The Mueller Report thread

[hollodero]

(03-27-2019, 09:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Even deleting them after you have been instructed by a special counsel investigation to hand over the device? 

Well, it seems complicated. From what I read now, she was ordered (was there a special counsel?) to hand over Benghazi related emails, and then her technician stated he forgot to carry out a previously demanded delete of older personal emails and then belatedly caught up to that request.
I wouldn't know that this happened after it was ordered the whole device is handed over. I might be wrong about that. I sure didn't pay too much attention, since I really thought while she did wrong, it's a common wrong and regarding who's running against her, I don't care too much about a misdeed that seemed more technical then nefarious.

Which is no defense for her, sure. But Trump should also not use that as a precedent to redact whatever he pleases out of the Mueller report. What good is a "no obstruction" claim when everyone could assume there's no obstruction mentioned because Trump edited those parts out.

My rationality is the one regarding another sitting president and another special counsel investigation. As I said, no way it would have been accepted if Bill had gotten a first glance and an unlimited flow of Wite-Out for the Starr report.

[*bfine32*]

(03-27-2019, 10:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, it seems complicated. From what I read now, she was ordered (was there a special counsel?) to hand over Benghazi related emails, and then her technician stated he forgot to carry out a previously demanded delete of older personal emails and then belatedly caught up to that request.
I wouldn't know that this happened after it was ordered the whole device is handed over. I might be wrong about that. I sure didn't pay too much attention, since I really thought while she did wrong, it's a common wrong and regarding who's running against her, I don't care too much about a misdeed that seemed more technical then nefarious.

Which is no defense for her, sure. But Trump should also not use that as a precedent to redact whatever he pleases out of the Mueller report. What good is a "no obstruction" claim when everyone could assume there's no obstruction mentioned because Trump edited those parts out.

My rationality is the one regarding another sitting president and another special counsel investigation. As I said, no way it would have been accepted if Bill had gotten a first glance and an unlimited flow of Wite-Out for the Starr report.

Of course the point was would folks that are satisfied with the notion that Hills had thousands of emails deleted after being ordered to turn over her CPU,then claimed they were about nothing more than yoga, and an underling saying "my bad" is a non-issue be similarly satisfied that Trump simply redacted information that is trivial.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say many will not. Hell even you, one of the more rational libs in the forum, is already suggesting "not the same".

[GMDino]

(03-27-2019, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would the Dems buy that anything Trump deleted was simply about yoga?

(03-27-2019, 09:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Even deleting them after you have been instructed by a special counsel investigation to hand over the device? 

Folks will create their own rationality. 

(03-27-2019, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course the point was would folks that are satisfied with the notion that Hills had thousands of emails deleted after being ordered to turn over her CPU,then claimed they were about nothing more than yoga, and an underling saying "my bad" is a non-issue be similarly satisfied that Trump simply redacted information that is trivial.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say many will not. Hell even you, one of the more rational libs in the forum, is already suggesting "not the same".

HRCDS?  

[hollodero]

(03-27-2019, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course the point was would folks that are satisfied with the notion that Hills had thousands of emails deleted after being ordered to turn over her CPU,then claimed they were about nothing more than yoga, and an underling saying "my bad" is a non-issue

For the record, I tried to make clear I do not see it as a non-issue.
(It doesn't change too much even, but did she delete emails after she was ordered to hand over the server...? I read that differently, but again my source is only a lengthy wikipedia article)

(03-27-2019, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: be similarly satisfied that Trump simply redacted information that is trivial.

I just wouldn't trust him on that, as you obviously don't trust Hillary on that. I also feel Hillary shouldn't factor into it anyways. It's not about folks and their possible hypocrisy.
On the other hand, if you claim Trump should get first glance and redact as he pleases you kind of have to put up with the Bill/Starr comparison, rather than only caring about the Hillary comparison. A hypocrisy claim can be constructed for either stance (that Trump should get the opportunity or that he should not). Which makes it kind of a moot point.

(03-27-2019, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb and say many will not. Hell even you, one of the more rational libs in the forum, is already suggesting "not the same".

