Mueller Investigation

The Mueller Report Just Dropped. Cue the Hot Takes!

More thorough coverage to come later.

|

Following a nearly two-year investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has released 448 pages of his findings, which you can read here.

Reason's Scott Shackford is poring through the report and will be writing about it later today. As I have yet to read the report in its entirety, I'll refrain from any analysis. But here are a few potentially noteworthy passages that CNN has highlighted.

On alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities.

On alleged obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump:

If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

And on whether Congress can find if Trump obstructed justice:

With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

Stay tuned.

 

 

NEXT: Sexual Quantum Meruit

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. So they didn’t prove him guilty of obstruction, but they also didn’t prove him not guilty. Just out of curiosity, how would they prove the latter?

    1. A secret recording of Vladimir Putin saying, “it’s too bad Donald Trump hasn’t opened himself to our blackmail by obstructing justice”?

      1. Trump RSVP’ed “No” to my collusion invitation.

      2. Ironically the report mentions how Putin didnt have a way to contact trump so he had someone call Hope Hicks to get a message/congrats to Trump. So much for being a puppet.

    2. An alibi for events where such activity supposedly took place?

      1. Of all the stupid posts you’ve ever made, that one is probably the worst.

        1. Chipper Morning Hydroencephalus “HE COULD HAVE AN ALIBI FOR ALL THE UNSPECIFIED DATES AND TIMES WHERE UNKNOWN ACTIVITY THAT WE CAN’T PROVE EVER HAPPENED HAPPENED!!”

    3. Same way you prove any other negative.

      Duh.

      Oh, wait…

      Geez, there really should be some sort of legal principle that encapsulates this problem….

    4. They CAN’T prove him guilty of obstruction because there WAS no crime to obstruct.

      They are trying to arrest a person who has not committed a crime for resisting arrest on a grand scale.

      And they are behaving as if their procedural problems–i.e. having no crime they can arrest him for IS a crime that he can be arrested for.

      1. Well, people get charged with resisting arrest all the time when there isn’t an underlying crime that they could have been arrested for. So while the concept is absurd, it’s something that can quite possibly happen and be considered legal by courts.

        1. That is an interesting analogy. I do think resisting arrest even arrest for a crime you didn’t commit, is a legitimate crime. I will have to think a while on why that is different from lying to investigators about a crime that didn’t happen or can’t be proven.

          My first impression is “damn you may have a point”.

          1. Hypothetical.

            Guy with a marijuana card gets pulled over on his way from the dispensary. He thinks the limit is lower than what he is carrying, and eats some.

            He finds out he was wrong about the limit. He still obstructed Justice.

            1. No actually he wouldn’ thave in that case. Obstruction is destroying evidence of a crime. In this case, since he was below the limit there was no crime and therefore none of the pot could be evidence of a crime.

              That is different than the resisting charge. Eating pot is not a crime on its own. It is eating pot that is evidence of a crime that is a crime. Assault, however, is a crime no matter who the target.

      2. Under our new definition of obstruction, pleading not guilty is now obstruction.

        1. OP, is that you?!
          /sarc

  2. Weird how burden of proof works wow

    prove your innocence you liars

  3. OK, before I read this report (which I’ll do any day now), let me give my initial reaction. Where are my talking points, hold on, let me find them.

    This shows the need for continued federal subsidies for beet farmers…no, wait, that was talking points on another issue. Anyway, whatever I was supposed to say, be sure that I believe it very strongly and sincerely.

  4. Looking through the redacted Mueller Report, glad to see the nude Trump pics blurred. Barf.
    The hidden camera hotel footage pics of HRC were also thankfully pixelated.
    The Bannon nudes frankly needed much more censor bars.
    Don’t understand why the topless Ivanka pics were blurred. C’mon man.

    1. And no Melina picks. What a rip off. Worst porn site ever!!

  5. Pee tapes or it didn’t happen

  6. I’m going to venture this guess: The report will be less interesting than the Special Counsel’s report on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

  7. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

    How can someone exonerate themselves of having bad intent? There is no proof or evidence Trump obstructed justice. But we can’t say he didn’t have a “bad intent”, so therefore he is not exonerated. Yeah, that makes sense.

    1. “There is no proof or evidence Trump obstructed justice”

      The Mueller report appears to contradict that assertion, you bigoted, authoritarian yahoo.

      1. No it doesn’t. If it did, even someone of your low IQ would be pointing to the evidence. There is no evidence. All they could say is “we have no evidence exonerating him” as if such evidence could exist.

        Go lie somewhere else.

        1. He clearly talked to his lawyers and others about ending the Russia investigation on multiple occasions. This is obstruction of justice.

          You can’t just say “wrap it up, already” to investigators who work for you. They get to investigate for as long as it takes, in whatever direction they’d like.

          A year clearly wasn’t enough… even if they already pretty well knew what did and didn’t happen. Two years clearly wasn’t enough… even though they had already long ago concluded that there was nothing to find (on illegal collusion with Russian agents). They still had the opportunity to attempt to extort Trump associates to try to get one of them to make up reveal something on Trump.

          1. re: “He clearly talked to his lawyers and others about ending the Russia investigation on multiple occasions. This is obstruction of justice. ”

            No, it’s not. You can talk to your lawyers about the bank you just robbed all you like. In fact, that might be a necessary part of preparing the defense of your case. That’s not obstruction of justice.

            re: “You can’t just say “wrap it up, already” to investigators who work for you.”

            Yes, you can. That’s what it means to have people who work for you – you get to tell them what to do. If they are independent, then they don’t work for you.

            If your comment was intended to be sarcasm, well, I know that I am sometimes sarcasm-impaired. All I can say is that if that was your intent, it was not obvious.

            1. He was being sarcastic.

      2. “The Mueller report appears to contradict that assertion, you bigoted, authoritarian yahoo.”

        Only toi those afflicted with TDS, you bigoted asshole.

      3. The Mueller report appears to contradict that assertion, you bigoted, authoritarian yahoo.

        Your source quote fell off, hicklib.

      4. There have been many jerk off progressive racists that have infested this place over the years, but the Rev. Arthur has to be among the worst.

        To quote the great Norm MacDonald: He’s a real jerk.

        1. The biggest bigots are the ones who try to hide their bigotry by claiming everyone else is a bigot.

    2. Yeah how is this different from the result of any investigation or trial where somebody is found not guilty. “We can’t find any evidence of guilt but there might be some out there” can be said about every single investigation ever.

      1. Unless the suspect’s name is Hillary Clinton, and the investigator is James Comey. Then the rules are different.

      2. Not quite “every single investigation ever”. Sometimes, the result of an investigation or trial is conclusive proof that the alleged crime did not occur, or was committed by someone other than the accused. Certainly, that result is pretty uncommon, but it does happen sometimes.

    3. I took it as a perfectly neutral reading. We found no evidence of a crime. Based on that finding, we can’t legally/investigatively exonerate him of obstructing the investigation of a crime he didn’t commit.

      This, IMO, is a perfect counterpoint to *Comey*’s finding of Clinton to be negligent but not legally culpable.

    4. And how can you ever determine conclusively that no criminal conduct occurred? It’s always possible that there are things they don’t even know about at all. Some people are using some pretty absurd standards here.

      1. Yes Zeb they are. The standard seems to be that if the state cannot prove your innocence, we are allowed to assume you are guilty even though there is no evidence of your being so.

  8. >>>If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

    may as well say nothing.

    1. Dillinger, I have no clear evidence you don’t fuck sheep, so I am unable to reach judgement or exonerate you of being a sheep fucker.

      That is literally what they are saying.

      1. The government does this all the time to defendants that are acquitted.

        An acquittal does not mean innocent in the eyes of the judges, police, and courts.

        An acquittal should mean that your record can be expunged or hidden, since as far as a jury is concerned, you are innocent.

        1. “since as far as a jury is concerned, you are innocent.”

          Not true. An acquittal may simply mean that the jury decided “the defendant is a scumbag, but not as big of a scumbag as the government tried to claim he was”.

          Or an acquittal may mean that the jury decided “yes the defendant is guilty, but the law itself is wrong” (aka jury nullification).

          An acquittal is not the same as innocence.

          1. “Not true. An acquittal may simply mean that the jury decided “the defendant is a scumbag, but not as big of a scumbag as the government tried to claim he was”.”

            Which equal “innocent”, in case you missed it.

            1. No, it could mean “the defendant is guilty of something, just not the thing that the government tried to prove”.

              1. isn’t everyone?

              2. “No, it could mean “the defendant is guilty of something, just not the thing that the government tried to prove”.”
                Which equals “innocent”, in case you missed it.

