Mueller personally told AG that he had mischaracterized the investigation's findings

[supersonicwaffle]

Oh they must've edited the headline and details of the story as they emerged. None the less, the 15th still seems to be the plan if at all possible:

Fair enough. Your third source however doesn’t say it was updated so at best you’re using sketchy sources.

 

[Xzi]

Fair enough. Your third source however doesn’t say it was updated so at best you’re using sketchy sources.

That one actually says the same thing though, must've been posted later.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) on Sunday said the House Judiciary Committee is aiming to bring in special counsel Robert Mueller on May 15, but "nothing has been agreed to yet."

Most stories have multiple outlets confirming, so I usually just pick sources at random (as long as they aren't obviously tabloid sites). Turns out that even Washington Post had the facts incorrect at first, but I think there was a miscommunication coming from House Dems.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

That one actually says the same thing though, must've been posted later.

Which is why I’m saying you’re either not reading your own sources or you use sources that ninjaedit without disclosure.
It’s not really that big of a deal just thought it was weird.

 

[Xzi]

Which is why I’m saying you’re either not reading your own sources or you use sources that ninjaedit without disclosure.
It’s not really that big of a deal just thought it was weird.

I admit to not reading the third one before posting it, I try to avoid consuming too much of the garbage that Trump puts out there. The second one I had read earlier with a different headline and a different overall message, suggesting they had agreed to a 'tentative' date.

 

[Taleweaver]

Is it me, or is Trump getting desperate in his attempts to deflect the attention?

To anyone not in his fanclub, it's a known fact that he lies a lot (in fact...even his fans often admit this). Therefore, him shouting publicly that there is no collusion has roughly the same effect as not having said anything at all.
However, just like with the "Mexico is going to pay for the wall" lie, there are consequences to this. If it turns out that he has instructed Barr to not give a proper reflection on the Mueller report, this is one more example of obstruction of justice for him. And like the consequence of the first lie is that Mexico isn't paying for the wall, the consequence of collusion (once proven) should be impeachment, followed by proper trial (okay: only the latter is needed. But if being the president protects you from the latter, the former should be done first).
Oh, and it also has the consequence of William Barr being an accomplice. You can't have a minister of justice who places his boss above...well...justice.


So to me, it would seem only the obvious course of action to get everything done by the book rather than these delaying tactics. If it's the senate's task to oversee government (which it is), then it should be given the right to do just that. To me, it would also seem that the government literally should not have authority until this is properly dealt with. But since this isn't being debated about, I can only suppose that for some reason that situation isn't what anyone want. And that's odd...


Let me illustrate that last bit: suppose I decide to rig the next election (news anchor: "...and from out of the blue, having done no campaign whatsoever, a certain "Taleweaver" guy wins the 2020 election with an average 2 trillion votes in each state ") and appoint some loyal henchmen as my minister of justice...would that really mean I could just do whatever the f*** I wanted to? ("yeah, sure...investigate away if that makes you happy. Just drop the report in the mailbox of my minister of justice. He'll deal with it in an objective fashion ") Really...I would think that wouldn't work in this reality, but for some reason nobody is proving me wrong. Even the most hardcore democrats seem pretty unwilling to piss off Trump fanboys. But...why? the way I see it, those guys manage to be pissed off if you wish them a good morning ("your sources of the weather report are too vague to determine for everyone that it can be classified as well enough to be good...therefore it is NOT, as you claim, a "good morning" ), so...since there's no way around it, you might as well ignore them.

 

[Lacius]

Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

We all pretty much knew that this was Mueller's thinking already, based on the Mueller report itself.

 

[Taleweaver]

Seems to me everyone is in full "mud sling" modus. Except that only one party has all the mud and the other has a twitter account. Let's see:

Democrats:
-are leaking Trump tax returns, claiming that he lost 1 billion dollar in his early career
-are subpoena'ing Donald Trump junior
-are filing a motion of distrust against Barr for contempt
-senate is considering impeachment (not sure on that one...I hear a lot of "they might" and "they should")

Republicans:
-the party is blocking or delaying responses or downright refuse to show up
-Trump is refusing to hand over his tax returns to senate
-Trump is blocking the testimony of McGahn, mentioned in the Mueller rapport as being tasked to obstruct Mueller's investigation (and refused to do that)
-Trump is attempting to block Mueller from testifying himself

EDIT:
somewhat forgot (though it's not really part of this):
-Trump is upping Chinese import taxes some more for no reason whatsoever (and in direct contrast to the negotiations on that front).

 

[Xzi]

Seems to me everyone is in full "mud sling" modus. Except that only one party has all the mud and the other has a twitter account. Let's see:

Democrats:
-are leaking Trump tax returns, claiming that he lost 1 billion dollar in his early career
-are subpoena'ing Donald Trump junior
-are filing a motion of distrust against Barr for contempt
-senate is considering impeachment (not sure on that one...I hear a lot of "they might" and "they should")

Republicans:
-the party is blocking or delaying responses or downright refuse to show up
-Trump is refusing to hand over his tax returns to senate
-Trump is blocking the testimony of McGahn, mentioned in the Mueller rapport as being tasked to obstruct Mueller's investigation (and refused to do that)
-Trump is attempting to block Mueller from testifying himself

Yep, it's playing out much as predicted. Pelosi is going to have to realize sooner or later that it's coming down to either: impeach, or government gets absolutely nothing done for the next year and a half. Trump and Barr are holding the federal legislative and oversight processes hostage.

