Law The Mueller Report

The Mueller Report
​

Well, it looks like we finally made it to the end of the line. To everyone who thought the Mueller report would drag on indefinitely: Take a sigh of relief. To everyone who thought the Mueller report would wind up resulting in impeachment proceedings: Sorry to disappoint, but that was never going to happen in the first place. In any event, we've made it to the end and somehow managed to avoid setting the country completely on fire, so that alone is worth a drink.

Seeing as how this is going to be THE most-spun political document since the fucking Clinton impeachment hearings, I'm not going to link to any articles about it. I don't care who has to say what about the Mueller report, be it FOX, MSNBC, CNN, or even smaller outlets like the Epoch Times. Everyone is going to spin this, so all I'm going to do is pore over the report and bring anything interesting to the fore, just like I did with the OIG Report on the Handling of the Clinton Email Investigation.

Yet again: The best advice I can offer is to read this yourself, but I don't expect everyone to do that because it's four-hundred fucking pages long. If you do not see a direct link to the information someone is quoting from this report so you can read the quote yourself, I'd advise disregarding it. If I do not directly quote something from the report and provide an easy way for you to look up the page for yourself, disregard it.

If you need an extremely-abridged TL;DR, I'll include one in the spoiler below. For everyone else: Buckle up, because I'm about to bore your fucking socks off.

Spoiler: TL;DR

 

[RodgerDodger]

I wonder...let's say that somewhere in this tire fire there's clear indication that Obama did something basely illegal. I don't mean, well we could interpret this to mean that or maybe there's something...but straight up, a recording, a physical record, anything of Obama saying, Look, I want you to go interfere with Trump's campaign, I want you to try and fabricate dirt on him, I'm saying get a FISA warrant and spy on him at all hours, I don't care if he's dirty or not. Or just something, regardless, that put Obama behind the eight-ball.

What would be the consequence of Trump acting on it, having him forced to testify and possibly prosecuted because of that? I don't think there is, I think it's foil hat territory, Obama is many things but basely stupid is probably not one of them, anything he got up to, he was (likely) smart enough to cover his tracks on. It'll be a little fish (comparatively) but what if. Do you think Trump would just let it go? Not because of wanting to play quid pro quo, but rather, the idea that if he let the DOJ press charges it would cause the mother God Queen of all chimpouts? Like, the "nuclear option" would no longer just be on the table, but constant nuclear warfare (from a political standpoint: like congressional walkouts, refusal to comply with presidential orders...basically a legislative hot war).

What if there's something in there that could be that serious?

Obama did do something Basedly illegal. Remember Nixon? Remember Watergate? Everyone knows Nixon Man Bad And Watergate!!! But nobody remembers what it was actually about? Nixon using shady means andgovernment operative to spy on the McGovern Campaign. That’s what Watergate was. Nixon Operatives breaking into the McGovern campaign headquarters to steal information and possibly wiretap it. He also was using the IRS to get at enemies.

Does any of that sound familiar? Like getting a shady and fraudulent FISA warrant using a Hillary generated fake dossier, in order to electronically surveillance the Trump Campaign and Transition?

When Nixon did it it was High Crimes and Misdemeanors. How is it not that when Obama did it? Oh right! “Rules for thee and rules for we.”

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

History is full of people that behaved like buffoons but were nonetheless quite intelligent. And I don't just mean behaved like buffoons as a strategem. It was their actual demeanor. Sometimes smart people act incredibly stupid.

 

[thx1138]

Obama did do something Basedly illegal. Remember Nixon? Remember Watergate? Everyone knows Nixon Man Bad And Watergate!!! But nobody remembers what it was actually about? Nixon using shady means andgovernment operative to spy on the McGovern Campaign. That’s what Watergate was. Nixon Operatives breaking into the McGovern campaign headquarters to steal information and possibly wiretap it. He also was using the IRS to get at enemies.

Does any of that sound familiar? Like getting a shady and fraudulent FISA warrant using a Hillary generated fake dossier, in order to electronically surveillance the Trump Campaign and Transition?

When Nixon did it it was High Crimes and Misdemeanors. How is it not that when Obama did it? Oh right! “Rules for thee and rules for we.”

