The Mueller Report thread

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2019, 03:16 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I agree. Both sides of the aisle. But then again, since the FCC rule change in 1990, spreading thickly biased and sometimes erroneous stories to appeal to a partisan audience is the name of the game.

And our side (whichever side that may be) does it WAY better than the other guys.... so we are #1!!!!!!! Yay!!!!! Go team, go!!!

Oh yeah. The number of people convinced that Mueller was going to find criminal wrong doing re Trump/Russia were fed that constantly by the media on the left which left little to no room for the possibility that it wouldn't come out to that. I mean, we discussed this in the forum a while ago, but there is no crime of collusion, anyway. The whole idea surrounding it was an interesting one where some people were pointing out that it is quite possible that there could have been contact without anything criminal occurring.

I'm curious to read the report, especially the summaries that were supposedly written by the Mueller team that were intended for public consumption (if those do, in fact, exist). There are also a few people who I would like to hear an analysis from with regard to the report, but that number is very few and they involved people who are or have been involved in the DoJ.

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2019, 05:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Can't stop . . . staring . . . . . into this toad's . . . eyes . . . . . lock . . . her . . . up . . . . .lock . . . .

Ugh, this just made me think of a jackass that parked over the line next to me, yesterday, and had a "lock her up" sticker on their truck. They also spilled something on my car. It was a trifecta of asshattery.

[Bengalzona]

(04-10-2019, 06:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh yeah. The number of people convinced that Mueller was going to find criminal wrong doing re Trump/Russia were fed that constantly by the media on the left which left little to no room for the possibility that it wouldn't come out to that. I mean, we discussed this in the forum a while ago, but there is no crime of collusion, anyway. The whole idea surrounding it was an interesting one where some people were pointing out that it is quite possible that there could have been contact without anything criminal occurring.

I'm curious to read the report, especially the summaries that were supposedly written by the Mueller team that were intended for public consumption (if those do, in fact, exist). There are also a few people who I would like to hear an analysis from with regard to the report, but that number is very few and they involved people who are or have been involved in the DoJ.

Yeah. I have a little different take on the Mueller media frenzy at this point. First, it wasn't just media on the Left. Moderate media was giving this a lot of anticipatory air time. In fact, it was pretty much everyone who wasn't Fox or on the far right fringe. And I don't think it was "wishful thinking" on their parts. I believe that the sheer volume of airtime was actually coordinated (or 'colluded' if you will) to an extent. Not necessarily with the intent of trying to hurting Trump and his admin either. I think the veteran news journalists in this country actually anticipated that the admin would make moves to try keep the report out of the view of everyone but the admin and those involved at the DoJ. This has been this admin's modus operandi on most everything to this point. I believe the big media hoopla was not speculation about the admin colluding with Russia, rather it was to create public outcry so that members of Congress would be forced to request copies of the report and release to the public.

In my experience, the last thing a wise politician ever wants to say to members of the media is, "You don't need to know." That causes the exact opposite effect that you want.

[Bengalzona]

(04-10-2019, 11:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Maybe you just hate Trump, but even so that is an excellent, concise summary of the investigation's rationale and goals evolving within that rationale.

As of last night, Hannity still vows to go after the investigators and "hold them accountable" for the witch hunt. He still wants Hillary in jail for violating the Espionage Act.  All the MSM should be embarrassed and apologetic for two years of lies.

Oh... forgot to mention earlier. Carter Page was also under investigation before the Trump campaign even started. That was what got the whole FBI thing under way, I believe.

So that is Page, Manafort and Cohen under investigation (or as some on the Right like to say "bein' spied upon!!!) prior to the Trump campaign even starting. And then, by some amazing coincidence, Trump just happened to pick all three as well as some of the other Mueller-indicted persons to work on his campaign. Don't that just beat all for dumb luck, eh!

Incidentally, "under investigation" doesn't happen unless there is sufficient evidence to pursue the investigation, as opposed to "I think something happened but don't have any evidence to support".

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-10-2019, 08:38 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I believe the big media hoopla was not speculation about the admin colluding with Russia, rather it was to create public outcry so that members of Congress would be forced to request copies of the report and release to the public.

That sounds more like an idealized hope or what you wish the explanation rather than the more likely actual explanation of "it got clicks, views, and retweets" and/or letting their emotions control them.

I don't buy a TWO YEAR LONG overarching industry-wide agreed upon master plan to pressure the report being released, by posting a frenzy of speculation, rumors, and hopes as news. If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Sorry Zona, know you want to protect and believe in your fellow newsfolk, but that is a pill far too big to swallow.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-10-2019, 08:38 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah. I have a little different take on the Mueller media frenzy at this point. First, it wasn't just media on the Left. Moderate media was giving this a lot of anticipatory air time. In fact, it was pretty much everyone who wasn't Fox or on the far right fringe. And I don't think it was "wishful thinking" on their parts. I believe that the sheer volume of airtime was actually coordinated (or 'colluded' if you will) to an extent. Not necessarily with the intent of trying to hurting Trump and his admin either. I think the veteran news journalists in this country actually anticipated that the admin would make moves to try keep the report out of the view of everyone but the admin and those involved at the DoJ. This has been this admin's modus operandi on most everything to this point. I believe the big media hoopla was not speculation about the admin colluding with Russia, rather it was to create public outcry so that members of Congress would be forced to request copies of the report and release to the public.

