely that Papadopoulos did inform the Campaign. The young national security advisor appears to have continually kept Campaign officials informed of his communications with the Russians, was eager to show value in his connections to the Russians, and informed others outside of the Campaign (an Australian diplomat on May 6, 2016; Greece’s Foreign Minister in late May 2016) that the Russian government had told the Campaign about the derogatory information it had on Clinton.

Supplemental information/analysis:

The New York Times reported in May 2018 that John Mashburn, the campaign’s policy director, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he recalled that he and other campaign officials received an email from Papadopoulos in the first half of 2016 saying the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton, but congressional investigators did not find any such message.

For additional background: See video and transcript of Feb. 2018 interview in which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) explained to Chris Hayes that the House Intelligence Committee’s Democratic memo, written in response to Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) majority memo, should be understood to mean the Russians previewed their plan to Papadopoulos. The Australian diplomat also told a reporter that Papadopoulos “mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.”


3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy and with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman expected Trump’s winning presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

What the Mueller Report says:

Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Rick Gates shared internal campaign polling data periodically with a Russian spy, Konstantin Kilimnik. “In accordance with Manafort’s instruction, [Gates] periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis.” “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with … Deripaska,” a Russian oligarch closely aligned with Vladimir Putin. “Manafort noted that if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.”

Supplemental information/analysis:

The Report’s wording – “whatever interests Deripaska had” — is notable given a well-known interview by Deripaska in which he said, “I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.”

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A district judge relatively unknown "Reggie Walton" undermines the decision of the Attorney General of the United States? Only in America and only during a republican administration.

what possible bearing does a judge's notoriety have on the rulings by the judge?

in a world where judges ruled based upon the law and not politics all judges would be relatively unknown

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 310636

There is no lack of evidence.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Here's a sampling.............

II. Analysis of Major Findings

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails

What the Mueller Report says:

At a March 31, 2016 meeting of the campaign’s foreign policy advisory group, one of the advisers George Papadopoulos “brought up a potential meeting with Russian Officials,” and told the group that he learned from his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet Trump. At the meeting, Trump was “interested in and receptive to” the idea of setting up a meeting with Putin.

In late April 2016, a Russian operative did not simply reveal to Papadopoulos that they had derogatory information on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The Kremlin operative previewed their plan for “anonymous release” of the information to help the Trump campaign.

Supplemental information/analysis:

A very significant question is what reception the Russians got from the Trump Campaign after making these revelations. The Mueller Report is silent on the Campaign’s/Papadopoulos’ response to the Russians informing them of the plan to disseminate the derogatory information. There is at least no indication that the Campaign said or did anything to dissuade the Russians. Instead, following the late April 2016 meeting, the Campaign supported Papadopoulos’s efforts to organize a back channel meeting with Russian officials and Campaign officials. The meeting would be highly secret. Papadopoulos’ hand-written notes state that Trump Campaign members “would attend without the official backing of the Campaign (‘no official letter/no message from Trump’).” That meeting, however, never ultimately took place.

Caveat:

Loose ends: The investigation could not establish whether Papadopoulos informed the Campaign about the Russian government’s having derogatory information on Clinton in the form of emails. That’s one feature of the Report’s being constrained by the burdens of proof in a criminal context. It is highly likely that Papadopoulos did inform the Campaign. The young national security advisor appears to have continually kept Campaign officials informed of his communications with the Russians, was eager to show value in his connections to the Russians, and informed others outside of the Campaign (an Australian diplomat on May 6, 2016; Greece’s Foreign Minister in late May 2016) that the Russian government had told the Campaign about the derogatory information it had on Clinton.

Supplemental information/analysis:

The New York Times reported in May 2018 that John Mashburn, the campaign’s policy director, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he recalled that he and other campaign officials received an email from Papadopoulos in the first half of 2016 saying the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton, but congressional investigators did not find any such message.

For additional background: See video and transcript of Feb. 2018 interview in which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) explained to Chris Hayes that the House Intelligence Committee’s Democratic memo, written in response to Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) majority memo, should be understood to mean the Russians previewed their plan to Papadopoulos. The Australian diplomat also told a reporter that Papadopoulos “mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.”


