Pages

Thursday, April 18, 2019

UPDATED: Mueller On Obstruction


As we've become used to, Barr kicks the liberals to the curb.

Mueller didn't prove obstruction on his own theory, but

That theory was nonsense to begin with.

It was all Andrew Weissmann trying to somehow make the president look bad.

Good luck with that.

And I absolutely loved Barr's terse explanation why his friend "Bob" wasn't there--he's not the Attorney General.

UPDATE 1: via Breitbart--more classic Barr:

Attorney General William Barr on Thursday corrected a reporter’s assertion that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report was “his,” reminding him that Mueller authored the report on behalf of the Justice Department. 
“There’s a lot of public interest in the absence of the special counsel and members of this team. Was he invited to join you up on the podium? Why is he not here?” asked the New York Times’ Eric Lipton. “This is his report, obviously that you’re talking about today.” 
“No it’s not,” Barr shot back. “It’s a report he did for me as the attorney general. He is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. I’m here to discuss my response to that report and my decision to — entirely discretionary to me — to make it public since these reports are not supposed to be made public.”

UPDATE 2: Sidney Powell, who literally wrote the book on Andrew Weissmann, makes the important point:

Sidney Powell‏

@SidneyPowell1
The #obstruction statute DOES NOT EVEN APPLY to an #FBI investigation!
The only two courts that have addressed this issue have decided squarely AGAINST #Weissmann's bogus theory.

The point she's making is that Weissmann relies on 18 USC §1512 (c). Problem: That statute pertains to "officials proceedings." The two courts Powell refers to held that an FBI investigation isn't an "official proceeding" for purposes of the statute.

The title of Powell's book is Licensed To Lie. Appropriate when it was first written and still appropriate now.

UPDATE 3: From the report via this excellent post by law prof Glenn Reynolds--and this must really hurt the lunatic left. At the same time Team Mueller tries to smear Trump they have to admit to ... exemplary behavior on his part. Exemplary. Let that sink in Lefties and NeverTrumpkins:

... as the Special Counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation."

Reynolds continues:

... normal people should be pleased and relieved that there was no collusion, even as they should be angry that a huge chunk of our political class seriously maintained that the President of the United States was a Russian puppet. That claim, based more on a desire to undo the 2016 election than on any actual evidence, was a poisonous corruption of our political discourse, and those involved should be -- but won't be -- ashamed.

UPDATE 4: Will Chamberlain has a theory on how and why Barr became AG--it's all about obstruction:




54 comments:

  1. Here is how ridiculous the report likely is (I have just begun reading it):

    "The presidential campaign of D.J. Trump showed interest in the Wikileaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential damage to candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, {redacted ongoing matter} forecast to senior Trump Campaign officials that Wikileaks would release information"

    Me again: The redacted section is 100% certain to be Roger Stone, and yet Stone wasn't "forecasting" anything- Stone was simply reading what Wikileaks itself had already publicly stated they were going to do. This sort of innuendo is so disturbing and disgusting. Based on this sort of analysis, Mueller should be having me arrested and charged, too, since I also "forecast" Wikileaks' actions with the same precision as Stone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Save yourself the trouble--reading that stuff will make you start banging your head against the wall. There will be a ton of rebuttal stuff coming out. There already is some good stuff. In fact, Barr rebutted the obstruction part the better part of a year ago!

      Delete
  2. Robert Mueller was not there, because he has disgraced himself.

    Mueller had been looking forward to all the future history books that would teach that he was a historic hero for removing Donald Trump from the Presidency.

    Instead of that happening, he has disgraced himself -- and the institution of the Special Counsel and the FBI.

    Future history books will teach that Mueller tried to remove an elected US President but failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you see the part where Barr explained why Mueller wasn't there? Classic Barr: Because he's not the Attorney General - Duh! These reporters are amazing.

      Another reason Mueller may not want to say anything is because he knows that his actions--misrepresentation, hiding exculpatory evidence--will be studied under a microscope.

