Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[childeye 2]

I guess I should start reading everything then, right? Should I read the full text of every bill introduced in Congress too? People need to be selective about what they're going to spend their time on. Reading 448 pages of an investigation that has already been read by many people and found to be vague--all for the purpose of coming here and trying to change the minds of people who will hate Trump from now until the day they die--is not on the top of any of my lists. It's just clutter that I'd rather keep where it belongs. It belongs to the world for the worldly to bicker about to no one's benefit.

I'm not asking you to read all 448 pages. I'm just saying to go directly to volume 2 and glance through the descriptions of topics till you see something you want to know about. It's not vague at all. It's very clear. If you don't want to know anything about an un-precedented historical event that happened in your lifetime, because you'd rather believe vague inferences of others who say it's vague, then good luck with entertaining that boring cynicism that leaves you with nothing intelligent to add to anybody including yourself.

 

[childeye 2]

If someone quotes from the report and shows the location of the text, why should I doubt what it says?

You probably shouldn't have to doubt it, so long as it's not a snippet and not out of context. But I am a person who has to see it for myself so as to be certain. Moreover, there is so much great analysis in the report that citing one or more quotes is an injustice.

 

[PeachyKeane]

How about the idea that there's nothing that shows he's guilty, but then says that he can't be exonerated either? If that's the big conclusion, then what a waste of 2 years and 30 million dollars. Should I add about 20 hours of my own time to that waste?

That's how the law works sometimes.

 

[childeye 2]

How about the idea that there's nothing that shows he's guilty, but then says that he can't be exonerated either? If that's the big conclusion, then what a waste of 2 years and 30 million dollars. Should I add about 20 hours of my own time to that waste?

Cynicism is an unreasonable ideology. In reality which infers sanity, there's plenty in the report to show he is guilty of obstruction.

 

[childeye 2]

Is Robert Mueller a saint now?

Knowing God sees all, I'd rather be seen saying yes than saying no.

 

[Allandavid]

The only reason it's being twisted is because so much of it is written in vague terms that are open to interpretation. It sounds as if Mueller didn't want to come right out and say anything specific, but was inclined to just leave his investigation as pretty much inconclusive and allowing voters to do what they've always done--which is to vote who they want into or out of office when election day comes. So why can't the dems in congress just leave it at that?

You haven’t read it, have you...?

 

[Sparagmos]

It's best if the Party doesn't do that, but simply looks to the people who are going to be voting. The democrat party backed the person they wanted when the people wanted someone else, and so the people either didn't vote, or voted the other way. I'd rather not see the republican party do the same.

Yes yes that makes sense. Completely true re the dems in 2016. But the people aren’t for Donald Trump. I hope the nominee IS Trump, because I think the dems will win. But if I wanted a republican president, I’d be looking to back anyone but Trump.

 

[Pommer]

Well Trump can't help himself in my view. Someone's going to make it a movie.

Elia Kazan got it covered...62 years ago.

 

[Speedwell]

The ones who should confront Trump about his policies are the voters. They did that in 2016, but many people just can't accept that. They can try again in 2020. In the meantime, democrats should just accept the election results and be patient until 2020.

I agree. Going after Trump for his character makes him a victim, and energizes his core supporters who have been playing the victim card for the last 154 years. On the other hand, confronting Trump on policy will give them traction with working class voters who voted for Trump last time. but really do not support the un-American political agenda of the Christian Right which he panders to so outrageously.

 

[Ringo84]

Elia Kazan got it covered...62 years ago.

So did Network. Donny is at least two parts Howard Beale and one part Lonesome Rhodes.
Ringo

 

[AllButNone]

Second, this remark tells me something. "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."

Well, Mueller is telling the reader the evidence he surveys does not convince him Trump committed a crime. "Accordingly....this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..." Such a remark is not surprising given Mueller's characterization of the evidence as "relevant" and "suggests." At the same time, some of the evidence clearly troubles Mueller, which is to say he perceives some of the evidence as incriminating, leading him to say "it also does not exonerate him."

He explicitly states on page 2, volume 2:

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.​

So your second point is incorrect. Under the terms Mueller has defined, the report could never have concluded the President committed a crime. So you can't then use your quoted statement as evidence that Mueller is uncertain, unless you're willing to argue Mueller is being dishonest for the section I've quoted, or some other argument that invalidates the above quote.

