a quick poll about Russia and Donald Trump

Maybe he's poly

In any case, it’s clear we are in the midst of a massive bum’s rush spearheaded by what should be the notorious Barr letter. I explained some of what seem to me the details here. Others here at TPM and elsewhere have too. We have a letter written by an AG specifically appointed to clean up if not cover up the Mueller findings. It gives the President a clean bill of health based on a narrow claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish a crime in the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia. Because of this, per Barr’s argument, the idea that Trump could have obstructed Justice in the course of his cover-up was all but a legal impossibility.

This was the kick off for an ongoing campaign not only to claim “complete exoneration” as the President and his supporters insist but to further insist that the whole investigation and scandal was a hoax and the product of lies. This leads to demands for members of Congress to resign and Trump’s campaign going so far as to demand that Trump’s critics no longer be allowed on the public airwaves. Mitch McConnell, perhaps the craftiest and most cynical man ever to head up the US Senate (think about that for a second), says the Mueller Report proves President Obama didn’t do enough to protect the country from Russian subversion.

In other words, the Mueller Report is a game-changing blockbuster of such gravity that we will apparently never be allowed to see it in any other than a few dozen carefully chosen words or further summaries. To date, if you look closely, we’ve seen maybe two or three dozen words of it, out of a document that reports suggest is voluminous. This whole show is such an immense pile of bullshit it really beggars the imagination.

That Barr and Trump would go this route is hardly surprising. And no I don’t expect Schiff or others will be run out of Congress. But let’s see clearly what the angle here is. Use this period between the Barr letter and whatever portions of the actual report emerge to sufficiently cow the press, the public and the opposition party out of ever mentioning the story again and – just as important – aggressively reporting on all the other instances of presidential and administration corruption.

The big league players at the Times, the Post and other marquee publications have gone along with this to a surprising and yet frankly not terribly surprising degree. This seems to be maybe changing a bit as the days wear by. But honestly, I’ve seen enough over a long enough time, that the ‘analyst’ voices at these publications, as opposed to the reporters, will almost always, and certainly at first, give way to conventional wisdom, power and the desire (perhaps not even entirely consciously) to score points with bad faith actors. “The darkest, most ominous cloud hanging over his presidency was all but lifted on Sunday with the release of the special counsel’s conclusions … The end of Mr. Mueller’s inquiry also left Democrats on the defensive and will force them to decide how vigorously to continue pursuing allegations of misconduct by the president and his allies.”

In so many words, we don’t know anything until we see this report. And anyone who doesn’t see that is a chump or a fool. I actually have a relative confidence that we will see the Mueller Report. It’s possible parts do need to be restricted for national security reasons. But anything that falls into that category, which should be very small, should of course be fully available to Congress. I don’t think it will be possible to keep this fully under wraps. The point is more to create a new set of realities – press-cowing, false storylines, room for more bad-acting – in the interval in which we are supposed to make our judgments based on Barr’s letter and when we actually see the thing.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/thanks-and-no-thanks

y u p

also on TPM, some useful thoughts from a fed prosecutor, trying to read the tea leaves on what's actually in the mueller report:

3. The non-charging decision on obstruction by Mueller cannot be explained as a failure of evidence. On conspiracy or coordination, it appears Mueller made a clear decision not to charge because of a lack of evidence. As too many members of the media seem to get wrong, this was not a “no evidence” situation, but rather a failure to get to the required level of admissible evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the level of proof had to be something in between probable cause (you can’t get 500 search warrants without it) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no problem with that decision from a prosecutorial discretion standpoint. There was lots of evidence of an underlying conspiracy, but it was always going to be very difficult to prove the President’s direct involvement with sufficient admissible evidence (classified intercepts from foreign governments won’t do it). And Manafort and Stone holding the line seems to have been the stopped the Mueller team short. Mueller made a decision not to charge conspiracy because of a lack of evidence, so why not obstruction? If it’s a 50-50 call and a pure “jump ball” that’s easy. You decline. If it’s “more likely than not,” the civil standard, you also decline. Even if it’s “clear and convincing” evidence that doesn’t rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you decline the case. So what is going on here? To me, the only answer is that they had a chargeable obstruction case but stopped short of making a decision to charge the President–because he’s the President. It could have been the policy not to indict a sitting President, it could have been the legal and policy arguments around executive authority, or it could have been out of deference to the legislative branch and its impeachment prerogatives. Any way you cut it, I just can’t see Mueller shying away from a tough evidentiary call. If we ever get to see it, I fully expect the actual Mueller report to contain a devastating case against the President for obstruction of justice. This is why we should expect to see Barr, the White House, and the Republicans in Congress fight like hell to keep as much of the report as possible away from the public and House Judiciary. Democrats cannot let this go.

wrong link there Karl

oopsy daisy, thanks: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-barr-gambit

so apparently the mueller report is over 300 pages long

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/mueller-report-length.html

well, after all this time I’d hope so

the kenneth star report was 500+

double spaced at 1.1, margins .8 inches on the sides

Bett er be 12 pt times new roman one inch margins single spaced!