              3. “”No, it could mean “the defendant is guilty of something, just not the thing that the government tried to prove”.”‘

                Well in this case they were trying to uncover proof of collusion and obstruction. So maybe Trump is guilty of something else.

                1. wears his ties too long.

                  1. Eats fried chicken with a knife and fork.

                    1. Ketchup on his steak..

                      Oh wait he should actually be charged for that one…

            2. No, I don’t think that does equal “innocent”.

              No one is proven innocent in a trial. That’s why “not guilty” is the verdict. A jury (if they are doing their job properly) could be 80% sure of the guilt of a defendant and acquit. I wouldn’t call that a finding of innocence. Our system is designed with a good chance that some guilty people will occasionally be acquitted built in. And that’s one of the best things about it.

              1. Here’s the problem with that. Again, in the eyes of the law, they are functionality equivalent. So while your personal position is “that doesn’t mean he’s innocent” that doesn’t preclude others from thinking he is. Because legally, it is the same either way.

                1. In case it isn’t clear, I do think that this report should mean that people get over this and stop with all the collusion/obstruction nonsense. I’m not in the least suggesting that it’s reasonable to continue to think that Trump is likely guilty of any of this.

          2. “An acquittal is not the same as innocence.”

            In the eyes of the law they are wholly synonymous.

            1. In the eyes of the law they are wholly synonymous.
              That may be true, but in reality they are not. Sometimes the prosecution screws up. Sometimes a guilty person hid their crime really well.

              And I;m not even sure it is true. Acquittal means they can’t charge and try you again. But there isn’t really a legal concept of “innocence”. Just guilty or not guilty and procedural rules about what future charges you can bring.

              1. “That may be true, but in reality they are not. ”

                To YOU. But you aren’t the arbiter of that for anyone but YOU.

                If there isn’t enough evidence to support a charge after a huge two year investigation, it is absurd to insist someone can’t see that as innocence.

                1. If people want to see it as innocence, I won’t try to stop them. As a practical matter, I consider this to mean that Trump is innocent of the things the investigation investigated.
                  But it is an important distinction in our legal system. People who might serve on juries, for example, should understand how “not guilty” isn’t the same as “innocent”.

                  1. No one was arguing otherwise Zeb.

                    1. I shouldn’t say that. I, and most of the responses I’ve seen, we’re not arguing otherwise.

            2. The point of the distinction is that our standard is not “you must be found to be wholly innocent” but rather “we must be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’re guilty.”

              Thus, two options: “guilty” vs. “not-guilty.” We don’t declare people to be “innocent” because we, quite sensibly, don’t see it as relevant to the legal proceeding.

              Can you be proven “guilty?” No? Then you go free. “Innocent” has nothing to do with it, nor should it.

          3. An acquittal is not the same as innocence.

            Damn, that Bleeding Heart Libertarians site has really fucked up whatever basic reasoning skills you once possessed.

            An acquittal means you didn’t commit the crime you were accused of–i.e., you’re innocent.

            1. “An acquittal means you didn’t commit the crime you were accused of–i.e., you’re innocent.”

              No, it means that the state cannot prove, to the satisfaction of the jury, that you committed the crime.
              It does not mean that you didn’t commit the crime.
              For example, suppose the state spoils the forensic evidence that would prove the defendant is guilty of the crime. The defendant actually committed the crime, but the state fucked up their obligations by ruining the evidence. The jury may justifiably acquit the defendant based on the spoiled evidence, but that doesn’t mean that the defendant didn’t actually commit the crime he was accused of.

              1. I’ll just quote the post you failed to address

                ThomasD
                April.18.2019 at 12:41 pm
                “An acquittal is not the same as innocence.”

                In the eyes of the law they are wholly synonymous.

              2. No, it means that the state cannot prove, to the satisfaction of the jury, that you committed the crime.
                It does not mean that you didn’t commit the crime.

                It doesn’t mean you’re guilty, either.

      2. I’m pretty sure they’re just saying that they saw his pants unzipped and his dick out and there was a sheep in the vicinity that said Bah! Actual sheep fucking was inconclusive.

        1. No. they are not saying. If they had that, they would have evidence. They admit they have no evidence.

    2. Well they had to say SOMETHING after two years and millions of dollars and untold hours expended.

      1. “we got bupkiss”. sorry everyone.

        1. “But we’re not saying that he’s not a poopy-head.”

    3. Well, to say *nothing* about obstruction of justice, would have been out of bounds for Mueller. But he seems to be saying that they can’t prove that Trump did obstruct justice, but he seemed to be wandering close to the line however.

      1. but he seemed to be wandering close to the line however.

        Which means he didn’t obstruct justice. It is really that simple.

        1. “can’t prove he obstructed justice” is not the same as “didn’t obstruct justice”.
          I would expect a lawyer such as yourself to understand these fine distinctions.

          1. “can’t prove he obstructed justice” is not the same as “didn’t obstruct justice”.
            Pretty much is, since it’s not possible to prove the opposite.

            1. Your Chemjeff Derangement Syndrome is clouding your basic logic skills.
              For example, you can’t prove that I am wearing pants right now.
              That is not the same as “I’m not wearing pants”.
              Get it?

              1. Your Chemjeff Derangement Syndrome is clouding your basic logic skills.
                For example, you can’t prove that I am wearing pants right now.
                That is not the same as “I’m not wearing pants”.

                Which has nothing to do with the results of a two-year investigation that actually resulted in indictments for process crimes outside the scope of said investigation, but none within the scope.

                1. Jeff is stupid and desperate. It’s a very bad day for him because now his cries of “release the report” have backfired and he’s left grasping at straws.

                  1. Here is what I don’t get about Jeff or really any of the board’s lefty trolls. This is about as big of a loser hill to die on as there can be. You would think Jeff would take the side that this investigation is bullshit for no other reason than it would insulate him from the charge of being a hack with the added benefit of not having to defend the indefensible. But, no, Jeff can’t do that. These people really are NPCs.

                    1. John, do you see me anywhere actually claiming that Trump obstructed justice?

                      This whole report revealed just how big of shills the Team Red cultists really are.

                      “Can’t prove he committed a crime” is equivalent to TOTAL EXONERATION at least in the mind of Trump.

                    2. Jeff has TDS. Bad. That explains it as good as anything I think.

                    3. You are so desperate to defend Trump and “own the libs” that you’ll deny basic logic.

                      Fine, whatever, you believe Trump is totally and completely innocent of everything. *But that isn’t what the report says*. That is what you WANT the report to say, but that isn’t what the report says.

                    4. Jeff,

                      If you don’t think Trump obstructed justice, then your claims that “we can’t prove he didn’t” are meaningless. So either admit that claim is irrelevent because there is no evidence he did. Or admit that you think he did despite the lack of evidence.

                    5. I don’t know if he obstructed justice, John. This report doesn’t prove that he did, but it does not rule out the possibility either.

                      You seem to think that “can’t prove he did” is close enough to TOTALLY INNOCENT. I don’t, as a logical matter.

                    6. I don’t know if he obstructed justice, John. This report doesn’t prove that he did, but it does not rule out the possibility either.

                      But it doesn’t provide any evidence that he did despite two years of work. If a two year investigation resutling in no evidence of guilt won’t cause you to conclude the President is innocent, nothing will.

                  2. Perhaps you can explain how “can’t prove a claim is true” is logically equivalent to “the claim is false”.

                    1. Perhaps you can explain how “can’t prove a claim is true” is logically equivalent to “the claim is false”.

                      As a strictly logical matter it isn’t. As a practical matter it is because in the real world where you have to have facts to back up your assertions, it is impossible to prove a negative. That is all you are doing here. Trump can’t prove the negative that he didn’t do it, therefore you are entitled to believe he did despite the complete lack of evidence showing that.

                      Not only are you dishonest, you have the worst grasp of logic and argument of anyone I have ever seen. Tony is more honest and coherent than you are.

                    2. When the claim is false.

                      Are you THAT stupid Jeff? You seem intent on proving you are.

                    3. Perhaps you can explain how the two scenarios are equivalent.

                    4. The report says “we can’t prove Trump obstructed justice”.
                      You, and John, etc., want to turn that claim into “the report proves Trump didn’t obstruct justice”.
                      Those two claims are not synonymous on their face.

                    5. They are in the eyes of the law.

                    6. The report says “we can’t prove Trump obstructed justice”.
                      You, and John, etc., want to turn that claim into “the report proves Trump didn’t obstruct justice”.

                      Yes, the complete lack of evidence that someone committed a crime is a sound rational basis to conclude that they are innocent. As a strictly logical matter is it possible that they are guilty despite the lack of evidence? Sure. Why is that? Because we can never know what we don’t know and be totally satisified that we haven’t missed something. That is just a fancy way of saying that one cannot prove a negative.

