The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, as I predicted the SCOTUS denied mystery foreign company's petition today. The special counsel's office announced that the US attorney's office in Washington will continue to pursue the case (whatever it is). Fines will continue to accrue until the mystery company turns over the material being sought. If I had to guess, I would say that it is material that is being sought for the case against the Russian company accusing of hacking the DNC, which is being handled now by the US Attorney's office in Washington. And if I had to guess, I would guess that the mystery foreign company will continue to refuse to turn over the material, and will just ignore the fines. But we'll see (maybe).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is an article that one would expect to see at MSNBC not Fox News. I think she overstates the case, but unless and until we see the full report it's hard to say.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

Link?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Duh! Sorry about that.

https://goo.gl/kXYkjE

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

The writer's misuse of 'deeming' in the first sentence doesn't inspire confidence in her level of understanding.

In the first paragraph, she seems to be misrepresenting the Barr statement as an independent creation, whereas I thought it was offered as a summary of the conclusions of the report. (Can you imagine that if the Barr statement had misrepresented the report, Mueller would have said nothing?)

In the second paragraph, she refers to Barr's decisions, but I think it was just the one decision, not to prosecute for obstruction. As I understand it, Barr didn't have a decision to make on the collusion question.

Then in the third paragraph, she talks about Mueller not making decisions about crimes he examined. But he was not examining crimes, he was investigating whether crimes had been committed.

The last paragraph is way off the mark, because she refers to evidence of Trump's part in election interference being left for Congress to follow, but the Barr statement said unequivocally that there was no such evidence. So I think this person doesn't really understand what she's talking about.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In the first paragraph, she seems to be misrepresenting the Barr statement as an independent creation, whereas I thought it was offered as a summary of the conclusions of the report. (Can you imagine that if the Barr statement had misrepresented the report, Mueller would have said nothing?)

I am quite sure that Mueller would not say anything unless and until the full report is either released or blocked, and in the latter case, he is called to testify by one or more Congressional committees. And I am equally sure that Barr's short letter mispresents what the actual full report says to some extent (as any summary would) and that the summary presents the conclusions in the most favorable light. While I think that Ms. Marsh overstates the case considerably, I agree with her that it remains to be seen what exactly Mueller concluded.

Then in the third paragraph, she talks about Mueller not making decisions about crimes he examined. But he was not examining crimes, he was investigating whether crimes had been committed.

Only in part. Mueller's investigation was two-fold. One part of it was to investigate whether crimes had been committed, as you say. But it was also specifically designated as a counter-intelligence investigation. We have yet to see any of his conclusions on that side of the equation.

The last paragraph is way off the mark, because she refers to evidence of Trump's part in election interference being left for Congress to follow, but the Barr statement said unequivocally that there was no such evidence.

No, that is not quite right. What the letter stated was "[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 is not the same thing as saying that there was no evidence that Mr. Trump or any of his associates had any role in the election interference, just that they did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government. It still remains to be seen what exactly Mueller says Mr. Trump and/or his associates did do with regard to election interference. Clearly based on the various illusions made in different court filings over the past two years, he has something to say about that. What exactly we don't know yet.

[RoseMorninStar]

..."[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 is not the same thing as saying that there was no evidence that Mr. Trump or any of his associates had any role in the election interference, just that they did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government. It still remains to be seen what exactly Mueller says Mr. Trump and/or his associates did do with regard to election interference. Clearly based on the various illusions made in different court filings over the past two years, he has something to say about that. What exactly we don't know yet.

Interesting. So, this is something like... each party (Russia/Trump campaign) knew what the other was doing without any explicit agreement or planning but since it fit one another's agenda they played along each to their advantage. Not quite conspiring, but not stopping interference. A 'soft' type of alliance/understanding, which wouldn't fit the criteria of a crime.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm reluctant to speculate until I see the report itself. Apparently, the Justice Department has announced that a "public version" of the report will be released in "weeks, not months" but what that means also remains to be seen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

[River]

Interesting. So, this is something like... each party (Russia/Trump campaign) knew what the other was doing without any explicit agreement or planning but since it fit one another's agenda they played along each to their advantage. Not quite conspiring, but not stopping interference. A 'soft' type of alliance/understanding, which wouldn't fit the criteria of a crime.

Or they just weren't reporting what they were seeing/hearing to law enforcement. And then lying about their foreign contacts when asked by law enforcement after the fact. The not reporting may not be a crime. But the lying to the FBI...that's what's putting people in jail.

[Cerin]

Only in part. Mueller's investigation was two-fold. One part of it was to investigate whether crimes had been committed, as you say. But it was also specifically designated as a counter-intelligence investigation. We have yet to see any of his conclusions on that side of the equation.

I don't really understand what 'a counter-intelligence investigation' means in practical terms, or what sort of conclusions it would lead to, that would differ in kind from the conclusions reached by the other leg of the investigation.