      Delete
  3. Even worse comes a "Page" later:

    "Carter Page had lived and worked in Russia between 2003 and 2007. After returning to the U.S., Page became acquainted with at least two Russian intelligence officers, one of hwo was later charged in 2015 with conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Russia"

    Me again: Completely omitting the fact that this individual was charged with the aid of Carter Page who was acting as an informant for the FBI. To make a statement like this in the report without highlighting the exculpatory fact that Page aided in the charging of this person is so dishonest I am left dumfounded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's plenty more of that sort of thing, I guarantee you. No wonder Barr and Trump were more than willing to publish with as few redactions as possible. This will come back to haunt all the conspirators.

      Delete
  4. Additionally, just above that section about Page, they also mention Mifsud for the first time. They don't appear to have done any investigation at all to determine exactly how it is "known" (Mueller's word) that Mifsud is a Russian agent. No investigation at all. Also, they mention the Trump Tower meeting, with, again, apparently no attempt to investigate exactly how it was Veselnitskaya came to be at that meeting. The lack of curiosity here is damning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or who was paying the guy who got her to the meeting. Again, there's LOTS more of this kind of rope, and they've got a good section of that rope wrapped around their necks.

      Delete
  5. Here are two feeds I've been following:

    https://twitter.com/willchamberlain

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just reading through the GRU stuff. I see lots and lots of assertion and no real reason to believe any of it- the footnoting is of no help in this regard either. However, here is the key part that caught my eye here:

    "Both GRU and Wikileaks sought to hide their communications, which has limited the Office's ability to collect all of the communications between them. Thus, although it is clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to Wikileaks, {Redacted Investigative techique}.

    Me again: This is an interesting construction, isn't it? They want to be able to blame the GRU for the information getting to Wikileaks, but are unable to actually prove it is what this section is saying to me. In other words, there are tons of assertions about how they know all of the activities of the GRU, Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks, but when you get right down to the nub of the real matter at hand, you get that qualification about how they don't seem to have been able to show the actual transfer of data to Wikileaks, and they blame that on the GRU and Wikileaks hiding their communications on just this one most important detail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. That happens to have been the first page I turned to. People will have a field day with this. How did Mueller think he could fool We The People like this?

      Delete
  7. Following that section is this, they describe an exchange where Guccifer 2.0 sent WL an e-mail bearing the subject "big archive" with an encrypted attachment and instructions on how to open it. They also describe a piece of an reply. However, what they don't describe is the contents of the encrypted file itself. Why is that? Surely, they have the file and have had it cracked open by the US government. I mean, this would be the smoking gun proof that Wikileaks got the July 22nd 2016 emails release from Guccifer 2.0, and yet that doesn't appear to be the case here- it is just an assertion that the file was sent and opened by Assange.

    This looks to me like a really bad lie.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And this part is just hilarious:

    "Guccifer 2.0 persona informed the DCLeaks that Wikileaks was trying to contact DCLeaks and arrange for a way to speak through encrypted emails."

    Me again: This is hilarious because the Mueller Report has already claimed that the GRU created both Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks- why in the world would the GRU send such private communications like this if that first assertion was true- that the GRU created both?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Following that is this gem of reasoning the Mueller team:

    "An analysis of the metadata collected from the Wikileaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016. Based on information about Assange's computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails)."

    Me again: It took me time to parse through this nonsense because it was so daft. For some reason, the Mueller team can't demonstrate when or if the file they assert was transferred was actually transferred. Guc 2.0 and DCLeaks were "talking" to each other on September 15th, so they try to use the September 19th date that the file has on Wikileaks' site as some sort of support that the file they can't prove was transferred was, in fact, transferred, and all through this assertion, you are expected to accept at face value, was because of some computer and operating system Assange is assumed to have had. I mean, even trying to tie 15th to 19th is weak, but then it gets downright ridiculous after that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Weak as water," as Mrs. Sloan would say.

      Think about this: You're on about page 45 or so. Imagine the delights that await you!

      Delete
    2. I know I shouldn't torture myself with this, but I think it important, at least to me personally, to examine this great investigative work.

