Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

MUELLER REPORT released

MUELLER REPORT released

“the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/former-fbi-director-robert-mueller-named-special-counsel-in-the-russia-investigation-946481731669

The Mueller Report (pdf.), in redacted form, has been released by the Department of Justice.

A full copy is embedded at the bottom of this post.

This post will be updated with excerpts and analysis.

UPDATES:

Trump won. Big League. People are pouring over the details of the report, but the top line is that Mueller found no collusion and would not reach a determination on obstruction.

Collusion

Here are the relevant portions from the Executive Summary (emphasis added) on collusion. Short story: There was no collusion:

In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks’s first release of stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.

* * *

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. 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.

* * *

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of”collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Obstruction

The Executive Summary on potential obstruction of justice is in Volume II, starting at page 195 of the pdf. This the most controversial portion, because Mueller doesn’t conclude a crime was committed, but put in a statement that he couldn’t “conclusively” conclude that no crime was committed. That’s not the usual standard.

Here are excerpts from Executive Summary on obstruction:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2

* * *

Fourth, 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, 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.

The Obstruction section of the Report reaches the following Conclusion:

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.

—————

Mueller Report by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

it’s not a “full copy”. it’s been redacted!!!!!1!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

😉

legacyrepublican | April 18, 2019 at 11:34 am

It’s a big nothing burger. That is what I would tweet if I were POTUS. And it is. A great big nothing burger.

Somebody read it and tell me what it says. Or I could wait for CNN’s version.

CaptYossarian | April 18, 2019 at 11:49 am

Onto Ukraine!

NOTHING BURGER No WAY! AP says:

In Mueller’s report released Thursday, prosecutors call Trump’s answers “inadequate.” They considered issuing a subpoena for Trump, but decided against it after weighing the likelihood of a long legal battle.

Prosecutors also said they had enough information from other sources to draw “relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility.”

Mueller’s team investigated contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia and whether the president obstructed justice.

What BS. 2 Years to figure this out. “Other sources” yea, Hilary.

    MattMusson in reply to MarkSmith. | April 18, 2019 at 1:21 pm

    In other words, we did not find any direct evidence. BUT it’s probably because we were not able to interview the President.

    However.. we had plenty of hearsay evidence to convict, if only they had let us use CNN as an official source.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MarkSmith. | April 18, 2019 at 3:48 pm

    With all due respect Mark, you misspelled that next to last word in your first sentence.

    “…AP says:…” You forgot the E, and the S, and the H, and the I, and the…….

So,

1. For how long was Mueller investigating after he knew for sure that nobody had colluded with the Russians?
2. Show us the ‘scope memo’
3. When did the ‘investigation’ into president Trump begin?

    dystopia in reply to rdmdawg. | April 18, 2019 at 11:58 am

    Scope Memo:

    Dear Mr Phelps,

    Your assignment should you accept it is to get Trump by any and all means. Find a crime.

    This memo will self destruct in 5 seconds.

Question for the attorneys – once the “ongoing matters” are resolved, will the report be reissued with those redactions removed?

Here’s my bet to all of you. If and when the ENTIRE Mueller report, without redactions, is finally submitted to the msm, it won’t be enough! When you play against the Dims their goal post is on wheels.

(after a rough skimming) Russian Collusion is deader than disco. The Dems will have to make so with Obstruction of Justice charges, which of course they will, since they consider even one “Witch hunt!” text to be worthy of impeachment, and there are *dozens* of spots in the report that can be twisted into fake obstruction charges.

My take: Trump is a mouthy pain in the rump who has no problem facing down somebody who is trying a “You’re wrong, I remember” defense of something they claim they remember that runs counter to his recollection of the same event. BUT, he doesn’t break arms to get people to match his memory, he just pokes the memory to make sure where the lines lie at the moment. In short, “Yeah, you remember it that way, but I remember it this way and I’m right, so let’s keep going.”

Plenty of Leftie howling fuel here. Expect the screeching to only get louder over the next two years or so. Or six.

Vol I Lightly redacted, indeed. It’s easy to tell what some of the redactions relate to.

Page 52 admits that the Clinton email publication by Wikileaks was based on documents obtained by FOIA request.

GRU contacted WikiLeaks through DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 after Wikileaks had announced that it would release Hillary’s emails,

The DNC leaks came from the Russians.

They don’t know whether the Podesta emails came from the Russians.

P. 56 They mention the Seth Rich statements from Wikileaks as an effort to obscure the source of the materials. Say they falsely implied the documents came from him.

Page 58 The Russians attempted to hack state and local computer systems, used spearfishing emails.

Page 73 – 180 (page count is scribd document count) No links to Russian government. There are Russians in the US that talk to Americans, particularly Americans in high public office, or attached to political campaigns.

Page 183 Ongoing matter is Wikileaks interaction with Russians.

Page 187 Speculating here — Assange arrested because they need his testimony as a material witness in the case against the Russians.

vol II page 22 – “…the intelligence community released the public version of its assessment which concluded with high confidence that Russia had intervened in the election through a variety of means with the goal of harming Clinton’s electability. The assessment further concluded with high confidence that Putin and the Russian government had developed a clear preference for Trump.”

This is a big so what. So what that the Russians wanted Trump more than Clinton. Obama was President, why did he not do something about it?

