Reason Roundup

Robert Mueller Told William Barr His Memo to Congress on Collusion, Obstruction Lacked Context

Plus: The student censors come for Camille Paglia.

|

Dissatisfied with media coverage of the results of his investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr in late March expressing frustration that Barr's four-page memo to Congress summarizing Mueller's findings "did not fully capture [their] context, nature, and substance."

That's according to The Washington Post, which obtained a copy of the letter on Tuesday. The Post did not publish the letter in full, which means we are relying here on their interpretation of a letter that supposedly complains about Barr's interpretation of Mueller's report. From The Post:

The letter and a subsequent phone call between the two men reveal the degree to which the longtime colleagues and friends disagreed as they handled the legally and politically fraught task of investigating the president. Democrats in Congress are likely to scrutinize Mueller's complaints to Barr as they contemplate the prospect of opening impeachment proceedings and mull how hard to press for Mueller himself to testify publicly.

At the time Mueller's letter was sent to Barr on March 27, Barr had days prior announced that Mueller did not find a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. In his memo to Congress, Barr also said that Mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but that Barr reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge.

Days after Barr's announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed private letter to the Justice Department, laying out his concerns in stark terms that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.

"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions," Mueller wrote. "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

According to The Post, the two men talked on the phone after Barr received the letter, and this conversation was friendlier in nature.

Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Barr previously testified that he didn't know whether Mueller supported his conclusions.

Update: The Mueller letter is now available here.

FREE MINDS

"Camille Paglia should be removed from UArts faculty and replaced by a queer person of color," reads a recent student-created petition calling for the firing of the legendary art critic whose views on gender and sex have occasionally offended the modern progressive left. "UArts: you are disrespecting your students and putting them in danger. Do better."

This is hardly the first time Paglia has endured such calls. When her first book, Sexual Personae, was published in 1990, faculty members at Connecticut College compared it to Mein Kampf. At the time, it was intellectually curious students who defended the book.

Now the situation is largely reversed, notes The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf.

FREE MARKETS

The situation in Venezuela may be reaching a climax: Embattled dictator Nicolas Maduro had plans to flee the country but was convinced by Russian forces to stay, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed on Tuesday. Maduro disputes this. According to NPR:

U.S. officials have been characterizing the situation in Venezuela as nearing its endgame, and opposition leader Juan Guaidó called for the "final phase" of the uprising Tuesday in his attempt to remove Maduro from power. But Venezuela's military handily stamped out pockets of resistance, and despite word from American officials that key Maduro allies are abandoning him, the country's defense minister proclaimed his continuing loyalty. More than 50 countries support Guaidó's claim to power.

QUICK HITS

  • Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has appeared on video for the first time since 2014. The self-proclaimed caliph acknowledged ISIS's loss of territory in Iraq and Syria but promised "there will be more to come after this battle."
  • Japan has a new emperor.
  • Plymouth State University must pay $350,000 to an adjunct professor it fired for testifying in defense of a woman facing sexual assault charges.
  • Jacob Wohl's brilliant political strategy, in his own words: "make shit up."
  • Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) accused of violating the separation of church and state with "He is Risen" Easter post.
  • The trailer for the upcoming Sonic the Hedgehog movie is the stuff of nightmares.

NEXT: Armslist Not Liable for Allowing Searches for Private-Seller Gun Ads

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. …expressing frustration that Barr’s four-page memo to Congress summarizing Mueller’s findings “did not fully capture [their] context, nature, and substance.”

    And it didn’t include any of Mueller’s report poems.

    1. Mueller made a good point in that the report loses something when it is not read in its original Klingon.

      1. The nuances of Klingon are notoriously difficult to capture in English.

    2. Hello.

      Let’s just say here’s hoping Maduro gets his comeuppance.

      1. COMEUPPANCE!

      2. COMEUPPANCE see me sometimes.

    3. Barr neglected to do the word search puzzle
      I M P E A C H H
      M M I P P E A C
      P E P H A C A
      E I M E E C H E
      A M P P A C P
      C C M I P C H M
      H I C H E M H I
      H C A E P M I I

  2. The Post did not publish the letter in full, which means we are relying here on their interpretation of a letter that supposedly complains about Barr’s interpretation of Mueller’s report.