 

[KingVamp]

-Trump is upping Chinese import taxes some more for no reason whatsoever (and in direct contrast to the negotiations on that front).

I'm not saying they should, but it seems to be getting to the point of outright banning them.

 

[Hanafuda]

05/29/19, 10:57am ET. T-minus 3 minutes until Mueller has announced he will give a public statement, but take no questions. Apparently doesn't want to testify before Congress. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say. (My bet's on "Leave me the fuck alone!")

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-emerge-TODAY-break-silence-Russia-probe.html



Edit: well that was a big meh.

 

[Xzi]

05/29/19, 10:57am ET. T-minus 3 minutes until Mueller has announced he will give a public statement, but take no questions. Apparently doesn't want to testify before Congress. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say. (My bet's on "Leave me the fuck alone!")

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-emerge-TODAY-break-silence-Russia-probe.html



Edit: well that was a big meh.

I didn't realize he was going to be making a statement today, thanks for keeping us updated. This is pretty big, it shows a rift starting to grow in the DoJ between people who actually want the job done proper and people who just want to be sycophants.

 

[Taleweaver]

The interesting part of the speech is in what Mueller doesn't say. He could easily dispel most of trumps tweets on the topic, but he didn't. But he doesn't seem scared either. It seems to me that he mainly wants the focus away from the political bickering and on the actual proven findings : Russia did interfere in the elections. Multiple times, even.

I understand a cyber attack doesn't exactly carry the same emotional impact as flying planes into buildings, but it's an attack nonetheless.

And seeing the (lack of) response against Russia, I'd say they were successful.

 

[Hanafuda]

The interesting part of the speech is in what Mueller doesn't say. He could easily dispel most of trumps tweets on the topic, but he didn't. But he doesn't seem scared either. It seems to me that he mainly wants the focus away from the political bickering and on the actual proven findings : Russia did interfere in the elections. Multiple times, even.

I understand a cyber attack doesn't exactly carry the same emotional impact as flying planes into buildings, but it's an attack nonetheless.

And seeing the (lack of) response against Russia, I'd say they were successful.

To whatever extent there were Russian attempts to influence the election, I doubt very seriously it changed even one vote. And it shouldn't exactly be shocking to anyone ... governments and foreign private entities have attempted to influence the outcomes of elections in other countries since forever. Obama went to England and spoke out against UK citizens voting "leave," for instance. The US, particularly through the CIA, has involved itself in foreign elections too many times to count. So why is it so shocking that some Russians bought robocalls and Facebook ads???

As for the DNC hack, Mueller appears content to assume that was "teh Russians" also, but he has no proof. The FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers. They had to take the word of a third party investigation by a DNC-chosen company.

 

[Xzi]

To whatever extent there were Russian attempts to influence the election, I doubt very seriously it changed even one vote.

Mueller specifically stated that there were systematic attacks on our voting systems in addition to disinformation campaigns and social media manipulation. In all 50 states, none the less. Let's not pretend that they weren't successful in at least a few of those 50, based on probability alone they had to have been. The only way to make sure trust in our voting systems doesn't erode entirely is to ensure we have paper ballot backups in every state going forward.

As for the DNC hack, Mueller appears content to assume that was "teh Russians" also, but he has no proof.

The proof is in the Mueller report. You seriously think they're charging Roger Stone with zero evidence to back the charges? That's delusional.

 

[Hanafuda]

The only way to make sure trust in our voting systems doesn't erode entirely is to ensure we have paper ballot backups in every state going forward.

I'm 100% on board with that idea, and requiring ID to vote as well.

The proof is in the Mueller report. You seriously think they're charging Roger Stone with zero evidence to back the charges? That's delusional.

Aren't the charges against Stone having to do with him trying to make contact with Wikileaks to obtain the emails, after Wikileaks already had them? Still leaves the question of how wikileaks got them, and who actually did the hack on the DNC. The only entity, still, who was ever given access to the hacked DNC's servers was a private cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC called Crowdstrike. Wikileaks has denied since Day 1 that the source of the emails had anything to do with Russia at all.

 

[Xzi]

Aren't the charges against Stone having to do with him trying to make contact with Wikileaks to obtain the emails, after Wikileaks already had them? Still leaves the question of how wikileaks got them, and who actually did the hack on the DNC.

There's no question. It was the GRU. Russian individuals and entities connected to the hack were also indicted during the course of the Mueller investigation, but those charges can't be enforced without the individuals coming to the US.

 

[Taleweaver]

So... Time to necrobump this thread. Because Republicans don't read reports, Mueller has been summoned to capitol Hill to read it to them (and once again state that Trump drew a totally wrong conclusion from his report).

Source : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...russia-investigation-tweets-a9018201.html?amp

 

[IncredulousP]

"Mr Mueller, again, confirms that the president can be charged with a crime after leaving office."

Oh boy I can't wait

 

[Lacius]

It's not a good day for Trump and the Republicans. Some bullet points from his testimony so far:

• Mueller says the reason Donald Trump was not indicted was "because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president."
• Mueller says his investigation "did not exonerate President Donald Trump."
• Mueller says one could "charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office."

Mueller has also dispelled a lot of the Republican conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[Chary]

Goshhhhh this investigation roundabout is still going? I feel like I've heard Russia and Trump and Mueller every single day on the morning news since 2016.