Attorney General William Barr has provided Congress with his summary of the Mueller report, setting off comments on all sides.
You can read Barr’s summary here. If you do, you’ll most likely be the only one in your friendship network who has actually read it.
Meanwhile, I appreciated this advice from Robert Litt, writing for the Lawfare Blog (“What does the Barr letter actually say about Collusion?“).
The prevailing take on Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress on the Mueller report is summed up in the New York Times: “The investigation . . . found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference.” But a careful reading of Barr’s letter suggests that that may be wrong.
In fact, Barr’s letter quotes Special Counsel Robert Mueller as stating that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Saying that the investigation did not establish that there was collusion is not the same thing as saying that the investigation established that there was no collusion. Two points are worth emphasizing.
These subtle differences are vitally important for our democracy, unless we’re willing to accept that as long as there’s not enough evidence for a slam-dunk criminal indictment, our public officials are above legitimate criticism.
Have our collective expectations really sunk that low?
I would suggest we wait for the release of more of the actual report, rather than forming hard opinions on the basis of a summary that most people haven’t read.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, the report needs to come out of the closet. If it makes Trump look bad, Trump will fight release and will come up with an excuse for it in the meantime. Classic Trump. Excuses Excuses……… Trump practically calls himself an excellent liar if not the best liar out there, other than Rocketman.
The A.G., in his transmittal, sets a low bar indeed. If the investigation was a “hoax”, as Trump claims, how can it now be a “complete and thorough vindication?”
Think the Democrats should not have put all their beans and hope in one fake collusion basket! Wonks can read and weep away without 2020 vision. Why not get “Crazy” Mazy to run for President against “Culty” Gabbard. Should make for a good old Burns vs. Gill round II in Hawaii primary! But nationally 0+0 still equals only our HI Electoral delegates.
I have never worked as a prosecutor, but I have taught criminal law
at an accredited state university law school.
Mueller’s report states: “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
This is the first time I ever heard such a statement.
I have never heard of a criminal investigation that concluded
that the defendant was “not exonerated”.
It seems to be a 100% political statement, 100% extralegal comment. It is obviously intended to influence “the court of public opinion.”
The purpose of a criminal investigation is to find crime
and prosecute it. It is NOT to exonerate or “not exonerate”.
If insufficient evidence is found to proceed with criminal prosecution,
then the job is done, the prosecutor is not empowered to comment
about ifs, buts, or maybes, or about exoneration.
Such comments are contrary to our system of criminal justice,
which supposedly assumes innocence until guilt is proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
You hit it on the head mauisurfer. Absolute rubbish for Mueller to get into exonerate and not exonerate. It is not ever heard of. Until now. Political garbage. “Trash” talk.”
excellent summary from David Stockman here:
https://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2019/03/26/not-mueller-time-hey-msm-this-duds-for-you/
Trump never opens his mouth without a lie coming out, and it’s important for the country to know the report didn’t exonerate him because of course he was going to claim it did. “Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent” and I’m glad that much was made clear because the whole truth may never come out.
No one has been investigated more than Hillary Clinton, but she has never been found guilty of anything. Haters still gonna hate, while holding Trump to a much lower standard and whining about how it’s all political. Please.
Ironic how Russian influence on public opinion is evident in this very thread, isn’t it? Also stunning, the lack of self-awareness.
In other news, CNN poll showed 57% of Americans want MORE investigation, not less (and not of Hillary Clinton). The majority also want to see the full report, whatever it finds. I wouldn’t personally want to be on the wrong side of history on this matter, but I understand how hard it is for some people to let go of deeply entrenched prejudices. It hurts too much to admit you’ve been played.
Kali out (from Kailua)
did you know that putin has been doing all these evil things?
> “Promoting sex toys on Instagram to sow discord in the US” (Quartz).
>
> Influencing the Standing Rock movement (Buzzfeed).
>
> Making “‘useful idiots’ of unwitting environmental groups and activists” (U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology).
>
> Targeting the U.S. embassy in Cuba with “some kind of microwave weapon, that is so sophisticated, that the Americans don’t even fully understand it” (Ken Dilanian, MSNBC reporter). [The microwave weapon turned out to be crickets].
> “Infiltrating” America’s Christian conservative homeschooling movement (Casey Michel, Think Progress)
> Inflaming “race wars” across America with Facebook ads (Julia Ioffe, The Atlantic)
> Inflaming the NFL kneeling controversy “to make a big issue seem like an even bigger issue” (James Lankford, U.S. senator).
> Tricking Americans into thinking Jesus hates Hillary Clinton (New York Times).
more here:
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/03/27/a-very-incomplete-list-of-sinister-things-vladimir-putin-russia-the-russians-have-been-accused-of-doing/
If Trump had been impeached, it would have plunged the economy into recession. In order to avoid political and economic chaos, there might have been a decision made by Mueller to not portray Trump as having engaged in collusion unless the evidence was overwhelming. In fact, the Feds pretty much do not pursue prosecution unless it is a slam dunk (adios, Kealohas).
Remember that the Democrats could have impeached Ronald Reagan and driven him from office in the wake of Iran-Contra. They chose not to because Reagan was still viable as a President. The Dems instead agreed to let the administration change its staff (replacing the hardcore chief-of-staff Donald Regan with the moderate Howard Baker). If the Dems can be so practical and reasonable, perhaps so can the FBI.