    Who wouldn’t trust their interpretation of anything Trump related?

    1. The letter isn’t classified. So why wouldn’t the Post publish the entire thing?

      1. Perhaps they’re attempting with the letter what they’re accusing Barr of doing with the report?

        1. The Post engage in partisan lying? Shocking. Just shocking.

        2. Nailed it in one.

      2. Here’s what’s deliberately being left out of all the hot takes by the media, and from the original WaPo article that everyone is referencing (note this actually requires reading the whole fucking thing), including that paste-eater Jerry Nadler:

        A day after the letter was sent, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

        In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials.

        When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the latter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

        IOW, the Media Industrial Complex and Democrats continue to gaslight people about what actually happened. There’s never been anything stopping Mueller from calling a press conference anytime he wants to dunk on Barr, yet we’re supposed to believe that Barr’s been claiming conclusions that are 180-degrees different from what the Mueller team said.

        At this point, anything the Democrats and leftists are saying about this is a lie, plain and simple. Literally nothing they are claiming about this whole drama is credible, and should be dismissed out of hand.

        1. Mueller has already publicly spoken about a media outlet (Buzzfeed) mischaracterizing a meeting between Trump and Cohen.

          1. He’s not giving the Democrats and their media allies what they want, so they’re resorting to mischaracterizing or completely making up what he said.

            If there’s anything funny to be gleaned from this, it’s that he appears, for the moment, to be maintaining silence on the whole thing strictly to get his kicks watching the shitshow take place. He could have easily clarified all of this weeks ago after Barr’s letter was released, and after the report was released, and you know every media outlet is probably offering up their hottest interns to blow him in exchange for a interview.

            1. That’s basically the report: He no doubt really wanted to nail Trump to the wall; The guy fired his best bud, then passed him up for a big promotion. So he hired nobody but partisan Democrats, some with a history of helping frame Ted Stevens way back when.

              And still came up empty!

              So he settled for writing a report that could be interpreted as saying Trump obstructed justice if you desperately wanted to believe that, while not lying and saying he could prove it.

              And, just as he determined the “collusion” claims were BS early on, and kept quiet about it so the media could keep accusing Trump of treason, he now refrains from going public and telling the media off, so that they’re free to keep reporting that he found Trump had obstructed justice.

              Basically what you’ve got here is a guy who wants Trump to look dirty, but isn’t dishonest/foolish enough to lie about having proved it. So he just walks up to the edge of saying it, and then refrains from correcting the inevitable, ideologically driven mistakes.

      3. Because in publishing the entire letter it would become clear that it doesn’t support WaPo’s narrative.

        Saying that Bar’s report to Congress lacked context in certain areas is not the same thing as saying that anything Bar said in the report to Congress was false.

      4. like being classified has stoped anyone form publishing anything anyway

    2. It’s interpretations all the way down!

  3. Don’t tell me Barr is a partisan lapdog of Cheeto. I can’t handle it.

    1. I am not sure Barr’s snack habbits are known let alone known to the detail of whether he likes Cheetos.

    2. “Don’t tell me Barr is a partisan lapdog of Cheeto. I can’t handle it.”

      Still whining after nearly 3 years?
      Pathetic loser; fuck off.

  4. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.

    The report of which that was released days later?

  5. “Camille Paglia should be removed from UArts faculty and replaced by a queer person of color,”

    Get over yourselves you stupid fucking dipshits. You have no power, and you annoy the fuck out of just about anyone who spends more than 5 minutes with you.

    1. 5 minutes? Why so generous? My tolerance is about 5 seconds, or less.

      1. +10

      2. I think they are good for a couple of minutes of laughing at them.

    2. The assertion that a not very large senior citizen woman puts them in danger is amusing in it’s inanity.

      1. In their defense, if I could pick one person on this planet to politely and accurately obliterate grievance culture in 10 seconds or less it would be Camille. They literally don’t have a chance in hell.

    3. “We demand to be taught by some third-rate nobody who checks the right boxes instead of an internationally recognized scholar and public intellectual!”

    4. I’ll note the students didn’t ask for a COMPETENT woman of color.

      Must feel great to specifically say “WE WANTS A TOKEN!!!!”

    5. “White” IS a color. It’s all colors of the rainbow, combined!

