Excellent analysis of the Mueller report for those who, for whatever reason, don't read the whole

[alwaysinasnit]

thing.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[SharonClark]

1. Thank you.

[alwaysinasnit]

2. You're welcome.

[Ms. Toad]

3. Thank you - flagging for later reading.

[alwaysinasnit]

5. Recommend having a cup of java (or whatever your preferred beverage is) when you read it later.

[tnlurker]

4. For later reading

nt

[alwaysinasnit]

6. A preferred beverage would be great to have while reading it. (It will make the sludge go down

easier.)

[CaptainTruth]

7. Thanks, I hadn't seen that. The Lawfare folks are good.

[alwaysinasnit]

9. You're welcome and you're right, Lawfare has a lot of good stuff.

[malaise]

8. Who owns Lawfare? n/t

[alwaysinasnit]

10. I'm not sure who "owns" Lawfare, but this is their "About Us" link

https://www.lawfareblog.com/about-lawfare-brief-history-term-and-site

[malaise]

17. Thanks

Always good to know

[alwaysinasnit]

18. You're welcome.

[tblue37]

21. Dan Abrams, I believe--who also owns Mediaite. nt

[meadowlander]

27. Benjamin Wittes is a contributor on MSNBC

for whatever that's worth.

[mercuryblues]

47. Ask and you shal receive

Owner
The Lawfare Institute
Editor
Benjamin Wittes, Susan Hennessey
Website

Lawfare is a blog dedicated to national security issues, published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with the Brookings Institution.[1][2] It was started in September 2010[3] by Benjamin Wittes (author and former editorial writer for The Washington Post), Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, and University of Texas at Austin law professor Robert Chesney.[2] Goldsmith was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the George W. Bush administration's Justice Department, and Chesney served on a detention-policy task force in the Obama administration.[2] Its writers include a large number of law professors, law students, and former George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration officials.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare_(blog)

[malaise]

48. Perfect

Thanks everyone

[llmart]

11. Thanks so much for this link.

I've only read through a small bit of it and I'm already thoroughly disgusted. We can only hope that Congress will pursue many of these issues.

What a national nightmare that rivals anything Nixon every did. Truly. I followed the Nixon debacle from even before it hit the mainstream news and this what Trump and Kushner et al did is treasonous in my mind.

I'm bookmarking this to read later.

[alwaysinasnit]

12. You're welcome. Yeah, even if it (Mueller's report) is summarized, the conduct described is

jaw-dropping and egregious.

[cachukis]

13. Well worth the read.

[alwaysinasnit]

14. Yeah, but I am still recovering from reading it.

[cachukis]

19. Still trying to absorb it all.

A focal point, not unlike others, but will be looked back upon as to how we respond. The directions are in front of us.

[alwaysinasnit]

20. Agreed.

[elleng]

15. Thanks

[alwaysinasnit]

16. You're welcome.

[rufus dog]

22. Going through it, but some serious WTFs

So as defined by Cohen, you do things for tRump, not that tRump told you to do directly, but because you know it is what he wants. In this case, a major one, tRump wanted sanctions softened on a hostile foreign enemy, a person under tRump did it and this exonerates tRump?

Remember, the case being made is that tRump was knowingly (yes) or unwittingly (no) providing aid to a hostile foreign power in trade for that same foreign power assisting tRump in the election.

Finally, the special counsel’s report puts to rest suggestions that the Republican National Convention platform on Ukraine was altered at the direction of Trump or Russia. While Trump advisor J.D. Gordon did champion an effort on behalf of the campaign to soften a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform on supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, the report makes clear that Gordon was not directed to seek the change by Trump. He did so after deciding that the change would better align the platform with Trump’s stated policy. So that’s all good news for Trump Reporting on these matters had accurately described these events as having occurred, but the Mueller report should end speculation that they were evidence of collusion or anything untoward.

WTF, seriously? I get that it can't be proven based upon evidence collected, but how is that good new for tRump?

[alwaysinasnit]

25. My sense is that it is good news for 45 as it relates to issues of quid pro quo, but only on this

particular incident. Also, I think Mueller's investigators were extremely conservative in including only super-solid and verifiable evidence. Which kind of makes me think that there is, at least, some evidence that there was some coordination/discussions about that platform change. I don't think Gordon did that on his own.

[jayschool2013]

23. What is striking about the points in this summary

What is striking about the points in this summary and in the report as a whole is how accurate almost all of the news reporting was, especially that done by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and others — you know, the much-maligned MSM.

Free Press = Free People.

[alwaysinasnit]

26. +1

[lark]

24. Please be careful with the snark.

Some people (like me right now) have physical issues which makes reading for more than a few min. difficult. Today is a bad day, I can hardly see the words I type so can't even read the summary until my head is better from the concussion. Will bookmark it for later and thank you for not assuming in the future that folks just aren't reading out of laziness. .