Two sources.
First, in analyzing the evidence of each incident, Mueller frequently says the evidence is "relevant" to some element of the statute. That's rather flimsy. Even the weakest evidence is relevant. Relevance is not an indication of strength. Telling me or the reader the evidence is relevant is not an invitation to be confident that Trump obstructed justice and here is the ineluctable, and incontrovertible evidence.

In other instances, Mueller said the evidence "suggests" something, which is also not a compelling or assuring remark. The way I read Mueller's report, his choice of words indicates to me he is very much on the fence regarding whether the evidence substantiates obstruction of justice.

The above is also faulty in light of him being unwilling to make a judgement or make statements that lead to the judgement the president committed crimes. If he can't render judgement of the strength of the evidence, what other information do you think he can provide other than relevance and statements with qualifiers?

Basically, you're not accounting for the limitations Mueller defined in the opening pages of volume 2.

 

[childeye 2]

Mueller wasn't expected to impeach. He was expected to investigate to see what evidence existed of wrongdoing. Not enough was found to say that there was any.

Only congress can impeach. But in regards to wrongdoing Mueller found plenty of wrong doing. If you'd read the report you would be properly informed.

 

[NotreDame]

He explicitly states on page 2, volume 2:

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.​

So your second point is incorrect. Under the terms Mueller has defined, the report could never have concluded the President committed a crime. So you can't then use your quoted statement as evidence that Mueller is uncertain, unless you're willing to argue Mueller is being dishonest for the section I've quoted, or some other argument that invalidates the above quote.



The above is also faulty in light of him being unwilling to make a judgement or make statements that lead to the judgement the president committed crimes. If he can't render judgement of the strength of the evidence, what other information do you think he can provide other than relevance and statements with qualifiers?

Basically, you're not accounting for the limitations Mueller defined in the opening pages of volume 2.

So your second point is incorrect. Under the terms Mueller has defined, the report could never have concluded the President committed a crime. So you can't then use your quoted statement as evidence that Mueller is uncertain, unless you're willing to argue Mueller is being dishonest for the section I've quoted, or some other argument that invalidates the above quote.

Not quite. You’ve misread Mueller’s remarks. He says nothing tantamount to “the report could never have concluded the President committed a crime.“ Mueller makes it clear the Third aspect was a consideration, not a determinative fact that he couldn’t make a prosecutorial judgment.

Rather, his owm remarks are unequivocal, he and his team determined, by their own volition and discretion, whether to exercise prosecutorial judgment. “we determined ...” to not resort to an approach ending in exercising prosecutorial judgment the President committed a crime.

So, your attestation of a foregone conclusion the Report “could never have concluded the President committed a crime“ is not supported by the Report. Indeed, your view is entirely contradicted by the very language you quoted as support for you view.

As a result, your commentary is not a refutation of what I said or my conclusions, and neither does the part of the Report you quote refute my claims.

The above is also faulty in light of him being unwilling to make a judgement or make statements that lead to the judgement the president committed crimes. If he can't render judgement

He can and could’ve rendered judgment, but he chose not to do so.

Second, you are confusing judgment with prosecutorial judgment. Mueller was discussing prosecutorial judgment. He wasn’t being cautious with the purpose of ensuring no judgment by the wider public couldn’t be made.

His choice of words “relevant” and “suggests” reflects a less than convinced perspective. Nothing you’ve cited to or quoted to refutes such a notion.

Mueller could have rendered a prosecutorial judgment, he chose not to do so. His remarks elsewhere show he was conflicted about the evidence and the difficulties associated with the evidence and intent led him to not conclude the President committed a crime of obstruction. However, some of the evidence was incriminating, thereby preluding him from exonerating Trump. The part of the Report you quote isn’t a rebuttal or refutation to those remarks.

 

[childeye 2]

Some legal experts would likely agree with you and some likely would not.

That's not the issue. Truth is authoritative not subjective. If you would read the report in volume two you will see why Mueller had to conclude that obstruction happened.