                      In the real world, when there is no actual evidence of someone committing a crime, you conclude they are innocent, because if you don’t, then you can never conclude anyone is inocent.

                      As I explain above, you are just expecting Trump to prove a negative.

                    7. You, and John, etc., want to turn that claim into “the report proves Trump didn’t obstruct justice”.

                      Again, because you can’t prove a negative. And after two years of Mueller’s team having complete access to every piece of communication and documentation, combined with an expanded authority to indict people for crimes beyond the scope of the actual investigation, with nothing to show regarding the whole point of the investigation in the first place, then you should probably accept the reality at hand.

                    8. This is a very silly argument. Some people are arguing about the legal state of things, some people are just arguing about truth and logic.

                      But here’s why the distinction still matters practically: Congress could theoretically impeach and will probably at least talk about it a bunch. The normal procedural rules don’t apply there. If they pass impeachment, then that’s that. So until that’s put to bed (and I hope it is soon, because this has all been fucking stupid), it’s still a relevant distinction.

                    9. Zeb, I don’t think Pelosi will go for an impeachment and will try to prevent one.

                    10. Zeb, some people have CDS. They will argue with me even if I’m right because they can’t be seen to let my supposedly tawdry lefty bespoiling words contaminate Reason.

                    11. “Zeb, some people have CDS”

                      See? Jeff making it all about Jeff again.

                      It would be funny if it weren’t so obviously a symptom of severe mental illness.

                    12. “See? Jeff making it all about Jeff again.”

                      I’m not the one who spent weeks lying about and harassing a certain person and annoying everyone else in the process just so he could threadjack and make the discussion all about himself.

                      You really are a piece of work.

                    13. It doesn’t matter what I write. Tulpa will respond to it and criticize it no matter what. That is Tulpa’s version of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

                2. It has everything to do with basic logic skills.

                  “Can’t prove he obstructed justice” is not the same as “he didn’t obstruct justice”.

                  I understand that Team Red shills want to obscure the distinction between those two claims because they are just pimps for Trump.

                  But I would expect someone with some intellectual honesty to forthrightly acknowledge the difference.

                  1. You wouldn’t recognize intellectual honesty if it ran you over with the forklift you use to move your goalposts.

                  2. I can acknowledge the difference.

                    Intellectual honesty would also point out that you can not use it as evidence that Trump is guilty

                    1. Yes Vic. If the report said “we have evidence that Trump did this but it is just not compelling enough for us to believe we could prove it in court” that would be one thing. In that case, I would be perfectly rational to conclude that it is possible or even likely that Trump is guilty but just skated.

                      That, however, is not what the report said. The report said they had no evidence that he obstructed justice but couldn’t prove he didn’t. In this case, you cannot take the lack of evidence of innocence as evidence of guilt.

                    2. “” In this case, you cannot take the lack of evidence of innocence as evidence of guilt.””

                      That’s the point I was making.
                      “Intellectual honesty would also point out that you can not use it as evidence that Trump is guilty”

                    3. My interpretation of what I’ve seen so far is that they are saying “we don’t find anything that rises to the level of obstruction, given no underlying crime, but Trump & his folks sure told a lot of pointless lies for people who believed themselves to be innocent of wrongdoing.”

                      The hope, it seems to me, as Zeb pointed out, is that someone else will decide to make more of a soft-process issue out of it, if nothing else by casting blame on Republicans for obstructing a “legitimate” impeachment process.

                  3. Couldn’t reply above so will here.
                    Chemjeff argues that sexually assaulting children while awaiting an asylum hearing shouldn’t disqualify the rapist from receiving asylum in the US.
                    Despite raping children, the refugee still has a “right” to, or “deserves, residency and aid from the US.
                    And further any opposition to this stance equals support for persecution.

                    1. Hey Nardz,
                      Why don’t you attempt actually quoting what I said on the matter, instead of stuffing words in my mouth.

                3. Seems to me that this subthread isn’t about the investigation, but about the meanings of “innocent” “guilty” and “not guilty”.

                  1. No, it’s about Jeff making it about Jeff and what Jeff wants to argue and insist upon.

                    1. I guess. I really don’t see him saying anything incorrect or particularly outrageous, though. Just seems like another pointless nerdy debate.

                    2. Well, that’s what Jeff turns things into when he is wrong on substance.

                  2. “Seems to me that this subthread isn’t about the investigation, but about the meanings of “innocent” “guilty” and “not guilty”.”

                    Of course that’s what it is about. But the CDS’ers around here want to argue with me even when I’m logically correct.

                    1. You’re a fucking lefty ignoramus.

                    2. And you’re a bitter disgruntled curmudgeonly tribal warrior who would rather see leftists lose instead of advance the cause of liberty.

                    3. Of course that’s what it is about. But the CDS’ers around here want to argue with me even when I’m logically correct.

                      Jesus Christ. You’re a bigger whiner than Trump.

              2. chemjeff radical individualist
                April.18.2019 at 1:20 pm
                “Your Chemjeff Derangement Syndrome is clouding your basic logic skills.”

                No it isn’t. You’re a fucking lefty ignoramus.

          2. A lawyer seems to understand fallacies about proving a negative.

          3. Ok, since you’re fucking stupid.

            “but he seemed to be wandering close to the line however.”

            That means HE DIDN’T CROSS THE LINE. So your response to John is both off topic and moronic.

            1. And dishonest. Like I say below, his dishonesty is really pathological.

              1. Yes that too, but with Jeff it’s a given.

          4. Except that “can’t prove obstructed jusice” is not what you said. You said and I will quote it to you again. but he seemed to be wandering close to the line however.

            That means he didn’t do it. Walking close to the line is another way of saying he didn’t cross it.

            Your dishonesty really is pathological. I never seen anyone before you who would bald face lie about their position when that position is not two inches above where you are lying.

            Do you even realize how dishonest you are or are you so far gone you have no idea?

            1. “Except that “can’t prove obstructed jusice” is not what you said.”

              That is what I said. See above.

              “But he seems to be saying that they can’t prove that Trump did obstruct justice,”

              “That means he didn’t do it.”

              Shill harder, John. You know full well that “can’t prove he did it” is not the same as “he didn’t do it”.

              1. Sometimes it is. You are trying to make that case that it never is.

                And you’re failing badly.

              2. It is not what you said. You said they had no evidence he did it but he seemed to wander close to the line. How many times do I have to quote that?

                You just admitted he didn’t do it. Note you didn’t say “but he seems to have done it and gotten away with it”. You said “but he seems to have wandered close to the line”. If you had said the former, you would have a point. But you didn’t. You said the latter and admitted that the most damning thing that can be said is that he “wandered close to the line”, which means he didn’t do it.

                Again, you are the most dishonest person I have ever seen in my life. Do you really think no one reading this notices?

                1. We all notice. And then when he moves the goalposts, and tries desperately not to sit he was caught, we notice that too.

                  He isn’t interested in honestly discussing anything. If he was, he would excise outbursts like “his cultist followers” from his discourse. Instead, he defends their use while simultaneously trying to clarify he wants honest discourse.

                2. Good Lord John. Shill harder!

                  “You said they had no evidence he did it”

                  That is false.

                  “You just admitted he didn’t do it.”

                  That is false.

                  “Note you didn’t say “but he seems to have done it and gotten away with it”.”

                  I think that is a possibility.

                  “You said “but he seems to have wandered close to the line”. ”

                  I think that is how the report is characterizing what he did, not what I think personally happened.

                  1. You said they had no evidence he did it”

                    That is false. Really?

                    You said they couldn’t prove it and haven’t provided a single example of any evidence he did. On what basis should anyone conclude that you are not admitting there is no evidence? If there is provide it because no one else sees it.

                    I think that is how the report is characterizing what he did, not what I think personally happened.

                    So the report says he didn’t do it. If you are amditting that, then how can you claim Trump could have done anything? Are you saying the report is wrong?

                    1. Here you go John with your projection.

                      “You said they couldn’t prove it”

                      That is true.

                      “and haven’t provided a single example of any evidence he did.”

                      That is false.

                      “On what basis should anyone conclude that you are not admitting there is no evidence?”

                      Because I didn’t say “no evidence”. I said “they couldn’t prove it”.

                    2. “So the report says he didn’t do it.”

                      That is false.

                    3. “and haven’t provided a single example of any evidence he did.”

                      That is false.

                      Oh really?

                  2. What’s your point Jeff?

                    Anyone can say just because they don’t find evidence doesn’t mean you are innocent. It’s true, but it doesn’t really matter. It comes across as someone unwilling to accept the outcome of an investigation.