Michael Tracey
‏@mtracey

I'll be going on @SamSeder at approximately 1:20pm EST to explain why Marcy Wheeler, aka @emptywheel, is the Judith Miller of the Trump/Russia saga -- except her ethical violations were much more egregious, damaging, and extreme. Tune in!

I didn't hear this yet, but my wife says Sam was screaming at him.

Monica Lewinsky reminds me a little of Lorelei Gilmore now.

Lol: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/russiagate-glenn-greenwald-matt-taibbi-denial/

The problem with counting on the criminal justice system to save us from Trump is that the entire system is rigged. In theory, the attorney general is supposed to operate independent of the president. In practice, everyone knows that William Barr was handpicked by a president who has sought to impede the Russia investigation, that Barr took office openly skeptical of Mueller’s efforts, that he has participated in high-level cover-ups before, and that he was confirmed on a party-line vote by a Republican Senate that has every incentive to make this story go away. Mueller’s job was to submit a report to Barr, and so far Barr has made no move to reveal more than a brief summary of the 300-page report’s contents to the public. While it’s true that Mueller has issued 37 indictments, including of six people close to the president, Trump himself is effectively immune from prosecution. Once again, the most powerful people are beyond the rule of law.

None of this should be surprising to anyone who has read With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, by the Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Glenn Greenwald. The 2011 book, which features glowing cover blurbs from MSNBC anchors Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, persuasively lays out the case that the wealthy and politically connected operate with legal impunity. “Those with political and financial clout are routinely allowed to break the law with no legal repercussions whatsoever,” Greenwald writes in his introduction. “Often they need not exploit their access to superior lawyers because they don’t see the inside of a courtroom in the first place—not even when they get caught in the most egregious criminality.”

Sam Seder the comedian?

Mother Jones has been a joke for years

Sam Seder the comedian?

I don't know if he still does comedy anywhere, but he's been a full-time left-wing broadcaster for 15 years

That Klion piece is embarrassing.

The pro-Mueller ralliers in Times Square have distributed this songbook. They are currently leading a mass singalong. Please read these lyrics pic.twitter.com/1y36LDFeEg

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 4, 2019

Needs work. And if you're going to go with Blondie - "Show Me"?

How about "Once I had a prez, and he was so crass; soon turned out that he was an ass."

That's without even thinking too hard.

I See a Vlad Moon Rising

this is your brain on MSNBC

Are there a lot of posters on here slavishly watching MSNBC and hanging on Rachel Maddow's every word? I kind of doubt it.

i'm talking about the pod ppl who wrote those song parodies, Mood, don't be so defensive.

Fair enough

“Pro-mueller ralliers” jesus

The march was called 'Release the Mueller Report' and calling it a 'pro-Mueller' rally is Tracey's own spin on it, if anyone was in doubt. That guy is such a shithead.

...

It should be leaked at this point. Its getting ridiculous

https://www.flashlyrics.com/image/tw/leak-bros/gimmesumdeath-24

Leaking the full Mueller report would require it to have a wide enough circulation within the administration that it would not be easy to identify the leaker. Both Mueller and Attorney General Barr are old hands in Washington DC and would understand this principle in their very bones. Beyond Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein, it is nearly impossible to know who has see the whole thing, but I would guess it's an extremely short list. Even the investigators from the Special Counsel's Office who worked on the report are unlikely to have a full and complete copy of it.

Mueller should send me a pdf. I won’t tell anyone.

im sure assange can get a hold of this

Mueller, yousendit?

I've read the report. It's OK. 4/5.

Worth noting from p. 149 of the Mueller Report:

At approximately 2:40 am on November 9, 2016, news reports stated that candidate Clinton had called President-Elect Trump to concede. At...

{redacted section of about two lines, marked "Investigative Technique"}

...wrote to Dmitriev**, "Putin has won."

**Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of Russia's sovereign wealth fund and a close Putin associate, who was personally tasked by Putin with making swift high-level contact with Trump's transition team.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house

yeesh

sad that my first thought was "which time? 2016 or 2020?"

(2016)

kremlin otm

They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.

i mean it worked

The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.

There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.

how were they able to obtain this intel on trump? how did they know he was all those things way back in Jan 2016?? how could anyone have known at that time?!?!?!?

xp of course it worked. they're doing it right now

i wonder who russia is rooting for in the 2024 election

probably kamala harris right?

My guess is they'd love to see Kamala run against any one of those 8 GOPers that spent the 4th of July in Moscow. Guaranteed massively divisive figure on the Dem side against their controlled puppet on the GOP side would probably be their dream matchup to undercut democracy even more.

kamala doesn't need to be divisive. there is a lot that the biden administration is doing that has mass appeal, including this new infrastructure bill. she needs to run on that and on the fact that they helped pull the country out of the covid catastrophe.

i think the child tax credit idea will win friends and influence people. they need more policies like this -- things that tangibly improve people's lives.

any democratic candidate will be massively divisive, though. whoever it is will become the tool of satan

believe it or not, in 2024, whoever the democratic candidate is will be seen by 40% of the country as the tool of satan

meanwhile, the republican candidate will be an impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex. but when balanced against the tool of satan, what can you do? america divided