3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy and with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman expected Trump’s winning presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

What the Mueller Report says:

Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Rick Gates shared internal campaign polling data periodically with a Russian spy, Konstantin Kilimnik. “In accordance with Manafort’s instruction, [Gates] periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis.” “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with … Deripaska,” a Russian oligarch closely aligned with Vladimir Putin. “Manafort noted that if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.”

Supplemental information/analysis:

The Report’s wording – “whatever interests Deripaska had” — is notable given a well-known interview by Deripaska in which he said, “I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.”

Uninformed sources tell me that Trump redacted all references to Covid-19 too

Misfud? 17 "mistakes" aka fraud and misrepresentation in Carter Page's FISA?

 

[Nostra]

As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions
Judge Bashes Barr's Rollout Of Mueller Report As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions

A federal judge said Thursday that Attorney General Bill Barr’s “lack of candor” about special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings — in representations of Mueller’s report that “distorted” its conclusions — had prompted the judge to decide to review an unredacted version of the report behind closed doors.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a Buzzfeed reporter and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. They’re seeking an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, and have pointed to Barr’s misleading statements about the report before it was released to raised doubts about what the Department had decided to redact.

Judge Walton said on Thursday that he agreed with the challengers’ assessment that the Department “dubious[ly] handl[ed] … the public release of the Mueller Report” and the judge said he had “grave concerns about the objectivity” of that process.
.................................................................................................................
Everyone (but Trumpette's) knows Billy the Bagman "distorted" Mueller's findings.

What a crock, even Mueller testified that Barr didn't misrepresent his report, he was upset how the media was portraying it. The DOJ should provide the judge with a copy of Mueller's testimony along with their appeal.

.

That was NOT Mueller's testimony.

Mueller to Barr: You "did not fully capture" Trump-Russia report

A summary does not fully capture the full report, dummy.

That’s why you call it a summary.

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 310636

There is no lack of evidence.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Here's a sampling.............

II. Analysis of Major Findings

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails

What the Mueller Report says:

At a March 31, 2016 meeting of the campaign’s foreign policy advisory group, one of the advisers George Papadopoulos “brought up a potential meeting with Russian Officials,” and told the group that he learned from his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet Trump. At the meeting, Trump was “interested in and receptive to” the idea of setting up a meeting with Putin.

In late April 2016, a Russian operative did not simply reveal to Papadopoulos that they had derogatory information on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The Kremlin operative previewed their plan for “anonymous release” of the information to help the Trump campaign.

Supplemental information/analysis:

A very significant question is what reception the Russians got from the Trump Campaign after making these revelations. The Mueller Report is silent on the Campaign’s/Papadopoulos’ response to the Russians informing them of the plan to disseminate the derogatory information. There is at least no indication that the Campaign said or did anything to dissuade the Russians. Instead, following the late April 2016 meeting, the Campaign supported Papadopoulos’s efforts to organize a back channel meeting with Russian officials and Campaign officials. The meeting would be highly secret. Papadopoulos’ hand-written notes state that Trump Campaign members “would attend without the official backing of the Campaign (‘no official letter/no message from Trump’).” That meeting, however, never ultimately took place.

Caveat:

Loose ends: The investigation could not establish whether Papadopoulos informed the Campaign about the Russian government’s having derogatory information on Clinton in the form of emails. That’s one feature of the Report’s being constrained by the burdens of proof in a criminal context. It is highly likely that Papadopoulos did inform the Campaign. The young national security advisor appears to have continually kept Campaign officials informed of his communications with the Russians, was eager to show value in his connections to the Russians, and informed others outside of the Campaign (an Australian diplomat on May 6, 2016; Greece’s Foreign Minister in late May 2016) that the Russian government had told the Campaign about the derogatory information it had on Clinton.

Supplemental information/analysis:

The New York Times reported in May 2018 that John Mashburn, the campaign’s policy director, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he recalled that he and other campaign officials received an email from Papadopoulos in the first half of 2016 saying the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton, but congressional investigators did not find any such message.

