Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Nancy Pelosi is playing down the idea of impeachment now that the Mueller report has been released.

Pelosi downplays impeachment post-Mueller report

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sought to tamp down the notion of impeaching President Trump in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller's report, indicating to Democrats ahead of a conference call later Monday that they have other options. House Democratic leaders are grappling with a caucus divided over how to proceed after Mueller found several instances of Trump potentially obstructing justice.

"While our views range from proceeding to investigate the findings of the Mueller report or proceeding directly to impeachment, we all firmly agree that we should proceed down a path of finding the truth. It is also important to know that the facts regarding holding the President accountable can be gained outside of impeachment hearings," Pelosi wrote in a letter to House Democrats.

"As we proceed to uncover the truth and present additional needed reforms to protect our democracy, we must show the American people we are proceeding free from passion or prejudice, strictly on the presentation of fact."​

Pelosi was the Speaker from 2007-2010, until the Obama completed his first two years in office and the Tea Party midterms resulted in the Democrats losing a whopping 64 seats. Now that she has been given back the gavel, she knows from experience that it can be taken away very quickly indeed, if her party starts indulging themselves in another round of hysterical unhinged nuttery, leading up to the 2020 election.

She is smart to try to walk her party back from the ledge.

 

Following is pertinent clarification from Seth Abramson, which I have pared for brevity without effecting his message:

"Zero media outlets and zero Trump critics accused Trump of a before-the-fact conspiracy with the Internet Research Agency (propaganda campaign) or GRU, Russian military intelligence (hacking). The foundational lie of Trump apologists is that this was the collusion anyone alleged.

If [one] really wanted to know why Mueller's report is being taken as a vindication of both major media and Trump critics, he'd be considering (a) what the legal (not movie) definition of an "agent" is, and (b) what the collusion allegations against Trump continue to be.

Legally, an "agent" is simply someone generally or in a focused way tasked by a "principal" to complete a certain task. For instance, George Papadopoulos acted as a Kremlin agent when he was tasked by the Kremlin with setting up a secret Trump-Putin summit during the campaign.

When Paul Manafort was informed that a man "who does not distinguish himself from the Kremlin," Oleg Deripaska, wanted internal Trump campaign polling—a message delivered by a GRU agent—and Manafort went and acquired that data, he was acting as a Kremlin agent for that task.

[W]hen Trump and his legal team used spycraft techniques common to psy-ops to conflate "conspiracy" and "collusion," [some in the media and Trumpists have] treated the terms as co-extant even though they are definitely not.

Many federal crimes are undergirded by collusive acts; only one is conspiracy. So when Mueller said—in part due to lying and unavailable witnesses, as well as destruction of evidence—he couldn't prove one such crime beyond a reasonable doubt, [many] deliberately misread it.

When I used the word "agent" with respect to Papadopoulos, I wasn't using the word the way a child who likes Bond movies would; just so, when I wrote a book on "proof of collusion" I used the terms "proof" and "collusion" correctly.

To be livid about Mueller's report not actually exonerating Trump, you simply have to not know what any of these words/phrases mean:

beyond a reasonable doubt
collusion
conspiracy
evidence
obstruction
presumption of innocence
proof
scintilla of evidence

So here we are.

Before the Mueller Report, many—me included—tried to educate people on basic legal terminology and the actual collusion allegations against Trump, which center on bribery, aiding and abetting, money laundering, and campaign finance crimes. I think that work must end now.

That work must end because [some] media is starting to be very plain about why they feel vindicated by the Report (which they are). Those who stick with Trump's pseudo-legal rhetoric instead get the upset they deserve.

The work left for those who understand basic legal terminology to do is actually new work: primarily, noting that Mueller didn't fall short of the highest standard of proof America has—meaning he still had tons of proof—for any reason besides being stymied by Trumpists.

There's a reason Trump and his son refused to talk to Mueller and are two men whose collusive-act cases fell—apparently—just short of beyond a reasonable doubt proof. It's also no coincidence that their prospective cases were those in which the most evidence was destroyed.

