Russia Probe

America Gets Ready for Mueller

The special counsel's report on two years of investigating Trump and Russian ties drops Thursday.

|

By this point tomorrow, America's focus will be on the contents of the report by special counsel Robert Mueller documenting the extent of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and what role—if any—was played by people in President Donald Trump's orbit or campaign.

The Department of Justice said that the nearly 400-page, redacted report will be provided to both Congress and the public on Thursday. Attorney General William Barr has already previewed some of the contents, telling the public that Mueller's investigation did not find collusion or coordination between people on Trump's side and Russian nationals accused of hacking into the Democratic leadership's emails and publicly releasing them. Mueller also said the report does not find Trump colluded or coordinated the Russian nationals accused of running secret social media campaigns and attempting to hack into voting systems. Furthermore, while Mueller didn't come to a determination as to whether Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation, Barr said the Justice Department concluded there wasn't enough evidence for criminal charges.

Nevertheless, Barr's four-page summary was never going to put this thing to bed. Americans want to see the full report, and they have a right to.

Some thoughts in advance about what to expect from the report:

Remember, this is supposed to be about Russian meddling, not just Trump. It's easy to forget that Mueller's focus was, in part, to determine the extent that Russians attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. It was not solely about whether Trump or Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn or anybody else requested or had Russia's help in affecting the outcome. Expect a significant portion of the report to focus on what the Russians were doing independently of the relationship to Trump's campaign.

It's also important to remember that as a result of Mueller's investigation, 13 Russian nationals were charged with various counts of fraud, identity theft, and conspiracy for their efforts to influence the election. Another 12 Russian intelligence officials were charged with the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

But really, we all want to read the Trump parts. Mueller's orders were to look for any potential links between Trump's staff and the Russian meddling.

In that sense, the investigation has been a bust for people who were hoping it would provide the ammunition to get Trump out of office. It's unlikely that the contents of the (redacted) report are going to differ that much from Barr's summary.

There were a number of people in Trump's orbit who were indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation. But none of the Americans charged with crimes connect in any way with the Russians who were charged with meddling. There are clear and obvious business ties between Trump and people in Trump's orbit and Russian officials, and some of those ties were pretty sketchy, but it appears that Mueller was not able to map out a direct connection between the two groups.

Did Trump and people around Trump hope to gain financially from a relationship with Russia? Most certainly. Did Russia hope a good relationship with Trump would influence American policy? Most certainly. But that's not the same as saying (or proving) that Trump, or people around Trump, coordinated anything illegal to alter the election outcome.

Expect a lot of chatter about the obstruction section. Because Mueller didn't decide whether Trump's attempts to stop the investigation count as obstruction, legal eagles and talking heads are going to examine that section with a fine-toothed comb for evidence that Barr is being inappropriately deferential to Trump.

That should make everyone uneasy. Not because of how we might feel about Trump, but because of how the federal government uses charges like obstruction and "making false statements" to throw people in prison when prosecutors are unable to prove the underlying crimes. Some people really, really want to believe that Trump must have done something to have kept Mueller from finding evidence of coordination with the Russians. So they are invested in trying to use obstruction to accomplish what the primary investigation could not: unseat Trump.

Some of the sketchiest federal indictments are due to this practice. James Comey (who Trump fired as FBI director) was responsible for indicting Martha Stewart and sending her to prison for obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, all over an insider trading case. Comey subsequently last year explained that he made the decision to charge Stewart because he had done so for less famous people who had lied to the FBI, so it wouldn't be fair to go easy on her because she was rich and famous. He didn't conclude that maybe sending people to federal prison for a year for lying was a terrible thing to do. He concluded that he wasn't doing it enough.

There will be redactions (and lots of them). Barr has made it clear the report will be redacted to conceal information presented to the grand jury, sensitive intelligence information, information that might compromise the privacy of some peripheral third parties, and information that could compromise other investigations.