For additional background: See video and transcript of Feb. 2018 interview in which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) explained to Chris Hayes that the House Intelligence Committee’s Democratic memo, written in response to Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) majority memo, should be understood to mean the Russians previewed their plan to Papadopoulos. The Australian diplomat also told a reporter that Papadopoulos “mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.”


3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy and with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman expected Trump’s winning presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

What the Mueller Report says:

Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Rick Gates shared internal campaign polling data periodically with a Russian spy, Konstantin Kilimnik. “In accordance with Manafort’s instruction, [Gates] periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis.” “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with … Deripaska,” a Russian oligarch closely aligned with Vladimir Putin. “Manafort noted that if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.”

Supplemental information/analysis:

The Report’s wording – “whatever interests Deripaska had” — is notable given a well-known interview by Deripaska in which he said, “I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.”

IMPEACH NOW!

 

[DrLove]

As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions
Judge Bashes Barr's Rollout Of Mueller Report As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions

A federal judge said Thursday that Attorney General Bill Barr’s “lack of candor” about special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings — in representations of Mueller’s report that “distorted” its conclusions — had prompted the judge to decide to review an unredacted version of the report behind closed doors.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a Buzzfeed reporter and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. They’re seeking an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, and have pointed to Barr’s misleading statements about the report before it was released to raised doubts about what the Department had decided to redact.

Judge Walton said on Thursday that he agreed with the challengers’ assessment that the Department “dubious[ly] handl[ed] … the public release of the Mueller Report” and the judge said he had “grave concerns about the objectivity” of that process.
.................................................................................................................
Everyone (but Trumpette's) knows Billy the Bagman "distorted" Mueller's findings.

What a crock, even Mueller testified that Barr didn't misrepresent his report, he was upset how the media was portraying it. The DOJ should provide the judge with a copy of Mueller's testimony along with their appeal.

.

That was NOT Mueller's testimony.

Mueller to Barr: You "did not fully capture" Trump-Russia report

A summary does not fully capture the full report, dummy.

That’s why you call it a summary.

You should read what the George W Bush appointed judge actually had to say about willful mischaracterization. But you won't.. Sad

 

[toobfreak]

Mueller report? Seriously? Trump did not conspire with Putin to steal the election. Let it go, psycho stalker.

Kinda funny. Barr comments based on his viewing of the complete, unredacted version of the Mueller report.

Judge views redacted version of the report and bashes Barr's "lack of candor" and "distorted" conclusions?

Looks like we need an ancient history sub-forum.

We are getting into stratigraphic timelines!

 

[toobfreak]

View attachment 310636

There is no lack of evidence.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Here's a sampling.............

II. Analysis of Major Findings

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails

What the Mueller Report says:

At a March 31, 2016 meeting of the campaign’s foreign policy advisory group, one of the advisers George Papadopoulos “brought up a potential meeting with Russian Officials,” and told the group that he learned from his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet Trump. At the meeting, Trump was “interested in and receptive to” the idea of setting up a meeting with Putin.

In late April 2016, a Russian operative did not simply reveal to Papadopoulos that they had derogatory information on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The Kremlin operative previewed their plan for “anonymous release” of the information to help the Trump campaign.

Supplemental information/analysis:

A very significant question is what reception the Russians got from the Trump Campaign after making these revelations. The Mueller Report is silent on the Campaign’s/Papadopoulos’ response to the Russians informing them of the plan to disseminate the derogatory information. There is at least no indication that the Campaign said or did anything to dissuade the Russians. Instead, following the late April 2016 meeting, the Campaign supported Papadopoulos’s efforts to organize a back channel meeting with Russian officials and Campaign officials. The meeting would be highly secret. Papadopoulos’ hand-written notes state that Trump Campaign members “would attend without the official backing of the Campaign (‘no official letter/no message from Trump’).” That meeting, however, never ultimately took place.

