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

 

There are 113 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    • #1
  2. DanielSterman Inactive
    DanielSterman
    @DanielSterman

    If you go to the original link on the Justice Department website and replace “.pdf” with “.old” you get the unredacted version. True story.

    • #2
  3. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    In the interview with Byron York this week, Papadopoulos (I call him “Papa D”) categorically denied that what’s described in the above paragraph from the Mueller Report ever happened. He said he told Mueller it never happened. If Mueller had evidence that it did happen, and therefore Papa D was lying, why was Papa D not charged with lying about that? Instead they charged him with lying about when he met with Josef Mifsud, who told Papa D that the Russians had Clintons emails. 

    As I understand it, Papa D said he met with Mifsud after he’d joined the campaign. The date of the meeting itself was never in question. Papa D had been offered a position as a policy advisor with the campaign earlier in March, then he met Mifsud, then it was publicly announced that he was part of the campaign. The “lie” rested on one’s definition of “joining the campaign.” Mueller choice to use the “publicly announced” definition rather than the “offered a position” definition.

    In any case, Mifsud is not the “representative of a foreign government” referred to in the above paragraph from the report. That’s Alexander Downer (the Australian ambassador to Great Britain at the time). Not only does Papa D deny telling Downer about what Mifsud told him, Downer has stated publicly that Papa D never mentioned emails to him.

    If Mueller’s still saying, in official documents, that PapaD talked about Russia and emails to Downer, when PapaD and Downer both completely deny that, what else is Mueller lying about?

    Mueller is a dirty, dirty cop whose sole mission was to try to bring down Trump’s presidency. His failure at that is a testament to just how fake this whole thing was. What a disgrace Mueller is. An absolute disgusting disgrace. 

    People need to go to jail for what they did. Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, ,the Ohrs, and so many others, not least of all Herself.

    I’m extremely angry. 

    • #3
  4. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    What if I don’t want to read it?  Besides, all that matters is what talking heads say they think is in the report.

    • #4
  5. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):
    If you go to the original link on the Justice Department website and replace “.pdf” with “.old” you get the unredacted version. True story.

    Not a true story.

    • #5
  6. Hoyacon Inactive
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    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.

    Here, my friends, will be the focus of media talking points ad nauseam.  Hopefully, a few brave souls (Mr. McCarthy?) will step forward to note that these are unethical words coming from a prosecutor–fully reversing the burden of proof, while using words such as “clearly,” in an effort to cast aspersions without sufficient evidence.

    • #6
  7. Benjamin Glaser Inactive
    Benjamin Glaser
    @BenjaminGlaser

    • #7
  8. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Being a baby boomer dinosaur, I don’t know what the difference is between a searchable copy of the Mueller Report and I guess an unsearchable copy.  That having been said, The Bulwark posted a “searchable” copy of the Mueller Report.  Here it is:

    https://thebulwark.com/read-the-mueller-report-here/

    • #8
  9. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    OK.  I will skim it. 

    OMG! This is key:

    I am pretty sure the ongoing matter has to do with imminent indictments of Jared, Ivanka and Don Jr.  Why else would it be redacted? Why else would it be “ongoing”? Thank God Nadler, Schiff and Rachel Maddow will be all over this. 

    I predict that CNN will outdo MSNBC in minutes devoted to raw speculation about the nature of this “ongoing” matter.  At least 4 publications will run with then retract their own speculations based on sources close to the Mueller investigation, such as the staff of the New York Avenue McDonald’s and that kid who does social media for some other federal agency nearby.

    The fact that anything was redacted makes it harder to impeach and it therefore an obstruction of justice. Game over, evil red-headed man!

    • #9
  10. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    Life is too short to read it on my own time.

    • #10
  11. Hoyacon Inactive
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    JoelB (View Comment):

    Life is too short to read it on my own time.

    Audiobook?

     

    • #11
  12. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):
    If you go to the original link on the Justice Department website and replace “.pdf” with “.old” you get the unredacted version. True story.

    Not a true story.