The report will be color-coded so we'll know why parts are redacted. Democrats in Congress are already planning to demand access unredacted versions of the report. They should be permitted to see it. Arguably, Americans should be able to see more than we're going to see, just as we should be allowed to see more of what information the FBI used to justify surveillance on Trump's campaign staff in the first place. This could have brought down a presidency. We deserve to know how and why it happened.

This report is obviously not the last word. Trump's connections with Russia will remain a political issue for the remainder of his administration. Whether Trump's actions were corrupt, inappropriate, or just plain unpresidential are questions that can be answered in the voting booth.

In any event, when the report is released tomorrow, I'll be poring through it and pulling out the important bits for evaluation. I don't predict we'll learn anything we haven't already been told, or that we'll see any media responses we haven't already seen.

NEXT: D.C. Water Spent Nearly $4,000 On Its Wendy the Water Drop Mascot

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.

  1. If I were the individual responsible for hitting the return key to release the report to the world, I would do this:

    Host the report on a public-facing website for free download, but initially block all traffic suspected to originate from the DC metro area. Wait an hour. Unblock all that traffic and fax copies of the report to every fax machine on Capitol Hill.

    1. why

      1. Because you would be the most celebrated person in the unemployment line?

      2. It would be fun to simultaneously see DC melt down and see how little the rest of the country cares about any of this.

        1. ok that does make some sense lol

        2. I care. To the extent that I can rub the noses of progtards in Mueller’s exoneration of Trump. I also care because it may lead to Harr investigating and hopefully destroying some democrats.

  2. I agree that this won’t be the last word. It is interesting that Barr intends to drop this on a Thursday. That means he and the administration are pretty confident in the report. They’d drop it Friday night, otherwise.

    However, there are too many people invested in Trump’s downfall for this to put a nail in the coffin. Expect every phrase and word to be tortured by pundits to show their pre-determined outcome.

    1. “”Expect every phrase and word to be tortured by pundits to show their pre-determined outcome.”‘

      Also to include a lot of speculation on the redacted parts.

      1. The speculation is going to be delicious. They’re going to be throwing out hypothetical names left and right. It gives Trump’s opponents so many new ways to paint themselves into corners should the unredacted report ever come out.

    2. To be fair, since Friday is a holiday, releasing it on Thursday is the functional equivalent of releasing it on an ordinary, rather than Good, Friday.

      But they’re releasing it in the morning, not the evening, so you’re probably right.

      1. Hey, this Thursday is also Holy.

        1. By releasing it this Thursday, they’re also releasing it on a Maundy.

    3. If the MSM hadn’t shot their load about a million times over this already, then they might get somewhere won’t the public. At this point, it’s merely induced massive TDS fatigue in the public. The ONLY people that are focused on this are deranged progtards who don’t count anyway. Faggot morons like Tony, PB, and OP.

  3. If the unredacted report is released to the House, any bets on how long it’ll be before it’s leaked? I suspect that the less stuff there is that’s damaging to Trump, the longer it’ll take.

    1. I’m honestly shocked that it hasn’t been leaked yet. Mueller and Barr really run tight ships.

      1. Mueller leaked constantly. That the only new leaks are about their made-up obstruction theory says a lot.

        1. Did the Mueller team leak or was it just journalist using the guy who got the Mueller team coffee as a source?

          1. No, it was Mueller.

            E.g. It was leaked really early that the investigation was expanding to obstruction. The press reports treated it like “OMG Blormph obstructed too” rather than the more obvious “If they’re looking at obstruction, they’re not getting anywhere with the treason thing.”

    2. On the theory that there isn’t really anything incriminating in the report, they might not leak like a sieve, on the principle that if you can’t leak something bad about Trump, it’s better to leak nothing and let people preserve their illusions of his guilt.

      1. Hilarious. You honestly think there’s nothing in the report “bad about Trump” and that’s the reason Mueller didn’t leak? I’m guessing you believe in magic purple unicorns too. Sorry, but your theory probably won’t prove true. Here’s a couple of reasons why :

        (1) Mueller intensely looked at Trump and his associates for over two years. When has anyone ever looked at Trump closely for more than five minutes without finding stomach-churning sleaze?