Caveat:

Loose ends: The investigation could not establish whether Papadopoulos informed the Campaign about the Russian government’s having derogatory information on Clinton in the form of emails. That’s one feature of the Report’s being constrained by the burdens of proof in a criminal context. It is highly likely that Papadopoulos did inform the Campaign. The young national security advisor appears to have continually kept Campaign officials informed of his communications with the Russians, was eager to show value in his connections to the Russians, and informed others outside of the Campaign (an Australian diplomat on May 6, 2016; Greece’s Foreign Minister in late May 2016) that the Russian government had told the Campaign about the derogatory information it had on Clinton.

Supplemental information/analysis:

The New York Times reported in May 2018 that John Mashburn, the campaign’s policy director, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he recalled that he and other campaign officials received an email from Papadopoulos in the first half of 2016 saying the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton, but congressional investigators did not find any such message.

For additional background: See video and transcript of Feb. 2018 interview in which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) explained to Chris Hayes that the House Intelligence Committee’s Democratic memo, written in response to Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) majority memo, should be understood to mean the Russians previewed their plan to Papadopoulos. The Australian diplomat also told a reporter that Papadopoulos “mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.”


3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy and with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman expected Trump’s winning presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

What the Mueller Report says:

Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Rick Gates shared internal campaign polling data periodically with a Russian spy, Konstantin Kilimnik. “In accordance with Manafort’s instruction, [Gates] periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis.” “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with … Deripaska,” a Russian oligarch closely aligned with Vladimir Putin. “Manafort noted that if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.”

Supplemental information/analysis:

The Report’s wording – “whatever interests Deripaska had” — is notable given a well-known interview by Deripaska in which he said, “I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.”

IMPEACH NOW!

The Democrats made the mistake of not making this an OPEN impeachment, subject to continual review and updating. They could have put a collar on Trump's neck placing him under White House-Arrest, and if he ventured off the grounds or anytime they discovered something new, they could just give him an electric shock.

 

[Nostra]

The OP still thinks Mueller is gonna take Trump down.

How cute.

 

[DGS49]

The judge's comments are gratuitous and inexplicable as anything other than the ravings of a "Never Trump" Republican partisan.

There is no longer any debate about the central question addressed by Mueller and his posse: There was no "collusion" (i.e., no conspiracy) between the Trump Campaign and operatives of the Russian Federation. No collusion. Done. End of story.

The Judge appears to have an issue with how A.G. Barr described the findings of Mueller's report in a letter - he thinks Barr should have been more overtly critical of Trump and Trump's minions, but this is not a LEGAL disagreement; it is one of personal opinion. Which is why it is gratuitous and inappropriate.

All of the appropriate people have seen the entirety of Mueller's report - unredacted - and the House has had its opportunity to impeach the President - which it DECLINED TO DO (the recent impeachment was on a completely different matter).

See paragraph 1, above.

 

[mudwhistle]

As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions
Judge Bashes Barr's Rollout Of Mueller Report As He Orders Private Review Of Its Redactions

A federal judge said Thursday that Attorney General Bill Barr’s “lack of candor” about special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings — in representations of Mueller’s report that “distorted” its conclusions — had prompted the judge to decide to review an unredacted version of the report behind closed doors.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a Buzzfeed reporter and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. They’re seeking an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, and have pointed to Barr’s misleading statements about the report before it was released to raised doubts about what the Department had decided to redact.

Judge Walton said on Thursday that he agreed with the challengers’ assessment that the Department “dubious[ly] handl[ed] … the public release of the Mueller Report” and the judge said he had “grave concerns about the objectivity” of that process.
.................................................................................................................
Everyone (but Trumpette's) knows Billy the Bagman "distorted" Mueller's findings.

Let me guess....a black activist judge, out of the blue, decides he wants to create headlines and question the US. Attorney General's interpretation of the Mueller Report, even though Mueller himself didn't find any actionable legal issues during his investigation???

United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton.

 

[kyzr]

View attachment 310636

There is no lack of evidence.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Here's a sampling.............