There are times a prosecutor says, "I had access to all the evidence I could ever have wanted, and found not even a scintilla of evidence," and times a prosecutor reports that he was stymied deliberately at every turn and fell just short of the highest standard of proof.

People [claiming the Mueller Report exonerates Trump] are irrelevant now. They put all their eggs in a certain basket—that Mueller would find no evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump or his people—and they lost their bet. They can yawp into the Void for as long as they want, now. Ignore them.

I'm fine disputing with someone whether Trump Jr. should've been charged with illegal solicitation of foreign campaign donations. Most prosecutors will tell you he should've been; a few will say otherwise. But disputing basic legal terminology, like "agent" or "proof"? No."

 

Here is the link in case someone wants to give this author a click...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1120427943744954368.html

It is weird to cite your source that way.

 

Thank you sir. I missed that step.

 

From an analysis of the Mueller Report by film maker, author, and 10-year CIA Ops officer Michael Sellers:

https://www.michaeldsellers.com/blog/2019/04/20/what-the-mueller-report-actually-says/

MY COMMENTS ON THE REPORT
Balance, Probity, and Sober Analysis
First of all, it was a pleasure to read something as carefully and thoroughly researched, investigated, and analyzed as this. It is hard to believe that a rational person could actually read the report and not conclude that it was undertaken fairly, without a partisan bias. Already we know that partisans, starting with the President himself, are claiming otherwise–but the report itself is an example of balance, probity, and sober analysis.

The report exposes the shallowness of much of the “legal analysis” we get on television.
One thing the report exposes is the shallowness of most of the “legal analysis” we are subjected to on cable news and elsewhere. The depth and quality of the legal analysis of, for example, what it would take to achieve a conviction for conspiracy with the Russians, is significantly more detailed and nuanced than what we were getting from the pundits. The same is true for the analysis of obstruction. This analysis — particularly in the “collusion” area — among other things illuminates the inadequacies of current laws in an age of social media and instantaneous global communication. A key takeaway is that bad behavior occurred on the part of Americans that contributed to the compromise of our electoral process — but the laws as written are not adequate to curtail this behavior.

The report exposes Attorney General Barr as a political operative.
No rational person could read the entire report and conclude that Attorney General Barr’s four page letter, or his press conference recitation, were a fair presentation of the contents of the report. He clearly assumed the role of partisan political operative. That’s really indisputable at this point. He directly lied about what the report found about obstruction, claiming that Mueller was unable to reach a conclusion because the facts left him unable to do so, when it is clearly and unequivocally stated in the report that he never even attempted to reach a conclusion, but rather limited what he did based up on the OLC memo. Barr knew this and his misrepresentation is nothing short of breathtaking. It’s as if he didn’t care that people were going to read the report and see, clearly, that he had lied — because he knew that what he said would be what was reported on Fox News, etc, and it was what the President wanted, and that was what mattered. That is the calculation of a political operative.

How much can one man lie?
I am left wondering how much one man can lie and get away with it. The report exposes Trump’s deceitful nature on virtually every level imaginable. Whether it is responding to a question “did you insruct McGahn to fire Mueller” with “fake news”, or surreptitiously choosing a then private citizen (Lewandowski) to carry backchannel messages to Sessios, Trump systematically is shown to engage in blatant lying. This of course is not news …. it has been “in the news” throughout his Presidency. But seeing it on the pages of this authoritative, investigative report is sobering, and leaves me wondering how anyone could actually read this and come away from it with a positive impression of the President.

What About Impeachment?
There is no doubt whatsoever that the report provides a “road map” for impeachment. It’s all there. The question is — is the evidence so compelling that impeachment must be undertaken as a moral imperative in order to protect the office of the presidency and the integrity of our institutions, even if undertaking impeachment is ultimately politically damaging? Or, alternatively, does the report leave us in a gray area where yes, impeachment is justified, but it is not absolutely required, and the political calculation that a failed impeachment bid by the dems will hurt their chances in 2020 should be a major consideration.

