|
Post by robeiae on Mar 23, 2019 12:29:48 GMT -5
I don't know how drilling down into decade-old Manafort/Ukraine stuff represents hewing to the mandate.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with Manafort getting burned down*, but that stuff is at least a step removed from Trump/Election/Russia.
Beyond that, I'm glad Mueller was able to comeplete the investigation in full, regardless of what's in the report. But I'm guessing that neither side is prepared to let it go, again regardless of what's in the report.
* Honestly, I wish the Justice Department would be a little more pro-active when it comes to turkeys like Manafort, because we all know he's not the only guy doing this kind of sleazy shit. Really, I think they could have investigated and made the case against Manafort years ago.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 23, 2019 12:31:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2019 12:54:52 GMT -5
I don't know how drilling down into decade-old Manafort/Ukraine stuff represents hewing to the mandate. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with Manafort getting burned down*, but that stuff is at least a step removed from Trump/Election/Russia. Beyond that, I'm glad Mueller was able to comeplete the investigation in full, regardless of what's in the report. But I'm guessing that neither side is prepared to let it go, again regardless of what's in the report. * Honestly, I wish the Justice Department would be a little more pro-active when it comes to turkeys like Manafort, because we all know he's not the only guy doing this kind of sleazy shit. Really, I think they could have investigated and made the case against Manafort years ago. With all due respect, that comes from a misunderstanding of Mueller's mandate. When looking into Manafort's seedy ties and suspicious activities, it makes sense to look at them going back to see just what the fuck they're all about, and whether Manafort was compromised before Trump even hired him (and whether the Trump campaign knew that...). And when in so doing, one uncovers crimes that were committed, it makes sense to prosecute them. And in fact, that's just what Mueller was authorized to do. Let's look at the text of his mandate: www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.htmlMueller was authorized to look at "any links and coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with" the Trump campaign. Note that there isn't a time constraint on that -- e.g., solely during the campaign -- because in fact it is totally relevant if someone has been playing footsie with Russia for decades and then was hired by the Trump campaign. Mueller was authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise from the investigation" and to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters". Note that this is not limited to matters linked to Russia -- nor should it be. WTF, if Mueller finds out that someone committed a federal crime, you want him to just ignore it? Really? Look at that letter again and explain how you think Mueller went beyond it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 23, 2019 13:33:46 GMT -5
I said "I'm fine with Manafort getting burned down," so your "WTF, if Mueller finds out that someone committed a federal crime, you want him to just ignore it? Really?" isn't fair, to say the least, since I never suggested anything like that.
Regardless, my understanding is that Manafort was being investigated by the FBI/Justice long before Trump, long before Mueller.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2019 13:39:30 GMT -5
I know you wouldn't have Mueller ignore federal crimes. The question was intended rhetorically, and perhaps aimed beyond you as well. I think Manafort should have been in prison long before this, frankly, but better now than never. My point, really, was that Mueller was in fact within his mandate. You can quibble with the mandate, if you like (I don't, at all--if anything, I would have had it broader), but Mueller stayed within it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 8:26:31 GMT -5
Another excellent pre-Mueller-report-release article in Lawfare: www.lawfareblog.com/how-understand-end-mueller-investigation-hint-you-cant-yetI am already bracing myself for the fact that not only do I think Barr won't release the whole thing (thus fueling speculation), but that precious few people will actually read it -- or at least, will rely far more on partisan spin articles than on what the report actually says. Quites will be cherry-picked out of context, will not consider the indictment s/guilty pleasure/convictions/evidence that have already occurred/been released. Things are about to get awfully fucking stupid. I plan to read every word of the report that is released, and don't plan to comment on it until I do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 8:37:33 GMT -5
Hard to imagine the breakfast conversation at the Conway house, but I cast my lot with George:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 11:57:57 GMT -5
btw, regarding my thread title and OP:
I am guessing Trump's especially bizarre and awful tweet frenzy may have been sparked by the rumors of the impending release of the Mueller report, of which he likely heard the first whispers. Hearing that it is about to be released, but having no idea yet what the contents might be, would likely send him right over the bend.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 24, 2019 15:44:21 GMT -5
Sure. But the questioning of Trump's manhood by some random person on twitter can send Trump right over (around?) the bend. It's not much of a challenge.