                    There is no evidence that you attempted to kill the president. That can mean you’re not innocent of the claim. What should we do about it?

                    1. Are you interested in what the report actually says, or are you interested in what you want the report to say?

                      If you are interested in what the report actually says, then it says “we can’t prove Trump obstructed justice”.

                      If you are interested in what you want the report to say, then it says “Trump is TOTALLY EXONERATED”

                    2. “”If you are interested in what the report actually says, then it says “we can’t prove Trump obstructed justice”.”‘

                      And no need to speculate any further. Unless you want to add something that is not there.

                      I’m sure you intellectual honesty understand that investigators rarely ever exonerate. It’s not their job to do so. They either come up with evidence that leads to an indictment or not.

                    3. “Unless you want to add something that is not there.”

                      Then go tell that to John, who wants to add words to the report such as “Trump is innocent” and “There is no evidence of obstruction whatsoever”.

                3. AS USUAL John, you are projecting views onto me that you think I hold because you think I am a stereotypical lefty. No need to read what I actually write, because hey I’m just an NPC, right? Perhaps if you were to actually read what I write before you go off on your little tantrums you would actually have an honest discussion.

                  1. You’d just lie and move the goalposts like you always do.

                    You act like we don’t know you.

                  2. I keep reading what you actually write and then watching you lie about not 2 minutes later.

                    1. If by “lie” what you mean is “doesn’t conform to the words that John attempts to shove in my mouth”, then yes.

          5. There are no degrees of obstruction dumbfuck Jeff. something is either obstructed or it is not.

            1. “something is either obstructed or it is not.”

              Theaters would like to have a word with you about that.

              1. “Theaters would like to have a word with you about that.”

                Keep making an ass of yourself, Jeff. Fucking lefty ignoramuses are amusing.

      2. In the opinion of a TDS victim:
        “…but he seemed to be wandering close to the line however.”
        Thanks for the bullshit.

        1. Political theater reports about politicians not breaking any laws. How thoughtful and not completely repetitive. If HRC can “pass” one of these reports, I prefer not to give them any credence, thank you very much.

        2. I wander ‘close to the line’ every fucking day in a million fucking ways. Doing 14 mph in a school zone, mailing my IRS check on Monday, catching myself before I throw #2 plastic into the recycle bin…

          Jeff, you are a total shithead.

          1. I know, right? Holding the president to standards higher than his cultist followers hold him to is such a shitty thing to do.

            1. “Holding the president to standards higher than his cultist followers hold him to is such a shitty thing to do.”

              Need a hand with those goal posts, Jeff? Looks like a lot of work shoving them that far.

              1. Sevo, are you going to just reply to everything that I post with a “nuh-uh” type of response?
                You’re basically lowering yourself to the level of Tulpa with that attitude.

                1. “Sevo, are you going to just reply to everything that I post with a “nuh-uh” type of response?”

                  Blithering idiots deserve what they get.
                  And calling you on the goal post move it ‘way more than a fucking idiot deserves.
                  First, it was “collusion”; bullshit. Then “obstruction of justice”; more bullshit. Now it’s ‘I don’t like him!!!’; the whine of the slimy shits.

            2. “his cultist followers ” see, the idiot says shit like this, then gets salty when we laugh at his claims that he wants honest dialogue.

            3. If ‘holding to a higher standard’ means imposing legal culpability when no laws were broken then, yes you ‘radical individualist’ you can count me out.

              You wouldn’t know liberty if it smacked you upside your head.

              1. Actually on second thought, maybe I was mistaken. Maybe you are just too fucking dimwitted to recognize what my point was. so I’ll spell it out.

                ‘Wandering close to the line’ is also called abiding by the law.

  9. Just wonder does mens rea ever make an appearance in the report? Or can they not utter it because then us little people may start asking for it to be applied to us as well?

    1. It does. Barr, Rosenstein, and Meuler all seem to agree that obstruction of justice requires specific intent. And they all agree there is no evidence establishing any intent to obstruct justice on Trump’s part. But, they didn’t find any evidence he didn’t intend to do it, as if doing that were even possible, so they come out with this dodge that Trump is “not exonerated”.

      So, I guess the government finding no evidence sufficient to charge you with a crime is not being exonerated now.

      1. Unless your name is Jessie Smollet. then actual evidence is no longer proof of a crime. it all depends on who your friends are anymore and Trump has no friends

        1. Trump has tens of millions of friends in the form of the people who voted for him.

  10. When does Obama’s trial begin? I look forward to Michelle wailing as he’s frogmarched out of the courtroom.

    1. Would Michelle go to a men’s or women’s prison?

  11. As I have yet to read the report in its entirety, I’ll refrain from any analysis.

    Thank God for a bit of sanity today.

  12. We can’t prove he didn’t beat his wife but we also can’t prove he didn’t stop beating his wife. It was their job to make a decisson and they chose not to so as to maintain the present state of “we don’t have to work with a criminal president”

    1. We can’t prove he didn’t beat his wife but we also can’t prove he didn’t stop beating his wife. It was their job to make a decisson and they chose not to so as to maintain the present state of “we don’t have to work with a criminal president”

      Again, just like with Comey and Lynch earlier (well the opposite actually), his job wasn’t to convict the President, just turn the evidence and potential theory over to Barr. His report was “There’s no evidence he beat his wife. We also can’t prove he stopped beating his wife or obstructed us from finding any evidence that he may beat his wife.” Barr looked at the report and said “No collusion. No obstruction.”

  13. As I have yet to read the report in its entirety, I’ll refrain from any analysis.

    Booooooooo!

  14. I’ve said from the start this is going to turn out more like Benghazi than Watergate. More appropriate is the comparison to Whitewater, in which a dozen close Clinton associates were found guilty of crimes but they never found any evidence against the Clintons.

    Also, just a reminder that China was caught directly funding Democrats in the 1996 elections but we never got to the bottom of it because Clinton and his DOJ wouldn’t allow an independent counsel, against the demands of his own FBI director.

    1. Yeah, somewhat.

      But in Whitewater the other people were found guilty of crimes directly related to the exact transactions that the Clintons were involved in and managed to avoid charges. In this case the crimes had to do with unrelated financial transactions that earlier investigations had found to be not criminal. The same goes for at least one of the “lying to investigators” charges.

      And it is a good thing “obstruction” wasn’t on the agenda in the 90’s, because the case of the missing billing records is pretty much a slam-dunk for a felony obstruction case. But I guess nobody had the stomach for that one…

      1. When it comes to the Clintons, deleting emails under subpoena isn’t considered worthy of an obstruction charge. Think about that.

  15. Meanwhile, as we continue to allow ourselves to be distracted by this witch-hunt and the persistent performance art virtue-signaling of the progressives, there has been a flurry of violent incidents perpetrated by black men the victims of which have been pre-pubescent white boys, a pregnant white woman, and the fetus in the woman’s womb. To wit:

    (1) Landen Hoffman, the 5 year old boy who was thrown from the third floor balcony of the Mall of Mogadishu by Emmanuel Deshawn Aranda, a negro with a propensity to aggress;

    (2) A pregnant white woman was beaten by two Afro-Americans, one of whom kicked the woman and declared, “I hope he dies.” Their names: Tyrese D. Johsnon-Nurse and David Russell. The former is being held as he had an armed robbery beef pending and the latter, somehow, was granted bail by a Mike Dukakis appointed judge.

    (3) A black male was arrested for deliberately targeting two young white boys in a hit and run assault. The incident took place on April 5, when the negro, Oghaleoghene Altuno, 21, used his vehicle to run over the two boys, 11 and 12, in Aurora, Colorado.

    If the perps had been white males……?

    1. Yeah, we don’t do that here.

      We are about liberty, first and foremost. As to race-baiting and race wars… we are opposed to those on principle.

      1. The problem is that these things do happen. And refusing to admit that or talk about them in the same way that you would if the races were reversed just makes truth tellers out of the racebaiters.

        Black on white violence is a real problem in this country. Lying and pretending it isn’t is the easier thing to do but like all lies it only creates more harm in the long run.

        1. I’ve mostly always been just a lurker here, but I’ll agree with Cyto on this one.

          Violence is a real problem in this country. Focusing on whether it’s black on white, white on black, fuscia on aqua-marine, or whatever just exacerbates the underlying problems.

          1. Of course we already do focus on it heavily if it is white on black. There is no denying that and no amount of wishing will change that. Meanwhile black on white violence outpaces white on black violence by orders of magnatude.

            Are we just supposed to pretend that isn’t the case? What other facts are we not supposed to mention?

