The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[El Guapo]

Let's not forget this is the same Barr that wrote a memo last year ruling out obstruction of justice.

The real truth of Mueller's findings will come out; unfortunately Trump is probably going to have weeks to sell Barr's "truth" to the American people.

Yup. More will come out in the following weeks and months. I think it's more likely to be negative for Trump than positive, at least because Barr is very likely to have put the most Trump-friendly spin on the report that is possible. But even if that happens, the headline for most people in the meantime will have been mostly "TRUMP EXONERATED", and the details and caveats will reach fewer people (and few people outside of the Democratic base).

[YellowKing]

The silver lining to all this is that the President apparently did *not* conspire with a foreign power. That's a relief in and of itself. It doesn't help the case that he's an idiot, but it's something.

Also I saw a brilliant comment today on FB in which someone said, "Since no indictments = total exoneration, does this mean we can stop hearing about Hillary's emails now?"

[El Guapo]

The silver lining to all this is that the President apparently did *not* conspire with a foreign power. That's a relief in and of itself. It doesn't help the case that he's an idiot, but it's something.

Also I saw a brilliant comment today on FB in which someone said, "Since no indictments = total exoneration, does this mean we can stop hearing about Hillary's emails now?"

Even this is fairly limited without seeing the underlying report. Per the summary the report confirms that Russia hacked the DNC and distributed the e-mails through Wikileaks. There's also plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign knew that it was getting assistance from Russia (e.g. the "if it's what you say I love it" e-mails). The question is what's missing to make this a criminal conspiracy - quite possible what was missing was affirmatively assisting Russia (as opposed to passively accepting the help).

[LordMortis]

The silver lining to all this is that the President apparently did *not* conspire with a foreign power. That's a relief in and of itself. It doesn't help the case that he's an idiot, but it's something.

Also I saw a brilliant comment today on FB in which someone said, "Since no indictments = total exoneration, does this mean we can stop hearing about Hillary's emails now?"

I'm not sure I can say that. We know Jr and Kushner met with Russians and lied about it. We know Trump was winking to Putin during the campaign.

I think the bright side is Mueller was allowed to finish. That in itself is what gives me hope. That is difference between being disenfranchised on a keyboard and taking it to the streets, as Michael McDonald would say. And honestly, I'm glad it's the former. That's more than a silver lining.

[Grifman]

The silver lining to all this is that the President apparently did *not* conspire with a foreign power. That's a relief in and of itself. It doesn't help the case that he's an idiot, but it's something.

Also I saw a brilliant comment today on FB in which someone said, "Since no indictments = total exoneration, does this mean we can stop hearing about Hillary's emails now?"

Even this is fairly limited without seeing the underlying report. Per the summary the report confirms that Russia hacked the DNC and distributed the e-mails through Wikileaks. There's also plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign knew that it was getting assistance from Russia (e.g. the "if it's what you say I love it" e-mails). The question is what's missing to make this a criminal conspiracy - quite possible what was missing was affirmatively assisting Russia (as opposed to passively accepting the help).

This, exactly this. They knew they were getting assistance from Russia and they welcomed it and took advantage of it. Call it “passive collusion”, if you will. At no point did they go to the FBI and shared what they knew. It is a measure of how morally debased the Trump base is that they are ok with this. Any other political figure in modern US history and this would have been a kiss of death. Hillary’s emails my ass.

[Grifman]

The allegations about Hillary’s health is a perfect example of that passive collusion:

https://qz.com/1533847/roger-stones-ind ... ns-health/

[Holman]

Yep, there are so many unanswered questions here.

Just one: if there was no coordination/collusion/conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the Russian government, where does that leave Roger Stone? He was indicted for obstruction, witness tampering, and lying about his dealings with WikiLeaks.

Is Barr playing on the technicality that WikiLeaks was not "a foreign power," even though the intelligence agencies have determined that they were Russia's conduit?

The same goes for the oligarchs and other Russians who actually met with Trump people--they were all of them acting as private citizens, not government representatives, but that's just a fig leaf. Is that what shields the campaign from dealing with "Russia"?

[Smoove_B]

Even this is fairly limited without seeing the underlying report. Per the summary the report confirms that Russia hacked the DNC and distributed the e-mails through Wikileaks. There's also plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign knew that it was getting assistance from Russia (e.g. the "if it's what you say I love it" e-mails).

