By my finger count, we now have 74 words from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and whether the Trump campaign was involved. The rest of what we have is Attorney General William Barr's summary.
The result will be headlines around the world saying: "Mueller Says: No Collusion."
What about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election? No collusion. Yeah, but what about the Russian inter.... I spent much of last year shouting at the deliberately deaf that Mueller was not assigned to find out if Trump "colluded" with the Russians. He was appointed to find out about Russian interference, and you know.
The possibility of coordination (not collusion) was added later.
President Trump said that -- the interference -- never happened. Putin told him so at Helsinki. Trump cut spending on intelligence efforts to counteract future interference. Mueller said there were two "main" interference operations in 2016. Barr's summary doesn't go into much more of that. The ever ear-wagging press doesn't care about it now because: No collusion.
President Trump says he is fully exonerated. Barr says Mueller said he couldn't exonerate Trump on interference with the investigation. But no collusion. That's the new point.
More than a year ago, Trump decided that, despite the original thrust of the investigation, the witch hunt was all about whether he, Trump, personally colluded with the Russians. It always has to be all about him. And now the Victorian Gentlemen will adopt his version of what it's all about and report: No collusion.
Our long, national distraction is over, and the distractor is vindicated. -30-
UPDATE: We have had 48 hours now, and Margaret's prediction is still holding up: "The Republicans are going to run away with this report and the Dems are
going to trot twenty miles behind trying to connect the dots."
The only thing I can think of to add to that is "brain-dead" in front of "Dems."
Since I never see someone named Rachel Maddow, I hardly know what to think. But someone named Matt Taibbi is adding to his fame among Those Who Know by saying the media should have known that even though Trump was acting guilty as Al Capone, he did not commit treason. Everyone, meaning David Brooks and Young Douthat, now considers that a genius insight.
Well, I saw the Putin-Trump press conference in Helsinki -- the one that was held up while they tried to break the suction bond between Trump's lips and Putin's muscular rear end, and what I saw there was treason. Maybe not actionable. Maybe outside Mueller's jurisdiction. Maybe not even culpable because Trump would not necessarily act for treasonous reasons; it could be simple egoism. But spare me the idea that just because there was no collusion (not from lack of trying) there could have been no disloyalty to Trump's oath of office and to the United States of America.
Who am I going to believe --Matt Taibbi and Young Ross, or my own lyin' eyes?
We still haven't seen the Mueller report (btw), but already the Trumpoleons are using the Barr report as a springboard into another assault on Obamacare and the FBI. The brain-dead pull on their boots and call for, nay, demand, what they are not going to get, an unexpurgated edition. And while they yell, Mr. Trump tramples on. His rally Thursday should be a humdinger.
A number of current and known indictment suggest collusion...but I'm guessing that Mueller is leaving this to Congress, House division, to see whether there is collusion that arises to the level of impeachment. I guess he decided that whatever evidence he might have found didn't rise to the level of "traitor." Isn't that the level he would have to find to overturn the "no indictment of a sitting president," said to be in force at the Justice Department.
ReplyDeleteThe 2020 election is about 16 months away. Isn't that the way to get rid of this idiot, sociopath, liar, abuser, etc? The Republicans are going to run away with this report and the Dems are going to trot twenty miles behind trying to connect the dots.
Again...I ask where are the Democratic brains in the smoke-filled room to get everyone to pay attention to 2020? (I'm no fan of smoke-filled rooms, but Tom Perez and Co. are like the sheriff trying to round up the rustlers [current crop of candidates]). Tell me I'm wrong...please.
If we are to take Barr at his word, it seems the Mueller report will provide nothing to support the House in any endeavors to show collusion - and may support the Trump Administration's defense in such an endeavor. Here is how the letter put it (quoting the Mueller report): "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." I guess absence of proof of collusion isn't the same as proof of absence of collusion, but will Shiff, Nadler and Co. be able to uncover anything in hearings that the army of special prosecutor lawyers and investigators didn't in their investigation? It doesn't seem particularly likely.
DeleteThe more damning section of Barr's letter regards the cover-up - but it's not exactly dispositive; and Barr and Rosenstein apparently poured some rained on that possible parade.
Not that there aren't further corruption-and-crookedness reserves to explore in Trumpiana, apart from the Mueller report. I'd guess the place to start is the tax returns.
I endured many a security briefing. Trump has all the characteristics of a security risk. If he would have worked in my group and if I followed procedure, I'd have had to turn him in to security and he would have been investigated.
Delete"Our long, national distraction is over, and the distractor is vindicated."
ReplyDeleteAnd Vladimir Putin rubs his hands together, hires another couple hundred computer whizzes and prepares to re-elect his friend, knowing he can do it blatantly this time because: No collusion.
Yes, Vlad runs the best little cadre of election volunteers the GOP ever had.
Delete"The Republicans are going to run away with this report and the Dems are going to trot twenty miles behind trying to connect the dots."
ReplyDeleteYup, although Pelosi seems to be pushing Democrats to move on. My God, Democrats have a wealth of problems they could be making noise about--anand getting press attention for--that Trump has not addressed or is making worse: Russian interference in politics, falling birth rates, coherent immigration policy, infrastructure, climate change, wage disparity. More immediately, what is Trump doing about the flooded Midwest and that godawful chemical fire in Texas?
I am hoping the period of wailing over the fact that the Mueller report didn't contain enough evidence to stand this mother up against a wall will be brief. The objective is to replace him with someone with experience and skill.
Rep. Tom Suozzi and Rep. Peter King, respectively Democrat and Republican from adjoining districts on Long Island have an op-ed in today's NYTimes setting out a comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. Something needs to get on the table. Why not this?
ReplyDelete"A bipartisan deal to bring millions of immigrants out of the shadows, and pay for a secure border."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opinion/a-grand-compromise-on-immigration.html
Certainly worth considering. I think $2,000 per person is high, though. I'd support a sliding scale, payment plan, or hardship waiver. Also interested in how the billions would be spent on Central America to prevent "out-migration." I would hope the money would be used to prop up existing programs that are working and not merely fall into the grease pits that keep the cop-criminal payola structures chugging away smoothly.
DeleteTwo thousand is high..Could do a "Go Fund Me." All us liberals could put some pennies where are mouths are.
DeleteThe subventions to Central America are certainly a necessity but what if they go to military training and arms? But over-all this is as credible a bill as any. Why not?
I think how the money will be used is going to depend on the administration in power. Hence my feeling that the money should be used in tandem with local organizations and programs that actually work. There was a PBS report on interventions to encourage gang resistance a few years ago. Oh, yah, it's here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-seeks-curb-central-american-child-exodus-youth-programs
DeleteYes, count me in for the Go Fund Me kitty! It would be really great if churches and other organizations could sponsor a family and raise the "protection fee," as the proposal calls it.
St. Vincent Catholic Charities in Lansing has been part of a larger, city-wide refugee program for many years. The problem: They can help many more refugees than the Trump administration is currently letting in.
"...money should be used in tandem with local organizations and programs that actually work." Yeah, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. I hope some of the funds would go toward education and job creation.
DeletePeggy: in my memory, the Democrats are famous (absent the 2018 mid-terms) for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The squabbling will follow the how many candidate debates that will the forthcoming. The left may want to drag the party left, but the country is far from left and Berniacs and AOCians will do nothing to persuade the undecided to vote Democratic in 2020, whomever the candidate will be.
ReplyDeleteWhat's considered on the left? Health care for everyone? Mitigating climate change destruction? Worker's rights? Limiting corporate power? Consumer protection? Not sending blood and money to preserve collapsing World Control? Hillary Clinton was definitely the Democratic lukewarm same old shit and that spectacularly didn't win. Lay out one policy at a time and sell the electorate on how it's better for them. If that doesn't work, then fuck Americans. They deserve Trump. Hail, Il Douché.
DeleteStanley, have you been buying beverages from the IWW lemonade stand again? I don't find "leftists" especially "left," either. The hard right has to work hard to get people worked up about wind power and Obamacare. Unfortunately, they have a lot of money and many allies in Conspiracy Theory Talk Radio and seem to persuade millions to vote against their own interests.
DeleteSorry if I hyper reacted but I don't think that nice mild mannered politics is enough anymore, especially from Democrats. The repubs fight hard. So do Bernie and AOC. There are not enough of them in Congress. And even though I'm both a Berniac, AOCite and Warrenist, I'll vote for a baboon in a tutu over Trump and I always vote.
Delete