        (2) We have a pretty good indication what one person discovered in the Mueller Report : Trump himself. Remember, the first week after the report went to Justice everything was sweetness and light. Kellyanne Conway was saying it was the “gold standard” of investigations. Trump said it was “great …. could not have been better”. Then 2April and full-stop. Suddenly it was relentless attacks on Mueller again.

        Nobody panics like Trump does, eh? The frantic tweets have been nonstop since. We can almost name the hour someone (who can read) warned DJT of the scorching to come.

        1. “(1) Mueller intensely looked at Trump and his associates for over two years. When has anyone ever looked at Trump closely for more than five minutes without finding stomach-churning sleaze?”
          So he’s done things you don’t like?
          TDS is rarely fatal, but we can hope.

        2. This whole post is just sad.

          1. Well, Mr. White Privilege, I hope you enjoy your last night of carefree rhetoric re Mueller. Come tomorrow, the idea there’s nothing “bad about Trump” in the report while look rather pathetic. Also the free run on “witch hunt” and “investigate the investigators” is gonna dry up pretty quick. There will be plenty to discuss / review, with the jokey “investigate the investigators” shtick back reduced to the tin-foil hat padded-walls brigade, where it belongs….

            1. (btw : What happened to the preview function?)

              1. Your posts are so stupid that the preview function killed itself rather than be forced to look at them.

            2. “Well, Mr. White Privilege, I hope you enjoy your last night of carefree rhetoric re Mueller. Come tomorrow, the idea there’s nothing “bad about Trump” in the report while look rather pathetic.”

              Keep it up. We are well aware that pathetic lefty losers are mounting wheels on the goal posts, getting ready to push them into the next time zone if required.
              First, it was ‘collusion with the Russkis’. When that was shown to be bullshit, it changed to ‘obstructing justice’; more bullshit.
              Now it’s anything ‘bad about Trump’, up to and including eating fried chicken with a knife and fork, right, you pathetic piece of shit?

            3. Seek help, loser. Mueller’s not taking you to Impeachment Land like you were hoping. Instead, he ditched you just like the cool kids did to you in middle school.

        3. Its really hard for me to believe that you could possibly hold a steady job, grb

          1. To be honest, that could be said of nearly all of the posters on this forum!

  4. “”Americans want to see the full report, and they have a right to.””

    As much as I would like to see the full unredacted report, we do not have a right to it.

    “”talking heads are going to examine that section with a fine-toothed comb for evidence that Barr is being inappropriately deferential to Trump.””

    I’m sure if an FBI agent changed some of the wording to protect Trump from an indictment team blue would have a cow. A big hypocritical cow.

    1. You’re right. Most of the redactions are for good reasons. The stuff redacted to protect ongoing investigations should be released as soon as those investigations conclude, though. The same with “sensitive intelligence information”. It should be released once it is no longer sensitive.

      1. Suppose in all of this spying they found out something particularly embarassing but not criminal about some innocent person. That would be in the investigation. Do you think that information should be released? I don’t.

        1. I think that would fall under “information presented to the grand jury, … information that might compromise the privacy of some peripheral third parties”. So no, that should not be released. Only the two specific cases I mentioned should be released, and then only eventually and if they don’t also fall into the grand jury or third parties categories.

        2. If it’s embarrassing to somebody on Team Trump, of course it should be released – that’s exactly why they’re bitching about the redactions. If it’s something embarrassing about say James Comey, well, that’s not even something a reputable journalist would bother mentioning. In fact, that’s how you can tell who’s a reputable journalist and who’s not – if they’ve ever said something potentially embarrassing about a Democrat, they’re not a reputable journalist.

      2. Law enforcement agencies should never release information when a prosecution is declined, that’s why grand juries exist. Do you like investigations into non crimes too? That’s literally a political witch hunt.

