Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Read the Mueller Report
Attorney General Bill Barr released the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller today. Here it is so you can read it and draw your own conclusions.
Let us know in the comments what you think.
Fox News has also uploaded the report to Scribd, which you can view below. This may take up to a few minutes to load on your device, however.
Mueller Report by Fox News on Scribd
Published in Politics
It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller. Are you saying that once Rosenstein learned that Rosenstein was the one who recommended firing Comey, Rosenstein wouldn’t have appointed him?
(Recall also that Rosenstein recommended firing Comey to provide a reason to appoint Mueller.)
Eh . . . it’s a nice theory if we had honest people running the show.
My argument was predicated on the belief that Rosenstein actually drafted his memo unprompted (which is what Woodward reports in his book.) As the rest of my comment makes clear, the Mueller report disputes this.
If Rosenstein believed Trump acted on his advice, then Rosenstein may have concluded Trump telling the Russians that he fired Comey to help with the Russia investigation may have prompted him to appoint the Special Prosecutor. This was my reasoning behind my repeated statement. Now, it seems likely that Trump trying to falsely blame Rosenstein for the decision may have prompted Rosenstein to appoint Mueller.
Here’s one possibility, from page 5 of Volume I:
(italics added) I don’t think Mifsud has or had any connections to Russia. That’s likely why – even if Mueller is granted the benefit of doubt that he doesn’t deserve in the rest of his narrative – no meeting took place.
As Trump’s lawyer John Dowd told Byron York, Mueller knew by Thanksgiving 2017 that he had proved there was no collusion. By waiting until March of 2019 to send his report to the AG, Mueller affected the 2018 Congressional elections, the consistent theme of which was ORANGE MAN BAD. Over 50 Republican congressmen chose not to run for reelection in 2018. So the GOP was forced to run its candidates in a news environment where
the “Russia Collusion” hoax
was being perpetrated by
The Federal Government, in concert with
The Mainstream Media, all based on a work of fiction commissioned by
Hillary Clinton and the DNC,
without even the benefit of incumbency.
Historians must report the results of the 2018 Congressional elections with an asterisk.
I listened to Byron York’s podcast with Papadopolous yesterday while I was running. There is some stuff in the Mueller report that contradicts Papadopolous’s assertions, but it is still frightening to think that what Papadopolous said is true.
I just saw Newt Gingrich on Fox and friends. It’s amazing how much more overt lawbreaking Bill Clinton engaged in over Trump (ZERO). And Mueller’s team was just insanely politically biased. Incredible.
The statists are going to take everything over, one way or another. Thank God for the Second Amendment.
There is zero evidence that Trump said any such thing to the Russians. Your assertion is based on anonymous sources who were not in the room at the time Trump supposedly said this. Multiple people who were in the room, including the secretary of state and the national security advisor, went on the record subsequently to say the news report was false in every regard including the other anonymous allegation that Trump had divulged classified information.
I believe I’ve already told you this.
You did. It is referenced in the Mueller report, so I think you are wrong.
YES!
@ekentgolding
Here are your cheerleaders
Always be careful of what one wishes. I knew that already, but just got reminded.
You are supposed to flag @mikelaroche when you post cheerleader pics.
I stand corrected. Brutally and Effectively. Cheerleaders are not always appropriate. This is worse than a picture of Sean Hannity.
Does it seem curious that among members of the political class, it’s only the people who have been lampooned by President Trump who are now calling for his impeachment?
I’m really enjoying the whole meltdown of this unhinged clique of insiders as they try to summon the simulacra of moral indignation from deep within, but succeed only to reveal the base desire for revenge. They’re the bitter-enders of American politics.
They don’t have the votes to remove him. Pelosi has said that she’s against it, and the Senate can ignore the House vote. It’s an empty partisan gesture.
Mueller quoted the New York Times story, which was attributed to anonymous sources who were not in the room. That Mueller cited the Times story means nothing about its veracity. Mueller also claimed that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Clinton’s emails. If he had evidence that Papa D did in fact say that, why didn’t he charge Papa D with lying? Papa D repeatedly denied during interviews with the FBI and the special counsel that he had said anything of the sort to Downer.
Just because Mueller put something in his report doesn’t mean it’s true. He has filled his report with innuendo and half truths, I believe because his real goal was to damage Trump.
If he could have put in anything real, like actual crimes, he would have. But he couldn’t, so instead he opted for state-sanctioned libel.
Mueller also said no one from the administration had denied the story.
