Mueller Investigation

Sen. Rand Paul Is Willing to Withhold Mueller Report as Political Leverage

Politicizing transparency is not a way to help Americans understand Russia investigation.

|

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to put conditions on government transparency when it comes to the full Russia investigation report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. On Twitter this morning he said he wants to tie the release of the report to additional transparency about why the FBI investigated President Donald Trump's campaign in the first place:

The "dossier" here is the now-infamous document compiled by British spy Christopher Steele, funded as Democratic opposition research on Trump, that was used in part as justification by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI to get permission to engage in secret surveillance and wiretapping of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page to determine the extent of potential ties to Russia.

Some information about the warrant used to request permission from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court has been released but not a whole lot. What little we've gotten is itself a big deal—the public sees almost nothing of the inner workings of this court, intended to give the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) oversight over surveillance of foreign interests and sometimes Americans who are connected to them, like Page.

Now that Mueller's investigation has ended with him not recommending any charges against Trump (or anybody in Trump's circle) for conspiring with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, some Republicans are looking to switch gears and investigate those who were responsible for pushing the Trump investigation. Speaking on behalf of Trump, Paul tells Breitbart:

"[Trump] feels that it's damaging to the country, damaging to the ability to lead the country, that we basically—somebody within the Obama administration, within the DOJ and the FBI, basically concocted an investigation, trumped it up to be something that it wasn't and then we've gone through two years of the country being stalled because of this fake investigation."

So he wants to bring in people like former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice to testify before Congress about how it all happened.

I'm on the record as also calling for more transparency so that Americans to see precisely what justifications were used to investigate the Trump campaign, not because I think there's some big hoax behind it, because we all have the right to know. We, as voters in a democratic republic, should most certainly know what prompted the federal government to investigate our top elected official.

That's different, though, from thinking that the investigation of Trump was itself politically motivated. I don't actually think it is—there were lots of warning flags that Russian nationals were attempting to meddle with the election and drag the Trump campaign into it. There is no intellectual disconnect with thinking that Trump is not guilty of crimes but also thinking the FBI had good reason to investigate these connections. It's not the outcome of the investigation that determines whether the investigation itself was legitimate.

What would determine whether the investigation was legitimate would be more information about those FISA Court warrants, but also the contents of Mueller's report. So it's disturbing here that Paul wants to tie transparency on one to the other, which actually escalates the politicization of the entire process and possibly makes it less likely we see either.

Paul's reasons are understandable. We don't know what's in Mueller's report yet, but it could well indicate that Mueller found all sorts of misconduct or bad behavior by Trump that didn't rise to the level of crimes but will nevertheless be damaging and quoted heavily by political opponents as we head into a presidential election. If there's evidence of misconduct in the decision to snoop on Page and others, it serves as a valuable countervailing message.

But tying the release of the Mueller report with release of information about the lead-up to the investigation is politicizing transparency itself. This is obviously an attempt at some political leverage here, but if Paul actually votes against releasing information from the Mueller report, it goes against his lengthy commitment toward open, transparent government in order to curry favor from the president. Paul should keep pushing for more information from the FISA Court, but absolutely should not stand in the way of Americans finding out what Mueller uncovered, if anything.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

174 responses to “Sen. Rand Paul Is Willing to Withhold Mueller Report as Political Leverage

  1. It sounds like he wants to leverage the report to provide even more transparency. The only losers would be the TDS crowd including much of the Reason staff.

    1. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

      CLICK HERE?? http://www.AproCoin.Com

    2. Agreed. Ramd understands the need to o,ay hardball here. And that means using all available tools to as leverage.

    3. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

      CLICK HERE?? http://www.finestylereview.com

    4. Eff Rand.

      1. Why? Because he’s trying to leverage for even more transparency?

        I still #standywithRandy

        1. #Randyisdandy

          1. No, Rand is a terrible dresser.

        2. RAND IS THE BEST THING EVER!……Except for Pops!!

    5. It sounds like he wants to leverage the report to provide even more transparency. The only losers would be the TDS crowd including much of the Reason staff.

      Shackturd is absolutely terrified of the truth: that his beloved, venerated Obamessiah was really nothing but the swarthy 21sth century version of Richard Nixon.

      1. Obummy & HildaBeast makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout!

      2. Thank you Reason has become a repository of silly TDS addicts and their butthurt feelings. What has happened to this magazine? I think I lost hope with Reason when they supported Bill Weld.