            I am sorry but if a statement is true, it should be said and certainly people have the right to say it.

            1. Sure, people can say whatever they want. I just don’t have to agree or participate in it, and I’ve got the right to express why I think it’s wrong.

              A large number of minorities have felt like victims for a long time, and that has pushed many of them towards collectivism. White folks have increasingly been trying to board the race victim train, which, inevitably, leads to more collectivist ideals and reasoning.

              The root of most violence comes from either outright hatred or at least a disregard for the rights of other individuals. Emphasizing racial divisions will only further sow disdain for individual rights.

              1. Sure, people can say whatever they want. I just don’t have to agree or participate in it, and I’ve got the right to express why I think it’s wrong.

                Sure. But what do you think is wrong here? Saying a fact that is true? You seem to be saying that because a fact is “emphasizing” something you don’t want said, it shouldn’t be said. I don’t see how that makes any sense. Stating a fact doesn’t emphasizing anything. If you think it does, that is your decision not the speaker’s decision.

                So, I will ask you again., what other facts do you think should not be said in the name of not emphasing bad things? Just how much lying are we supposed to engage in here?

                1. Too many who proclaim themselves to be libertarian continue to demonstrate that a bigger part of their weltanschauung is anti-racism. Stated alternatively, they are more committed to the cause of civil rights for some than they are committed to the cause of liberty.

                  Some libertarians continue to erroneously think that race-realism is incompatible with the NAP. They also continue to insist, notwithstanding the facts, that racism is a one-way street in which all of the traffic is being driven by whitey.

                  Such libertarians are more accurately described as bleeding heart libertarians who are more interested in virtue-signaling that they are good libertarians and that they are down with the dominant progressive anti-racist narrative.

                  Look at the likes of Cyto or our resident misanthrope, Sparky, or Chipper, who essentially claim it is race-baiting to set forth facts about inter-racial acts of violence. To them, holding the reparations racketeers accountable = Bull Connor.

                  Perhaps the Chipper and Cytos don’t care about reparations, but, those of us who cherish liberty do. One must be prepared to oppose collectivists of color who continue to insist upon the confiscation of Caucasian wealth because its whitey. In defense of one’s opposition to reparations, one is certainly justified in pointing to the horrific costs imposed upon others by black social dysfunction.

                  1. One must be prepared to oppose collectivists of color

                    By always making sure to tally up crimes by color-collectives so that we can keep things on the racial-group-level rather than the individual level?

          2. But it’s true that Blacks commit violent crimes at far higher rates than “whites” or other ethnic groups in the US, and that Black-on-white crime is so greatly disproportionate to white-on-Black crime and to the percentages of whites and Blacks in the population that we must conclude that Black criminals intentionally target whites. If we want to deal effectively with the problem of violence in our society, what we should be “focusing on” is the the truth and the facts, even when that is inconvenient or uncomfortable. We can’t ignore the racial aspects of the problem.

          3. Get the left on board with that and get back to me.

            1. My morals and principles aren’t dependent upon the actions of others or the circumstances of a given situation. Navigating the trials and tribulations of my own life is much more successful when I don’t delve into the concepts of moral relativism.

              1. My morals and principles say that the truth should be heard and facts should not be surpressed because they bring up unconfortable or hard issues.

                Your morals seem to say that whether one tells the truth is to some measure at least dependent upon whether telling that truth makes things harder.

                I think you are much more of a moral relativist than you think you are.

                1. He also seems to be ignoring the fact that he is losing.

                2. The vast majority of crimes in this country are committed by Christians.

                  That’s a true statement.

                  1. Show me where that is true and fine. I don’t think that is true but if you have a source that shows it is, then please show me. I would be curious to see it.

                    Meanwhile, what is your point? Do you think everyone else is a dishonest as you appear to be?

                    1. Meanwhile, what is your point?

                      My point is that you decide which collective element of someone’s identity is relevant.

                      Have you ever heard of the Sunday Truce among gangsters? The one so they can take their grandmas to church?

                      Farnham’s point is that a crime is committed by an individual, not the group to which you’ve decided they primarily belong. Just because a statement is “true,” that doesn’t make it the only statement that’s true, and it certainly doesn’t de facto make the statement relevant to any particular conclusion.

                    2. My point is that you decide which collective element of someone’s identity is relevant.

                      Applying reasoning to the facts leads to determining which aspects are relevant to the issue of violent criminality. Afro-Americans are not an arbitrary “color collective” like redheads or people with green eyes. Because of the legacies of slavery and segregation, they are a genuine sub-culture with validly discernible group characteristics which are relevant to their excessive violence and criminality. Simply noticing that our society is divided into sub-cultures and other groups with genuine differing characteristics is not a rejection of individualism nor an endorsement of collectivism. It’s just an acknowledgement of reality.

                    3. My point is that you decide which collective element of someone’s identity is relevant.

                      No I don’t. I never said you shouldn’t say this, assuming it is true. And it is a fair question to ask whether this is a coincidence or is there somethinng about Christians that makes them murderers. All are fair questions that should be asked and answered.

                      As far as the rest of your statement, it is irrelevent to my point. If you don’t think the facts we are talking about mean anything, fine. No one says you have to. But that doesn’t mean we can’t debate that or that people can’t say the truth whatever it is.

                    4. Afro-Americans are not an arbitrary “color collective” like redheads or people with green eyes.

                      In purely genetic terms “Afro-American” is considerably more arbitrary than ‘redheads’ or ‘people with green eyes,’ both of which indicate membership in a pretty narrow genetic group.

                      Once you say “Because of the legacies of slavery and segregation, they are a genuine sub-culture with validly discernible group characteristics” you are perfectly in agreement with Cornel West – i.e. the dysfunction in the American black community is a sociopolitical problem, not a racial one.

                      In that context remarking that “black on white crime is a bigger problem than white on black crime” is cherry-picking a specific fact that is not really helpful to the larger social conversation that is being evoked.

                      I think one of the ‘talking past one another’ things going on here is that LibertyMike raises a not-invalid point that once the conversation is “this collective needs to be compensated by that collective” it’s worth pointing out that once you start tallying victimization points between collectives you get lost in the weeds really fast. The end-point should be the realization that thinking of people collectively is unproductive.

                      If you want to claim that there are real social problems in the American black community, few people will argue with you. Once your argument trends toward it being some essential problem with “Blacks,” you’re getting into significantly more controversial territory.

                      Further, if your contribution to the conversation is limited to pointing out ways in which American blacks victimize American whites you’re only having half of the conversation, and such observations are often preludes to the assertion that the “African Race” is simply violent by nature and that “nothing can be done.” That’s when it becomes “shilling for racists.”

                    5. “Further, if your contribution to the conversation is limited to pointing out ways in which American blacks victimize American whites you’re only having half of the conversation”

                      That is the only half that they are interested in having, because they WANT the otherwise uninformed reader to fill in the blanks with their own latent biases.

                    6. And it is a fair question to ask whether this is a coincidence or is there something about Christians that makes them murderers.

                      Of course there isn’t. If there were, murder would be a ubiquitous, daily thing. We would all have body counts we would proudly display to one another.

                      The city of Oakland, CA, one of the most crime-ridden places in the country, is a city of about 400,000, with about 115,000 of those people being black.

                      Of those people, if every single crime committed in the city were committed by black people, about 2 out of every 1,000 black people commit crimes.

                      You have to walk past quite a number of ‘relevant truths’ before “black people commit more crimes than white people” becomes a significant one. Because, honestly, what is the point of making that observation and then declaring that your endpoint of thinking on the matter?

                      Keep in mind that this conversation started with LibertyMike’s context-free litany of black-on-white crimes.

                3. “My morals and principles say that the truth should be heard and facts should not be surpressed because they bring up unconfortable or hard issues.”

                  If that is your position, then be prepared to discuss *the whole truth*, and not just cherry pick the facts that you want to see discussed.

                  Instead, what I tend to see from the race-realist crowd, is a narrow selection of supposedly “dangerous facts” put on display, absent context and absent any sort of critical thought to understanding what they actually mean.

                  So if you want to discuss racial disparities in crime rates, go right ahead. But be prepared to discuss every aspect of it. Otherwise, you’re just narrative-pushing and water-carrying for the racists.

                  1. Regarding your last sentence, how so?

                    1. Without providing an understanding of what the facts mean, you’re just leaving it up to the individual to use their own biases and preconceptions to form conclusions. Which is the whole point of just posting statistics like “the crime rate for blacks is higher than it is for whites” without explaining why that might be the case.

                  2. So if you want to discuss racial disparities in crime rates, go right ahead. But be prepared to discuss every aspect of it. Otherwise, you’re just narrative-pushing and water-carrying for the racists.