What the letter stated was "[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 is not the same thing as saying that there was no evidence that Mr. Trump or any of his associates had any role in the election interference, just that they did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government. It still remains to be seen what exactly Mueller says Mr. Trump and/or his associates did do with regard to election interference. Clearly based on the various illusions made in different court filings over the past two years, he has something to say about that. What exactly we don't know yet.

I didn't realize that Trump was suspected not only of colluding with the Russians to interfere in the election, but of interfering in the election all on his own.

edit

It's going to be a tense wait for that report. If Barr is taken literally, it will be 7 weeks or less ("weeks, not months").

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's now been revealed that Barr plans to provide a copy of the report to the White House first so that they can redact it before it is released publicly. I cannot emphasize how inappropriate that is.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

But what could there possibly be to redact! There was absolutely no wrongdoing!


Sorry, other than sarcasm, I have no words.

[River]

But what could there possibly be to redact! There was absolutely no wrongdoing!

And they want to make sure that remains true.

Don't worry. The White House leaks like a sieve.

[Cerin]

It's now been revealed that Barr plans to provide a copy of the report to the White House first so that they can redact it before it is released publicly. I cannot emphasize how inappropriate that is.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

More specifically, it's being given to the White House in case Trump wants to claim executive privilege over anything. I assume 'executive privilege' has limited application? If he makes a claim, will it be reviewed by a court? Who decides if something qualifies for executive privilege? Have we had cases in the past of President's claiming executive privilege? What were they and what were the outcomes? I don't think we're talking about the White House staff sitting down with Magic Markers.

edit

To be clear, those questions on executive privilege were posed rhetorically.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mr. Giuliani explained what it meant back in January. What it really means is that they want an opportunity to "correct" any "mistakes" in the report. Yes, their redactions can be challenged in court, but that is likely to take months or even years, and then will be decided by the likes of Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. By then it will likely be a moot point.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Staying on the Fox theme, Fox News' chief legal analyst, Judge Andre Napolitano's take on things is more in line with what I think.

https://ev.ie/2JJYP83

"In the 700-page summary of the two million pages of raw evidence, there is undoubtedly some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction of justice, just not enough evidence—I’m thinking the way I believe Congressman Schiff is thinking—according to Attorney General Barr, not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard.”

Napolitano went on to note that if “there were no evidence of conspiracy and no evidence of obstruction, the attorney general would have told us so,” adding that Barr didn’t, so “there is something there” that Democrats and Trump opponents want to see. And they’ll have a “field day” with it.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm most curious about what was farmed out.

In a District Court hearing over whether the name of mystery company should be revealed (now that they have exhausted their appeals of the order that they turn over evidence) David Goodhand, an assistant U.S. attorney from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office, said that the grand jury that was being used by Mueller was "continuing robustly." That certainly implies that their are some related items, beyond the existing cases against Stone, the Russians, and the as yet to be sentenced Gates and Flynn, still open.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... ry-1238861

[elengil]

Napolitano went on to note that if “there were no evidence of conspiracy and no evidence of obstruction, the attorney general would have told us so,” adding that Barr didn’t, so “there is something there” that Democrats and Trump opponents want to see. And they’ll have a “field day” with it.

I like (read: hate) how he acknowledges it is not a exoneration, that there must be evidence in the full report or else the AG would have made that clear, but he doesn't himself seem to care that there is, he just cares that Democrats care that there is.

The state of politics right there: I don't care that my side did something dirty, I only care that the other side can get evidence that my side did something dirty.

[Frelga]

Is it really "my side" as in both sides do it? Is it really?

Nate Silver

Revising my prior on "Barr substantially misrepresented the Mueller Report" from "unlikely but not unthinkable" to "not the modal outcome but well within the thick part of the probability distribution". https://t.co/yztamRfaCG

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Napolitano went on to note that if “there were no evidence of conspiracy and no evidence of obstruction, the attorney general would have told us so,” adding that Barr didn’t, so “there is something there” that Democrats and Trump opponents want to see. And they’ll have a “field day” with it.

I like (read: hate) how he acknowledges it is not a exoneration, that there must be evidence in the full report or else the AG would have made that clear, but he doesn't himself seem to care that there is, he just cares that Democrats care that there is.

The state of politics right there: I don't care that my side did something dirty, I only care that the other side can get evidence that my side did something dirty.

Actually, Napolitano has been remarkably consistently critical of Mr. Trump, considering how closely aligned they are politically. I've been pretty impreseed by how willing he has been to hold Mr. Trump accountable.

Is it really "my side" as in both sides do it? Is it really?

Nate Silver

Revising my prior on "Barr substantially misrepresented the Mueller Report" from "unlikely but not unthinkable" to "not the modal outcome but well within the thick part of the probability distribution". https://t.co/yztamRfaCG

As for as I am concerned (and this has been the case as soon as I saw Barr's letter) the question has never been whether Barr misrepresented the Mueller Report but to what extent he did so.