That's what's insane to me. The summary report (even as limited as it is) confirms that Russia was interfering with our elections. The GOP takeaway from this is "Our man isn't guilty", not "Holy shit our system of government is under attack".

[GreenGoo]

I'm confused. What if it's *true* that one party is a threat to American democracy right now while the other, while flawed in many respects, does not? Say, for example, that the former party is trying to restrict voting as much as they can, while the other is pushing back and fighting for expanded voting rights. Are we supposed to refrain from describing a political party as a unique threat to democracy, because crazy people have irrationally said that in the past?

The point is, in a highly partisan environment, *everyone* feels that's true all. the. time. Everyone believes that they are seeing things clearly, that their own logic is solid, and that people who feel differently are wrong.

Secondly, it's not true in this case, and I say that as someone who hates drumpf and is both ashamed and disgusted at how the GOP have behaved during this administration.

Thirdly, if a 2 party system only has 1 viable party then it's not a democracy any more anyway.

Fourthly, I'm not American. It's your country. Both our opinions are valid, but only one of them matters.

[El Guapo]

I'm confused. What if it's *true* that one party is a threat to American democracy right now while the other, while flawed in many respects, does not? Say, for example, that the former party is trying to restrict voting as much as they can, while the other is pushing back and fighting for expanded voting rights. Are we supposed to refrain from describing a political party as a unique threat to democracy, because crazy people have irrationally said that in the past?

The point is, in a highly partisan environment, *everyone* feels that's true all. the. time. Everyone believes that they are seeing things clearly, that their own logic is solid, and that people who feel differently are wrong.

Secondly, it's not true in this case, and I say that as someone who hates drumpf and is both ashamed and disgusted at how the GOP have behaved during this administration.

Thirdly, if a 2 party system only has 1 viable party then it's not a democracy any more anyway.

Fourthly, I'm not American. It's your country. Both our opinions are valid, but only one of them matters.

Sure. Modesty and humility is important, and it's important to constantly be cognizant of one's biases and the chance that you're wrong. And saying things that crazy people have said in some fashion ought to give one pause. But if those positions are well supported by evidence....that crazy people have said similar sounding things isn't a reason to not be guided by the state of the evidence. Kind of reminds me of the whole "You know who also favored gun control??? HITLER!!!" argument. I mean, it's not wrong *exactly*, it's just that crazy people taking positions for whatever their reasons are doesn't invalidate that type of principle for all time in all situations. E.g., that crazy people accused Obama (and Bush) of seeking to become a dictator doesn't invalidate all arguments that any people are threats to democracy.

Second, I hard disagree with your apparent assessment that Trump / the GOP are not a threat to democracy. There is simply a lot of evidence to the contrary. Bearing in mind that the danger is not so much that Trump will get himself named dictator for life, but that he (supported by the GOP) will over time hollow out democratic processes so that they mean less and less. In other words, the concern is not the United States becoming North Korea, it's more the United States becoming Hungary or Poland. I don't think that outcome is *probable* at this point, but I think the danger is high enough that we need to pay attention to it.

Third, it's not true that only one sane party means it's not a democracy any more. It means that unfortunately American voters choices in the short term are limited to one sane and one insane party. They still have the ability to vote in the sane party - that's democracy. I agree that in the long run having one of the two major parties be insane is a huge problem for American democracy. My hope is that Democrats can get enough power to strengthen (small d) democratic rights - e.g., protect universal suffrage, and that over time electoral defeats will persuade the Republican Party to turn away from the path of madness. Or ideally, at some point we'll get electoral rules that allow for viable third parties without a spoiler effect.

[GreenGoo]

The silver lining to all this is that the President apparently did *not* conspire with a foreign power. That's a relief in and of itself. It doesn't help the case that he's an idiot, but it's something.

Couple of things. There was suspect internet traffic during his campaign between his company and Russian banks. When it was identified by outsiders, it stopped, only to start up again from a different computer within drumpf corp. Mysteriously no one in the drumpf org could identify or explain the traffic.

Drumpf called on Russian hackers to find and release Hillary emails. Less than 24 hours later Russian hackers released Hillary emails.

Those are just two that come to mind immediately, there were more. One is suspect. One is blatant and obvious. He did it on national television for Christ's sake.

The idea that drumpf did not conspire is bullshit, imo. It's totally possible that there wasn't an organized, concentrated effort (in fact I never thought the Russians and drumpf campaign were working as a single unit, or even a tightly integrated team) to work together to get him elected, but he absolutely did have communication with Russia, even if it was only a wink, wink, nod, nod variety (although I suspect more). There is no smoking gun. I get that. I don't want him in jail for it. But the idea that somehow he simply benefited from the Russian efforts while being blissfully unaware is complete crap.

Like I said, I don't want him hanged for crimes that are unproven. I like the rule of law. I can't imagine ever feeling like he's been exonerated though. It would take Mueller sitting down with me and going over his report in detail and refuting each instance of drumpf's suspect behaviour with the facts that he found. That ain't gonna happen, so drumpf is still guilty in my opinion (but only in my opinion). Perhaps in a few years, after the report has been heavily disseminated and scholars of all ilks have gone over it with a fine toothed comb and a general consensus is formed I might change my opinion, but today? Based on Barr's letter? Are you kidding me?

[LordMortis]

Thirdly, if a 2 party system only has 1 viable party then it's not a democracy any more anyway.

I would think that would depend on how the primary works. Depending on the situation, it might make things better, where you start with a large field and narrow it down. The problem being that New Hampshire has a totally different influence than New Jersey and then there is the super delegates.

Now if there was only person propped up by the party. Then it gets ugly.

[YellowKing]

We can only go by what we know, and all we know is that Mueller didn't find criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. One would assume if Barr is completely misrepresenting the conclusion, then Mueller would have spoken up by now.

Since Mueller obviously has FAR more information than we do as internet armchair quarterbacks, I have to presume he is correct. I'm sure this is one of those instances where Trump skirted as close to the line of the law as he could without actually crossing it, an art form he has perfected. And it angers me that someone can get away with the amount of stuff he's gotten away with by playing that game. But it is what it is. If there's no evidence, there's no evidence, and we have to assume innocent until proven guilty.

I'd rather live in a world where our President is a clueless buffoon who stumbled into an election being rigged in his favor than one where he was actively conspiring with a foreign power to win.

All that said, of course I'm looking forward to seeing the full report as I imagine it has plenty of unsavory facts that the White House doesn't want coloring their "victory." Otherwise Trump would be demanding its public release ASAP.

[hepcat]

Dems need to stand down instead of ratcheting up the accusations. All they're doing is playing right into Trump's plans to exploit their hatred to widen the divide (is that even possible at this point?).

We're stuck with him for now. I fear that if they continue down this road, they'll only end up adding another 4 years of embarrassment, isolationism, and cozying up to dictators while alienating our true allies.

[Grifman]

The same goes for the oligarchs and other Russians who actually met with Trump people--they were all of them acting as private citizens, not government representatives, but that's just a fig leaf. Is that what shields the campaign from dealing with "Russia"?

They met with Russians. In some cases they knew what the Russians were doing. In some cases they took advantage of what the Russian were doing. But none of those things is a crime. A crime would have been if they had meet and agreed upon a line of attack on Clinton and jointly implemented it. Or if Cambridge Analytica has shared information with the Russians and coordinated with them. There was no overt coordination - it was all ad hoc and opportunistic, IMO.

[El Guapo]

Dems need to stand down instead of ratcheting up the accusations. All they're doing is playing right into Trump's plans to exploit their hatred to widen the divide (is that even possible at this point?).

We're stuck with him for now. I fear that if they continue down this road, they'll only end up adding another 4 years of embarrassment, isolationism, and cozying up to dictators while alienating our true allies.

I think the core focus of Democrats has to be getting the Mueller Report itself, or as close to the full report as possible.

There's a huge difference between a report that's more "there's not much evidence of real collusion beyond a couple Trump associates cooperating with Russia and Trump himself hoping that Russia will do something to help him (without affirmative actions to move that along)", and "the Trump campaign including the President knowingly cooperated with and assisted Russian intelligence, but we can't prove X element of the required crime beyond a reasonable doubt." And what the report itself actually says about obstruction of justice is HUGELY important (given that the Barr letter, which is almost certainly the most positive spin on things, said that the report "does not exonerate" Trump on that seems to hint that the Mueller report has some pretty damaging stuff on that point in particular.