    You, sir, have no sense of humor.

    • #12
  13. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Gary, please stop inserting links to The Bull**** everywhere. If people want a searchable PDF they can find it on their own. 

    • #13
  14. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Being a baby boomer dinosaur, I don’t know what the difference is between a searchable copy of the Mueller Report and I guess an unsearchable copy.

    My guess would be a searchable copy has text that is readable by a computer, either typed in or converted from a scanned copy by optical character recognition (OCR), so the text can be searched. An unsearchable copy would be images from a scanned copy, where a human can read the words, but the computer only sees pictures and can’t search the text. The latest version of Acrobat has a great redaction capability that will export a version with redacted text replaced with bars and no way to back out what was originally there. No need to take a marker to a printed copy and scan the pages back in.

    • #14
  15. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    EDs,

    I don’t have the time to read it in the middle of the day. However, here are my first thoughts from the news conference.

    Barr is obviously the guy that should have been AG all along and Rosenstein agrees. What was telling was Barr’s answer to the question about Trump’s anger. Barr said the President was correctly upset by very specious allegations. When asked whether this characterization didn’t make Barr seem to be Trump’s lawyer, the answer came back that the characterization that Barr was referring to wasn’t Barr’s but Mueller’s from the report. As far as obstruction, Barr’s conclusion which apparently is backed up by both fact & law was also signed onto by Rosenstein. Given that both Mueller & Rosenstein were the Democrat gold standard what do they really have left?

    Well, of course, they have ’round up the usual suspects’ but maybe this too is really getting old.

    I will try to have more specifics later.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #15
  16. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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.

    Here, my friends, will be the focus of media talking points ad nauseam. Hopefully, a few brave souls (Mr. McCarthy?) will step forward to note that these are unethical words coming from a prosecutor–fully reversing the burden of proof, while using words such as “clearly,” in an effort to cast aspersions without sufficient evidence.

    Yes. If I had confidence Mueller clearly never beat his wife, I would so state. There’s no evidence, but I’m not exonerating Mueller either, and since he wouldn’t return my phone calls, This might indicate there’s a case for obstruction but I’ll let others decide….

    • #16
  17. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    This is politics. The facts don’t matter. Narratives matter. Powers matter. 

    Don’t ask what should happen. Ask how the report claims could be weaponized.

    • #17
  18. JamesSalerno Coolidge
    JamesSalerno
    @JamesSalerno

    400 pages? Yikes. I think I’ll let Ben Shapiro do the heavy lifting for me…

    • #18
  19. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Joe diGenova: With the full Mueller report out, time to go after the real conspirators

    • #19
  20. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    @max was right to zero in on the passages about Papadopoulos.  From the report you would never know that it was Mifsud who reached out to arrange the meetings or that Papadopoulos was surprised that British spooks and the Australian ambassador suddenly reached out to a guy who was not prominent.  It was a key point in the trap set for Trump that the promise of “dirt” planted by agents of the CIA and FBI be discussed acted upon.  Papadopoulos let them down.

    You would also not know that his sole crime and guilty plea and time in prison was for stating that one of the meetings took place before  he was associated with the Trump campaign when he had been affiliated for 3 weeks. (Lock him up!! ) You would also not know that it was his business contacts with the Israeli government that put him on the radar of the (anti-Israel) administration.

    The people Mueller looked at, the questions asked, the contacts listed were taken from a pre-existing playbook (as was the obstruction nonsense)  provided by the conspirators.  Papadopoulos, Don jr. and Trump himself did not take the bait and the whole fiasco has become unraveled.

    • #20
  21. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    The concluding pages about obstruction read like a law school exam answer by a student who does not know the answer so he regurgitates anything else he thinks might be relevant to fill up the space in the blue book. 

    Once Comey told Trump he was not under investigation, firing Comey could not have been obstruction unless Trump believed Comey might eventually uncover that which Trump did not actually do but did not want investigated for corrupt reasons. 

    It was a very lame ending to a very weak product.  We deserve a refund.