    6. I think you’re right.

      Paul’s got the right idea. You’re never going to get support from the Left to release the origin story unless you agree to release the Mueller report.

    7. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

      CLICK HERE?? http://www.finestylereview.com

  2. But tying the release of the Mueller report with release of information about the lead-up to the investigation is politicizing transparency itself.

    I’d hate to see anyone bringing politics into this.

    1. Next they will be fighting in the war room. Is Scott this dense or this dishonest?

      1. You just don’t know how to argue on the merits, you always drag in personal insults. Are you that ethically bankrupt?

        1. It’s a valid question. This is an obvious situation. The democrats and never Trumoers have played dirty and it’s time to hit back. I’m not sure why you’re bitching and hand wringing about this.

          1. I have mixed feelings about the report release and hostaging.

            My particular gripe, in case you want to try to read it, is that John is not arguing on the merits, but attacking the messenger.

            1. That’s just how John rolls, yo. What’s next? You are gonna complain about Libertymike being a racist or lovecon89 being retarded?

              1. You and Crusty are the resident experts on being retarded. You can’t beat the wisdom of experience.

                Beyond that, I didn’t attack the messenger. I attacked the message and said it meant either the messanger is stupid or dishonest. That of course went over you and alphabet soup’s heads. We can only dumb down the thread for you so much.

            2. This is one of those cases where the appropriate target of the attack is the messenger. Why is he writing certain things? Once you eliminate any other reason that might be persuasive, it’s a personal choice of the messenger.

              The whole TDS biz is a profoundly personality-driven thing. It’s people just deciding to pick a side. People vs. people. There’s nothing else to criticize.

            3. He’s questioning his motives. Which is fair. He didn’t exactly call him an asshole.

        2. It’s not personal insult, it’s a valid question. It’s also rhetorical. We know Scott isn’t dense, so there must be sone dishonesty there, whether he realizes it or not.

    2. is this satire?

  3. I’m kind of with Rand on this one. when you have political leverage you should use it if its for a relatively principled reason, and blocking the release of the report in order to get MORE transparency, not less, isn’t a bad move.

    1. So if a No vote wins (i.e. the report remains non-public), and then there’s no additional transparency, then what?

      Thus, although I agree that it is leverageable in the manner Rand is doing so, I don’t think it’s the right thing to leverage…if transparency is really your goal.

      1. Why not the whole shebang?

      2. I think we burn that bridge when it’s crossed.

        1. Then we should salt the earth to prevent any new Congresses from springing up there.

      3. I’m with MP on this one.

        If it’s a bluff, and Rand is on-board with releasing the full report regardless of whether his demands are met, then sure.

        But if it’s not a bluff, and they call it, leading to nothing being released… that’s not a win.

        1. It’s like the pro-tariff anti-free-trade yahoos from Trump on down, claiming his increased tariffs are a negotiating lever. Meanwhile the economy gets shaken for no benefit, businesses stall and delay while waiting for some unknown number of shoes to drop, and if the other countries retaliate in kind, it never gets better.

          Whereas unilateral free-trade works wonders for us both in a better economy and in showing other countries a better way.

          1. So you whine at John over oersonal insults, but anyone who doesn’t agree with you on trade is a ‘yahoo’.

            Fucking hypocrite.

            1. There was actually content there, in case you skipped over that in your hurry to find the insult. Here’s one just for you: fuck off, slaver.

              1. “Here’s one just for you: fuck off, slaver.”

                Unless “you” is plural in this sentence, you’re clearly lying.
                “Fuck off, slaver” is your go-to for anyone who disagrees, and you use it regularly regardless of to whom you’re responding

                1. In my case, it’s a complete non sequiter. I have zero interest in running his life. I just want to be free of progtardation, and other invasive forms of inanity.

                  Alphabetboy doesn’t appear to grasp that words have specific meaning. I do. He doesn’t like when I point that out.

            2. An insult is only an argumentum ad hominem when it is the substance of the argument. It is perfectly valid rhetorical technique to make a cogent argument, and throw in an insult as an aside. You fucking shitheel.

              Learn the rules of rhetoric before you throw around terms like “hypocrite”, because as it stands you should be relegated to the little boys’ table.

              1. Marshall, no one spasled you, and your analysis is flawed. Not surprising, as weak analysis is a staple of your commentary. Like Alphabetboy, you understand very little, with your tiny mind.

                Best you be silent and take notes, for what little you can understand.

          2. I keep forgetting what a free-market wonk “Obama was

    2. What’s funny about it is that he’s playing with Monopoly money here. The whole Mueller report is one huge nothing-burger, and yet people are still eager to get their hands on it. He’s refusing to let them get a good look at the shiny beads while asking if there’s any gold or silver laying around.

      1. The whole Mueller report is one huge nothing-burger

        Tell that to the five Trump underlings going to prison.

        1. For process crimes and things unrelated to Russian collusion. 15 people were found guilty of crimes in the Whitewater controversy, including two of Clinton’s aides, his successor as Governor, and numerous other close Clinton associates and supporters. But we are regularly told that was one big nothing-burger. Clinton even pardoned them all at the end of his term.

          When China was caught illegally funding the Democrats in the 1996 elections, numerous people were convicted, including a long-time friend and associate of Clinton’s who was given a position in his Commerce Department.

          Nobody even remembers that controversy, even though a semi-hostile foreign government was caught directly interfering in a US election.

          1. +1,000

          2. I haven’t and to this day I put Clinton largely to blame for China being so far up our rear end. The Clinton’s are pigs and that is giving pigs a bad name.. For some reason beyond me the Staff at this rag would rather have a Clinton pig running this country. Mind boggling!

        2. PB, Reason banned u for kiddie porn. So get your child molesting ass out of here. You lying, welshing, commie, pederast shitbag.

          1. Quit lying you greasy-ass redneck fascist cocksucker.

            1. Fuck off you sick wierdo.

              1. Note how he totally ignores colorblindkid’s post.

                That’s what partisan hacks do. Blame the other team, ignore transgressions of your own. Wear hypocrisy as a badge.

            2. PB, it’s a proven fact. You also have a history of boldfaced dishonesty and cheating. Plus your unholy appetite for children’s bodies, that you attempted to share with the commentariat (much to our horror). Although you likely found a kindred spirit in your fellow traveler, Pedo Jeffy.

              You are an evil, lying, cheating predator. No one wants you here, or anywhere else.

        3. “Tell that to the five Trump underlings going to prison.”

          Is that four un-paid parking tickets and one littering for people who knew Trump at sometime in their lives, you
          dishonest piece of shit?

    3. Yes, this headline implied something quite different from the actual body of the article. I think tying the release of the document to the release of information surrounding the document is pretty valid.

  4. Besides, the Dems who are calling for the Mueller report to be immediately released simply want to mine it for little nuggets they can throw out to help their 2020 presidential candidate. Oppo research, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

    1. How much government secrecy do you covet, you bigoted, half-educated, authoriarian wingnut?

      1. LOL I don’t expect the Attorney General of the U.S. to violate federal law just to help your ludicrous candidates win an election.

        1. Yea who do you think Barr is, Loretta Lynch?

          1. Zing! She’ll never see justice.

            1. President O’Rourke will make her a Supreme.

              (clutches chest and dies)

              1. +1, but given Beto’s musical background, maybe that should be a B-52?

          2. Right on!

        2. Bingo!!!

          The report contains information from Grand Jury testimony, which BY LAW AND CUSTOM cannot be revealed absent criminal charges being brought.

          I thought libertarians would be familiar with the liberty and rights protections of a Grand Jury.

  5. The relevant Senate committee should issue a broad subpoena covering the MuellerTime report as well as the FISA/Steele stuff.

    Get ahead of any one-sided House investigation. Push for all the facts.

    1. I see that Paul is on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

      I think that’s McCarthy’s old Subcommittee (Joe not Gene), so maybe they can go to town.

      1. McCarthy did great work before the subversives got him. I can only hope Paul does the same.

        1. The Venona decrypts prove that McCarthy was right.

  6. >>>but it could well indicate that Mueller found all sorts of misconduct or bad behavior by Trump that didn’t rise to the level of crimes but will nevertheless be damaging and quoted heavily by political opponents

    not gonna, but could…

    1. And that’s why stuff revealed in Grand Jury testimony is illegal to disclose when no criminal charges are brought.

    2. What does it matter? Bad behavior? What he didn’t wash his hands after visit to the toilet? Wanting fire Mueller seems pretty logical to me.