    PrincetonAl in reply to MarkSmith. | April 18, 2019 at 12:32 pm

    Actually they wanted Sanders and tried intervening on his behalf. Because they thought that Trump couldn’t beat Hillary. That comes from Assange and Wikileaks communications with the Russians. Trump was only a plan B.

    Don’t expect to ever see that in the Democrat controlled media.

    And the secondary goal was always to sow discord. Mission accomplished on that front.

      Valerie in reply to PrincetonAl. | April 18, 2019 at 1:01 pm

      I willingly buy that the Russians tried to intervene in the election, and they tried to sow discord, but the evidence is very clear that they’re pikers compared to the Democrat Party, by any measure, including money spent, effectiveness, and level of hysteria.

      So what if they managed to place cartoons on both sides of the issues? Both parties, but particularly the Democrats, outspent them by at least a couple of orders of magnitude. The cartoons got carried because they looked like something produced here. The Democrat Party leadership has been explicitly encouraging violence against American voters.

      We have the videos. We have a former US Attorney General calling for blood in the streets. We have a US Senator wishing Trump would be disappeared. We have the a Washington Post editor, Michael Gerson, calling the US President “cruel, frightening and dangerous” for daring to tweet an elegant rebuttal to the careless diminishment of murder by our Muslim representative from Minnesota.

      The Russians got nothin on the Democrats for promoting divisiveness.

      redc1c4 in reply to PrincetonAl. | April 18, 2019 at 7:40 pm

      why would the Russians want anyone but Hillary: they have her hopelessly compromised over Uranium One, etc…

        DaveGinOly in reply to redc1c4. | April 20, 2019 at 12:48 am

        Do you know the story of the skunk who challenged a lion to a fight? I think Putin is the kind of guy who would rather have a worthy opponent than a walkover with someone of less ability and grit. He would rather tangle with Trump, and take a chance of losing now and then, than playing Hillary like a fiddle. It appeals to his macho image of himself.

“First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

I find this to be obscenely irresponsible in its very concept.

    tom_swift in reply to JBourque. | April 18, 2019 at 1:29 pm

    we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

    This sounds like a concession by Mueller that his two-year Cruise to Nowhere was indeed a witch hunt.

    “Traditional” legal procedures and customs are explicitly designed to steer clear of witches.

    Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 18, 2019 at 5:39 pm

    This was a conscious decision on the part of the Mueller team.

    Traditionally, the Mueller team could have stated that there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump with obsgtruction of justice. Or, the report could have laid out sufficient probable cause to charge Trump, much as Comey did in regard to Servergate, but, that due to DOJ policies and practices, Trump could not be charged. This did not happen. Instead, Team Mueller recounts 10-11 incidents, none of which provide probable cause to believe obstruction of justice occurred, which indicate that Trump would have liked to stop the investigation, nothing more. It is a political hit piece which is written in such a way as to allow the House of Representatives to justify conducting ongoing investigations of the POTUS and, possibly, institute impeachment proceedings. What is missing, unlike the HRC Servergate case, is actual proof that probable cause existed to warrant charging Trump with that crime.

    The plan was to tie Trump up defending himself from baseless allegations until the end of his term. Mueller could not justify continuing his investigation, because there was NO evidence to support justifying its continuance. So, he left the door open to allow the House to continue the witch hunt.

      Barry in reply to Mac45. | April 18, 2019 at 9:41 pm

      “Mueller could not justify continuing his investigation, because” AG Barr was confirmed.

      FIFY.

consider the source . . .

. . . uranium next?

    Mac45 in reply to DuxRedux. | April 18, 2019 at 8:49 pm

    “. . . uranium next?”

    Funny that you should bring that up.

    Both HRC and Bob Mueller were involved in the Uranium One deal. Also involved, on the investigation of TENEX [ a subsidiary of the Russian Company Rostrum which purchased Uranium One], which was ongoing at the time the sale was approved, was being run by Andrew McCabe and the prosecution was handled by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew Wiessman. Interesting? Also, Alexander Downer, who ratted-out Papadapolous, signed a sale agreement with Rostrum for Australian uranium in 2007, after giving $25 million of Australian tax dollars to the Clinton Foundation in 2005. And, then Downer and Halper moved in the same circles and attended the same events in London for several years.

    The deeper you get into the players in the “collusion” case, the more interconnected they become. This case will provide conspiracy theory fodder for years. How much of it is just coincidence is unknown, at the moment. But, the truth is out there.

      I looked hard at that case, and for the life of me I can’t see what Mueller has to do with the broader issue. He was given a task of handing a sample captured by American law enforcement to Russian law enforcement, ensuring a chain of custody beyond anyone’s dispute. To my knowledge, that is the sum total of Mueller’s involvement. There’s nothing even slightly illegitimate about it, and the decision to hand the sample over per Russia’s request was a diplomatic issue no doubt decided at a cabinet level (SecState, AG).

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | April 18, 2019 at 3:49 pm

DAY ONE is what I would bet all my money on.

Here’s for Mueller captaining our first manned mission to Mars!

“Fourth, 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

No need you corrupt SOB. In this country one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We don’t need you to state anything, it’s implied.

regulus arcturus | April 18, 2019 at 10:14 pm

Mr. Muller, please produce for the court your independent FBI analysis of DNC server hacking on which your conclusion that Russians hacked the DNC is based.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend