Muller Report on Trump and Russia finished and submitted

[EnglishALT]

Trump sure ain't helping his case:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/tr...eltdown-mueller-leaks-blow-apart-exoneration/

Tell me something, EngALT, is this how an innocent man acts?

Why not? As the NYT said it is friends or associates at best who are leaking this, not the actual team, its pretty flimsy.

Btw, many members of Mueller's team Republicans, as is Mueller himself. This explains it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ts-here-are-the-facts/?utm_term=.bb12650e68b2

"The Special Counsel's office had made public the identities of 17 attorney staff members through March 21. Their backgrounds are summarized here.

Through public records, we were able to independently confirm that at least 12 people on Mueller's staff are registered Democrats.

They ones we confirmed are Greg Andres, Rush Atkinson, Ryan Dickey, Michael Dreeben, Kyle Freeny, Andrew Goldstein, Adam Jed, Elizabeth Prelogar, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee, Brandon Van Grack, and Andrew Weissmann.

Another member of Mueller's team -- Aaron Zelinsky -- has been reported to be a registered Democrat by both the Washington Post and the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller also reported that Zelinsky wrote, "I'm a Democrat," in a Huffington Post column supporting same-sex marriage in November 2012."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-checking-donald-trumps-claims-about-Mueller/

"So the special counsel's probe is led by Republicans, even though Trump is right that Mueller's team includes 13 people who registered as Democrats at one time or another (but then again, so did Trump). Mueller's team also includes four other people who either had no political affiliation or whose party registration could not be identified.

More worrisome than party affiliation is the fact that nine of those 13 people gave money to Democrats – including six who donated to Trump's 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton, according to a fine analysis of the issue by the Washington Post's Matt Zapotosky."

https://buffalonews.com/2018/03/20/the-briefing-how-political-is-the-mueller-probe/

You were saying?

 

[Maedar]

Why not? As the NYT said it is friends or associates at best who are leaking this, not the actual team, its pretty flimsy.

Of course, when Trump himself makes a claim with no evidence at all, it's supposed to be taken as fact, no matter how absurd it is.

Through public records, we were able to independently confirm that at least 12 people on Mueller's staff are registered Democrats

Let me fix that for you, quoting from the source I provided, which you clearly ignored (as you could not have read it in the time you took to respond):

But publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

You also missed this:

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans.

You claim it's suspicious that they donated to Ms. Clinton? So did I. Donating to a candidate is not a crime.

And even if they are Democrats, so what? This may come as a surprise to you, but a defendant does not get to choose his jury.

Your logic seems to be that only loyal Republicans should be allowed to investigate Trump, an absurd proposal if there ever was one.

 

[EnglishALT]

Of course, when Trump himself makes a claim with no evidence at all, it's supposed to be taken as fact, no matter how absurd it is.

It is an opinion, but the facts remain as I have laid out why the conspiracy theory that Barr is working alone to make this good for Trump does not pass the smell test.

Let me fix that for you, quoting from the source I provided, which you clearly ignored:

Pay Walled, so it is kind of hard to see anything on it when the screen goes blank immediately when clicking. Also still waiting for all those Republicans on the team of investigators you promised.

You also missed this:

It is still donations to the political opponent of the person they were investigating, that makes you wonder of a conflict of interest.

You claim it's suspicious that they donated to Ms. Clinton? So did I. Donating to a candidate is not a crime.

And even if they are Democrats, so what? This may come as a surprise to you, but a defendant does not get to choose his jury.

It raises questions about potential bias, and of course it also explains why friends of the members may be leaking potentially unfavorable news out, that they have a partisan interest to make Trump look bad. As for your analogy, I will remind you that lawyers can strike members from the jury pool that they believe can be biased on the case: voir dire

 

[Maedar]

WHY should only Republicans be allowed to investigate Trump? Please answer.

WHY does making donations to the opposing candidate disqualify someone from investigating Trump? Please answer.

