That One Sentence
That One Sentence
On March 25, Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone:
On Sunday, Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to Congress, summarizing the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. The most telling section, quoted directly from Mueller’s report, read:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
That one sentence should end a roughly 33-month national ordeal (the first Russiagate stories date back to July 2016) in which the public was encouraged, both by officials and the press, to believe Donald Trump was a compromised foreign agent.
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through the Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Pretty sure this has never happened to any other presidential candidate team.
“Team Trump Sure Did Talk to a Lot of Russians
Kevin DrumApril 19, 2019
The New York Times counted up every contact in the Mueller report between Team Trump and either Russians or WikiLeaks. They figure it comes to at least 140, of which 30 hadn’t been known before. That’s a lot of Russians! Here’s the whole thing in graphical form.”
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/
BTW,
Taibbi should be ashamed of that article.
Here is a very interesting and highly qualified analysis of Mueller final report
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/04/special-counsel-mueller-disingenuous-and-dishonest-by-larry-c-johnson.html
Key conclusion
Summary
One interesting comment:
Likbez is citing the writings of Larry C. Johnson? The man is a right wing fraud who claimed Michelle Obama had been videotaped using a slur against Caucasians, claimed John Kerry committed war crimes during his service in Vietnam as well as this lie that British intelligence wiretapped Donald Trump.
AND Likbez favorably cites a comment from JohnH – the village idiot who loves to writes all sorts of stupid stuff at Mark Thoma’s place!
Yes – we have a troll extraordinaire!
RUDY G is at it again:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nothing-wrong-with-taking-information-from-russians-giuliani-spins-mueller-report?fbclid=IwAR0XYo6qpS0tSOrdTLfCv0sYK4r9Zp4SOL2OZKKWwX-MLcG5eCL7ybWJj1s
I realize some are so tired of this lying idiot they may not want to read about his latest so I’ll provide a summary. RUDY says treason is OK if one wins the Presidential election!
Where’s the whitey tape Likbez?
You should be banned for your nonsense.
EMichael reminds us we need to check out what Kevin Drum is writing. My favorite – “Sarah Sanders Says the White House Is an Honest Place”.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!
Check out the comments over at Econospeak:
Calgacus, John C. Halasz, and Likbez are all clearly Russian bots bought and paid for by Team Trump.
sandwichman, Emike,
& (all I got is ad hominem) pgl …….
is all “this” Frankfort school
gospel?
The only reason
Trump, Jr. and the others involved got off for their meeting with the Russian attorney is because Mueller concluded they didn’t know that accepting benefits from the Soviets was illegal. But it is. And they did it whether they can be prosecuted for it or not. Got to wonder what they did know in light of Trump’s efforts to cover up what happened. Maybe he didn’t know about the specific law but he sure as hell knew it was something he didn’t want the public to know about.
Pgl,
Fist of all Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. So his great advantage is that he really knows the “kitchen”
What about you ? What are your credentials to discuss this Byzantium issue and use “ad hominem” attack ?
The idea that in democratic societies the intelligence agencies tend to escape the control of executive branch and abuse their capabilities (” the tail start wagging the dog”) is not new.
So the variation of this pretty established idea raised in JohnH post is not something to complain about. It is an interesting hypothesis that might or might not be true but definitely deserve consideration. In short it can be refined to the following statement: “only candidates with enough compromising material in the hands of intelligence agencies are allowed to be elected.”
I do not subscribe to it and believe other considerations were at the core of launching of the color revolution against Trump. But the whole Pike commission was about abuse of power by CIA. And remember that none of the US presidents was able to remove J. Edgar Hoover, who dies in this position, so such methods were used in the past.
In this sense the love of Mueller demonstrated by many commenters in this blog looks slightly misplaced and can be justified only on the grounds “the end justifies the means” Which is a pretty slippery slope.
Currently both CIA and FBI are definitely over-politicized with FBI assuming the role of “kingmaker” in 2016 elections, pushing Sanders under the bus by exonerating Hillary. If you do not know or do not understand this established and pretty much undisputable historical fact that I can’t help. FBI elected Trump. As simple as that.
As for JohnH, do you mean comments like this one?
And the following
JohnH said in reply to Christopher H….
I think it is pretty legitimate level of discussion and it does not look like he is a rabid Trumpster. Please note “Trump-Putin exposed Democrats as being even less credible than Trump, the serial liar.”
Now Libnutcase is citing Christopher H? An angry idiot who was banned from Thoma’s place when he used to use the name PeterK. Libnutcase – you cite the “finest” authorities!!!
greenwald is as bad as you
he’s irrelevant to any kind of real discussion, particularly as he loves tiny little soundbites he can turn into what he, and people like you, think is something.
You are a blight on the internet.
Gee I have an internet troll (Libnutcase) questioning my credibility? Pardon me folks but it will take me a while to pick myself off the floor with utter laughter!
ilsm:
You are babbling and as hard as you try this comment does not fit Sandwichman’s post. I am surprised he has not booted you from AB. He has that capacbility to do so. I am going to delete this.
Mueller’s report: “The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Mueller’s report: The “difficult issues” and the verbiage about not exonerating Trump appear at least three times in the report. The first time they appear is in the introduction to the volume that discusses the obstruction of justice investigation. They are later repeated under “conclusion” subheads.
Additional context to the quote affirms that Mueller did not definitely conclude that Trump did not obstruct justice.
The report states: “Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The other two times “difficult issues” and the fuller quote appear is in conclusion subheads that both say:
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Mueller’s report: Mueller’s report suggests other motives for the president’s conduct, including fear of investigation: “In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events—such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians—could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.”
You guys are just churning. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/18/context-comparing-bill-barrs-summary-mueller-repor/
Yeah? Well at least I spell Lind’s name right. “Your” welcome.
Sandwichman:
The correct response, should have been “oh, yeah?” Gotta have the “oh.”