II. Analysis of Major Findings

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails

What the Mueller Report says:

At a March 31, 2016 meeting of the campaign’s foreign policy advisory group, one of the advisers George Papadopoulos “brought up a potential meeting with Russian Officials,” and told the group that he learned from his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet Trump. At the meeting, Trump was “interested in and receptive to” the idea of setting up a meeting with Putin.

In late April 2016, a Russian operative did not simply reveal to Papadopoulos that they had derogatory information on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The Kremlin operative previewed their plan for “anonymous release” of the information to help the Trump campaign.

Supplemental information/analysis:

A very significant question is what reception the Russians got from the Trump Campaign after making these revelations. The Mueller Report is silent on the Campaign’s/Papadopoulos’ response to the Russians informing them of the plan to disseminate the derogatory information. There is at least no indication that the Campaign said or did anything to dissuade the Russians. Instead, following the late April 2016 meeting, the Campaign supported Papadopoulos’s efforts to organize a back channel meeting with Russian officials and Campaign officials. The meeting would be highly secret. Papadopoulos’ hand-written notes state that Trump Campaign members “would attend without the official backing of the Campaign (‘no official letter/no message from Trump’).” That meeting, however, never ultimately took place.

Caveat:

Loose ends: The investigation could not establish whether Papadopoulos informed the Campaign about the Russian government’s having derogatory information on Clinton in the form of emails. That’s one feature of the Report’s being constrained by the burdens of proof in a criminal context. It is highly likely that Papadopoulos did inform the Campaign. The young national security advisor appears to have continually kept Campaign officials informed of his communications with the Russians, was eager to show value in his connections to the Russians, and informed others outside of the Campaign (an Australian diplomat on May 6, 2016; Greece’s Foreign Minister in late May 2016) that the Russian government had told the Campaign about the derogatory information it had on Clinton.

Supplemental information/analysis:

The New York Times reported in May 2018 that John Mashburn, the campaign’s policy director, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he recalled that he and other campaign officials received an email from Papadopoulos in the first half of 2016 saying the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton, but congressional investigators did not find any such message.

For additional background: See video and transcript of Feb. 2018 interview in which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) explained to Chris Hayes that the House Intelligence Committee’s Democratic memo, written in response to Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) majority memo, should be understood to mean the Russians previewed their plan to Papadopoulos. The Australian diplomat also told a reporter that Papadopoulos “mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.”


3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy and with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman expected Trump’s winning presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

What the Mueller Report says:

Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Rick Gates shared internal campaign polling data periodically with a Russian spy, Konstantin Kilimnik. “In accordance with Manafort’s instruction, [Gates] periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis.” “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with … Deripaska,” a Russian oligarch closely aligned with Vladimir Putin. “Manafort noted that if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.”

Supplemental information/analysis:

The Report’s wording – “whatever interests Deripaska had” — is notable given a well-known interview by Deripaska in which he said, “I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.”

To cut to the chase, from the Cliff Notes version written by Clinton donors.
Barr and Durham are investigating the biggest scandal in US history, the Obama admin's illegal setup and spying on the Trump campaign. The setup includes using foreign CIA assets, falsifying FISA evidence, illegal surveillance, illegal unmasking of US citizens, and other crimes.

So your bullshit Mueller Investigation "Report", that was supposed to investigate "Russian Interference" in the 2016 election, but somehow in their partisan effort, did not look into the Russian collusion with the Clinton campaign and the Steele Dossier. WTF?? What kind of bullshit investigation ignores collusion by democrats, but tries to find anything it can on Trump? Operation Crossfire Hurricane will be investigated by Barr and Durham. Here's hoping the indictments go way up into the Obama admin.

 

[Meister]

What's your point, Edie? You don't like Trump? You have TDS....bad?
You're actually a fence sitter when it comes to Trump?

truth be told Mr Meister I despise the ground that human poc walks on and those surrounding him too My problem lies in the fact that if Sanders wins my financial well being is going down hill That's why I've said I'll only vote for Biden whom I think is twice the human being than that slug Trump

Trump lets you know who he is....take it or leave it type of attitude.
Biden hides who he is, you'll get a smile and wink right before he slices your throat.