    2. As much as I would like to see the full unredacted report, we do not have a right to it.

      It’s just grandstanding. They know most people don’t realize that as the originating office, the redactions are going to be coordinated by Mueller’s team in conjunction with other agencies as needed, based on established Security Classification Guides.

      Anyone who’s legitimately pissed that the full report isn’t being released need to take it up with Mueller, not anyone in the Trump administration.

      1. “”need to take it up with Mueller, “‘

        Even goes beyond that. We have known for two years that the report was going to AG, and the AG would provide a report to Congress. They were not complaining about the rule until they didn’t get what they wanted.

  5. OK, enough already! Bring back Scotty’s ALT-TEXT!

    1. I know, right? And bring back Kray-kray who was also a man willing to alt-text.

  6. It’s also important to remember that as a result of Mueller’s investigation, 13 Russian nationals were charged with various counts of fraud, identity theft, and conspiracy for their efforts to influence the election. Another 12 Russian intelligence officials were charged with the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

    It is also important to note that none of those people will ever be extradicted or go to trial. Just because they were “indicted” doesn’t mean jack, especially since Meuller knew that none of these cases would ever see a court room. One of the indicted enties did fight back and it turned out they had indicted a company that didn’t even exist at the time of the alledged crime. Moreover, the legal theory behind these indictments, that lying about candidates is somehow a fraud upon the United States, is dubious to say the least.

    But hey, nothing says “libertarian” like paroting the talking points of the IC and the department of Justice and assuming anyone who is indicted of a crime must be guilty.

    1. Of course it’s libertarian to side with the intelligence community and a former FBI director against a President who explicitly ran against the Koch / Reason immigration agenda.

      1. Its only funny because its true.

    2. If the government had a case against the Russians, they’d have charged Assange.

      1. Assange is another one that I don’t think will ever see the inside of a courtroom.

        1. He’s destined for suicide by multiple gunshot wounds to the back of the head.

          1. You think he is going down Clinton style? Maybe.

          2. After shooting himself in the back of the head he will hide the gun.

  7. America has moved on. The libs and their media co-conspirators are the only ones that care. They really need to be more concerned about the shit storm coming their way. Buckle up.

    1. There is an axium in politics that says if it takes over 30 seconds to explain something, you have already lost the argument. That axium is generally true and especially true here. What the public heard was “no collusion with Russia”. No amount of parsing and long winded rationalizations for why Orange man is bad is going to change the public’s mind on that.

      1. “”No amount of parsing and long winded rationalizations for why Orange man is bad is going to change the public’s mind on that.””

        Perhaps too much credit to the people. Many are not satisfied with what they heard and demand to see the full report believing it will support their position despite what has been said. That’s the only reason many people want to see it.

        1. Many are not satisified. Those people are known as partisan Democrats and were never going to vote for Trump anyone. The people in the middle who could go either way largely heard “no collusion” and dimissed the entire thing.

      2. And if it takes 10 seconds to explain something, and the media don’t like you, you won’t get those 10 seconds.

        1. Thanks to social media and the web, they can’t stop you from getting your message out. This is why the major media so desparately wants the web and social media regulated.

          1. We just had Iglesias at Vox bragging about convincing Americans the tax cuts weren’t tax cuts. Fuck the media and fuck the left. My sister in law literally went on a 30 minute rant about the trump tax cuts last night because she paid state income taxes. She doesnt even itemize.

      3. Unfortunately, that’s why most people aren’t libertarians.

  8. So Reason now thinks the public has a right to know every single detail of every police investigation? Is that your final answer Scott?

    I may be old fashioned but I think grand jury and police investigations are redacted for good reason. That is, doing so is necessary to protect the privacy of innocent people caught up in the investigation. We know the nature of any criminal conduct here by who was indicted and what evidence if any is presented in open court.

    1. Personally I think Scott is just a fucking retard. He got pissy at me for pointing out that when X says Y, reporters shouldn’t report Y as fact. That’s not ideological.

      1. I think you may be onto something.

    2. “So Reason now thinks the public has a right to know every single detail of every police investigation?”

      Why not ? Why should the govt have authority to keep any secrets from us whatsoever? And ESPECIALLY when it comes to criminal investigations where they are employing the power of the stage to cage people up.

      1. So during the course of a police investigation it is revealed that you love wearing women’s lingerei and having your wife call you her bitch. Nothing criminal about that. But, pretty fucking awful idea to release it publiclly when it wasn’t criminal and you just got caught up in the investigation.

        OR suppose an investigation reveals you saying what a jerk you think your boss is. Should that be released? Should you lose your job even though you didn’t commit a crime and just had the misfortune of being collateral to an investigation? I don’t think so.

      2. Or what if you are informing on the mob. You want that released?

        1. When the president is the one under investigation it’s a different story. Public officials and especially a president should never hide behind the 5th Amendment the way Trump has much less attempt and conspire to obstruct the investigation. Mueller wasn’t only investigating Trump. He was investigating Putin which means Trump is working for Putin when he attacks the inquiry with his lies and disinformation. If y’all had any fucking sense or decency you’d be bothered by the way Trump abused his power to attack this investigation.

          1. If you weren’t such a retard, OP, you’d stop living in denial of reality.

          2. “Public officials and especially a president should never hide behind the 5th Amendment the way Trump has much less attempt and conspire to obstruct the investigation.”

            He did neither, you fucking liar.

  9. Prediction: No matter what information we get to see tomorrow, everyone will continue to believe exactly what they believe today, but harder.

    1. Pretty much. I see no reason why Barr would have lied in his letter. So, there isn’t going to be anything significant in this that we don’t already know. There will just be straws for the conspiracy theorists to grasp and the President’s supporters to dismiss.

      1. Yeah, why would you lie about something that you were already planning to release eventually. I guess the Dems are hoping that he’s just horribly biased and doesn’t realize it or something, because that’s the only way to explain his actions. He doesn’t seem to be particularly stupid or unaware, though.

        1. Remember too that Congress was going to see the report eventually. So, why would Barr lie about something he knew Congress would see? That makes no sense. And as far as him missing something significant, whatever you think of Barr I don’t think anyone thinks he is stupid. And he would have to be really stupid to miss something important.

        2. Like I’ve said before, anyone who actually believes that the information in the report itself will provide a completely different conclusion from what Barr wrote, is a goddamn retard.

          The DNC shills in the media will try and grab anything in a desperate effort to salvage what’s left of their dignity, but the only ones going forward who are going to give a damn about the Mueller report are dried-up, acid-fried Boomer shitlibs, the Hollywood media complex, and various commie grifter organizations that need to keep the donations flowing.

    2. Sadly, yes, but some of us will have a rational basis for continuing to believe exactly what we believe today, and some of us will be utterly irrational in continuing to believe it.

      And that’s an important difference, isn’t it?

      1. Yes. Some people will see four fingers because there will be four fingers. And some people will continue to see five fingers, even though the fifth finger is only in their imaginations.

        1. Either way, there will be fingering.

    3. Didn’t there used to be a thing, where you changed your opinions and thought to take into account “reality” as you acquired ever more information? It was called ‘learning’ or something like that.

      Do people still do that, or is it too 20th century for folks nowdaays?

      1. Post modern thinking ended that.

  10. Furthermore, while Mueller didn’t come to a determination as to whether Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation, Barr said the Justice Department concluded there wasn’t enough evidence for criminal charges.

    Criminal charges? For what?

    Do you not understand that you can’t obstruct an investigation into something that didn’t happen? When Trump said, at the beginning, that he didn’t collude with Russia he was telling the truth. That’s it.

    That the DNC/Media/Deepstate didn’t accept that doesn’t mean that Trump was obstructing anything.

    It could only be obstruction if there was something there to be obstructed.

    1. It could only be obstruction if there was something there to be obstructed.

      Martha Stewart says you’re wrong.