      You want your diversity of colors? I’m pasty white, even have freckles. I’ve got it right here!

  6. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.

    Yeah, that undermined it.

  7. “Camille Paglia should be removed from UArts faculty and replaced by a queer person of color,” reads a recent student-created petition calling for the firing of the legendary art critic whose views on gender and sex have occasionally offended the modern progressive left. “UArts: you are disrespecting your students and putting them in danger. Do better.”

    =========

    Ms Paglia should self identify as ‘a queer person of color.’
    I bet that would blow the commie minds. If that doesn’t work, give the commies some MDA.

    1. Paglia is a queer. She is probably the most notorious lesbian public intellectual.

      1. Next to Lindsey Graham.

        1. Graham isn’t a lesbian whatever his sexual proclivities.

          1. Doesn’t that depend on how his boy toy self identifies?

            1. I think it would depend on how both of them identify.

        2. Lindsey Graham is not an intellectual.

          1. I’m gratified that somebody got the principle joke.

        3. Chuck Schumer? He’s a Latina lesbo, remember when her cried at Sotomayor’s conformation hearing. Oh but what…he’s no intellectual.

      2. John – Paglia is a queer. She is probably the most notorious lesbian public intellectual.

        —-

        You’re right John but has she self identified as ‘a queer person of color?’
        This maybe the sticking point for the commies or maybe she is not the correct ‘queer person of color.’
        Who knows but the commie mind.

        1. “queer person of color” is just their way of saying “someone who says and thinks exactly as we demand”.

          1. John – I searched for ‘self-identity’ college and this is what I found.

            ===

            Brown University to allow students to ‘self-identify’ as persons of color

            https://www.thecollegefix.com/brown-university-allow-students-self-identify-persons-color/

          2. And this is from Brown’s website.

            The U.S. Department of Education identifies several groups that continue to have limited participation in higher education due to legacies of oppression and discrimination. Termed “historically underrepresented groups (HUGs)” by the University, these include persons who self-identify as American Indian, Alaskan Native, African American, Hispanic or Latinx, and Native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Islander.

            https://www.brown.edu/academics/physics/diversity-inclusion

            1. “Termed “historically underrepresented groups (HUGs)” by the University, these include persons who self-identify as American Indian, Alaskan Native, African American, Hispanic or Latinx, and Native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Islander.”

              We must provide every Alaskan Native with a bush plain and pilot, so they can go to college.

        2. She is Italian, I think.

          1. Mickey Rat = Wiki says she’s Italian.

            This article states:
            Today Italians, like all European peoples, are considered racially Caucasian or ‘white’, but that was not always the case. When Italian immigrants began arriving in the United States in the late 19th Century, they were met with racial prejudice. These people, mainly from Southern Italy, were physically darker than most of the arriving immigrants from Europe at the time and were treated harshly. News clippings from the late 19th century describe these Italian immigrants as a sub-human race and it was not uncommon for Italians to be hanged by mobs in the southern states, especially around the city of New Orleans.

            https://www.lifeinitaly.com/heritage/italian-discrimination

            It seems to me she’d have a good case for being ‘a queer person of color,”

    2. “Not only am I ‘a queer person of color’, I’m also ‘a queer endangered species of color.’ Now bugger off and let me do my job or I’ll have you prosecuted for multiple hate crimes.”

  8. Barr previously testified that he didn’t know whether Mueller supported his conclusions.

    Uh-oh. Was this before or after talking to Mueller? Ha, what am I saying? There are no penalties for lying to Congress.

    1. Barr may be toast. It depends on whether lying is still frowned upon.

      1. Lying hasn’t been frowned upon for a long time.

      2. Bar isn’t toast. Do you imagine that even if the House issued a bill of impeachment against him that there would be any chance of a conviction in a Republican majority Senate?

        The House Democrats have no chance on any impeachment against anyone resulting in a conviction before the current Senate.

        So, no impeachments before 2021, and If Trump wins re election in 2020, I think it’s likely that the Republicans retain control of the Senate, in which case, the first chance at effectively (resulting in removal) of any Trump Admin official will be 2023 (assuming the Dems retake control of the Senate in the 2022 mid term elections.

        Of course if Trump isn’t re-elected, impeachment will be moot by the time a Dem majority Senate has any chance of voting on anything.