In my experience, the last thing a wise politician ever wants to say to members of the media is, "You don't need to know." That causes the exact opposite effect that you want.

Hmm, all I can say about the media frenzy is that the past two days have been great ones, to listen to conservative talk radio..

[Bengalzona]

(04-10-2019, 09:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That sounds more like an idealized hope or what you wish the explanation rather than the more likely actual explanation of "it got clicks, views, and retweets" and/or letting their emotions control them.

I don't buy a TWO YEAR LONG overarching industry-wide agreed upon master plan to pressure the report being released, by posting a frenzy of speculation, rumors, and hopes as news. If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Sorry Zona, know you want to protect and believe in your fellow newsfolk, but that is a pill far too big to swallow.

Some media outlets posted speculation, rumors, and hopes as news, no doubt. Others just gave routine updates. Can you tell the difference?

But believe how you will. It's a free country (for the moment).

I also don't buy into the "mainstream liberal media" bias hoopla. If there were such a thing, we wouldn't have had Republican control of the White House, Senate and House during the past 2 years.

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2019, 09:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, all I can say about the media frenzy is that the past two days have been great ones, to listen to conservative talk radio..

There is no good day to listen to talk radio.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-10-2019, 09:39 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Some media outlets posted speculation, rumors, and hopes as news, no doubt. Others just gave routine updates. Can you tell the difference?

But believe how you will. It's a free country (for the moment).

I also don't buy into the "mainstream liberal media" bias hoopla. If there were such a thing, we wouldn't have had Republican control of the White House, Senate and House during the past 2 years.

I can tell the difference, but I also know that it is easy to get caught up in the momentum or chasing the money.

As I said, not necessarily bias, but it could be just chasing what the readers/viewers want... and lets face it, a lot of people have wanted Trump impeached before even his inaugeration. So that is probably a lot more of a draw than "hey, there may be nothing" as an option.

My utter disbelief was just that the frenzy was an intentional ploy, and not a frenzy.

I also think a big part of the problem is editors rather than journalists, as everyone is fighting to be first and foremost, and bold clickbaity article titles simply get more clicks/get talked more about than boring and realistic accurate ones.

[Bengalzona]

(04-10-2019, 10:05 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I can tell the difference, but I also know that it is easy to get caught up in the momentum or chasing the money.

As I said, not necessarily bias, but it could be just chasing what the readers/viewers want... and lets face it, a lot of people have wanted Trump impeached before even his inaugeration. So that is probably a lot more of a draw than "hey, there may be nothing" as an option.

My utter disbelief was just that the frenzy was an intentional ploy, and not a frenzy.

I also think a big part of the problem is editors rather than journalists, as everyone is fighting to be first and foremost, and bold clickbaity article titles simply get more clicks/get talked more about than boring and realistic accurate ones.

Eh. Editors are just journalists who decided to get married.

Surely you would have to agree though that there has been a continuous effort by most media outlets to keep the story in the news, even when there has been nothing going on in the investigation and/or bigger news stories around?

(And if you agree, I'll even stop calling you 'Shirley'! )

[Bengalzona]

(04-10-2019, 09:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is no good day to listen to talk radio.

I used to listen to WLW a lot back in the hood in the day. But then they started talking less about sports and more about politics. I gave it up at that point.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-10-2019, 10:37 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Eh. Editors are just journalists who decided to get married.

Surely you would have to agree though that there has been a continuous effort by most media outlets to keep the story in the news, even when there has been nothing going on in the investigation and/or bigger news stories around?

(And if you agree, I'll even stop calling you 'Shirley'! )

I'll agree there was an effort to keep the story in the news, but we will have to agree to disagree on why that is. Lol

Looks like you picked the wrong week to quit smoking.

[Bengalzona]

"I feel I have an obligation to make sure government power is not abused." ~ William Barr with his best stab at irony.

[GMDino]

(04-11-2019, 12:03 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: "I feel I have an obligation to make sure government power is not abused." ~ William Barr with his best stab at irony.

Was that during Iran-Contra or now?  

[GMDino]

Now we'll see how the right feels about these charges.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/greg-craig-mueller-investigation/index.html

Lawyers expect ex-Obama counsel to be indicted in case linked to Mueller probe

Quote:(CNN)Attorneys for Greg Craig, a prominent Democratic lawyer and former White House counsel in the Obama administration, said Wednesday evening that they expect him to be indicted by federal prosecutors in a case that stems from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.