  7. Rand Paul is a complete disgrace and it blows my mind that any so-called libertarians like him.

    #TrumpRussia
    #PaulRussia
    #MaddowGotItExactlyRight

    1. #FISAtransparency

    2. You gotta start somewhere – he’s in my top 5 congressmen.Absolutist rarely accomplish anything.

  8. Why would Shackford offer so many apologias to the deep state while pretending to advocate for more transparency?

        1. Mind blown*

          *sorta

  9. The dossier has not been discredited. It did not originate as Democratic oppo research. Even if it had, they would not be spending good money on lies that they could make up themselves. Russians, as a factual matter, did interfere with the election. Many Trump associates plead guilty to related crimes. Many Russians have been indicted. Trump has been acting like a guilty fuck this whole time.

    On the other hand, he does have an (R) after his name, so that means all is forgiven for people with an (L) after their name, for a reason that escapes me.

    1. LOL, you speak about the dossier the way a fundamentalist talks about the Bible. It doesn’t have to be discredited; it has to be proven.

      1. So does Hillary Clinton’s involvement in a child sex slave operation at a pizza restaurant.

        1. Strange that you’d think that bolsters your case.

          1. Good one, Birther Brett!

        2. LOL so you admit it’s bullshit, just like the Hillary story.

          1. I believe my point is right-wingers are full of shit at every opportunity.

            1. True but not relevant to the dossier that you worship. You probably keep a copy on an altar in your living room.

              1. I shouldn’t be dissuading you idiots from staying aboard USS Trump. No intelligent person can possibly think it’s going to end well for him or the people who lick his balls.

                1. Trump being a baffoonish incompetent President and the dossier being a fabricated pile of horseshit are two different things. The fact that you can’t separate them speaks to your innate partisanship.

                2. LOL in all of this thrashing around you never get around to making a good case for the dossier that you expect us all to take as gospel truth.

                3. He will sail to re-election if the democrats out up any of the kook ‘socialist democrats’ or any candidate that panders to them. But you progs are such hive minded followers that you will kindly follow any of them.

                  That said, it’s ironic that you accuse ANYONE of being a blind follower, when you are the on in thrall to the Church of the Progressive Othodoxy.

            2. No, you just don’t like anything that destroys your propaganda narrative. Everything you say is a lie. You don’t care about facts or proof. This fits well with you being a sociopath.

              Now go drink your Drano.

        3. Exactly. And no one ever tried to charge her with that and no one would have tried to impeach her over such idiocy. You seem to understand what is going on here Tony. Good for you.

      2. First let establish that the Steele Dossier was not the sole evidence use for the warrant. Among other things a Trump Campaign staffer bragging to a Australian Intelligence official also came into play. For the warrant, the dossier needs to provide a only reasonable suspicion. There is nothing to suggest that it did not meet that standard.

        The big problem here is that we don’t know the extend the Steele Dossier played in getting warrant. The only way to know the importance of the Steele Dossier is to know what other sources were also used, and that then exposes those sources. So maybe the question is to what extend we support FISA warrants based on secret information. It is hard to say its unacceptable to use secret sources for a presidential candidate but ok for the rest of us.

        1. Among other things a Trump Campaign staffer bragging to a Australian Intelligence official also came into play.

          First, that was a lie as well. Second, the fact that they had other things doesn’t excuse them lying about the Dossier and portraying it as some kind of product of the IC. It is stil an epic abuse of power.

          The big problem here is that we don’t know the extend the Steele Dossier played in getting warrant.

          No its not a big problem. Sorry but “I don’t think my perjury to the court played a “big role” in the court’s decision doesn’t make the perjury okay.

          1. First why do you say that George Papadopoulos did not speak to an Australian and that conversation did not get reported back to the FBI? Second where is there a case of perjury? The Steele Dossier is accurate enough for reasonable cause. Especially if it was only a supporting document.

            1. The Nunes memo notes that “Deputy Director McCabe testified . . . that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the dossier information.” In addition, elements of the dossier made it to lawmakers including Harry Reid and John McCain, and the FBI ultimately even briefed then-president-elect Trump about its contents.

              http://www.nationalreview.com/…..stigation/

              The case for perjury is lying to the FISA court and by telling it that the dossier was verified and the product of US intelligence and not some half assed campaign op.

              1. Was that Devon Nunes or Devon Nunes Cow that reported dossier information was used? I won’t go down this road any further. Its clear that President Trump has decided the dossier is false and that seem to be good enough for Devon Nunes and you.