Sounds like tribalism to me.

 

[EnglishALT]

WHY should only Republicans be allowed to investigate Trump? Please answer.

They shouldn't, realistically political investigators should not be engaged in the voting process what so ever, to not be seen as biased one way or the other.

WHY does making donations to the opposing candidate disqualify someone from investigating Trump? Please answer.

Do you seriously need to have this question answered? Donating to a candidate or political party shows a heavy political interest in that candidate or party's success. Investigating the opposing candidate that beat the one you have literally invested seeing win provides a conflict of interest.

 

[Maedar]

ALT, Trump himself was once a registered Democrat who donated to Bill Clinton's campaign. The RNC never saw a "conflict of interest" there.

And biased? If all of Mueller's team were lifelong Republicans who only donated to the RNC, would THAT not be seen as biased?

 

[EnglishALT]

ALT, Trump himself was once a registered Democrat who donated to Bill Clinton's campaign. The RNC never saw a "conflict of interest" there.

And that relates to the team investigating him for possible crimes how?

And biased? If all of Mueller's team were lifelong Republicans who only donated to the RNC, would THAT not be seen as biased?

Yes!

Although to be an apples to apples scenario, if Comey staffed his team with lifelong Republicans to investigate Hillary it would be seen as incredibly biased.

 

[Maedar]

First of all, this has nothing to do whatsoever with Ms. Clinton.

So then, ALT, what would your ideal investigative team for this situation be?

I mean, I doubt you could find anyone in Mueller's likely tax bracket with his position in government who has NEVER donated to ANY politician.

 

[EnglishALT]

First of all, this has nothing to do whatsoever with Ms. Clinton.

Again just offering a pure apples to apples scenario.

So then, ALT, what would your ideal investigative team for this situation be?

I mean, I doubt you could find anyone in Mueller's likely tax bracket with his position in government who has NEVER donated to ANY politician.

An ideal situation would be to keep federal investigators from donating to political parties or joining political parties. Outside of that Mueller should have made up a team equal part Republican, Democratic, and Independent as to avoid the specter of political bias which has plagued this investigation for years.

 

[Maedar]

An ideal situation would be to keep federal investigators from donating to political parties or joining political parties.

Let's be realistic here. Having such rules for the Supreme Court nominations would be easier.

Outside of that Mueller should have made up a team equal part Republican, Democratic, and Independent as to avoid the specter of political bias which has plagued this investigation for years.

The only thing that has "plagued" the investigation is Trump's ludicrous Tweets calling it a "witch hunt"

The elephant in the room is, Trump is trying to bury the report, but he cannot possibly succeed, because he himself has kept it in the forefront of the news for over a year. This explains it:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/tr...tions-reporter/?utm_source=push_notifications

 

[Nah]

I don't really care for this recent tangent so to try to get back on track:

The reason for the subpoena for the full unredacted report+its evidence is because Barr cannot be trusted to be objective in this case. He has, iirc, been fairly open about his dislike of the Mueller investigation, and so we cannot take his summary on the obstruction of justice part at face value, nor can we assume that he won't consciously or unconsciously redact the report in a biased manner. Especially given the "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" bit.

Whether or not they really can or will be able to get an unredacted version of the report, I don't know though.

 

[EnglishALT]

I don't really care for this recent tangent so to try to get back on track:

The reason for the subpoena for the full unredacted report+its evidence is because Barr cannot be trusted to be objective in this case. He has, iirc, been fairly open about his dislike of the Mueller investigation, and so we cannot take his summary on the obstruction of justice part at face value, nor can we assume that he won't consciously or unconsciously redact the report in a biased manner. Especially given the "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" bit.

Whether or not they really can or will be able to get an unredacted version of the report, I don't know though.

If it makes you feel better Mueller is working with Barr on the redactions and more than likely Mueller will be subpoenaed to testify before Congress. If Mueller thinks anything improper was being redacted he will have plenty of time to say so.