        1. In theory, the Democrats could successfully impeach and convict, but it would require good evidence of something genuinely criminal. Not just something that causes Democrats to go crazy. And they haven’t got that, they just can’t admit it.

      3. Why are you socking again Shreek?

      4. President Trump’s appointees have been verifiably lying to congress since their confirmation hearings. Hasn’t sunk a single one yet.

  9. UArts: you are disrespecting your students and putting them in danger.

    In danger of getting an actual, challenging education.

    1. Nothing says danger like a 60 something 110 lbs lesbian.

      1. What’s the clinical phobia used to describe a fear of anything that makes someone uncomfortable? And why should people who aren’t aching pussies cater to those afflicted with it?

        1. It seems to me that the only way to help them is to inflict as much discomfort on them as possible so that they learn how to deal with it.

          1. Aren’t they guilty of blatant homophobia, which I thought was about the worst thing possible?

        2. Social anxiety disorder?

          Agoraphobia?

        3. Butthurtasia?

        4. Rectal-cranial inversion.

  10. I was right about the #BlueWave and I was right about #TrumpRussia. Mueller’s investigation proves Drumpf colluded with a hostile foreign power to win a hacked election. Only Barr’s pathetic attempt at a coverup is delaying the inevitable.

    Everyone here needs to sign the MoveOn impeachment petition.

  11. When her first book, Sexual Personae, was published in 1990, faculty members at Connecticut College compared it to Mein Kampf.

    Mentally deficient – all of them. No argument made, just “Nazi”. They probably think the Boy Scout field guide is the Anarchists Cookbook. These people could fuck up a cup of coffee.

    1. Everything is Hitler. Hitler appearently is the architype for at least 7/8th of the human race.

      1. Literally.

    2. Actually, making coffee is the likely career path for the majority of Connecticut College students, so let’s hope they figure that out.

    3. More likely they could fuck up a bowling ball.

  12. The Mueller Memo?

    Haha. Lefties sure are desperate.

  13. Embattled dictator Nicolas Maduro had plans to flee the country but was convinced by Russian forces to stay…

    Through fake news Facebook ads.

    1. Blormph, being a Kremlin stooge, actually wants Maduro to stay so full-scale civil war breaks out and the US can send in troops, Iraq-style, to break it up and take Venezuela’s (shitty, sulfur-filled) oil reserves.

  14. Some GayJay/Weld voter shot up a school in NC killing at least 2 people.

    1. 10-1, no 20-1 odds he identifies as incel.

      1. I’ve seen his mug shot. He’s definitely … not Brad Pitt.

  15. Jacob Wohl’s brilliant political strategy, in his own words: “make shit up.”

    There are the same – hell, maybe fewer – social consequences to it than, say, having even slightly different opinions than your own tribe. Might as well go full-on liar for your side.

    1. Making shit up has been a brilliant political strategy approximately since Adam told God that Eve tricked him into having a bite.

  16. Although Biden still isn’t my first choice, he’s running a smart campaign so far. His strategy is to remind everyone how awesome Obama is.

    “I want to say something that’s not said often enough,” Joe Biden says. “President Obama has extraordinary character. No really, I mean it.”

    Obama personally created the strongest economy in US history. Not only that, he won a Nobel Peace Prize and, along with Hillary Clinton, presided over foreign policy successes like Libya.

    1. Also, don’t forget that he kept sneaking cigarettes all that time with relative impunity.

    2. Nothing conveys conviction in a speaker like when he follows a statement with “No really, I mean it.”

  17. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) accused of violating the separation of church and state with “He is Risen” Easter post.

    Exactly the meaning of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    1. “Experts” say he violated the 1st Amendment. Gee, why are “experts” held in such low regard the public? The mystery continues.

    2. The 14th Amendment does incorporate all Bill of Rights into rights of state citizens and created a minimum limit on state governments and their officials.

      Arizona residents do have a right to have their state officials make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….

      1. Facebook posts are laws, apparently.

        It would be better if had not done that if it is maintained by government personnel, but sometimes the supposed reach of a principle that does not actually appear 8n the Constitution is a little out of proportion.