Reading all 448 pages of the Mueller Report can be quite daunting. Thankfully, there is an Introduction and Executive Summary of Volume I: Collusion, and an Introduction and Executive Summary of Volume II: Obstruction of Justice. They are 3, 7, 2 and 6 pages respectively for a total of 18 pages. I have converted the PDF into Word at http://ricochet.com/615718/the-mueller-report-in-four-summaries/
If you can’t read the entire 448 pages, I urge you to read the 18 page of summaries. If you don’t have the time to read the 18 pages of summaries, here are the bottom lines:
“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.” (Executive Summary for Volume I: Collusion.)
“[I]f 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.” (Introduction for Volume II: Obstruction of Justice.)
“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.” (Executive Summary for Volume II: Obstruction of Justice.)
This is a political scam that The Founders would abhor.
@garyrobbins what was the impetus? John Brennon? MI6? The FBI?
Discuss.
This was a counter intelligence operation. Run by…
… and predicated on …
God Bless The Republic.
Who are counter intelligence operations run for?
What was the crime prosecutor Muller was investigating?
Why do you continue to post this (or something similar) without responding on substance.to the several posts I’ve made on the topic? I’m tempted to link to them, but that’s more work than I’m willing to do. I certainly get that you’re entitled to ignore inconvenient opposition, but I sort of thought discussion was the point of Ricochet.
Papadopoulos was arrested and charged in October of 2017. His meeting with the Australian diplomat was only revealed by the press in December of 2017. Prior to it being revealed to the public, the FBI’s knowledge that the meeting took place was classified information (footnote 465 of the report), which is why they picked other lies to be the ones presented in court in furtherance of his overall lying-to-the-FBI conviction (footnote 394 of the report uses the phrase “inter alia” for that reason). Adding his lies about the Australian meeting to the charge sheet would not have made a difference to the ultimate sentence. After you’re already proven to have lied many many times throughout your testimony, your fate is already sealed – so why would Mueller want to introduce classified-information-related complications into the trial? Charge him with lies they can demonstrate based on publicly available information and be done with it.
In general, this desperate belief that it’s all an evil, deep-state action with no justification is absurd. Footnote 465 makes it clear that Papadopoulos’s meeting with the ambassador triggered the investigation. And rightly so – if the FBI finds out that the Russian government is digging up opposition research on a political candidate and offering to sell it to the opposing candidate, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to investigate.
Finally, why would you trust anything Papadopoulos says, if he’s a proven and repeat liar?
Agreed…I think. So why didn’t the FBI investigate the Clinton campaign? Do you have any guesses? Also, if the FBI thought there might be a few problematic characters in the Trump campaign, why didn’t they tell Trump so he could get rid of them?
You mean like they told Dianne Feinstein that a member of her staff was a Chinese spy? Ah, well … she was only head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time.
Yes , @percival that is exactly what I mean.
The FBI was not investigating “the Trump campaign” at this point in time. They were investigating Papadopoulos personally and the people he was connected to. And they were only investigating him because they had a specific reason to investigate him. Unless there’s somebody in the Clinton campaign that was being assisted in clandestine and potentially illegal ways (and the Mueller report says pretty explicitly that the Russian government was supporting Trump, so it would make no sense for that to be the case), there’s nobody there to investigate.
The FBI doesn’t tend to go around telling people who they’re investigating, regardless of the circumstances. That would just be idiotic. If they’re innocent, you run the risk of smearing somebody’s name for no good reason; if they’re guilty, you run the risk of them hearing about it and destroying evidence/fleeing.
There is no allegation anyone was offering to sell Papadopoulos information. However, we do not know if Christopher Steele’s contacts were paying their sources in Russian intelligence for the information included in his dossier used to obtain the Carter Page FISA Warrant. Would you like to know the answer to that question?
The question is whether what you assert about Papadopolous is true. The Mueller report claims the FBI investigation began in late July 2016 after receiving information on statements by P in his meeting with the Australians. P, whose expertise was in energy issues in the Mediterranean and Middle East, not Russia, becomes a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign in late March. Shortly thereafter he is contacted by Joseph Mifsud, agrees to meet him and Mifsud tells him the Russians have damaging info on Hillary. Then, according to P (who was in London), on May 6 he was contacted out of the blue by two US DIA agents stationed there who suggested it would be useful for him to meet with an Australian contact, Erika Thompson, which he did and then as a followup an Australian diplomat (Downer) contacted him to set up a meeting which occurred on May 10. On those same dates, Bill Preistap, a senior FBI official, and boss of Peter Strzok, also happened to be in London.
Questions:
Was Mifsud working for the Russians, a Western intelligence service, or a freelancer?
Is P’s story about being contacted by the DIA agents (whom he names) correct? If so, why did they reach out to him?
Are there tapes or transcripts of P’s conversation with Thompson or Downer?
Why was Bill Preistap in London on those days?