Oh I agree but what I'm saying is what if the POTUS goes after him hammer and tongs. Prosecutes him. Makes him criminally liable for what he's done?

 

[Medicated]

Oh I agree but what I'm saying is what if the POTUS goes after him hammer and tongs. Prosecutes him. Makes him criminally liable for what he's done?

Think of how Hillary suddenly had all of her witnesses granted immunity and were able to plead the fifth with no repurcussions. Now imagine that happening to Obama's entire staff during his second term. It's a fruitless goal. Nothing will happen.

 

[Unog]

Oh I agree but what I'm saying is what if the POTUS goes after him hammer and tongs. Prosecutes him. Makes him criminally liable for what he's done?

Then he should do it. If the argument is "well there'd be upheaval at an actual criminal being prosecuted for their crimes, so we shouldn't do it", then how is that different from the entire judicial system - hell, the government - being held hostage by terrorists?

Fuck that.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Think of how Hillary suddenly had all of her witnesses granted immunity and were able to plead the fifth with no repurcussions. Now imagine that happening to Obama's entire staff during his second term. It's a fruitless goal. Nothing will happen.

I thought there being no repercussions was kind of the whole point of the fifth amendment.

 

[X Prime]

The entire point of being granted immunity is that you don't need to plead the fifth anymore so you can give up information on a bigger fish.

If you are granted immunity, THEN plead the fifth, that usually does in fact cause problems.

 

[Medicated]

I thought there being no repercussions was kind of the whole point of the fifth amendment.

Not so much, you could be charged with obstructing justice if it's later found out you knew something. Or contempt of court. But if you and all your buddies are granted immunity, then you can say you all don't know nothin' and therefore nothing ever happened. Oh the FBI lost the evidence as well, so sorry.

 

[It's HK-47]

That's not even remotely what he said you paste-gargling invalid. Mueller's contention was with the media's representation of the investigation. Mueller can call for a press conference whenever he wants, there is literally nothing stopping him from doing so, and yet he chooses not to, even though according to jack-booted morons like Nadler, the entire investigation is being so "horrendously misrepresented by Barr" that the literal opposite of Mueller's conclusions are being presented.

And yet according to that story's interpretation of events, Mueller would have to be thoroughly and completely ignoring a 180°
turn on his nearly two-year investigation, and yet chooses to remain completely silent, even though nothing is preventing him from speaking out about it. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The line I'm fucking quoting from down here is in the Washington Post article you linked holy shit

 

[zap2theextreme]

How can anyone think Barr was deliberately misrepresenting the report to somehow sabotage the investigation when it was going to be released like 5 days later? Why would he even do that, what would it accomplish? Did Barr think we would all forget what he said when the report was released and it proved he was lying? The entire idea and thought process behind this Barr "controversy" is bizarre

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

View attachment 742726

That's not even remotely what he said you paste-gargling invalid. Mueller's contention was with the media's representation of the investigation. Mueller can call for a press conference whenever he wants, there is literally nothing stopping him from doing so, and yet he chooses not to, even though according to jack-booted morons like Nadler, the entire investigation is being so "horrendously misrepresented by Barr" that the literal opposite of Mueller's conclusions are being presented.

And yet according to that story's interpretation of events, Mueller would have to be thoroughly and completely ignoring a 180°
turn on his nearly two-year investigation, and yet chooses to remain completely silent, even though nothing is preventing him from speaking out about it. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The line I'm fucking quoting from down here is in the Washington Post article you linked holy shit

View attachment 742727

Nadler only expects people to read the tweet and headline.

Not the actual article itself.

 

[thismanlies]

View attachment 742726

That's not even remotely what he said you paste-gargling invalid. Mueller's contention was with the media's representation of the investigation. Mueller can call for a press conference whenever he wants, there is literally nothing stopping him from doing so, and yet he chooses not to, even though according to jack-booted morons like Nadler, the entire investigation is being so "horrendously misrepresented by Barr" that the literal opposite of Mueller's conclusions are being presented.