                    Which part of “things that are true should be said” do you not understand? And no one can say the whole truth. They can only state the truth they know. Collectively we then come to some understanding of the truth. But you can’t do that unless you start somewhere.

                    1. But you can’t do that unless you start somewhere.

                      And you can’t do that if you start by declaring some parts of the truth are off the table because they’re “racist”.

                    2. “Which part of “things that are true should be said” do you not understand?”

                      With incomplete information, one does not know what the truth is.

                      So normally, if one is sincerely interested in the pursuit of truth, one will try to acquire as many facts as possible, analyze them, put them into context, and then try to reveal a greater understanding of the truth.

                      What tends to happen instead, with the so-called “race realists”, is that they just stop at the acquisitions of facts stage, without any desire of putting them into context or trying to reveal a genuine understanding of the truth. That is not the pursuit of truth. That is instead propaganda and narrative-pushing.

                      It is not wrong per se to state “under certain conditions, the crime rate for blacks is higher than it is for whites”. IF, however, one is sincerely interested in the pursuit of truth, it is wrong to simply stop there in your analysis. They WANT people to use these facts, absent context, to confirm their latent racism and conclude that blacks are inferior to whites. They DON’T WANT a deeper exploration of the context behind the statistics, because that would result in a questioning of one’s biases.

                      Facts are fine. Facts that are manipulated to push a narrative are not so fine.

                    3. “Far more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than vice-versa.”

                      True statement.

                      “The Trump Administration is actively trying to undermine the government and economy of Venezuela.”

                      True statement.

                      “Trump campaign staff had secret meetings with Russian operatives that they then lied about.”

                      True statement.

                      “The globe is warming.”

                      True statement.

                      Agreed that there should be no prohibition on speaking the truth. And there should be no prohibition on lying.

                      But you can’t be blind to the fact that one can lie with the truth.

                      By the same token, you absolutely should be free to say things other people think are racist. But other people should also be free to point out that you may be being racist without necessarily intending to be.

              2. The left doesn’t care.

      2. Thank you Cyto.

      3. Cyto,
        Sad to see, but as you can see from the responses, the alt-right view of race realism has taken hold here.

        1. Well, its sad to see that the progressive view of anti-racism has taken hold here. Such a view is marked by the following:

          (1) the intellectual dishonesty of equating criticism of reparations racketeers with Bull Connor;

          (2) the intellectual dishonesty of asserting that being critical of the propensity of black folk to engage in socially dysfunctional behavior is somehow antithetical to libertarianism;

          (3) the failure to acknowledge the magnitude of NAP violations committed by black folk against white folk;

          (4) the intellectual dishonesty of explicitly asseverating that those who recite the facts regarding the disparities of inter-racial crimes of violence somehow have abandoned the Anglo-American principle that justice must be adjudicated upon an individual basis. Put another way, Trayvon must pay for his sins, not those of Tyrone; and

          (5) the impotent defense of freedom of association.

          1. I agree with most of this but

            the failure to acknowledge the magnitude of NAP violations committed by black folk against white folk

            is where you are collectivizing, since, as you say “Trayvon must pay for his sins, not those of Tyrone,” which makes this observation about the “team-totals” of NAP violations irrelevant at best.

            1. One of the reasons I make such an observation is in the context of supporting the case against reparations. To wit, if one is intellectually challenged enough to persist in making a race-based claim for reparations, and one explicitly premises one’s claim upon the collective wrongdoings of whitey, a libertarian should not have a problem with another libertarian pointing out that the “team-totals” approach might not be such a good basis upon which to clamor for an even larger confiscation of whitey’s cash.

              Why should an individualist have a problem with this thinking?

              1. Why should an individualist have a problem with this thinking?

                Because it stops short of actual individualism. It’s the same mistake people so commonly make with philosophical deconstruction. “Flipping the script” is all well and good as a means of showing that the script is bullshit. The endgame is not declaring the flipped script to be the Truth – that misses the fundamental point.

                The comment you made that kicked this thread off was not made in the context of the ‘case for reparations.’ No one anyways near here raised anything about reparations. You were saying we’re being distracted from black-on-white crime by the Trump-Russia witch-hint. We are being distracted from lots of things by this – what makes black-on-white crime so special, given that no one here is talking about reparations?

                John McWhorter in the recent podcast made a much better and much more clearly relevant argument against reparations viz: we’ve already done reparations. We already have Affirmative Action. We already have the Community Reinvestment Act. We already funnel cash into black communities left and right. Is there a point where it’s “enough?” Clearly not. This is not the way forward.

                That’s an argument that doesn’t rely on collectivizing people such that “your group has hurt my group roughly as much as my group has hurt your group therefore I don’t owe you anything,” which accomplishes nothing because it still accepts the collectivist paradigm by which we’re still talking about what group owes what to whom based on what things members of those groups have done to members of the other groups.

                If you don’t shake off that paradigm, you’re going to lose that fight.

                The individualist argument is not “blacks also hurt whites,” it’s pointing out that “blacks could also be said to hurt whites, which underscores what bullshit it is to collectivize people.”

                1. No quarrel with much of what you write.

                  The arguments against reparations to which you refer and favorably cite are arguments that many of us here have made and will continue to make, including the two of us.

                  But, those arguments, affirmative action, fair housing, the Community Investment Act, minority set asides, also possess a collectivist attribute – the intended beneficiaries belong to a group.

                  No group owes anything to any other group. That does not thereby mean an individualist must accept the equality doctrine and that there are no differences between races.

                  1. “there are no differences between races.”

                    If you accept individualism, then – WHO CARES?

                  2. But, those arguments, affirmative action, fair housing, the Community Investment Act, minority set asides, also possess a collectivist attribute – the intended beneficiaries belong to a group.

                    Yes – and that is exactly what’s wrong with them. Once we accept the argument that “Afro-American” is a racially meaningless term and is in fact a social category constructed out of uniquely American sociopolitical and historical circumstances then, as Kmele so frequently points out, legally constituting them as a collective category and then incentivizing them to identify with it is probably counter-productive even where it may be well-intentioned (which I’m not convinced it always is).

                    That does not thereby mean an individualist must accept the equality doctrine and that there are no differences between races.

                    An individualist needn’t accept the equality doctrine that there are no differences between individuals as long as one accepts equality under the law – “race” is not a particularly useful category in this context, and that I think is where one runs up against unintended collectivism; i.e. you can’t have the discussion “races are not equal to one another” without collectivizing them as an a priori basis of the discussion. As I noted in my response to Vernon, above, “black” is pretty meaningless racially as compared with “green eyes,” for example.

                    It’s pretty difficult to find race-based differences between people (behaviorally), but cultural differences, particularly between different levels of socioeconomic class, are hard not to notice (which is part of the American-black pathology of identifying “success” with “turning White” and of identifying poverty and failure with “keeping it real”).

                    As I also said above, if you want to argue that there are social pathologies in the American black community I don’t know of many people who would disagree. That it has to do with race rather than with how “race” has been constructed as a social category is where you’re going to get pushback from people, as there is no “black race” in any meaningful sense.

                    I tend to agree with you on about 90% of things, but the ‘race realism’ is where you consistently lose me, because to me I just can’t shake the sense that it’s a form of collectivism that you’re letting slip through into your thinking.

    2. >>>by a Mike Dukakis appointed judge.

      these still exist?

      1. Yes, his name is Mark Coven.

  16. CNN’s panel of delusion is working overtime.

    They have latched on to “My Presidency is f***ed” as the memorable phrase.

    And it is proof of intent to obstruct justice. So say we all…

    1. The funny thing is that when you actually read the passage, Trump said that not because he thought Mueller was actually going to find anything, but because the specter of the investigation would drag on for years and prevent him from getting anything done on his agenda.

      That’s obviously confusing for journalism majors, but not for people who have a basic grasp of reading comprehension.

      1. You know, I think in this case they are not being dishonest but really are that stupid and don’t understand what Trump was talking about.

  17. To paraphrase Alec Baldwin in Beetlejuice… this reads like stereo instructions….

  18. Mueller’s report proves Trump’s campaign manager colluded with a Russian military intelligence officer to help Trump win the election. You can bet every conversation Manafort had with this Russian was relayed to the Kremlin and informed the Kremlin’s decision to criminally interfere in the election for the benefit of Trump.

    1. Try to make your gaslighting less obvious, shitlib.

    2. “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities.”