      Delete
  10. Then finally, you get this glaring omission from Mueller after all the hand-waving and assertion from before:

    "The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to Wikileaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016. For example, public reporting indentified Andrew Muller-Mauguhn as a Wikileaks associate who may have assisted with the transfer of these stolen documents to Wikileaks"

    Me again: and there you have the brilliant investigation. Page after page of assertion followed by "we don't know how the GRU transferred the stolen material, but we are sure it happened." Really, just shoot me now. I can't understand how the people on Mueller's team are this stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmmm. Don't they explain how they examined the original server?

      It's all deeply dishonest and will be thoroughly debunked in pretty short order. However, this is why I think there must be indictments if we're ever going to put this egregious Russia Hoax to rest. It must be exposed and the perps prosecuted--and action needs to be taken against Team Mueller for its abuses. Remember: they're simply DoJ employees. Barr has jurisdiction over them, and if the principles of rule of law and equal justice are ever to be restored, that's the place to start.

      Delete
    2. I am on page 52 right now, and CrowdStrike has been mentioned once, only in connection to the public announcement they made about the breach. So far as I can tell, it hasn't been mentioned how the Mueller team knows the details of the breaches described to that point in the report, but I have to assume the public stories were correct- that all came from CrowdStrike. How the Mueller team knows the origin of Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks is a mystery from the actual details in the report. Also a mystery is how they know the GRU set up the Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks accounts- they seem to have access to when these were set up, and they have access to the messages sent from these accounts to others like Wikileaks, but I don't see that they had access to the GRU accounts at all- the report is carefully written around this section, and is inpenetrable to my analysis- it seemed like simple assertion to me. Perhaps they don't want to reveal that they have penetrated the computers of these officers, but that would seem a silly concern given they are writing it that way as inference.

      Delete
  11. And here is a curious bit that doesn't align with the previous story Mueller tells:

    "In total, Wikileaks released over 50,000 documents stolen from Podesta's personal email account. The last-in-time email released from Podesta's account was dated March 21, 2016, two days after Podesta received a spearphishing email sent by the GRU."

    Me again: and yet we were assured that the information was being exfiltrated for months afterwards by the GRU. So, this cut off in dates isn't all that noteworthy since the GRU was supposedly in the systems until June at the very least. Even granting that it was the GRU, only releasing the emails up to March 21st is just an accidental coincidence- Mueller assures us that they had access until June of 2016.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Others have also focused on this discrepancy. It's pathetic that they're putting such a shoddy product out there to be shot full of holes.

      Delete
  12. Just show you how dishonest this is- the beginning of the report, as I cite in a comment above, they write that Roger Stone was "forecasting" how Wikileaks was going to release Clinton Campaign e-mails, the insinuation, intentional insinuation, that Stone had foreknowledge of this coming in "early June 2016". Of course, it is public record that Julian Assange himself declared exactly this on June 12th of 2016, but it isn't until page 52 that Mueller admits this inconvenient fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm gonna be very interested to see how the Flynn and Stone cases play out. Flynn succumbed to intense pressure, but Barr may help him out of it by admitting prosecutorial conduct by Team Mueller--he can do it. Stone isn't going to oblige by pleading guilty, and the case is no slam dunk.

      Delete
  13. Yancey, here's another aspect: Carter Page. As I read it, Mueller admits that Page was not acting as an agent for Russia. That means to me that it's an admission that the assertions contained in FOUR FISA applications were provably FALSE. And yet we're to believe that the FBI couldn't have come to the same conclusion over the course of nearly a year of supposed investigation of Page? Not credible. But those applications were signed off on by people like Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Yates, Boente, and others. Will there be an accounting? What happens now with Page's law suit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does Mueller state this explicitly? I am still in the Roger Stone stuff right now. I mean, I know he implied this by not indicting Page, but did he explicitly exonerate Page?

      Delete
    2. Well, if they wouldn't explicitly exonerate Trump you can't expect them to do that for Carter Page. It's the usual backhand stuff: "the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government." In the Mueller legal system you remain guilty until you prove your own innocence. Here's my source: Jason Beale, who comments understatedly:

      Wow. I wonder if @carterwpage will be satisfied that two years of public shaming as a traitor and agent of the Russian Federation, and constant mocking by media and Dems of his attempts to assert his innocence, comes to a single-sentence end in a 400-page report?