        2. Actually the Steele Dossier was the sole evidence used for the warrant. And Comey even admitted, without it, there would have been no warrant.

          It’s looking more and more like Papadopolous was a set up to justify their spying. And where is Joseph Mifsud?

        3. One FBI source told Papadapoulous a lie about the Clinton email, and set him up with a meeting with the Australian so it could be repeated. You have to be kidding

    2. Let’s see.

      1) The dossier has not been discredited. Bzzzt! Some parts have been proven wrong, some are evidence free, and the verifiable stuff is not particularly bad.

      2) It did not originate as Democratic oppo research. Bzzzt! Absolutely did, though GPS Fusion did some unrelated work for Republicans prior to assembling it.

      3) Even if it had, they would not be spending good money on lies that they could make up themselves. Bzzzt! Saying they got it from Russia adds the illusion of authenticity.

      4) Russians, as a factual matter, did interfere with the election. Bzzzt! No, they interfered with the campaign. It’s an important difference.

      5) Many Trump associates plead guilty to related crimes. Bzzzt! Unrelated crimes.

      6) Many Russians have been indicted. Hey, I’ll give you this one, though they weren’t indicted in the expectation of actually having to prove the charges in court.

      7) Trump has been acting like a guilty fuck this whole time. Bzzzt! You’d think that no matter how he acted.

      1. But but but the guy who wrote it has a cool name!

      2. Now explain why supposed libertarians do so much butt work for the Republican party and it’s fat, orange, moron leader.

        1. Tony, why do you claim that DJT is fat? He’s tall and beefy.

          1. We all know that Tony jacks it to an 8×10″ glossy of Trump while pumping himself with a yuge dildo. Fantasizing that Trump is plowing his ass. All of Tony’s prissy bitching is borne out of frustration for the Trump plowing his ass craves.

        2. I’d be much more likely to agree with you if you were even handed with your criticism and your demands for politicians to be strung up. You are not.

          1. I don’t believe in affirmative action. Republicans don’t believe in science because they are co-opted by oil interests. The end. Bye bye. Fuck off. The planet is more important than even-handedness.

            1. “Save the whales! Save the snails!”

              -A Prominent Philosopher

              1. What else was it this wise man said? Something about Americans being stupid so their elected leaders are also stupid?

              2. Or, as we declared in the freewheelin’ and unfeelin’ late 70’s…”Nuke the Gay Whales!”

            2. “Republicans don’t believe in science because they are co-opted by oil interests.”
              I see you got your tin-foil hat on sale.

              “The end. Bye bye. Fuck off. The planet is more important than even-handedness.”
              I agree. Please go die someplace where we can’t smell you. You’d make the world better and smarter.

            3. Tony, it’s cute that you think (and I use the word loosely in this case) you understand science.

              1. Tony mixes up science with seance.

        3. Maybe it’s principles, Tony, which is probably why it completely eludes you.
          It’s why defense attorneys also defend the guilty, not just the innocent.
          If you won’t defend a dirtbag’s rights because you don’t like him, then you don’t really believe in rights at all; You just believe in Team.

          It’s amazing how you reveal your complete lack of principles in what you write, and yet remain intentionally unaware of it because you simply can’t stand the other team. You’re no different than a Yankees or Red Sox fan who rails at the other side’s cheaterz!!1!!!! but when your guy gets caught using steroids, it was totally justified ‘cuz he was only rehabbing, and reasons.

          Take a look in the mirror, Tony. No one is saying Trump is George Washington; they’re pointing out that Hillary and the DNC weaponizing the FBI and the FISA warrant process is not only unconscionable, morally reprehensible, it’s also dangerous, for everyone, every single citizen. But all you can do in the light of that evidence is cry that someone’s defending Trump.

          1. And you know if Trump and the RNC weaponized the FBI and FISA to usurp an election. He would be all over it.

          2. If you won’t defend a dirtbag’s rights because you don’t like him, then you don’t really believe in rights at all; You just believe in Team.

            Tony has openly stated many times that he does not believe in rights.

            1. Tony has many strange ‘beliefs’:
              Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
              “I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”

          3. That’s a lot of bullshit accusations with no merit for someone defending the rights of the accused.

            There is no hope for you people. Not until the FOX News building falls into a sinkhole.

            1. Read this, Tony:
              Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
              “I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”

              1. Go to Mars if you want a laissez-faire world and see how you like it.

                1. Read this, Tony:
                  Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
                  “I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”

        4. To y, by work, do you mean insist on facts and evidence instead of making shit up as we go along to fit our agenda? Like what you do?