Yeah because I feel it's not the same. I mean, it really isn't the same "on its face", as I suppose Americans would put it.

(Also, I do not define as a "lib"... not that it matters)

[Dill]

(03-27-2019, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would the Dems buy that anything Trump deleted was simply about yoga?

LOL would you?

[Dill]

(03-27-2019, 10:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, it seems complicated. From what I read now, she was ordered (was there a special counsel?) to hand over Benghazi related emails, and then her technician stated he forgot to carry out a previously demanded delete of older personal emails and then belatedly caught up to that request.
I wouldn't know that this happened after it was ordered the whole device is handed over. I might be wrong about that. I sure didn't pay too much attention, since I really thought while she did wrong, it's a common wrong and regarding who's running against her, I don't care too much about a misdeed that seemed more technical then nefarious.

If Trump had written the Mueller report himself
(including "personal" paragraphs about golf and hot WH interns),
with virtually every paragraph tracked to multiple other devices,

and then was asked to forward any classified material,

and so sorted out the unclassfied and ordered a subordinate to delete it,

and then weeks later Trump got a subpoena for the whole,

and then Trump's subordinate belatedly deleted as ordered,
much what was deleted being still capturable on other devices and not about the Russia investigation

and it cost Trump the election,

the case would be more technical than nefarious, and EXACTLY like Hillary's emails.

 

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2019, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course the point was would folks that are satisfied with the notion that Hills had thousands of emails deleted after being ordered to turn over her CPU,then claimed they were about nothing more than yoga, and an underling saying "my bad" is a non-issue be similarly satisfied that Trump simply redacted information that is trivial.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say many will not. Hell even you, one of the more rational libs in the forum, is already suggesting "not the same".

The FBI concluded that the "underling," who was actually a staffer at Platte River Networks, was told to delete the personal emails in December of 2014. He didn't do that, then once the request was received for emails he had an "oh shit" moment and deleted them based on the order from three months prior. Well before the subpoena. That was that technician's decision to delete at that time.

Can we stop pushing false narratives?

[Vas Deferens]

(03-28-2019, 04:34 AM)Dill Wrote: If Trump had written the Mueller report himself
(including "personal" paragraphs about golf and hot WH interns),
with virtually every paragraph tracked to multiple other devices,

and then was asked to forward any classified material,

and so sorted out the unclassfied and ordered a subordinate to delete it,

and then weeks later Trump got a subpoena for the whole,

and then Trump's subordinate belatedly deleted as ordered,
much what was deleted being still capturable on other devices and not about the Russia investigation

and it cost Trump the election,

the case would be more technical than nefarious, and EXACTLY like Hillary's emails.

 

Nothing like digital immigrants telling me how email works.  Because the delete goes to trash can and the trash goes bye bye.

[GMDino]

This seems like a sound, well reasoned response from a President.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/trump-mueller-attempted-takeover-government/index.html

Quote:President Donald Trump railed against special counsel Robert Mueller's now-completed investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election on Wednesday, calling it an "attempted takeover of our government."


"We can never allow this treasonous, these treasonous acts to happen to another President," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity, in his first TV interview since Attorney General William Barr summarized the principal findings of Mueller's report in a memo to Congress on Sunday.


Barr's memo said Mueller, after a nearly two year investigation, did not establish that Trump's campaign or associates conspired with Russia. Mueller's investigation of whether the President committed obstruction of justice did not conclude Trump committed a crime, but it also "does not exonerate him," Barr quoted from Mueller's report.


"This was an attempted takeover of our government, of our country, an illegal takeover," Trump said. "If it were the other way around, where I was doing it to President Obama or a Democrat, it would be virtually the maximum sentence that you can find."


He added,"If the Republican Party had done this to the Democrats, if we had done this to President Obama, you'd have 100 people in jail right now and it would be treason. It would be considered treason and they'd be in jail for the rest of their lives."


The President accused former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI agent Peter Strzok and "hundreds of others" of treason and implied they could be punished for it.



"In 50 years from now, in 100 years from now, if someone tries the same thing, they have to know that the penalty will be very, very great, if and when they get caught."