      Ouch…

      1. He just keeps putting up lies with no source like people are going to believe him.

        1. Thing to know is that the NPC OP doesn’t think for himself; he has a source. That source has a jumble of letters as its name. Not sure which jumble though; could be MSNBC, NPR, CNN, NBC,…

        2. And I’ll keep smacking him with that quote until he cries uncle.

        3. Like I said, it’s not even good gaslighting. He’s just throwing up random statements in the hopes that someone will buy it.

          1. I think he’s more self soothing than trying to convince anyone else of anything.

  19. We can’t prove anything but he’s no exonerated.

    Like it’s their place to exonerate.

    I hope everyone connected to this story gets raped by a group of Giant Otters.

    1. not exonerated.

      And connected to the investigation.

      What a massive, wasteful, pathetic, dud.

    2. …raped by a group of Giant Otters

      Does that sort of thing happen often up north?

      1. What happens in Canuckistan stays in Canuckistan.

      2. THERE ARE NO GIANT OTTERS IN CANADA.

        1. Sure. Just what a guy would say if he had a rapey group of giant otters threatening him to keep their existence quiet.

          1. Or if he were a giant otter looking to get his rape on…

            1. Or if he were a giant otter looking to get his rape on…
              Oooooh, I didn’t think of that! Should I be worried???

        2. Sorry, you cannot prove a negative. Giant otters are there, you just haven’t seen one.

          Or at least, so you say…

          1. On a slightly more serious note, having grown up in Florida I was accustomed to thinking of otters as cute swimming sea weasels, about the size of a large housecat. You can imagine my surprise on an Alaskan flyfishing trip when a six foot long version swam right up to the raft I was in.

            So yeah, giant otters are real.

      3. Yes at Delta Tau Chi fraternity at Faber College.

    3. I hope everyone connected to this story gets raped by a group of Giant Otters.

      Gotta wait for the rise of the Allied Atheist Alliance.

  20. Ok, having read a chunk of the stereo instructions, here’s my hot take:

    Wow…. they really included a lot of irrelevant stuff. Things that seem to amount to nothing more than gossip. Things that could never even be used as evidence.. “this guy heard that guy say that he was mad about this..” type stuff.

    For a report that is about Russian interference in the election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign, there is an awful lot of stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with either of those things.

    1. If they had just included the reliable and relevent evidence, the report would have been about five pages long. And we can’t have that.

      1. Were any vote counts changed? No.
        Is anyone claiming they would’ve voted differently based on false information generated by the Russians? No.

        No undue influencing of the electorate, no collusion to unduly influence the electorate, no obstruction of investigation into collusion. Case closed.

        I think the most damaging part of all this is that it’s further sanctified the electoral process as some manner of pristine collective cognition rather than the confused, biased, error-prone organized mess that it actually is. Next year, Russia will exercise influence and we still won’t have a plan about how we handle things if we do, in fact, elect the Manchurian Candidate (or if we would even be able to know if we did).

        1. I agree. The point that everyone refuses to consider is why information obtained from a foreign power is necessarily wrong. Suppose Russia had evidence that Hillary Clinton was being bribed by the Chinese and went to Trump with the evidence. According to the logic of this investigation, it would have been collusion and a crime for Trump to take this information and make it public. That is not how this should work.

        2. I was going to vote for Hillary but a meme on facebook said she was evil so I voted for Trump.

          Said no one ever.

  21. But here are a few potentially noteworthy passages that CNN has highlighted.

    What is CNN hiding by releasing some brief summary of the report rather than the entire thing? Obviously they’re cherry-picking the passages they’re putting out to put a particular partisan spin on the thing, manipulating the narrative in order to provide cover for Trump in a wholly dishonest and unethical, if not criminal, manner that smacks of a treasonous cover-up of what the report actually says.

    Oh, wait, no that was Bill Barr that did that when he released a brief summary of the report after skimming through it in an attempt to get some sort of information out as quickly as he could in answer to the baying of the bitches in Congress and the media who insisted that they should have gotten a copy of the report straight from Mueller at the same time Barr did.

    CNN, on the other hand, can be totally trusted to have read and studied and researched all the citations and references and footnotes in the report before issuing an authoritative synopsis of the report in a matter of a few hours just as they demanded of Barr.

    1. Barr is an experienced lawyer who had been briefed on the progress of the investigation since he was confirmed on Valentine’s Day. And he had an entire weekend to digest the report.

      But CNN and their crack team of never was lawyers and journalists read it and digested it in 15 minutes where Barr could not over a weekend. Yeah, that is it.

  22. Don’t we elect all politicians to obstruct justice in some manner or another? I say “we” but I really mean other people who do vote — I don’t. And it seems to me that Trump was elected specifically to obstruct justice (or cause as much misery as possible) for those who don’t conform to the Republican party’s ideals of what a “proper American” is in the country. Isn’t that the whole point of politics? Favor this group, screw over the other group? Anyway, Dems ought to give up on this and focus on getting their candidates elected. Yeah, the president is an asshole to the 100th power, but the country can survive a few more years of assholery. If he’s re-elected, which will be a sad day (and Weld has zero chance of getting elected without some kind of magical intervention, imo), then let the inquisition commence.

    1. How are Dems being screwed today? Is not being in power and controlling other people’s lives being “screwed”?

      1. Where did I write that Dems were being screwed? I didn’t say that.

        1. “Favor this group, screw over the other group? ”

          Yes you did. You name check Republicans then say that. That means the other group is…

          Who? Everyone who isn’t Republicans. So while you didn’t break them out, you were talking about Dems.

          1. Thank you. What the hell is up with people saying something and then denying it when it is right there?

            1. I honestly think they just don’t think through what they are saying because they aren’t smart enough.

              1. It’s a stateless chatbot, like ELIZA. It doesn’t know what has been said previously, it just knows the bag of words you fed into it.

                1. I do get hungry sometimes… LOL.

          2. The groups are hypothetical in context and refer not to political parties but to groups of citizens in general. It could be any group of people with a particular interest. For instance, pro-business groups versus pro-union groups. It could be religious groups versus secular. My comment is open ended for that reason. Plug in anything you like and it will work just fine. We tend to elect politicians to favor our beliefs or to further our goals, whatever those goals may be. Right? That’s all that is intended. I mean, Christ, you people read so much into stuff that isn’t actually written. There’s no hidden agenda here… it’s just some words on a screen.

            1. “The groups are hypothetical in context and refer not to political parties but to groups of citizens in general.”

              That would be great had you not previously SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO A POLITICAL PARTY.

              Face it. You did it. Just own up.

              1. OK. If I “own up” will you shut the fuck up? You are intolerable.

                1. That isn’t helpful.

    2. You’re trying waaaaay too hard here.

      1. Trying way too hard for what, precisely? Giving an opinion?

        1. Acting like some disinterested party.

          1. I’m not disinterested. I don’t think I’m impartial either. But I do try to take a longer view and not react emotionally or irrationally. I don’t always succeed, but I do try…

            1. That OP seemed pretty irrational.

    3. Oh, you mean “Social” Justice. That’s not Justice.

      1. Did I say social justice? I don’t believe I did.

        1. Did I say you said it?

          “Oh, you mean “Social” Justice. ”

          Notice, you argue that you didn’t say it, not that it wasn’t what you MEANT.

          1. If I had meant social justice, I would have written social justice. I am not a SJMW; those people piss me off something fierce.

            1. Your post indicates otherwise.

            2. Don’t go far enough for your taste?

            3. “If I had meant social justice, I would have written social justice”

              Additionally, I don’t believe that to be true. We have evidence that you don’t think through what you are actually saying I’m front of us.

              1. Believe what you like. You know, people tend to read things and color it with their own biases – I can’t help that. There may be some unintentional ambiguity in my comment, but it stands up as written. So for the sake of clarity, I am neither a democrat or conservative. I’m not seeking social justice, retribution, or anything other than to point out the folly of people getting worked up over this report when I think that people from either party should move on and let it go. That’s about it. And I’m clearly not a Trump fan, but nor was I an Obama fan, or a Clinton fan, or a fan of any politician. Does that help clarify my position and intent?

                1. “Believe what you like. ”

                  Thanks for giving me permission that I don’t need.

                  1. You’re welcome.

    4. Jalene
      April.18.2019 at 1:43 pm
      “…If he’s re-elected, which will be a sad day (and Weld has zero chance of getting elected without some kind of magical intervention, imo), then let the inquisition commence.”

      The opinions of idiots are not solicited; go whine somewhere else.

      1. Ad-homs are always helpful. Thanks for playing the Internet today. Please try again sometime.

        1. “Ad-homs are always helpful. ”

          Fair point.

          “Thanks for playing the Internet today. Please try again sometime.”

          You were saying something about helpful?

