magnet
1849
An unexpected turn of events
Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) in a letter on Monday called on Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to seek Mueller’s testimony, rather than going after Attorney General William Barr, arguing that this is the best path to obtaining transparency… “If you seek both transparency and for the American public to learn the full contours of the Special Counsel’s investigation, public testimony from Special Counsel Mueller himself is undoubtedly the best way to accomplish this goal,” Collins wrote to Nadler.
Barr, responding to a question about the reported frustration of some members of Mueller’s team with the fact that they had carefully vetted section summaries for easy, quick public release:
I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of being under inclusive or over inclusive but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should wait everything coming out at once.
So, of course, he instead wrote and released the 4-page “TOTAL EXONERATION!!!” summary in order to avoid such a scenario.
Which means, of course, he has. DJT would never read it, naturally, but it’s a sure thing Barr briefed him on the contents. Or drew some illustrations with crayons for him. Which completely explains why DJT will move heaven and earth to not release the report now, after calling for its release when it ‘totally exonerated’ him.
rowe33
1852
I assume everything is condensed into a thumbs up or down so Trump can more easily understand it.
Yeah, all those let’s give Barr the benefit of the doubt columns and tweets are really not going to age well. He also says the DOJ’s new view that the ACA is unconstitutional is a reasonable legal judgement.
I for one am utterly shocked that the guy who the ostensible President got to finally replace Sessions turned out to be another craven toady.
Timex
1857
On one hand, Barr says that he’s not suggesting that any rules were violated by the US government, but then he says he thinks spying occurred. Spying by whom? And against who?
Timex
1858
Oh, he clarifies, that he doesn’t actually think that it occurred. Just that he’s “concerned”.
Which is basically the standard M.O. for the Trump admin at this point… make shit up, and when pressed on whether that stuff actually happened, fall back to, “Oh, well I’m not saying it actually happened… but you know… people are saying. Lots of people are saying things. About stuff.”
ShivaX
1859
So if the cops investigate a crime, that’s spying now?
Cool, cool.
Well I wonder who, over the past couple of years for which this has been such a hot issue, might have had the power to order an investigation to get to the bottom of all this? Quite possibly there has been a 2-year cover-up from the very top. I think we should investigate that person.
rowe33
1861
I’m both amazed and completely unsurprised that he didn’t have a better answer prepared for the spying question. He paused as his brain froze up, then spit out that bit about how spying occurred as he realized he needed to smooch the orange ass in that moment. Then realized oh shit, I need to clarify that, knowing Trump would never bother watching a followup.
Somehow not a major headline anymore…
Good points to keep in mind if/when anything comes out:
First, focus on what the report actually says. It is far less important to give your pithy account of what Mueller did —that, in your words, he “cleared” the president or that “he gave a devastating account” of Trump’s or his campaign’s conduct—than it is to report what Mueller actually said . Report what facts Mueller found. Report what prosecutorial judgments he made. Report how he described his analysis of the facts against the law. Don’t impose onto the substantive reporting of the document some political meta-story that goes beyond the four corners of the report. Your first job here is to tell readers what Mueller did and concluded in 400 pages of text…
… Seventh, in particular, keep in mind that the declination of criminal charges does not answer counterintelligence questions that the same fact patterns may raise . Repeated contacts between a foreign government and its cutouts and people associated with a political campaign may involve no violation of any law, while at the same time raising serious counterintelligence concerns. Those concerns may involve the activities of the foreign actors, the domestic actors, or both. The fact that an investigation yields no criminal charges does not mean the counterintelligence concerns were meritless or investigation unwarranted. The resolution of a criminal investigation without charges does not necessarily or even presumptively address the merits of those counterintelligence concerns.
Another Rafael Correa problem is solved.
Jennifer Robinson, Assange’s lawyer, confirmed on Twitter that her client was “arrested not just for breach of bail conditions but also in relation to a US extradition request.” Robinson did not immediately respond to requests for further comment.
U.S. authorities have prepared an arrest warrant and extradition papers, according to a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Good thing Trump is in charge. Assange can expect a pardon. Wikileaks did, after all, play a key role in Trump’s win.