      1. She didn’t obstruct justice. She “lied to investigators”. Different crime. Trump never talked to the FBI. So he can’t be guilty of that.

        The bigger issue here is that the President can’t be guilty of obstruction for exercising his lawful authority. He had every right to fire Comey. Scott is as you point out retarded.

        1. Wiki : Stewart was indicted by the government on nine counts, including charges of securities fraud and obstruction of justice.

          Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators

          Andy McCarthy has been saying for a long time that some on Mueller’s team had “a novel theory of obstruction” and they’ve been battling with the others. Barr’s letter seems to support that. (I don’t trust any of the NR goons, but this is testimony against interest )

          1. Good catch. I don’t trust the NR goons either, except for VDH. But in fairness McCarthy has been doing some very good work on the Mueller charade.

            1. Credit where it’s due.

              It’s pretty funny watching him vacillate between praising Mueller as a man of integrity and saying he’s running an illegal investigation to cover up IC crimes.

              1. If McCarthy has been vacillating, it is largely because he could never bring himself to believe that Comey et al. would use releases of the Steele Dossier to Mother Jones as the supporting evidence that the Steele Dossier was anything but made-up speculation. I guess when he was at SDNY, they were a bit more above board than that.

    2. Barr said the Justice Department concluded there wasn’t enough evidence for criminal charges.

      Mueller almost certainly had already made that conclusion already. Otherwise, given he had the power to press charges, he would have. He simply wanted to put the administration in the position of announcing the conclusion he’d already reached.

      1. And Barr essentially confirmed this when he pointed out in his Congressional testimony that Mueller had the opportunity to provide feedback on the letter before it was released, and he declined to do so.

        If Mueller had any problem with anything Barr wrote, he would have said so before it was released and provided corrections.

        1. Exactly. Suppose Barr did lie or omit some paradigm shifting news. Do these retards think Meuhler would have just sat back and let that stand? I don’t think so.

          1. Yup. This is a guy who quashed leaked rumors about his investigation. I’m sure he’d just totally not say anything about his entire set of conclusions being lied about.

        2. Imagine if Barr admitted there was some wrong doing and said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, then admit that anyone else would not be given the same courtesy.

      2. That’s doesn’t make any sense. Barr would have it in bold print had Mueller determined there was no obstruction and attempted obstruction. Once again you fuckers prove just how divorced from reality you are.

        1. Fuckhead shitlibs have been divorced from reality for nearly 2.5 years now.

        2. Ordinary Person
          April.17.2019 at 9:07 pm
          “That’s doesn’t make any sense. Barr would have it in bold print had Mueller determined there was no obstruction and attempted obstruction.”
          Why? So idiots like you might finally understand? Forget it.
          He and most everyone here are quite familiar with the symptoms of TDS, and ignoring reality is one of the strongest; why waste time of fucking lefty ignoramuses?
          You LOST, you pathetic piece of shit. Grow up, get lost and quit pestering the adults.

  11. ‘how the federal government uses charges like obstruction and “making false statements” to throw people in prison when prosecutors are unable to prove the underlying crimes’

    There’s a reason that these “crimes” don’t appear at the state/local level. In law enforcement we expect people involved in criminal activity are going to lie to us and try to keep from getting arrested and charged. You have to prove the actual crime, not the lying about the crime.

    1. Doesn’t every crime, by the nature of any attempt to get away with it, involve some degree of an attempt to obstruct justice?

      Makes the whole obstruction “crime” seem like nothing more than a gotcha scam.

      1. Well when you actually hold power and have an ability obstruct the fucking investigation the crime of obstruction becomes alot more relevant. If Trump was any other politician he’d already be in prison. He’s got you people fooled like nothing I’ve ever seen.

        1. Stop lying.

          1. Not possible; you’re asking that piece of shit to stop posting.

      2. Why would they do that?
        “In other news, lead DA [redacted] announced that he was running for mayor on the basis of his 98% conviction rate.”