          1. It’s not an ad-hom. I haven’t attacked the person. I’ve thanked them and invited them to try again another time. Is it facetious? Sure, it is. People who resort to ad-hominem attacks or troll are ubiquitous in comments sections. I could ignore them. I could ignore you, because you have already implied that I am not smart enough to opine here, but I’m just here to waste a bit of time and have a wee laugh at the absurdity of all of this. Because everyone thinks they got my number, but they don’t, and you, Tulpa, don’t even a phonebook.

            1. damn it. LOL. **don’t even have a phonebook** Well, I ruined that one.

              1. You ruined it by assuming I meant it was an ad hom. I was pointing out that your facetious response was not helpful, making you a hypocrite.

            2. “It’s not an ad-hom”

              Where did I say it was?

            3. “you have already implied that I am not smart enough to opine here,”

              It was more of a factual observation.

        2. Jalene
          April.18.2019 at 2:12 pm
          “Ad-homs are always helpful.”

          Newly arrived ignoramuses aren’t. Please fuck off.

          1. I’ve been on this site since at least 2006. I used to comment all the time, and then some time ago (I forget when it was, but there was some sort of legal action going on with Reason and anonymous commenters) we had to register to comment and I didn’t bother to do that until about a year ago. LOL. Funny how a few of you act you like own this place…

  23. Have they impeached Trump yet? This is taking forever

  24. Dang dudes, Mueller says further “thorough” investigation may have uncovered Trump crimes!!!!!!!! Just as I observed. Congress should hire Mueller to continue that investigation!!!

    1. No he doesn’t. Stop fucking lying.

      1. It’s in there sweetheart. Your world of lies is crashing down around you.

        1. “It’s in there sweetheart. Your world of lies is crashing down around you.”
          You are a parody, right? I mean to actually be able to operate a keyboard requires more intelligence than you’ve ever shown.
          So either outright troll or OBL-sock parody.
          Either way, fuck off and leave the adults alone.

    2. So after 2 years, “maybe” a lot more investigating would uncover something Trump did wrong? (As if “three felonies a day” wasn’t a thing…)

      What’s the over/under on the Hillary Clinton investigation time necessary to discover crimes?

      1. Trump shouldn’t have hidden behind the presidency and maybe these well founded suspicious could have been sorted out but instead Trump decided to dangle pardons to induce obstruction. Clinton was put under oath and examined. Trump is hiding out in the WH.

        1. Ordinary Person
          April.18.2019 at 2:06 pm
          “Trump shouldn’t have hidden behind the presidency…”

          Pretty sure OBL-sock.

        2. Clinton was put under oath and examined

          Aaaaand, she’s documented as lying multiple times during that interview. Wow, that didn’t take a two year investigation and millions of dollars, did it? You brought up an instance of Clinton lawbreaking within minutes of my asking the question.

          (Said question was rhetorical, by the way. You didn’t really need to spend that time Googling to find an answer.)

          1. There was no classified emails.
            The classified emails were not marked.
            I did not know what the C meant.

            A pathological liar will give a new lie when confronted with the truth against their previous lie.

    3. I googled it, found an article on hillreporter.com.

      “”The evidence uncovered did not establish that the president was involved or those close to him were involved in the computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president are an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.”””

      I don’t think that means what you think it means.

      1. That’s why the entirety of his quote was “thorough” followed by idiotic assertions.

        1. Did Trump know Manafort was sharing campaign information with a Russian military officer? That’s one example of line of inquiry that remains to be investigated.

          1. Did Trump know Manafort was sharing campaign information with a Russian military officer? That’s one example of line of inquiry that remains to be investigated

            No, it isn’t.

            “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities.”

          2. I heard he was sharing it with the Lizard Men.

  25. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was busted as liar by the way. I’m so thankful Rosenstein had the good sense to appoint Mueller.

    1. AT this point I am starting to think you are one of the regulars trolling everyone.

      1. Not enough irrelevant/kiddie porn links to be the butt-plugger.
        Not insane enough to be Hihn. (Never mind the lack of bold-face aggression and ass-rape fantasies.)
        Does exhibit Tony-levels of insight and introspection.

  26. Obstruction of justice? If you’re not guilty, and you try to interfere with people who are trying to prove you are guilty, wouldn’t that be “obstruction of INjustice”?

    1. Trump was trying to interfere in the investigations of his close associates. Go check out the way Trump communicated with Cohen before Cohen turned and started telling the truth. Cohen described it as the way mob bosses communicate. Manafort understood the messages Trump was sending and that probably accounts for why Manafort refused to cooperate honestly.

      1. “Manafort understood the messages Trump was sending ”

        TRUMP IS A TELEPATH!!!

  27. Mueller has released 448 pages of his findings

    Ah, but is that *the* *complete* report?

  28. “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome…”

    Yep. They realized that a Trump victory would cause the Democrats to go even crazier, and divide the country even more than a Clinton Presidency would have.

    1. You underestimate Hillary. Her presidency would have been at least as divisive as Trump’s.

      1. Her presidency would have been at least as divisive as Trump’s.

        Right about that. She would have divided the country up into those destined for fun-camps, and those who werent.

  29. OK, we started with “collusion”, which was never defined, but even under that vague standard, and even after more than two years, nothing was found to support that claim: IOWs, bullshit.
    Next, let’s shove that goal-post over to “obstructing justice”. Well, that the exact same level of support: None. Bullshit again.
    Only one place remaining for the goal-post: our resident lefty ignoramuses are now left with “I don’t like him!!!!”, as if their opinions are treated as other than a source of amusement.
    OP, Jeff? Fuck off. Tony and the asshole rev care about what you ‘think’, but that’s about it.

  30. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.

    Uh, huh. And these “difficult issues” are what, exactly? You had more or less unlimited power for two fucking years. Also, why not just come out and say it: “No one can deny the possibility that everyone in the administration fucks sheep.”

  31. […] Mueller report, a redacted version of which was released today, doesn’t conclude that President Trump obstructed justice. But it […]

  32. […] Mueller report, a redacted version of which was released today, doesn’t conclude that President Trump obstructed justice. But it […]

  33. The redacted report includes.
    ⬛⬛F⬛⬛⬛u⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ck⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛you⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛go⬛⬛⬛⬛sc⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛Rat⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ch⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ea⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛t⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛sh⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛It⬛⬛⬛⬛ha⬛⬛⬛⬛Ha⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛

  34. cue the hot takes

    “Trump may not be guilty of collusion, but he’s certainly guilty of ________________________”

  35. […] Bonus Links: Interested in the Mueller report but don’t know where to start? Get your “Ctrl+F” ready and try this searchable version. Have questions about collusion? Read an overview here, or some other takes here. […]

  36. […] preventing the abuses that inevitably spring from such nearly unlimited power—Thursday’s release of a redacted version of Special Council Robert Mueller’s report would probably be the end of […]

  37. […] the abuses that inevitably spring from such nearly unlimited power—Thursday’s release of a redacted version of Special Council Robert Mueller’s report would probably be the end of […]

  38. Oh shit. Pingbacks are in the comments now?

    YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

  39. […] Bonus Links: Interested in the Mueller report but don’t know where to start? Get your “Ctrl+F” ready and try this searchable version. Have questions about collusion? Read an overview here, or some other takes here. […]

  40. […] the abuses that inevitably spring from such nearly unlimited power—Thursday’s release of a redacted version of Special Council Robert Mueller’s report would probably be the end of […]

  41. Lots of folks saying Trump has been exonerated. Exoneration comes after a trial, and there hasn’t been a trial.

    Lots of folks saying the fact that Mueller did not bring charges proves Trump couldn’t be charged, based on the evidence. Mueller said he was not bringing charges because a Justice Department policy prevented him from doing it, because Trump is the President. That is not in any way a proof that the Mueller Report does not show probable cause to charge Trump.

  42. Mueller’s conclusion that he ‘can’t prove that Trump did not obstruct justice’ is nothing more than his opinion since he cannot provide any proof that Trump did obstruct justice.
    You cannot reach any such conclusion based the ‘feeling’ that he still thinks trump ‘may’ have obstructed justice.
    Either Trump did, or he didn’t. If he did, then present your proof. Otherwise Trump is innocent of the crime. Mueller had no right to insert his ‘baseless’ opinion into the report in an vain attempt to justify the 2 years and the millions he spent, particularly since he knew over a year ago that he had no evidence of collusion.
    He should be answering the question of why he did not wrap it up back then instead of wasting millions more of tax payer’s dollars. If he cannot answer this question adequately, then he should be liable to repay this money back.

  43. […] Mueller report, a redacted version of which was released today, doesn’t conclude that President Trump obstructed justice. But it […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.