      Delete
  14. Scott Adams

    Verified account

    @ScottAdamsSays

    If you find yourself blaming President Trump for almost-sort-of-maybe intending to obstruct a witch hunt, you have a mental health crisis, not a political opinion. #MuellersReport

    11:01 AM - 18 Apr 2019

    ReplyDelete
  15. I reading the Roger Stone, Gabriel Malloch, and Jerome Corsi bit now. Lots of redactions, so it is hard to follow, but the Mueller team apparently expended great effort at trying to prove that Corsi, Stone, or others coordinated with Assange in starting the Podesta e-mail tranches an hour after the Access Hollywood tape dropped on October 7th of 2016. Now note, that there is literally nothing before or even after this section (I jumped ahead a bit before commenting) that any of these people had any actual access to Assange and Wikileaks- like being able to phone him up and say "release the hounds on Podesta". Corsi testified 2 years later that he might have suggested someone call Assange up and say this to him during a conference interview/call with reporters, but can't remember this. Mueller makes a big deal about how they can't demonstrate this claim by Corsi might be true, but I don't really get why Mueller thinks this even matters- Mueller wasn't even able to prove Corsi or the other even had access to Assange. Malloch himself says he didn't event try to help Corsi or Stone with this direct contact.

    But here is the thing- the Access Hollywood tape release was by definition a public release- Assange himself would have seen that on October 7th- is it really in the range of unlikely that Assange could have acted within an hour on his own initiative- and this is me granting that Assange even timed the Podesta email release for this reason- remember, Assange had already promised this material before the election and released them in 33 tranches -basically 1 per day from October 7th until November 7th, which is by an amazing coincidence, the day before the election. In short, I think Assange always planned to start them on October 7th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't really get why Mueller thinks this even matters"

      It shouldn't, but in the progressive world view where being on "the right side of history" justifies all abuses, Mueller says this stuff because he's convinced he can get away with it: guilty until you prove your innocence to me to my satisfaction. Same as with Carter Page. Broken record: Mueller needs to be held to account, for the good of the nation.

      Delete
  16. Here is an interesting example of the lack of curiosity the Mueller team had:

    "On September 20, 2016, an individual named Jason Fishbein sent Wikileaks the password for an unlaunched website focused on Trump's 'unprecedented and dangerous' ties to Russia, PutinTrump.org. Wikileaks publicly tweeted: 'Let's bomb Iraq' Progress for America PAC'.......Several hours later, WL sent a Twitter direct message to Trump Jr., 'A PAC run by anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch. The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is putintrump. See 'About' for who is behind it. Any comments?"

    Me again: Trump Jr. then discussed the odd DM with some staff. They looked into the site but didn't recognize who was behind it. Of course, Mueller makes a lot out of the fact that WL was sending and receiving DM from Trump Jr., but again- so what- I have Wikileaks on a bookmark, too, as do millions of people. If I actually had a Twitter account, I would probably also have received at some point a DM from them- I would engage actively with them on many topics and will assume at least once I would have received an acknowledgement of this engagement. Mueller is trying to insinuate this is nefarious, and yet the described contact isn't nefarious at all- WL was basically asking for a comment about a site the site itself had brought to WL's attention- WL then just went straight to the horse's mouth to ask them what they thought about it. Also, Mueller makes a big deal about Trump Jr. asking about the coming Podesta dump in "four days" on October 3rd. This is support for the idea that Assange didn't realease the emails on the 7th because of the Access Hollywood tape, but that the 7th was planned all along.

    A side note- I come back to this October 7th issue because my memory was telling me that WL had announced that date as the start a week earlier, but when I Google this question, there is literally nothing that shows up in the results around this initial tranch. I don't want to have to do it, but I am going to have to figure out how to find a date on WL's Twitter account to find the tweets they made that week prior to October 7th to prove to myself that Google is burying something that should be easy to find.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to finish my thought since I got lost in the aside- Who was Jason Fishbein? Why write about this in the report, but then provide no investigation at all into who was behind this site? I think it isn't a lack curiousity at all- the answer isn't something Mueller and his team wanted to publicized.

      Delete
    2. "lack of curiosity"

      That's very kindly put.

      I think someone else said this, but there was absolutely nothing normal about the way this inquisition was run. All standards--not only of fairness but even simple logic--tossed overboard for the sake of getting Trump.