  12. The Barr summary literally quoted the Mueller report’s final conclusions on both collusion and obstruction. On the first, Barr quoted Mueller that no collusion happened. The Dems crying about Barr’s summary forget that Barr already gave them the most important part of the report verbatim. Same for the obstruction issues. And the fact that Barr, Rosenstein, and through tacit consent Mueller all concluded that there was no merit for obstruction is also completely ignored. The Dems characterize the summary as the work of Barr, just Barr, and only Barr in an attempt to cover for Trump. That characterization is either a patent lie or is evidence of literally zero critical thinking skills. Both of which disqualify them from being considered as having anything to say that is worth more than my cat’s turds.

  13. I, for one, am ready. I have five TVs set up in the living room to stream live reports all day. Just got back from the grocery so I would be stocked up with plenty of food and drink. Don’t want to miss a minute of insightful commentary and twitter posts.

    1. Taking one for the team, are you?
      Perhaps a nice chart of goal post locations would help:
      Start with “Russky Collusion Gets Trump Elected!!!” on the left, move to “Trump Met With Russkies!!”, then “Trump Obstructed Justice!!” and more. Prolly several legal-pad lengths to “Trump Is a Big Poopyhead!!” on the right; you should be able to time the movements the same way you watch the radar for the weather.

      1. Might just go with I Dream of Jeannie reruns on Netflix though. I still have a thing for her.

        1. Understandable.
          I was curious as to whether you were really willing to deal with CNN for an entire day.
          I’m not up to it.

          1. Barbara Eden was prohibited from showing her belly button by the censors.

            Then what was up with astronaut Tony Nelson and his best friend Captain Rodger Healy? Then the shrink shows up.

            I expect this thing tomorrow to be just as silly and less entertaining.

            Nah I am having an ordinary day tomorrow. Got a few things to do then work.

  14. I agree that this won’t be the last word. It is interesting that Barr intends to drop this on a Thursday. That means he and the administration are pretty confident in the report. They’d drop it Friday night, otherwise.

    However, there are too many people invested in Trump’s downfall for this to put a nail in the coffin. Expect every phrase and word to be tortured by pundits to show their pre-determined outcome.

    Deposit via pulsa

  15. I’m going to meditate tonight and clear my mind of everything I already know (shouldn’t take long) about Trump and Russia so that I can properly appreciate these findings. Trump swears his campaign never even contacted Russians. I can’t imagine we’ll discover anything that contradicts these sworn statements.

  16. “Trump swears his campaign never even contacted Russians.”

    I was certain you’d show up and add to your bullshit and general dishonesty totals.
    Got a cite for that claim? I mean, if he wins, he’s to be in charge of international relations, so dealing with the Russians is one of the activities he’s going to have to do.
    But I’ll bet you can find some VOX BS if you really try. Go ahead and I’m sure plenty of us here will be willing to stuff it up your ass.

  17. Personally, I’m hoping the release focuses attention on the attempted coup and gets some investigations going there.
    Those scumbags need to be tossed in the slammer.

  18. Gog blesses America. Putin must die! That’s all I can say

  19. Even Chris Wallace of FOX News described the Barr presser as gentle, sensual scrotum work for Trump. Anyone who has done any research into Barr’s history as a Republican hatchet man should never have assumed he was there for any reason of truth or justice. Of course most of the idiots here, independent freethinking libertarians that they are, will take the executive branch’s spin as gospel, no need to exercise their brains further.

  20. […] Reason‘s Scott Shackford explained Wednesday, federal prosecutors often use obstruction of justice to get convictions. If they can’t find […]

  21. […] Reason‘s Scott Shackford explained Wednesday, federal prosecutors often use obstruction of justice to get convictions. If they can’t find […]

  22. […] Reason‘s Scott Shackford explained Wednesday, federal prosecutors often use obstruction of justice to get convictions. If they can’t find […]

  23. […] Reason‘s Scott Shackford explained Wednesday, federal prosecutors often use obstruction of justice to get convictions. If they can’t find […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.