[El Guapo]

One big upside to the "Trump exonerated" style media coverage is that any future negative revelations (the release of the Mueller report itself, indictments of senior Trump people from the spin-off investigations) are likely to have more of a negative impact because they will go against expectations.

[Kurth]

Dems need to stand down instead of ratcheting up the accusations. All they're doing is playing right into Trump's plans to exploit their hatred to widen the divide (is that even possible at this point?).

We're stuck with him for now. I fear that if they continue down this road, they'll only end up adding another 4 years of embarrassment, isolationism, and cozying up to dictators while alienating our true allies.

I think the core focus of Democrats has to be getting the Mueller Report itself, or as close to the full report as possible.

There's a huge difference between a report that's more "there's not much evidence of real collusion beyond a couple Trump associates cooperating with Russia and Trump himself hoping that Russia will do something to help him (without affirmative actions to move that along)", and "the Trump campaign including the President knowingly cooperated with and assisted Russian intelligence, but we can't prove X element of the required crime beyond a reasonable doubt." And what the report itself actually says about obstruction of justice is HUGELY important (given that the Barr letter, which is almost certainly the most positive spin on things, said that the report "does not exonerate" Trump on that seems to hint that the Mueller report has some pretty damaging stuff on that point in particular.

Why? Why is what the report says HUGELY important? I mean, I definitely understand the desire to examine the underlying facts of the report, but what do you think is likely to come out of such an examination? I agree with you that the Barr letter is spinning things positively. And I am sure that if critics and those outside the Trump administration are permitted to look at the Mueller report themselves, they will be able to put quite a different spin on things. But how is any of that really going to move the needle?

Even when this thing began, there was only a remote chance that the special counsel was going to find the kind of smoking gun that would have have led to indictment (if even possible) or (more likely) impeachment of Trump. Unless we're going to do a complete 180 and call into question Mueller and his investigation, we have to accept that no smoking gun exists.

And we should be glad of that fact. Clear evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians -- and resulting impeachment proceedings -- would have been a disaster for this country, even more so than Trump serving out the remainder of his term in office. The only solution to Trump has always been to make damn sure he doesn't win a second term. That should be the sole focus of the Dems now, not pursuing the collusion case that Mueller has now investigated and found lacking.

So much of what Trump has done wrong has been done for all to see. On the obstruction front, it's all right out there. We know what he did from the tweets and the interviews and the public statements. He's a buffoon who doesn't have a clue about the basic checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution that kids learn about in middle school. He tramples (or tries to trample) the Constitution on a daily basis.

My point is, there's a point of diminishing returns. Do you really think the details in the Mueller report are going to show behavior that is appreciably worst then the stuff we see Trump doing as a matter of routine? We don't need the Mueller report to make the case against Trump in 2020.

I'm not saying Dems shouldn't seek the release of the report. But they should temper their expectations and prioritize the 2020 election above all else.

[Kraken]

The silver lining to all this is that the President apparently did *not* conspire with a foreign power. That's a relief in and of itself. It doesn't help the case that he's an idiot, but it's something.

Also I saw a brilliant comment today on FB in which someone said, "Since no indictments = total exoneration, does this mean we can stop hearing about Hillary's emails now?"

Even this is fairly limited without seeing the underlying report. Per the summary the report confirms that Russia hacked the DNC and distributed the e-mails through Wikileaks. There's also plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign knew that it was getting assistance from Russia (e.g. the "if it's what you say I love it" e-mails). The question is what's missing to make this a criminal conspiracy - quite possible what was missing was affirmatively assisting Russia (as opposed to passively accepting the help).

This, exactly this. They knew they were getting assistance from Russia and they welcomed it and took advantage of it. Call it “passive collusion”, if you will. At no point did they go to the FBI and shared what they knew. It is a measure of how morally debased the Trump base is that they are ok with this. Any other political figure in modern US history and this would have been a kiss of death. Hillary’s emails my ass.