And I'd like to note how amusing I find the use of the SDNY acronym by so many people, who likely had no idea that there was a Southern District of New York until a week (or a day) ago. Now, my FB feed is full of people offering their carefully considered opinions on how "the Mueller investigation was never really expected to get Trump anyway, it's the SDNY that really has the goods on him."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 24, 2019 15:49:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 24, 2019 16:08:02 GMT -5
I anticipate a flood of goalpost-shifting from major media figures and most of the Twitter bluechecks.
"Okay, so no collusion was proved, but..."
Does this mean Washington Post and NYT have to give back the Pulitzers they won for reporting on the supposed collusion?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 24, 2019 16:19:50 GMT -5
Well, a lot of people are hanging their hat on this quote from Mueller: And many are noting it--fairly, imo--as a counter to Trump's claim of being exonerated. That said, the above statement seems like it would be close to truism for any investigation that targeted a person for non-specific crimes. It one investigates Fred to see if he murdered George, it is possible that Fred might be exonerated. But if one investigates Fred to see if Fred ever murdered anyone, I don't think Fred can be technically exonerated by the investigation. At best, all that could be said was that there's no reason to believe that Fred ever murdered anyone (which is still pretty good, I think). And that said, I think Trump is a loooong way from being wholly falsely accused. He's a shady guy. Always has been, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 24, 2019 16:32:13 GMT -5
I agree, Trump is garbage and I don't doubt that his hands are dirty from something. And, I find it hard to believe that he isn't guilty of obstruction, given his seemingly numerous, and often public, displays of it. At the same time, though, the MSM created this monster, much like they created Trump in the first place. I used to really like Rachel Maddow, but the last two years of her show have been almost completely devoted to this farce. She's had egg on her face since the infamous "We have his tax return for 2015" debacle that saw her fall flat on her face on live TV. What will her (and Lawrence O'Donnell's) show be now? Her main conspiracy is gone, so I imagine it will be a mish-mash of crumb-nibbling and goalpost shifting, and that's sad because I used to really like her. I just think she's become unhealthily consumed by this to such a degree that I'm not sure how she and media like her will recover their sanity, much less their credibility. However, some journalists on the left have had consistent credibility throughout this entire thing. As much as I hate to admit it because I generally can't stand him, Glenn Greenwald has been skeptical of this from the get-go and his take on it has been the correct one. Matt Taibbi has also covered the situations clearly and fairly throughout the past two years, and pretty much prognosticated this outcome months ago, so much so that he had a book chapter already written on it and just posted part of it, with revisions to reflect the latest news. As he puts it, "Russiagate" is the new WMD narrative:
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 24, 2019 16:56:13 GMT -5
Having said all of that, though, part of me still questions how accurate Barr's "summary" of Mueller's report is. On one hand, if Mueller had the goods on some top brass, why no indictments? On the other hand, there might be a lot more in Mueller's report than what Barr has intimated with his "summary," and that excluded information might be worthy of further official, if not criminal, investigation.
It's hard for me to believe that a 2-year investigation that involved dozens of witnesses and led to multiple indictments and convictions can be fairly or adequately summed up in a barely 4-page letter. Methinks there's some info in there that Barr is, at best, glossing over or ignoring and, at worse, doing his best to hide in a "nothing to see here, folks" kind of way.
No way of knowing for sure without release of the full report and I hope it is released soon. However, that the MSM self-parasitically sustained themselves for 2+ years by ravenously devouring and breathlessly spreading the Russiagate narrative, and thus deserves a heap of criticism, is still unquestionable, in my opinion.
However, the truth (as far as we currently know) of "Russiagate" is twofold: 1) No evidence of collusion but evidence of obstruction is equivocal; 2) Russia clearly tried to disrupt our democratic processes.
Ideally, the attention should now mostly-but-not-completely shift away from #1 and be laser-focused on #2, and why Trump and the Republicans refuse to take it as the serious threat to the nation's security that it blatantly was and still is.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 24, 2019 18:03:46 GMT -5
Those are fair points, though I guess one might note that the Starr report could probably be effectively summarized in less than four pages.
|
|