        5. Seems like work on behalf of Truth and Justice to me

    3. Funny how unverified suppose to mean trustworthy.

      Google “steele says dossier unverified”

      The man himself says it was not verified.

      Which begs the valid question of why was an unverified document used in a secret court at all?

      Here’s the funny thing. Steele says the dossier was never meant to go public. But he also admitted that the purpose of the document was to contest the election. How did he expect it to stay secret and be used to contest the election. He thought it was only going to be used in a secret court (FISA).

    4. > The dossier has not been discredited.

      It’s own author discredited it, you prog-tarded team player.

      Reality doesn’t conform to your (pathological) in-group preferences.

  10. Yep, fair is fair. . . investigate the witch hunters!

  11. Trump was ‘boring’ at infamously wild Studio 54 parties

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyJ6iaghwjk

    This was according to the joint’s former owner. Mark Fleischman.

    But how do we know this? Why take him at his word?

    There was a lot of perversions at Studio 54. People were sniffing cocaine, puffing marijuana, and some even took LSD. And others were fornicating in public.

    Now maybe Trump didn’t do any of the above, but he was still there and could have reported the lawbreakers but didn’t.

    He could be an accessory to these crimes.

    My suggestion is that Congress look into these matters.

    Trump was at Studio 54, did he take part in these perversions?

    If not, why didn’t he report the perversions to the authorities?

    He’s guilty of something, that’s for sure.

  12. There is no intellectual disconnect with thinking that Trump is not guilty of crimes but also thinking the FBI had good reason to investigate these connections.

    Actually, in this case, there is. Because the evidence they used to justify the government’s tactics in that investigation (particularly the FISA warrants, but also the leaks and the unmaskings) was deeply flawed and all of the participants knew or should have known it was deeply flawed. And we have credible (much more credible than anything posited to claim collusion) reports that the agents our government in the DOJ and FBI were using the investigation as a pretext for political operations.

    Taken together, that makes getting to the bottom of the government’s behavior a hell of a lot more than an afterthought and a hell of a lot more than trying “to curry favor from the president”.

  13. There is no evidence that Russia, as a practical or impractical matter interfered in the 2016 election.
    The Internet Research Agency was a commercial clickbait operation. It was designed to make money by directing people to commercial ads. It did not spend a lot of money in America, Almost half the memes were way before or else after the election. Mueller phoned indictment raises serious first Amendment concerns, but will never be in court.
    The emails were almost certainly downloaded, not hacked, by a disgruntled Bernie Bro. Assange said Russia did not do it.
    Russia has been vindicated in European nations after charges of election interference in Netherlands, Germany, Montenegro, Spain, etc.
    Stop blaming Russia, a conservative Christian nation that has done more for peace since 2006 than any other nation.

    1. “, a conservative Christian nation that has done more for peace since 2006 than any other nation.”

      Ukraine, Georgia, disagree

      1. The Ukrainians that are disagreeing are the neo-Nazis that the US propped up to run that joint.

  14. Good for him. Strike while the iron is hot. There needs to be a serious accounting of what the FBI and CIA were doing. The FBI chief in Florida that sent a Gestapo/ Swat team to arrest Stone needs eliminating. The FBI needs total reform in how they investigate. No more unrecorded interviews. No more charges for “lying” to the FBI.

  15. So Shackford is okay with the CIA using the FBI to run an illegal spy operation on an American citizen and presidential candidate. if they were worried about spys they could have told Trump instead of trying to plant spys to make Trump look guilty. thankfully Trump never hired any of the FBI’s spys

  16. “So he wants to bring in people like former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice to testify before Congress about how it all happened.”

    I think this is a wonderful idea and if that scumbag Clapper lies to congress *again*, well, we now have ample precedent to charge and convict.

  17. Trump can order a full blown investigation on his own authority and should, there doesn’t have to be any sort of deal made about releasing the report.

    There needs to be a major accounting with the FBI, and Trump can fire the first shot by issuing an executive order requiring all FBI interviews be recorded, or if that isn’t practical to record all interviews then he can issue an order that the DOJ cannot prosecute for lying to the FBI unless the interview was recorded. And perhaps also that if the FBI lies to the subject of an investigation first then the subject cannot be prosecuted for lying to the FBI.