      Delete
  17. Some really hilarious stuff from Mueller making insinuations about the Trump Campaign's efforts to find the deleted Clinton e-mails. I mean, it is hard to take this pearl clutching seriously because of the known fact that Hillary's Campaign paid, or at least is implying they have paid Russian sources for the Steele Dossier.

    Really, how many people unconnected to the Trump Campaign were trying to find these e-mails? I would wager the number is, at a minimum, in the tens of thousands, if not in the millions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does it tell you about the sainted "Bob" that he would publicly humiliate himself with this kinda drivel?

      I'd love to have sat in on Barr's chats with Mueller. I'll bet he treated "Bob" like he treated the reporters today.

      Delete
  18. And on page 64, we learn where Mueller's brilliant team learned the handwaving material used for the September 19th assertions about Assange's computer equipment. In short, they were trying to determine if Peter Smith, someone looking actively for Clintons' deleted e-mails, had two files he had downloaded from Wikileaks that had the date of October 2nd 2016. I feel quite certain Mueller and his hacks were delighted to no end to finally have evidence that Wikileaks was helping Trump with preleaks until someone actually took the time to demonstrate to these morons that the time stamp came from when the files were staged by Wikileaks. No doubt this was done with an actual demonstration with Smith's actual computer which they had seized.

    It makes me think that these morons were led astray repeatedly by this sort of mistake. I actually had some of this October 2016 material on my own old computer I replaced a few months ago computer, and several of the dates on all of those files were from late September 2016 until mid October, even though I had downloaded all of them in mid 2018.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But don't you think that among the 40 FBI agents assigned to Team Mueller would have been some pretty competent cyber crimes people? I do--after all, that's what it was all supposed to be about. So these probably are not mistakes but deliberately misleading.

      Delete
  19. Yancy & Mark, Thank you. I am on same page. I am, in fact, on more of same page after listening to Shepard Smith on Fox. Wow! What a buffoon! And does he hate Trump! Maybe he should migrate to MSNBC?

    To date, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that backs up the so far unsubstantiated assertions that Russia meddled in the election. And yet, as you both point out, Mueller's report is littered with such assumptions. This part of the report isn't even junk science; it's practically conspiracy theory.

    If there is any evidence at all regarding Russian meddling, please, can you point me to it? I'm not counting post election Facebook - Twitter nonsense. i think that was Russian teenagers.

    Also: wasn't Mueller coy and close to evil in saying he couldn't say Trump didn't obstruct? What a churl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re that last point in particular, Paul Mirengoff has a good post at Powerline: Mueller on obstruction of justice: It’s complicated. Translation: Not guilty.

      And Hinderaker has this hilarious one: How's the Cover-up Going.

      Delete
  20. Additionally, in the Peter Smith and Barbara Ledeen stuff, it becomes obvious that Smith and Ledeen were likely lying to the people they were taking money from to find these Clinton e-mails.

    Hilarious stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  21. More hilarious stuff discussing Trump Tower Moscow. Any dolt reading this section (in section IV through pages in the 60s), it becomes apparent that most of the actual, serious work towards building a a property in Russia really ended in 2014. After Trump's announcement entering the presidential race in the Summer of 2015, Felix Sater seems to have reignited the plan to some extent while working directly with Cohen. Any reasonable reading of this entire section pretty much has to conclude that Sater was basically a con artist, repeatedly bragging about contacts he had with Russian officials that he really didn't have (Mueller states this explicitly, though not so damning as my language); also, there doesn't appear to have been any Russian government officials involved throughout 2015- it is just Sater and some business associates in Russia doing all this talking to Cohen. Indeed, Cohen basically kept them at arm's length from 2015 until Summer of 2016 becauseformal declination. Reading between the lines, I might guess that Trump was hedging stuff, but by March of 2016 he knew he was likely to be the nominee and then all but ended all of his involvement in these discussions.

    My suspicions on reading this section is this- I am suspicious of Sater and his actual motivations here. A lot of this section reminds me of Mifsud and Mueller's lack of curiosity in establishing the bald assertion that Mifsud was a Russian agent. In short, part of me is wondering whether or not Sater was just another spy employed by someone in the Obama Administration. Mueller shows no interest at all in proving some of these bald and implied assertions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am suspicious of Sater and his actual motivations here."