I’m still mulling this. Principles are important, and those who today, like Elizabeth Warren, are claiming impeachment is a must as a matter of principle, have a point. But so too do those, like Nancy Pelosi, who say it’s not worth it, and the election is just around he corner, keep your eye on the ball, dems.

At this point, I come down slightly on the side of Pelosi, and I mean slightly — as in 52-48 or thereabouts. It wouldn’t take much to move me to the other side of this divide. What shades me on the side of “move on” is that I fear the damage done by this President to the country is so great, and will be so much greater if he gets four more years, that the strategic imperative is to end Trump’s era in office, and the more the focus is on the election that is fast upon us, the more likely a dem win in 2020. If instead the national focus is on the psychodrama of impeachment, I fear it will erode dem prospects in the election. And winning the election in 2020 is the overarching imperative, at least for me.

 

Trump lies. Not nearly as much as you guys do, but he certainly does.

Trump was frustrated with being the target of the effort to wrongly and absurdly accuse him of crimes that he did not commit. He expressed that frustration. That you do not approve of the manner that he did this does not matter.

It is over. You people have lied your asses off, virtually non-stop about this man in the most extreme, pathologically hatefully and deceitful manner that you possibly could. Your credibility is now gone as a result of that and also countless other lies and depravities.

Have fun reading passages from this report to each other in your little echo chamber settings. Or, if you want to put this report to a more constructive use, cut it up into squares and stack them next to the commode, where they can be put to their highest and best use.

 

I'm glad you graduated from cartoons.

 

Even if the manner Trump showed his disapproval is straight out Obstruction of Justice?

 

You have not been placing close attention. The majority of non-conservatives here on this board wanted was to wait for the Mueller Report and to actually read it.

That whole "extreme, pathologically hatefully and deceitful" thing is you projecting your nonsense.

 

For there to be obstruction of justice, there has to actually be justice that was obstructed. That did not happen, much as you might wish that it were otherwise.

You guys need to turn your brains on and push away from the TV news and the TDS echo chamber for a while. Your hero Mueller finished his investigation and determined that there were no chargeable crimes and that in fact NO AMERICANS conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, which of course includes Donald Trump. She lost, fair and square. The investigation was completed, all the requested information was provided, all the witnesses testified or gave written testimony.

It is over.

 

Even right wing pundits like Ben Shapiro admit that Trump was involved with "deeply immoral behavior" when trying to obtain stolen documents from a foreign adversary.

I suggest you watch this video that explains "beyond a reasonable doubt" and what is the bar for criminal indictment. There is plenty of evidence that Trump seeked Russian help in the election just not enough to be criminally indicted but definitely enough to see him as unfit for the office of presidency.

Anyways, prepare for Trump to hold on to his power with any mean necessary because now he has motivation beyond desiring power.... There is a strong chance he might be indicted after he leaves office.

 

Imagine perceiving an attempted coup when the special investigator investigating you was put in place by a attorney general appointed by you and oversaught by a House and Senate controlled by your own political party.

 

Your legal opinion is lacking.

 

Mueller Report said the Russians helped trump. So Hilary didn't lose fair and square. Trump was definitely was helped by the Russians. If you are denying that fact then you can't read the report.

 

Just look at your first sentence. trump lies, all the time. About little things, and about big things. All the time. And he counts on your ignoring, excusing and defending it. That is one of the key findings of the Mueller report.

That's who you voted for. That's who you defend. That's who you will vote for again in 2020. So while you blame others and attack those are rightly offended by him, just keep that in mind. He is counting on you to...

 

Wrong... there doesn't need to be an underlying crime.

The Obstruction Case Against Trump that Barr Tried to Hide
Even with redactions, Mueller’s report is clear Trump undermined the Russia investigation.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/19/barr-obstruction-mueller-trump-226664

And a number of legal experts agree... its harder to prove, but it does not require an underlying crime...
Martha Stewart to Donald Trump: Can there be obstruction of justice with no underlying crime?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

do you have the page citation for this handy? I only skimmed the report and would like to reread this section more carefully. Thanks in advance