    • #21
  22. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Gary, please stop inserting links to The Bull**** everywhere. If people want a searchable PDF they can find it on their own.

    Times of San Diego, a web based local news service, did the work Fox, Washington Times, and Examiner wouldn’t do, running the DOJ document through the right Adobe product to make the text searchable.

    • #22
  23. Michael Brehm Coolidge
    Michael Brehm
    @MichaelBrehm

    I bet that Mueller encoded the part about Russian collusion into the document to avoid persecution from the powers that be.

    If you simply take every seventh letter in the report, and arrange them into 16×16 grids and apply the correct encryption key (naturally gleaned from the careful exegesis of the Sixth and Seventh books of Moses), then you’ll wind up with the super-secret indictment of the president, as clear as day. 

    • #23
  24. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    @max was right to zero in on the passages about Papadopoulos. From the report you would never know that it was Mifsud who reached out to arrange the meetings or that Papadopoulos was surprised that British spooks and the Australian ambassador suddenly reached out to a guy who was not prominent. It was a key point in the trap set for Trump that the promise of “dirt” planted by agents of the CIA and FBI be discussed acted upon. Papadopoulos let them down.

    You would also not know that his sole crime and guilty plea and time in prison was for stating that one of the meetings took place before he was associated with the Trump campaign when he had been affiliated for 3 weeks. (Lock him up!! ) You would also not know that it was his business contacts with the Israeli government that put him on the radar of the (anti-Israel) administration.

    The people Mueller looked at, the questions asked, the contacts listed were taken from a pre-existing playbook (as was the obstruction nonsense) provided by the conspirators. Papadopoulos, Don jr. and Trump himself did not take the bait and the whole fiasco has become unraveled.

    There is a long, long list of questions that need to be answered for those truly interested in finding out what really happened here.  Tops among them are who Mifsud and Downer were working for.  We already know The Third Man, Stefan Halper, was being paid by American intelligence.  For him the question is what was he tasked to do?

    • #24
  25. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    Life is too short to read it on my own time.

    Audiobook?

    You ask, I answer.

    https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Washington-Post/dp/1508298971/ref=tmm_abk_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1555621268&sr=8-2

    • #25
  26. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Gary, please stop inserting links to The Bull**** everywhere. If people want a searchable PDF they can find it on their own.

    Does that apply to people who include hyperlinks to National Review, the Federalist, Spectator USA and the Washington Examiner?  (The latter two are here:  http://ricochet.com/614543/president-trump-has-a-primary-challenger-wm-weld-seriously/)

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • #26
  27. E. Kent Golding Member
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Gary, please stop inserting links to The Bull**** everywhere. If people want a searchable PDF they can find it on their own.

    Does that apply to people who include hyperlinks to National Review, the Federalist, Spectator USA and the Washington Examiner? (The latter two are here: http://ricochet.com/614543/president-trump-has-a-primary-challenger-wm-weld-seriously/)

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    I think the founders and owners of Ricochet are closely associated with National Review.  I think links to National Review,  The Babylon Bee, the Onion, and Mad Magazine are always appropriate, as are pictures of cheerleaders.

    • #27
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I can’t understand why anyone would think that Russia had leverage over Trump or why Trump would run for POTUS knowing that he had committed international crimes. 

    • #28
  29. A-Squared Coolidge
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    I’ve said for a long time now that if Trump had constantly repeated the mantra that he fired James Comey on the recommendation of Rosenstein, there would be no special prosecutor.

    According the Mueller report, Rosenstein was directed by Trump to write that memo (which contradicts the Woodward book btw) and was furious that Trump was trying to pin the decision on his memo. So, my mantra was probably wrong all along.

    • #29
  30. Hoyacon Inactive
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    Life is too short to read it on my own time.

    Audiobook?

    You ask, I answer.

    https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Washington-Post/dp/1508298971/ref=tmm_abk_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1555621268&sr=8-2

    So the redactions will be handled by the reader going “mmfflgmnm mmfflgmnm mmfflgmnm . . . .” ?

     

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.