And yet according to that story's interpretation of events, Mueller would have to be thoroughly and completely ignoring a 180°
turn on his nearly two-year investigation, and yet chooses to remain completely silent, even though nothing is preventing him from speaking out about it. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The line I'm fucking quoting from down here is in the Washington Post article you linked holy shit

View attachment 742727

My knowledge of psychology is nestled somewhere between jack and shit. But this has to be a sign of narcissistic personality disorder. Not only is the press incapable of handling criticism, they're spinning it to vindicate themselves.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

View attachment 742726

That's not even remotely what he said you paste-gargling invalid. Mueller's contention was with the media's representation of the investigation. Mueller can call for a press conference whenever he wants, there is literally nothing stopping him from doing so, and yet he chooses not to, even though according to jack-booted morons like Nadler, the entire investigation is being so "horrendously misrepresented by Barr" that the literal opposite of Mueller's conclusions are being presented.

And yet according to that story's interpretation of events, Mueller would have to be thoroughly and completely ignoring a 180°
turn on his nearly two-year investigation, and yet chooses to remain completely silent, even though nothing is preventing him from speaking out about it. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The line I'm fucking quoting from down here is in the Washington Post article you linked holy shit

View attachment 742727

It's fucking unbelievable. Bold-faced lying to the public for political gain. I think Nadler (and Schiff) are killing their party, and Pelosi needs to give them a stern talking to, or take away their sub-committees and put them in time out.

How can anyone think Barr was deliberately misrepresenting the report to somehow sabotage the investigation when it was going to be released like 5 days later? Why would he even do that, what would it accomplish? Did Barr think we would all forget what he said when the report was released and it proved he was lying? The entire idea and thought process behind this Barr "controversy" is bizarre

They can't even create a plausible narrative at this point. Then again, the entire Trump/Russian Collusion narrative was utterly illogical as well.

Maybe these fuckers all went to the "Jussie Smollett Acting School of Things to Say and Believe Despite All Evidence to the Contrary"

 

[pwnest injun]

My knowledge of psychology is nestled somewhere between jack and shit. But this has to be a sign of narcissistic personality disorder. Not only is the press incapable of handling criticism, they're spinning it to vindicate themselves.

That ain't the press. That's a fucking congressman. (of course the media lapdogs are there with him, but it's worse than just some hacks looking for a paycheck)

 

[Frank_Jaeger]

Drumph is guilty as it gets, the fact that literally every person around him is a criminal should tell you something. He only hires the best! (at breaking the law)

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Any chance this flurry of idiocy is some dying last gasp...

no, of course not. This is reality from now on. Endless challenges and lawsuits and investigations and re-votes and do-overs from the dems, the press reporting their fiction seperate from reality...

Post truth world is real, but it's not Trump who is at fault for that.

Drumph is guilty as it gets, the fact that literally every person around him is a criminal should tell you something. He only hires the best! (at breaking the law)

You at least summarized the nonsense in a compact couple sentences. But still, your mom is fat and you post poorly.

 

[shartshooter]

I just found Clickhole's Resistancehole and it's pretty fuckin funny.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

I thought there being no repercussions was kind of the whole point of the fifth amendment.

Depends. As I understand it, using the protections of the Fifth only works if you're protecting yourself from incrimination, not someone else. Also if you're granted immunity for your own crimes and then fail to answer a question that involves you and someone else ("Did Secretary Clinton order you to destroy evidence on her server's hard drive?") pleading the Fifth doesn't work, because the immunity means that you're not incriminating yourself. If the aides were granted immunity and still pleaded the Fifth to avoid incriminating Clinton, the judge should have either revoked their immunity or held them in contempt.

 

[XYZpdq]

Depends. As I understand it, using the protections of the Fifth only works if you're protecting yourself from incrimination, not someone else. Also if you're granted immunity for your own crimes and then fail to answer a question that involves you and someone else ("Did Secretary Clinton order you to destroy evidence on her server's hard drive?") pleading the Fifth doesn't work, because the immunity means that you're not incriminating yourself. If the aides were granted immunity and still pleaded the Fifth to avoid incriminating Clinton, the judge should have either revoked their immunity or held them in contempt.

There's probably some anti suicide laws it would run afoul of by asking that.

 

[tehpope]

I don't care to pay attention, but all these calls to fire Barr is a big nothing burger right?