Yeah, "It wasn't technically illegal" is not the same thing as complete exoneration, at least to a non-lawyer. Russia's help was most likely instrumental in getting the crucial 80,000 votes that put him over the top. He is still an illegitimate president.

[Zarathud]

The report has dirt in it. There's so much unsavory stuff that even if it's not provably criminal, it's enough for voters to decide politically that Trump was wrong.

But Trump has been running the least transparent and most questionable (if not corrupt) administration ever. He'll only be release the Mueller report if tricked into it. "If the Mueller Report really exonerates you, then you won't mind us releasing it..."

[GreenGoo]

We can only go by what we know, and all we know is that Mueller didn't find criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. One would assume if Barr is completely misrepresenting the conclusion, then Mueller would have spoken up by now.

While I'm sure that's the big one that everyone was hanging their hat on, I'd like to see the report, please.

[El Guapo]

Dems need to stand down instead of ratcheting up the accusations. All they're doing is playing right into Trump's plans to exploit their hatred to widen the divide (is that even possible at this point?).

We're stuck with him for now. I fear that if they continue down this road, they'll only end up adding another 4 years of embarrassment, isolationism, and cozying up to dictators while alienating our true allies.

I think the core focus of Democrats has to be getting the Mueller Report itself, or as close to the full report as possible.

There's a huge difference between a report that's more "there's not much evidence of real collusion beyond a couple Trump associates cooperating with Russia and Trump himself hoping that Russia will do something to help him (without affirmative actions to move that along)", and "the Trump campaign including the President knowingly cooperated with and assisted Russian intelligence, but we can't prove X element of the required crime beyond a reasonable doubt." And what the report itself actually says about obstruction of justice is HUGELY important (given that the Barr letter, which is almost certainly the most positive spin on things, said that the report "does not exonerate" Trump on that seems to hint that the Mueller report has some pretty damaging stuff on that point in particular.

Why? Why is what the report says HUGELY important? I mean, I definitely understand the desire to examine the underlying facts of the report, but what do you think is likely to come out of such an examination? I agree with you that the Barr letter is spinning things positively. And I am sure that if critics and those outside the Trump administration are permitted to look at the Mueller report themselves, they will be able to put quite a different spin on things. But how is any of that really going to move the needle?

Even when this thing began, there was only a remote chance that the special counsel was going to find the kind of smoking gun that would have have led to indictment (if even possible) or (more likely) impeachment of Trump. Unless we're going to do a complete 180 and call into question Mueller and his investigation, we have to accept that no smoking gun exists.

And we should be glad of that fact. Clear evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians -- and resulting impeachment proceedings -- would have been a disaster for this country, even more so than Trump serving out the remainder of his term in office. The only solution to Trump has always been to make damn sure he doesn't win a second term. That should be the sole focus of the Dems now, not pursuing the collusion case that Mueller has now investigated and found lacking.

So much of what Trump has done wrong has been done for all to see. On the obstruction front, it's all right out there. We know what he did from the tweets and the interviews and the public statements. He's a buffoon who doesn't have a clue about the basic checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution that kids learn about in middle school. He tramples (or tries to trample) the Constitution on a daily basis.

My point is, there's a point of diminishing returns. Do you really think the details in the Mueller report are going to show behavior that is appreciably worst then the stuff we see Trump doing as a matter of routine? We don't need the Mueller report to make the case against Trump in 2020.

I'm not saying Dems shouldn't seek the release of the report. But they should temper their expectations and prioritize the 2020 election above all else.

I would say that it's important for the reasons I said right after saying that I think Democrats should focus on getting the full Mueller report.

The differences I mentioned also have significant impact on where Democrats should focus their oversight work. If the Mueller report says "there's not much in the way of evidence of knowing collusion between Trump and Russia" then it makes sense to minimize investigation on that point. If they say "there's a lot of evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt" or "a lot of evidence, but this technical element of the relevant crime is not present" or the like, then that's probably worth some investigatory time. That the conduct may not amount to a provable crime doesn't make a huge difference for purposes of congressional oversight, which can and should look at things that are wrong but which are not provable crimes.

And yeah, the 2020 election's always been the key. I never really had much hope that Trump would get removed before 2020 (short of an *enormous* Mueller bombshell that doesn't seem to be coming), but that doesn't mean that House democrats should just sit on their hands until after the election.