An indictment against Craig connected to work he performed for Ukraine while he was a partner at the high-profile law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP has been expected for several weeks, and CNN reported in late March that prosecutors were close to bringing a caseover what they allege were false statements made by Craig.


The case is significant not only because of Craig's reputation as a legal heavyweight but also because it has its origins in the Justice Department's newfound taste for prosecutions connected to a once-obscure law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which is used to pursue cases of individuals acting as unregistered foreign agents. It is also notable because while most of the cases charged as a result of Mueller's investigation concerned Republicans connected to President Donald Trump, Craig is a Democrat.

An indictment against him could come as soon as Thursday, according to people familiar with the matter. CNN has reported that the statute of limitations for the matter for which Craig was originally investigated -- having failed to register as a foreign agent -- has expired and that prosecutors have instead been weighing bringing a false statement charge against him.




Related: Track the publicly known developments of the sprawling investigations into Trump and Russia.
[/url]


Though an initial inquiry into Craig and Skadden was opened by Mueller, Craig's case was later referred to federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and eventually to prosecutors in the US Attorney's office for the District of Columbia. It is prosecutors from that office, "at the request of" the Justice Department's national security division, who are expected to charge Craig, his lawyers said.


"This case was thoroughly investigated by the SDNY and that office decided not to pursue charges against Mr. Craig," his attorneys said Wednesday. "Mr. Craig is not guilty of any charge and the government's stubborn insistence on prosecuting Mr. Craig is a misguided abuse of prosecutorial discretion."


After examining Craig's case, federal prosecutors in New York concluded they had insufficient evidence to bring charges against him, CNN has reported.


Craig initially came into the crosshairs of federal prosecutors in mid-2017. He and Skadden had performed work beginning in 2012 for Ukraine's Ministry of Justice. It was a client relationship the Justice Department has said was forged with the assistance of Paul Manafort, who later became Trump's campaign chairman.


The issue that has been under examination has to do with contact Craig made in late 2012 with several newspaper reporters at the time of the public release of a report he had written for Skadden's client, the Ukranian Ministry of Justice, on the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister of Ukraine.


The inquiry from prosecutors has concerned whether Craig had contacted reporters on behalf of Ukraine to distribute the report to them and whether he had subsequently [url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/skadden-foreign-agent-ukraine/index.html]provided false information to the Justice Department's Foreign Agents Registration Act unit when he met with representatives from the unit in October 2013.


In January, the Justice Department's national security division settled with Skadden in an agreement that forced the firm to turn over $4.6 million it had earned for its 2012 work for Ukraine and to retroactively register as a foreign agent. The language of the settlement appeared to leave Craig exposed to potential criminal charges for what the document describes as his repeated "false and misleading" statements to Justice Department officials.

On Wednesday, his attorneys disputed that assessment, saying: "He did not lie to his former firm or the government about these conversations."

Craig's attorneys met with Justice Department prosecutors in recent days in a bid to avoid charges against him, a person familiar with the matter said.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-11-2019, 08:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Now we'll see how the right feels about these charges.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/greg-craig-mueller-investigation/index.html

Lawyers expect ex-Obama counsel to be indicted in case linked to Mueller probe

I wish I understood better this unregistered foreign agent thing.  Is it doing work on behalf of another government?

[Belsnickel]

(04-11-2019, 09:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I wish I understood better this unregistered foreign agent thing.  Is it doing work on behalf of another government?

Yes. It's essentially being a lobbyist for a foreign government. Americans regularly do this, it's a part of the swamp of Washington. However, much like regular lobbying, you are supposed to register your lobbying activities. For domestic purposes it is more about tracking the revolving door of lobbyists that move between government and the private sector at will, for foreign lobbying it is something every foreign agent is supposed to do.

Neither law is often enforced. There is so much unregistered lobbying activity that occurs in Washington that it would make your head spin. That is what makes the prosecutions related to all of this a bit outside of the norm.

[jj22]

(04-10-2019, 09:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, all I can say about the media frenzy is that the past two days have been great ones, to listen to conservative talk radio..

Did any of them call for the full release of the Mueller report?

Or were they content to keep Trumps exoneration secret even after the grand jury lie was exposed?

Asking for a friend who missed listening.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-11-2019, 11:18 AM)jj22 Wrote: Did any of them call for the full release of the Mueller report?

Or were they content to keep Trumps exoneration secret even after the grand jury lie was exposed?

Asking for a friend who missed listening.

You know, that's funny.  The Democrats declined the opportunity to read the full, unredacted report, in a private session.

[GMDino]

(04-11-2019, 11:30 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You know, that's funny.  The Democrats declined the opportunity to read the full, unredacted report, in a private session.

Do you have a citation for that?

I didn't see where that offer was made.