When asked if he was now thinking about pardoning any of his former associates who were charged with, convicted of, or pleaded guilty to crimes as a part of the Mueller probe, Trump demurred.


The President said he didn't "want to talk about pardons now," but added the investigation was "sad on so many levels."

[GMDino]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/mueller-grand-jury-1238861

Quote:Mueller grand jury 'continuing robustly,' prosecutor says
The revelation — while laced with uncertainty — indicates that the ongoing cases Mueller handed off could still feature significant developments.


Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
The special counsel grand jury that investigated Russian collusion into the 2016 presidential election is “continuing robustly” despite the end of Robert Mueller’s probe, a federal prosecutor said in court Wednesday.


The revelation — while laced with uncertainty — indicates that the ongoing cases Mueller handed off after concluding his probe could still feature significant developments, legal experts said.

David Goodhand, an assistant U.S. attorney, acknowledged the grand jury’s active status during a hearing in U.S. District Court over a push to unveil the identity of a foreign state-owned firm that has been held in contempt for defying a Mueller subpoena.


The mystery company’s case was denied a hearing before the Supreme Court earlier this week, and in the meantime, the open government group Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press has sought access to all materials in the clandestine litigation, including the company’s identity.

During a brief open hearing Wednesday, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for D.C., Beryl Howell, pressed Goodhand to say whether the grand jury Mueller had been using in the case remained active.


“It is continuing,” the prosecutor replied. “It’s continuing robustly.”


The fact the grand jury is continuing its work adds a new wrinkle to the Mueller probe, which Attorney General William Barr announced on Friday was finished.

Barr released a four-page summary saying the special counsel had not found a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and 
Russia to sway the 2016presidential election. Barr also noted that Mueller had not reached a conclusion on whether the president had obstructed justice. The attorney general then made a separate judgment that the obstruction evidence did not prove a crime.


Additionally, the attorney general said Mueller had no more indictments — either to be released or under seal — in the case.


Mueller’s office in recent days has been handing off a series of its cases to federal prosecutors across the government as it closes up shop. That includes the mystery subpoena fight that’s been ongoing since last year.


The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., where Goodhand works, is now leading the subpoena fight, as well as Mueller’s upcoming trial in November against longtime Trump associate Roger Stone and the eventual sentencing for former Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates.


Mueller spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the federal prosecutor’s statement in court about the active grand jury.


Theodore Boutrous, the lead attorney for the Reporters Committee, said he welcomed the revelation and the questions it raises about the direction of the Russia investigation that DOJ had otherwise announced was over.


“That to me is fascinating. It’s worth doing it for that,” he said.

Several legal experts offered their own theories about the Mueller grand jury’s status.


Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor teaching law at Duke University, said the grand jury could still be meeting “on drain the swamp cases” akin to the one brought against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Gates for failing to disclose foreign lobbying activity. He noted that one of the lead Mueller prosecutors in the Manafort-Gates case, Brandon Van Grack, is leading a new DOJ unit assigned to enforcing that law.

Others said the grand jury’s continued presence could pose an ongoing headache for President Donald Trump, who since Sunday has misleadingly hyped Barr’s letter about the end of the Mueller probe as a complete exoneration.


"I worked with the prosecutor [Goodhand] in this matter,” said Gene Rossi, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia. “He uses his words very carefully. The use of 'robustly' is not bluster or gratuitous. That word strongly suggests that the handoffs from Robert Mueller's office are alive and kicking and that the Washington U.S. Attorney's Office could be another troubling front for the president and the White House."


As she weighed the request to lift the curtain on the company’s identity Wednesday, Howell made it a point to ascertain whether the grand jury that’s been meeting since mid-2017 still has work to do.


“Transparency … when it comes to the judicial process is very important,” she said. “There should be no secret law.”


The mystery firm’s lawyers have argued the company should not be subject to a subpoena because it’s entirely foreign government-owned and complying with the subpoena would break the foreign country’s laws.