[GreenGoo]

Second, I hard disagree with your apparent assessment that Trump / the GOP are not a threat to democracy. There is simply a lot of evidence to the contrary. Bearing in mind that the danger is not so much that Trump will get himself named dictator for life, but that he (supported by the GOP) will over time hollow out democratic processes so that they mean less and less. In other words, the concern is not the United States becoming North Korea, it's more the United States becoming Hungary or Poland. I don't think that outcome is *probable* at this point, but I think the danger is high enough that we need to pay attention to it.

Drumpf and crew are probably the greatest threat to democracy in America in modern times. That doesn't mean they are a credible threat. Which is not to say that taking action to prevent further erosion is unwarranted or unwanted, but in my opinion if absolutely nothing was done to safeguard these institutions *and* drumpf was elected a second term, democracy in America would be just fine.

And just a reminder that the statement being questioned was that democracy would end if the GOP held the house and drumpf was elected a second term. It wasn't whether drumpf is attempting to undermine democracy in America at every turn. Which he is. Incredibly unsuccessfully imo even if he has been incredibly successful as compared to previous presidents.

[Grifman]

Though no collusion was shown, this investigation did show us a lot of things:

1). We now know that Trump lied again and again when he stated that his campaign had no contacts with Russia and he had nothing to do with Russia.

2). We now know that Trump was negotiating about a Trump Tower project in Moscow during the campaign.

3). We now know that Trump lied when he said he had no business dealings with Russia all the time while he was negotiating on the Trump Tower Moscow project.

3). We now know that Trump campaign officials including the president’s son met with Russians in Trump Tower seeking info on Hillary Clinton. We also know that none of this was reported to the FBI as any patriotic American would have done.

4). We now know that Trump lied when he authored the press response to that same meeting and said it was just about adoption.

5). We now know that Trump made hush money payments to a mistress during the campaign.

6). We know now that Trump subsequently lied about not knowing about these payments.

7). We now know that the National Inquirer bought a story from another mistress and killed it in order to protect Trump. We also know that this payment was coordinated with the Trump campaign.

8 ) We now know that Roger Stone got notice that Wikileaks was going to post info on Clinton’s health and that the Trump campaign then started raising issues about Clinton’s health right after that.

9). We now know that though Trump claims to have “only the best” people working for him, instead he surrounded himself with criminals and liars.

10). Lastly, and even more sadly, if the above had been true about a Obama or Clinton and conservatives would have been all over this and condemned them both, we now know that for Trump supporters none of this matters. We now know that Trump was speaking the truth when he said that he could stand on 5th Avenue, shoot someone, and he would not lose a single voter. And that is the saddest thing of all.

[Holman]

He's no more fit for office than he ever was.

And he has already overplayed his hand w/ the Mueller report by claiming "full and complete exoneration." Whatever gray areas (or, worse, referrals to other investigations) are contained in it will now be that much more damning.

[GreenGoo]

He's no more fit for office than he ever was.

Thank you. I was going to make a similar comment but thought otherwise, but I agree with you.

We have learned some specifics about why he is unfit for office, but many of those specifics were known before the election. For example, it was well known that he had dealings with Russian banks and Russian real estate. That he claimed otherwise and wasn't immediately turned on by everyone including the GOP is just another sign of how little people care about substance as compared to tribalism.

[Paingod]

The silver lining to all this is that the President apparently did *not* conspire with a foreign power. That's a relief in and of itself. It doesn't help the case that he's an idiot, but it's something.

I thought along the same lines, but then it seems to indicate that a number of people around him felt he was an ideal prop for their agenda and simply used him to get what they wanted ... often getting right up into positions of high power ... and he was completely ignorant of that. I wasn't comforted.

It almost would have been better if he was at the center of a web of deception instead of being the a hapless moth chasing a shiny glob of dew.

[Holman]

JUST NOW: McConnell blocks Schumer measure calling for Mueller report to be made public

Probably because the report exonerates Trump *too* completely. The Republic just can't handle that much exoneration.

[malchior]

I'm seeing some discussion that some are beginning to suspect is that Barr essentially killed the investigation. That sounds unlikely but the analysis suggests that the Barr memo over the weekend was highly unusual and of course the Senate is blocking oversight again. Which only doubles down on partisan divide which is not good for anything.