    The FBI has had a reckoning coming since at least Ruby Ridge.

    1. Well stated Kazinski

  18. Dumbfuck update:

    Trump says “I understand health care now”

    “I mean it 100 percent, I understand health care now, especially very well. A lot of people don’t understand it, we are going to be, the Republicans, the party of great health care,” said Mr. Trump in an Oval Office meeting with the interim first lady of Venezuela, Fabiana Rosales De Guaid?. “The Democrats have, they’ve let you down, they came up with Obamacare, it’s terrible.” (CBS News)

    See, he just didn’t understand it before. But now he does.

    1. “Dumbfuck update:”

      That’s every time you post, turd.

    2. He is late to game in understanding how terrible Obamacare is. Almost everybody knew it was terrible from the start. Even Obama knew it when he uttered his infamous lie, “if you like your doctor…”.

    3. Go jerk off to some more kiddie porn you sick fuck.

      1. ^ This ^, and while you’re at it, lose some weight, you morbidly obese Ron Jeremy – lookin’ jerkoff.

  19. Do we have any reason to believe this information isn’t in the Mueller Report? I imagine that dossier was thoroughly examined, as it was the whole reason the investigation started.

    I’d like to see it all as well but this assumption that FISA abuse is ignored in the 1000 plus page report is silly.

    1. Maybe, but Clapper, Brennan, Lynch, Obama, Steele, or most everyone else involved with the FISA warrant and coup attempt weren’t interviewed, so anything in it will be woefully under investigated

    2. “”I imagine that dossier was thoroughly examined, as it was the whole reason the investigation started.”‘

      When the author of the dossier testifies in a court that the contents were unverified, how thoroughly could it have been examined? Simply asking the author tells you it’s iffy.

  20. there were lots of warning flags that Russian nationals were attempting to meddle with the election

    Truly woeful. The link leads to a piece about the laughable indictment of Russians in Russia, and Rosenstein’s equally laughable press conference. A real investigation would never have produced public indictments against foreigners, all of whom were outside the each of US law enforcement. If the DoJ had wanted to pursue this criminally, as opposed to as a counter-intelligence matter, they would have kept sealed indictments in the hope that one of the indicted foreigners would think it safe enough to wander back within reach of the FBI. The public indictment was transparent political showboating to justify the continuing investigation, and concusive evidence that Mueller was politicking not investigating. In fact none of the facts came from the actual Mueller team – they picked it up from old press reporting. And because the allegations were never intended to be tested in court, we’ll never know whether there’s ay real substance to the tale.

    If Scott is hanging his “but there really was something to investigate” hat on this bag of wind, he’s really desperate.

    1. Barack Obama actually laughed at the notion that Russia would affect the election. The original charge was that they were seeking to divide us and discredit our institutions. Which the Team Clinton then gleefully did for them

  21. Transparency in the government?
    That’s hysterical!
    Do you have anything left in your comedy routine, Mr. Shackford.

    1. Transparency in government means seeing what the other team is doing.

      1. Naked Hillary and Liawatha, ugh!

        Where’s the mind bleach?

  22. Releasing the full report is not going to change most people’s views on Trump/Russia. The President is either fully innocent for Trump supporters or fully guilty for Trump haters. People in this country are divided and they have been constrained to be fervently religious in their political views.

    Distrust in government has been a somewhat default position of small government conservatives (those they still exist) with big government cons being just as bad as big government leftist when it comes to their Top Men not supporting the preapproved narrative.

    None of this matters anymore. We are seemingly on the road to Civil War 3.0 but we won’t be getting a Bill of Rights or a 14th Amendment from the aftermath of this one.

    1. “We are seemingly on the road to Civil War 3.0 but we won’t be getting a Bill of Rights or a 14th Amendment from the aftermath of this one.”

      Not long before Nixon resigned, he had gotten painted into a corner, and there was some speculation regarding his control over the military/the military’s loyalties. As much of a scumbag as he was, it seems he never made any effort at all in that direction.
      Here, alternatively, we had various security agencies actively plotting against a legally-elected, sitting POTUS, hoping they might invoke the 25th, on the flimsiest evidence, seemingly because he did not comport himself as they desired.
      In all of my experience and reading,THAT is the closest the US has come to a coup, and it was too close for comfort; those people ought to answer for their actions.

