flyangler

Rewinding The Mueller Tape, And Considering What the Report Excluded

Rate this topic

9 posts in this topic

With all the focus on the so-called attempted obstruction and the demonization of Barr, can we go back and revisit what this was all about? Back to the findings of Mueller's original writ and how all of the "action" was incidental to actual collusion? 

 

And what isn’t in Mueller's report? The Dodgie Dossier? The Russian Lawyer? The Aussie Downer? 

 

BYRON YORK: Mueller, Trump, and ‘two years of bull****.’

At its heart, the Trump-Russia probe was about one question: Did the Trump campaign conspire, coordinate, or collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election? Mueller has concluded that did not happen.

 

Everything else in the Trump-Russia affair flowed from that one question. Paul Manafort’s shady finances would not have come under investigation were it not for that question. Carter Page would not have been wiretapped were it not for that question. Michael Flynn would not have been interviewed by the FBI were it not for that question. Zillions of hours on cable TV would not have been expended on Trump-Russia were it not for that question. And in the largest sense, there would have been no Mueller investigation were it not for that question.

 

And now Mueller has determined there was no collusion. Not that there was no criminal collusion. Or no prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt collusion. Just no collusion. Mueller’s report says it over and over and over again.

..................

 

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL:  Mueller’s Report Speaks Volumes: What’s in the special counsel’s findings is almost as revealing as what’s left out.

President Trump has every right to feel liberated. What the report shows is that he endured a special-counsel probe that was relentlessly, at times farcically, obsessed with taking him out. What stands out is just how diligently and creatively the special counsel’s legal minds worked to implicate someone in Trump World on something Russia- or obstruction-of-justice-related. And how—even with all its overweening power and aggressive tactics—it still struck out.

 

Volume I of the Mueller report, which deals with collusion, spends tens of thousands of words describing trivial interactions between Trump officials and various Russians. While it doubtless wasn’t Mr. Mueller’s intention, the sheer quantity and banality of details highlights the degree to which these contacts were random, haphazard and peripheral. By the end of Volume I, the notion that the Trump campaign engaged in some grand plot with Russia is a joke.

 

Yet jump to the section where the Mueller team lists its “prosecution and declination” decisions with regards the Russia question. And try not to picture Mueller “pit bull” prosecutor Andrew Weissmann collapsed under mountains of federal statutes after his two-year hunt to find one that applied. . . .

 

As for obstruction—Volume II—Attorney General Bill Barr noted Thursday that he disagreed with “some of the special counsel’s legal theories.” Maybe he had in mind Mr. Mueller’s proposition that he was entitled to pursue obstruction questions, even though that was not part of his initial mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Or maybe it was Mr. Mueller’s long description of what a prosecution of the sitting president might look like—even though he acknowledged its legal impossibility. Or it could be Mr. Mueller’s theory that while “fairness” dictates that someone accused of crimes get a “speedy and public trial” to “clear his name,” Mr. Trump deserves no such courtesy with regard to the 200 pages of accusations Mr. Mueller lodges against him.

 

That was Mr. Mueller’s James Comey moment. Remember the July 2016 press conference in which the FBI director berated Hillary Clinton even as he didn’t bring charges? It was a firing offense. Here’s Mr. Mueller engaging in the same practice—only on a more inappropriate scale. At least this time the attorney general tried to clean up the mess by declaring he would not bring obstruction charges. Mr. Barr noted Thursday that we do not engage in grand-jury proceedings and probes with the purpose of generating innuendo.

 

Mr. Mueller may not care. His report suggests the actual goal of the obstruction volume is impeachment: “We concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority.”

 

Note as well what isn’t in the report. It makes only passing, bland references to the genesis of so many of the accusations Mr. Mueller probed: the infamous dossier produced by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. How do you exonerate Mr. Page without delving into the scandalous Moscow deeds of which he was falsely accused? How do you narrate an entire section on the July 2016 Trump Tower meeting without noting that Ms. Veselnitskaya was working alongside Fusion? How do you detail every aspect of the Papadopoulos accusations while avoiding any detail of the curious and suspect ways that those accusations came back to the FBI via Australia’s Alexander Downer?

 

The report instead mostly reads as a lengthy defense of the FBI.

 

Good luck with that. I suspect accountability is on the way there.

 

............

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go. Yet again, the government is lying to the public. 

Even worse, they have created a narrative out of lies and omissions. Democrat side of the uniparty is typically responsible for these fact-void narrations.

 That anyone is discussing the Mueller report gives this stack of toilet paper credibility as so many other government reports.

We're being JFK Assassination report'd again.

When will the government report discrediting the previous government report be released?

Never happens.

Let's begin the creation of the cottage industries of book sales and articles demonstrating the obsurdity of the "official report".

 

Via kunstler.com

 

"

Understand that the Mueller Report itself was the mendacious conclusion to a deceitful investigation, the purpose of which was to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election, in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign, to derail Mr. Trump’s campaign, and then disable him when he managed to win the election. Mr. Mueller was theoretically trying to save the FBI’s reputation, but he may have only succeeded in injuring it more gravely.

 

The whole wicked business began as a (failed) entrapment scheme using shadowy US Intel “assests” Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to con small fish Papadopoulos and Carter Page into incriminating themselves (they declined to be conned) and moved on to ploys like the much-touted Trump Tower meeting to ensnare Trump Junior and then to several efforts (also failed) to flip Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen — the final product of which was an epic failure to find one instance of real chargeable criminal collusion between anyone connected to Mr. Trump and Russia.

By the way, the Mueller Report failed to mention that the two Russians present in that August 2016 Trump Tower meeting, lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, were on the payroll of Hillary Clinton’s oppo research contractor Fusion GPS, and met with that company’s principal, Glenn Simpson, both before and after the meeting — just one example among many of the Mueller Team’s shifty tactics, but a move that speaks volumes about Mr. Mueller’s actual intent, which was to keep his prosecutorial circus going as long as possible to interfere with Mr. Trump carrying out his own duties.

The Special Prosecutor’s main bit of mischief, of course, was his refusal to reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice charge. What the media refuses to accept and make clear is that a prosecutor’s failure to reach a conclusion is exactly the same thing as an inability to make a case, and it was a breach of Mr. Mueller’s duty to dishonestly present that failure as anything but that in his report — and possibly an act of criminal prosecutorial misconduct."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RiverRaider said:

It was a bold gambit and it failed miserably as bold gambits often do 

It didn't fail

 

The goal was to keep the investigations going for as long as possible, bankrupting as many people working for the republican party as possible along the way - leaving the obstruction (how you obstruct when you're proven innocent I've no idea) open for investigation by congress, which the Democrats are going to push for as long as possible.

 

Watch, now you're going to hear nonstop impeachment talk on the obstruction thing, even though they already know there's no way they'll have enough republicans to bring impeachment.

It's all a political PR game

 

God willing it'll blow up in their faces in 2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is so funny watching the leftists reason out their feelings about the report. We saw where Hillary had destroyed lots of evidence illegally, and yet she remained very popular amongst Democrats. They nominated her knowing that she had willfully destroyed evidence. So this kind of stuff doesn't really bother them.

 

Now Trump, oh he was destroying the imaginary type of evidence, and that really makes them mad. How dare he destroy the kind of evidence that only exists in their heads. They had so carefully created their evidence, small wonder it upsets them when he just swept it aside without concern for their feelings.

 

So now they have to start all over again creating all new evidence that doesn’t really exist anywhere but in their minds, and really make a case for Trumps impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.