The silver lining to all this is that the President apparently did *not* conspire with a foreign power. That's a relief in and of itself. It doesn't help the case that he's an idiot, but it's something.

I thought along the same lines, but then it seems to indicate that a number of people around him felt he was an ideal prop for their agenda and simply used him to get what they wanted ... often getting right up into positions of high power ... and he was completely ignorant of that. I wasn't comforted.

It almost would have been better if he was at the center of a web of deception instead of being the a hapless moth chasing a shiny glob of dew.

That is a good description of the problem. He is a useful idiot for so many parties that have divergent but coincidentally complementary objectives such as the GOP, the Russians, the Saudi royal family, etc. Then you have the cast of D-cast Washington wannabes orbiting the administration. This administration is a disaster of epic proportions every day but here we are talking about 'complete exoneration' without any hint of transparency. This is the dumbest, darkest timeline.

[Grifman]

I'm seeing some discussion that some are beginning to suspect is that Barr essentially killed the investigation. That sounds unlikely but the analysis suggests that the Barr memo over the weekend was highly unusual and of course the Senate is blocking oversight again. Which only doubles down on partisan divide which is not good for anything.

Unlikely as Mueller has to report on any areas he was not allowed to investigate by the Attorney General.

[Zarathud]

Mueller knew how Barr would react, and had his own position not to indict. If you're not going to indict and your boss is going to take no action, you CYA by saying the issue remains unresolved.

[Skinypupy]

Sarah Sanders: "They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."

Good lord.

[YellowKing]

It will be a happy day when I never have to look at that self-righteous walrus again.

[GreenGoo]

It will be a happy day when I never have to look at that self-righteous walrus again.

Now YK, we've been over this...

[Grifman]

Sarah Sanders: "They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."

Good lord.

WTF?! This is ridiculous. She has no idea what treason means. This is just crazy talk.

[GreenGoo]

That's the entire problem with the current conservative media sphere right now. It's pure propaganda and outrageous statements in such a heavy stream that no one statement gets the attention and derision it deserves.

In her defence, many were saying the exact same thing about drumpf/treason/death penalty. Counter point, they were mostly meaningless, powerless internet denizens, not the spokesperson for the WH.

The idea that critics of drumpf deserve the death penalty coming directly from the WH should be enough for a full blown GOP revolt. It won't even be remembered in 3 days. This was predicted to happen when he took office (such a large and steady stream of garbage that it would normalize) and it has. Awesome.

This of course *is* authoritarian in nature, which I never disagreed was a staple of drumpf's administration, or at least wildly outrageous statements of that nature.

Fox is running full blown "Democrats lied, the investigation was a lie, everything was a lie and now the Democrats have to answer for their "crimes" to the American people". The propaganda is just spewing from every orifice it seems.

[Unagi]

JUST NOW: McConnell blocks Schumer measure calling for Mueller report to be made public

Probably because the report exonerates Trump *too* completely. The Republic just can't handle that much exoneration.

Exactly.
Here’s one bug with the fully exonerating summary; it can’t be elaborated on without diminishing the exoneration entirely.

[Alefroth]

Sarah Sanders: "They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."

Good lord.

WTF?! This is ridiculous. She has no idea what treason means. This is just crazy talk.

Guess winning graciously is out of the question.

[GreenGoo]

Guess winning graciously is out of the question.

I acknowledge the spirit of your comment and agree, but I take exception that this was a win/lose situation. It wasn't political, it wasn't a witchhunt and exonerated/not exonerated is not a win for one side or the other.

It was a much needed investigation based on significant probable cause. Letting anyone, Dems, GOP term this as a win/lose situation is unreasonable and absolutely unfair to the FBI and/or Mueller.

It was cops doing their jobs for the benefit and protection of the nation, whatever the outcome.

[Paingod]

Guess winning graciously is out of the question.

This is Trump we're talking about. He'll be 10 yards from the field goal, stop to dance his victory dance, fumble the ball, and the opposing team will run the thing to their end and score. He'll stand there with his fists on his hips, calling the whole thing unfair and then claim to have run father, faster than anyone in history before taking a huge hit of Adderall and flying off the field on a golf cart. What was I saying?