      1. This is a million times worse than Watergate.

        As was the Clinton reelection campaign selling out national security to China in ’96

  23. When is Paul Rand completely deep-throating Trump?

    1. “When is Paul Rand completely deep-throating Trump?”

      You should seek help for your TDS, or we can hope it’s permanently debilitating.

  24. When is Paul Rand completely deep-throating Trump?

    1. Whenever he’s not tending to his pumpkins.

      Wait a minute… All he does is tend to pumpkins!

  25. “Politicizing transparency is not a way to help Americans understand Russia investigation.”

    Yes it is, you moron! What Rand is asking for is far and away, precisely the MAIN GLARING QUESTION that we need to know in order to actually understand the Russia investigation.

    The deranged freaks rejecting Barr’s presentation of Mueller’s conclusion and clamoring for the full report are similar to the birthers who demanded to see Obama’s “long form birth certificate.”

    1. Except only one of those groups contained the oppo party establishment and leadership

    2. “The deranged freaks rejecting Barr’s presentation of Mueller’s conclusion and clamoring for the full report are similar to the birthers who demanded to see Obama’s “long form birth certificate.””

      And the lefty idiots demanding Trump’s tax returns; the IRS has them, in case they are unaware of that. Pathetic.

  26. It wouldn’t hurt to establish that opening the investigation was not politically motivated, before releasing stuff that is merely embarrassing to some officials and not evidence of real malfeasance. But the way Paul worded it makes it sound like he has sinister motives.

    1. “It wouldn’t hurt to establish that opening the investigation was not politically motivated”

      But the likely truth is that it was politically motivated.

  27. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

  28. “… is not a way to help Americans understand Russia investigation”

    What’s not to understand? This started out as a bought and paid for political smear by the Clinton campaign that was aided and abetted by the Obama administration, and its DOJ, FBI, and other three letter agencies, to spy on and undermine their opponent. And the perpetrators, Clinton, Obama, and the rest are getting away with it?for now.

  29. “… is not a way to help Americans understand Russia investigation”

    What’s not to understand? This started out as a bought and paid for political smear by the Clinton campaign that was aided and abetted by the Obama administration, and its DOJ, FBI, and other three letter agencies, to spy on and undermine their opponent. And the perpetrators, Clinton, Obama, and the rest are getting away with it?for now.

  30. “Politicizing transparency is not a way to help Americans understand Russia investigation.” Neither is putting it in the same hands that have botched the story for years…

  31. How about this:

    I want full transparency on the Clinton Email investigation. And everyone who knew about her unsecured server and emailed her thru it (POTUS). And the Clinton Foundation. And on Imran Awran and his work for the DNC and ties to Pakistani Intelligence. And why DWS ran interference for him and his crew. And the spying on the Trump Campaign.

    As long as we are wanting transparency…

    1. And Bubba’s meeting with Lynch on that plane.

  32. Yeah who cares if they is dummyin up those fisa warrants shitford

  33. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  34. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE?? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  35. Actually, this is a great way to let people know what the investigation was all about. Using it as political leverage exposes it for the political smear job that it was. Dogs should eat dog food.

  36. “That’s different, though, from thinking that the investigation of Trump was itself politically motivated. I don’t actually think it is”
    As far as we know the primary evidence used to open a counter intelligence investigation that morphed into a criminal investigation was the Steele dossier. The Obama administration was fully aware that it was a product bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. http://tinyurl.com/ybd4xhxk
    The motivation for producing the document and the ensuing investigation is by definition political.
    The document was not only not verified by the DOJ as required by statute, Steele has testified under oath that he was basically making shit up. http://tinyurl.com/y35knmkk
    So the Obama DOJ used an unverified Democrat document to smear the Republican candidate in the presidential election. But Scott doesn’t see any political motivation.

  37. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $72/hr on the . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21863 just working on the for a few hours. Read more on this site

  38. You sure are one naive guy Scotty my boy. If the public knew it was nonsense from the get go from the evidence available, how would the people with access to EVERYTHING not know it was a witch hunt? Pretty daft thinking on your part. They knew. That’s all it ever was.

  39. Rand Paul,
    Ask your father if libertarians are supposed to shill for freedom haters like Trump.

  40. what April implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can profit $6755 in 1 month on the . did you look at this site link

  41. Scot!!! You don’t think that the investigation of Trump was politically motivated?!?!?!?!

    That has got to be the most uninformed, down right stupid thing that I have ever seen on this site. And I read all the comments. Ones by Tulpa, too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.