[alwaysinasnit]

28. Please believe that no snark was intended. I know that many people would like to read Mueller's

report in it's entirety, but that it is not possible for many different reasons. Which is why I posted this link as a possible source of analysis in a shortened version.

[lark]

46. Sorry, I'm not feeling good and am very upset about my reading, probably overly sensitive.

I can see a little better this morning and just have to have faith in my eventual total healing. I think I did figure out whast set me back this time so hopefully with no outside light without big floppy hat and dark sunglasses my eyes will recover again. Still paying the price for doing a bit of yard work without them, thought it would be ok because it was totally overcast, dark and windy. Nope!

[alwaysinasnit]

49. I am glad that your health is improving and I hope you will recover quickly. It sucks being ill.

[Rhiannon12866]

29. K&R and thank you! This belongs at the top of the page

So everyone has a chance to see it. I didn't understand how the pundits could read and digest over 400 pages by the afternoon.

[alwaysinasnit]

30. You're welcome. I think they (the pundits) had teams of people who did all the grunt work. But, yeah

the 400 pages are saturated with substance, making it difficult to get a handle on things in so short a time.

[Rhiannon12866]

32. The only one who wouldn't surprise me is Joy Reid

I remember when the NYT Trump interview came out and Joy Reid, who was substituting for Rachel Maddow, had just received it at the end of the show. Ari Melber was up next, substituting for Lawrence O'Donnell, and he asked her to appear during his hour to discuss it. Somehow she managed to read enough in the hall to read and digest it - but the Mueller Report was over 400 pages!

[alwaysinasnit]

34. I really like Joy.

[Neoma]

31. I'll read it after I fully read the Mueller report.

I want to be able to sift through the bullshit narratives easier so that I can find the good analysis' that will put things in context. I'm just not trusting articles like this until I have a mild grasp of what was actually said.

[alwaysinasnit]

33. Not a bad way to proceed.

[Neoma]

35. I stick my head out of the report to hear about Volume 2 once and awhile.

I'm on page 182 right now, so I have ...85 more pages before Volume 2. The part about obstruction of justice... I'm excited. Takes a lot of restraint to not skip ahead, lol.

Edit: I might have calculated that wrong. I'm just going off someone saying it was 181 pages long.

[alwaysinasnit]

36. Please, as a favor, share your impressions so there is more dialogue here. Thanks.

[Neoma]

37. Like make a new thread?

I guess I could do that. Makes me uh, nervous since I'm not an expert or anything.

[alwaysinasnit]

38. I'm certainly no expert but by sharing impressions/opinions and responses, we can learn from

the responses and perhaps spark ideas for others. At least that's what I hope to achieve.

[Neoma]

43. Did it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212033952

[alwaysinasnit]

44. That was great. It certains provides flavor to what might otherwise be a boring report (except for

all the felonies it describes).

[SunSeeker]

39. There's a glaring typo, a missing "not," in the article's discussion of Barr's pre-release presser::

Later, in response to a question, Barr emphasized that Mueller had avoided reaching a conclusion as to whether or not Trump had committed an obstruction crime on the basis of OLC’s view that a sitting president was not subject to indictment. Yet it’s hard to square this account with Mueller’s own description of his reasoning, which we described above. Barr went on an extended riff on his assessment of Trump’s state of mind in evaluating the potential obstructions described in the report, noting that “the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.” Suffice it to say these factors loom larger in Barr’s assessment of the evidence than they do in Mueller’s account.

That should read:

Later, in response to a question, Barr emphasized that Mueller had not avoided reaching a conclusion as to whether or not Trump had committed an obstruction crime on the basis of OLC’s view that a sitting president was not subject to indictment. Yet it’s hard to square this account with Mueller’s own description of his reasoning, which we described above. Barr went on an extended riff on his assessment of Trump’s state of mind in evaluating the potential obstructions described in the report, noting that “the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.” Suffice it to say these factors loom larger in Barr’s assessment of the evidence than they do in Mueller’s account.

That Mueller punted to Congress because of OLC policy not to indict sitting presidents is a crucial point. It also establishes the the justification and bases for the House to pursue impeachment immediately on those 10 categories of obstruction identified by Mueller

[alwaysinasnit]

40. I didn't watch Barr's BS presser because I didn't want to loose my breakfast so I missed that

part. Did Barr actually try to say that Mueller did reach a conclusion about the obstruction, and that that conclusion was that 45 didn't obstruct?

[SunSeeker]

41. Yes. Starting at the 24-minute mark:

[alwaysinasnit]

45. Got it. Thanks!

[alwaysinasnit]

42. I know it is not his style but, I really wish Mueller would call out Barr for his bullsh*t.