      Given that he was/is an FBI informant you should be.

      Delete
    2. There is a deletion in the comment I made- my computer's mistake- for some reason when I am typing certain letters are interpreted as deletions by the software- I usually catch them, but missed this one. Cohen kept Sater at arm's length because he suspected Sater was full of crap. Also missing was Trump declining the invitation to the St. Petersburg forum. His assistant told people Trump wouldn't likely accept in January of 2016, but a formal declining letter wasn't sent until March. I thought, maybe Trump was hedging and kept things open until he knew he was going to win the nomination, but it is also equally likely, maybe more so, that his assistant just let the letter declining the invitation slip through the cracks because she does appear to have acted when asked about it again in March.

      Of course, Mueller paints all of this with insinuations and in dishonest ways.

      Delete
    3. The section on Mifsud and Papadopoulos is fascinating even though there is literally nothing new in any of it but for the fact that GP lied to Sam Clovis about actually meeting the Russian Ambassador to the UK.

      What is most fascinating to me, though, is that things that should have been proven with documentary evidence since it would be easy to do aren't proven at all, and don't even seem to have been investigated. The biggest of these is a trip to Russia Mifsud claimed he made in an email to GP just before the "Clinton Email" meeting London. Mueller takes this claim from Mifsud at face value (it is in a footnote). Why not prove Mifsud actually made the trip he claimed? This would be trivial for an investigation spendin 30+million dollars, and yet they show no curiosity at all whether or not Mifsud was BSing GP all along. This is especially damning on Mueller because he is forced to admit that a lot of what Mifsud was telling GP was BS, like, for example, Polyanka being Putin's niece.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, I noticed that, too, because I was looking for stuff on Mifsud as well as the Wikileaks stuff. There's a report out in an Italian paper, Il Foglio, today that Mifsud has been hiding in more or less plain sight in an apartment owned by the Links U. outfit where GP went in Rome. Not sure re details since I didn't want to subscribe to Il Foglio. My guess is that the Mueller attitude was the less said about Mifsud the better.

      Delete
  22. BTW, I will shortly be out of pocket for several hours. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Am about half way through. The most fascinating part is the Trump Tower meeting. On reading that section, it becomes quite clear that Mueller and the FBI intended to hang Trump Jr. on the vacuous campaign finance charge conspiracy- that Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort agreed to meet to accept a "thing of value". Mueller claims that they decided not to pursue this because they couldn't prove that the attendees knowingly violated this vacuous interpretation of the law. What makes this decision statement so damned hilarious is that the real reason Mueller couldn't proceed on this is that the Steele Dossier is sitting out in public view. He couldn't go after Trump Jr. for agreeing to meet for an offer of dirt on Clinton without having to explain why Clinton Campaign is skating free after accepting similar "offers" from Steele- indeed, not only accepting, but actively seeking out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you know, I've always been suspicious about the TT meeting--whether the FBI had any knowledge of it. With Solomon now claiming that the Russia Hoax was hatched at the WH in Jan, 2016, that remains a possibility.

      The "thing of value" IMO may tie into the Bribery statute, which applies to people who are only prospectively government employees. The whole setup stunk of an attempt to establish a quid pro quo.

      Nunes the other night expressed great interest in the TT meeting, so you can be sure we'll be hearing more.

      Delete
  24. Also, at the halfway point- one thing is very noticeable so far- the Steele Dossier isn't mentioned a single time in any unredacted section- not once. This tells me that not a single bit of it is confirmed as of this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This may interest you--it's Scott Horton blogging it page by page, more or less. Scathing.

    https://libertarianinstitute.org/blog/mueller-report-released/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that link, Mr. Wauck! He is even more cynical than I was reading the exact same material, and that was hard to do.

      Delete
  26. I will finish reading the report tomorrow. I got to page 180 or so before I packed it in this afternoon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought you'd like it. There are the usual people out there who think they can fool We The People all of the time, but I doubt that will work. As for the rest--better you than me. I'm taking it in small bits guided by others.

      Delete