 

[Pommer]

So did Network. Donny is at least two parts Howard Beale and one part Lonesome Rhodes.
Ringo

Rewatching both right about now would be so surreal...where the movies end and it’s difficult to tell whether they clever documentaries or just reminders that the hucksters never stop with “the spiel”.
Okay Beale was cra-cra, yet we have Alex Jones, a for-real (and yea, verily worse version [played by Peter Finch], from the classic that came out in 1977, you know when that Star BATTLES movie came out, for “the kids”.)

 

[Ringo84]

Rewatching both right about now would be so surreal...where the movies end and it’s difficult to tell whether they clever documentaries or just reminders that the hucksters never stop with “the spiel”.
Okay Beale was cra-cra, yet we have Alex Jones, a for-real (and yea, verily worse version [played by Peter Finch], from the classic that came out in 1977, you know when that Star BATTLES movie came out, for “the kids”.)

A Face In The Crowd is an excellent movie - one of my favorites - that, in a lot of ways, predicts 2016 fifty years beforehand. But Network hits so close to home in 2019's media environment and this president that it's almost unpleasant to watch (although it's also one of my favorites).

And yes...I'm really not sure whether Biff Tannen is playing Trump or Trump is playing Biff Tannen. The only difference is that Biff's slightly smarter (he's able to actually build what appears to be a thriving casino).
Ringo

 

[AllButNone]

Second, you are confusing judgment with prosecutorial judgment. Mueller was discussing prosecutorial judgment. He wasn’t being cautious with the purpose of ensuring no judgment by the wider public couldn’t be made.

You misunderstand the argument I'm making (in a really strange and surprising way I might add). If Mueller suggests the evidence is strong or presents it as such, he's making a de facto determination that criminal conduct has occurred even if it's not explicitly stated. Yet with a goal of not rendering judgment, it seems likely he would want to avoid even this de facto determination.

And while the report explicitly does not explicitly state the above, I believe most reasonably people would agree that this was a specific intent, given the concerns highlighted in first through fourth. But even if not, at the very, very minimum this works as a plausible alternative to your own hypothesis, which should undercut the confidence you have in your belief that Mueller is uncertain.

He can and could’ve rendered judgment, but he chose not to do so.

Seriously... you're going to play semantic games. He can't because he chose that he wouldn't and there should be absolutely no doubt of this from the language in the first the two pages.

*Edit, just going to end the discussion after this message, at this point it doesn't really matter what Mueller thinks, the report itself is in the public domain. I just wanted to know what your reasoning was for concluding Mueller believes the evidence is ambiguous/weak, and you've provided your rationale, so thank you!

*Double edit, since I suspect I'll still be misinterpreted. Your argument is contingent on the idea that Mueller would present the evidence as strong if he believed it was such. But there's no indication of this and the language on pages 1 and 2 and many of the concerns he presents indicate outright, or (at least or if you insist on debating the issue) at the very least suggests, that he is/could be softening his language. And it's this latter point that refutes your certainty.

(Never mind that your argument itself isn't rooted in the text itself, but in a highly subjective appraisal of the content.)

 

[Zanting]

If this hasn't been posted yet...here is the Mueller report


Mueller Report

 

[Kentonio]

Also if anyone is put off by the size of the report, Lawfare have done a really good first analysis.

What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis

 

[wing2000]

It's quite obvious by many of the posts in this tread that many haven't read the report. It's impossible to read the report and not recognize the wrong doing on the part of the president and those around him. Even if there was no conspiracy or collusion indictments, the report is clear that the president is unfit for office.

It shouldn't be the Democrats who take action against him, it should be the Republican party and those who put him in office demanding something be done. The continued support for this president despite his lies for the past 2+ years and now this report documenting his dishonesty and unpatriotic behavior is really hard for me to understand.

I hope there are enough Republicans who will vote during the primaries for a more moral and patriotic nominee to represent the party in 2020 than Trump.

The Mueller Report documents in detail that Trump will do anything to benefit himself. He operates under no moral or legal framework. I guess we should be grateful that his staff refused to carry out illegal orders (and in effect, saved their boss from himself). However, here is my biggest concern with leaving Trump in office:

This Administration has yet to face a major crisis that requires the President to make a decisive, well-informed decision on behalf of the United States. We've seen many instances of on-the-fly policy decisions implemented with no input from subject matter experts. Trump operates on instinct alone....

What is going to happen if Trump if he faces a Cuban missile crisis level scenario?