On Monday, the Supreme Court turned down the firm's appeal, leaving a pair of lower court decisions in place. The company is also currently subject to a $50,000-a-day legal fine as long as it refuses to turn over requested information. So far, it has racked up more than $2 million in penalties.


In court Wednesday, Goodhand said the government still opposes the release of the foreign company’s name.


So did Brian Boone, a partner at Alston & Bird who is representing the firm. “My client would prefer to not have his identity be disclosed to the public,” Boone said.


Howell asked Boone to explain why there’s still a need for secrecy.


“I’d prefer not to in a public a hearing," Boone replied.


The company’s lawyers then left from the courtroom before the hearing ended, skipping the arguments from the Reporters Committee and the federal government.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 09:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The FBI concluded that the "underling," who was actually a staffer at Platte River Networks, was told to delete the personal emails in December of 2014. He didn't do that, then once the request was received for emails he had an "oh shit" moment and deleted them based on the order from three months prior. Well before the subpoena. That was that technician's decision to delete at that time.

Can we stop pushing false narratives?

Obviously you dont understand that the FBI and DOJ work for the Clintons.

Welcome to the echo chamber.

[hollodero]

(03-28-2019, 11:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/mueller-grand-jury-1238861

Still don't know US law, but that seems odd.

Could Muellers report only indicate that he is finished, but the investigation actually is not?

Did he hand off not only follow up investigations, but the very core investigation itself so Trump or Barr could not cover up the results?

Would that be possible? 

And is the mystery company actually Deutsche Bank?

Yeah I have a lot of questions about that.

[Bengalzona]

I think the last person I heard criticize the FBI as much as Trump does was Al Capone.

[Bengalzona]

(03-28-2019, 12:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: Still don't know US law, but that seems odd.

Could Muellers report only indicate that he is finished, but the investigation actually is not?

Did he hand off not only follow up investigations, but the very core investigation itself so Trump or Barr could not cover up the results?

Would that be possible? 

And is the mystery company actually Deutsche Bank?

Yeah I have a lot of questions about that.

That does appear to be the situation with some facets of the investigation, like obsturction. Others, like the collusion question, seem to be settled.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2019, 12:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: Still don't know US law, but that seems odd.

Could Muellers report only indicate that he is finished, but the investigation actually is not?

Did he hand off not only follow up investigations, but the very core investigation itself so Trump or Barr could not cover up the results?

Would that be possible? 

It is likely that Mueller handed things off and filed the report because he had concluded the investigation into what he was hired to investigate. He likely did not want to continue on with all of the things that spun off because he knew the public's appetite for it would not do. He did his job, he turned in the report, he is done. The other investigations do not require a special counsel.

(03-28-2019, 12:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: And is the mystery company actually Deutsche Bank?

Yeah I have a lot of questions about that.

It is not Deutsche Bank. The mystery company is state-owned, whereas Deutsche Bank is a publicly traded entity.

[jj22]

(03-27-2019, 08:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: ??? Well of course some things possibly can't be released to the public. There might be ongoing investigations, grand jury information, reveal of methods, or of source material. Even national interest could play into it. I mean, I know nothing about US law, but to claim it can be released fully and there's no doubt about that seems odd to me.

But sure some Democrat trustees need to see the same thing Barr saw. I wouldn't expect anyone to trust him or his summary or his words alone. But a full release without redactions might be negligent (and illegal. What if an informant or spy is unmasked?)

It's being reported as the biggest hoax in American history by Fox News, Trump, and his supporters.

There's no classified info/legit spy info/informant info in hoaxes, fake news, witch hunts. Those only happen in legit investigations which had just reasoning to be started! So no, nothing needs to be redacted because it was all "fake" according to them.

They've lost control of the talking points and it's all flipped on them when Republicans kept pushing to hide the report. Even after they celebrated it "fully exonerating". Given Trumps ego it's a hard sell to say he'd still hide and redact parts of a report that "fully exonerated" him.

Now people are questioning the logic of why there'd be classified government information that needed to be redacted in a fake news/Witch hunt of an investigation.

Trump supporters are struggling to have it both ways and it's blowing up in their faces.

But common sense says if it was a witch hunt/fake news/Hoax they'd want us to see it. They don't, and that tells many people since last Friday something is up.

Now of course they are spinning it saying the info that needs to be redacted is info on Hillary's collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election, and they want Obama investigated for it. The more they talk like this, the more people question the legitimacy of Barr's "interpretation" of the Mueller report.

[hollodero]

(03-28-2019, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is likely that Mueller handed things off and filed the report because he had concluded the investigation into what he was hired to investigate. He likely did not want to continue on with all of the things that spun off because he knew the public's appetite for it would not do. He did his job, he turned in the report, he is done. The other investigations do not require a special counsel.

But they require his grand jury? Weird. Ok, admittedly I have no clear idea what a grand jury actually does.

To be a bit more conspiratory, because reasonable is boring - theoretically, could Mueller have handed off a report over an actually still ongoing investigation to get Barr out of the oversight for the final conclusions? Is it totally clear he concluded the investigation itself?

(03-28-2019, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is not Deutsche Bank. The mystery company is state-owned, whereas Deutsche Bank is a publicly traded entity.

Oh, right. I had all the information to figure that out myself.

[hollodero]

(03-28-2019, 12:43 PM)jj22 Wrote: It's being reported as the biggest hoax in American history by Fox News, Trump, and his supporters.

OK, that doesn't need to influence the AG or his decisions though. That whole rhetorics. It might, and I get not trusting the guy Trump hired after the former guy wasn't willing to do as he pleases, but I wouldn't see a compelling connection.

(03-28-2019, 12:43 PM)jj22 Wrote: There's no classified info/legit spy info/informant info in hoaxes, fake news, witch hunts. Those only happen in legit investigations which had just reasoning to be started! So no, nothing needs to be redacted because it was all "fake" according to them.

Again, I feel you're mistaking spin with facts. Trump and FOX might say what they want, but in reality they do know there's a legit investigation going on, one that might warrant redactions before release. I mean, most non-indictments don't get disclosed, right? One wouldn't want to reveal sources and methods or throw shade at people thatr are presumed innocent citizens. As much as I want to see the report, I would get why one would say, why attack someone's reputation that is not indicted (or reveal classified information).

(03-28-2019, 12:43 PM)jj22 Wrote: They've lost control of the talking points

In all honesty, so have many on the other side. Eg. Adam Schiff told me (and everyone, but mostly me) that he has seen definite evidence for obstruction. Well, that's a tough stance as well now (unless the core investigation is actually not finished). i wouldn't see republicans in a tougher spot here.

[jj22]

Updated News.

Barr isn't even going to release a redacted version now. He's just going to do a summary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/mueller-investigation-watergate.html

Quote:Beyond those bottom-line conclusions, Mr. Mueller’s full report has yet to be released, and it remained unclear if it ever would be. House Democrats have demanded that it be sent to them by next Tuesday, but the Justice Department outlined a longer schedule, saying that it will have its own summary ready to send to lawmakers within weeks, though not months.

This coverup is beginning to look worse (if you can believe that) then the crime.

[jj22]

(03-28-2019, 01:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, that doesn't need to influence the AG or his decisions though. That whole rhetorics. It might, and I get not trusting the guy Trump hired after the former guy wasn't willing to do as he pleases, but I wouldn't see a compelling connection.



Again, I feel you're mistaking spin with facts. Trump and FOX might say what they want, but in reality they do know there's a legit investigation going on, one that might warrant redactions before release. I mean, most non-indictments don't get disclosed, right? One wouldn't want to reveal sources and methods or throw shade at people thatr are presumed innocent citizens. As much as I want to see the report, I would get why one would say, why attack someone's reputation that is not indicted (or reveal classified information).



In all honesty, so have many on the other side. Eg. Adam Schiff told me (and everyone, but mostly me) that he has seen definite evidence for obstruction. Well, that's a tough stance as well now (unless the core investigation is actually not finished). i wouldn't see republicans in a tougher spot here.

Schiff didn't lie. Mueller report didn't exonerate Trump on obstruction. Barr did admit to that.