        1. No FB posts are not laws. In fact, a politician also has a 1st Amendment right to discuss religion.

    3. The four gospel narratives of the resurrection contradict one another, so why should a Republican be expected to get it right? His primitive belief in supernatural magic tricks is baked in the cake, as they say.

      1. The four gospel narratives of the resurrection contradict one another,

        No they don’t.

        1. Yes, they do.

          1. Yes, they do.

            This is the issue you pick, the hill you choose to die on? And this is your argument? Get out of your parents basement and get a job, you moron.
            I rebuilt two Ubuntu VMs while replying to your nonsense. Because I know how to code.

          2. They all tell the same story. Do they differ in minor details? Sure. But that is evidence of their being geniune. That is how eye witness accounts work; no two people remember an event exactly the same way. If they were all identical, that would be pretty strong evidence of fraud.

            1. Its called faith because replicable evidence is not required.

    4. The Founders obviously had Facebook in mind when they wrote that.

  18. Mueller is a political actor, more news at 11. If he had enough evidence to indict he would have. You can’t just investigate someone for nonexistent crimes and then release potentially damaging information pertaining to perfectly legal actions just because you’re a prosecutor.

    1. See the American legal principle of “innocent” vs. “not guilty.”

      1. There is no innocent verdict in a court of law. But there is in the court of public opinion which is where some people want it to be tried. It is a valid court for politics but not for law.

        1. Some people want to have their cake and eat it too:

          a) “Mueller is conflicted and his investigators are angry Democrats!”
          b) “Mueller totally exonerated me and he’s awesome!”

          1. “”Some people want to have their cake and eat it too:”‘

            Yeah, a lot of people want that.

          2. Trump never once described Mueller as ‘awesome’.
            Other than that, both statements are still true.

  19. Earth-shattering insights on Constitutional law from Eric Swalwell.

    Do you know how many times the word “Woman” is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero. That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected. #ERANow

    And if the word “woman” appears zero times, it’s a good bet “non-binary individual” isn’t in there either. My gender identity is literally being erased by our nation’s most important governing document. Vote Democrat so they can fix this outrageous oversight.

    1. Do you know how many times the word “man” appears in the Constitution? Zero.

      1. Whoa! man.

      2. So now you don’t care about “original intent”?

        I mean, you’re right. The Constitution doesn’t specify “woman” or “man” anywhere, it uses the generic “person” instead. Even the 19th Amendment doesn’t use “woman” or “man”. But we all know that what was intended and enforced is that some of those “persons” were strictly of the male persuasion.

        1. Thats funny because white women were also given the rights listed under the Bill of Rights when the term most used is “People”.

    2. Buttigieg/Swalwell 2020!

      1. So, how did the war start?

        A man named Eric Swalwell got ahold of a nuclear warhead

    3. He whom the gods would destroy they first make oblivious to his own stupidity.

  20. The trailer for the upcoming Sonic the Hedgehog movie is the stuff of nightmares.

    Jim Carrey paints in it?

    1. Go back to Canada Jim Carrey, you fucking Commie.

  21. Jacob Wohl’s brilliant political strategy, in his own words: “make shit up.”

    Worked for the Con Man. In fact this is a typical wingnut conservative tactic.

    1. What about surfing for child porn on the darkwebs? I hear your are an expert in that.

      1. Palin’s Buttplug was. THIS Sarah Palin’s Buttplug is a completely different troll.

        1. Totally different. And it is a complete lie that he got banned for posting instructions on how to surf for child porn. He just changed his screen name for Reasons!!

        2. Wrong again. “moneyshot” was the new commenter who coincidentally behaved exactly like Mr. Buttplug.

          However both Buttplugs are the same person. And I’m glad my #UnbanPalinsButtplug campaign worked.

          1. But is a Palin reference still relevant?

            Are we going to hear from Romney’s Binder? Dole’s Pineapple? Dukakis’ Helmet?

            Hillary’s Pegleg?

            1. No, shriek is cis, it’s only Sarah Palin’s sweet ass that he’s obsessed with.

              1. He seems to go for them much younger as well.

      2. Of course John is a fucking liar too.

        A rafucker Pizzagate type lowlife. How did your pedo liar campaign work against Bob Menendez, you lying fuckface?

        1. Yeah, you didn’t get banned. That is why your screen name changed from “Palin’s..” to “Sarah Palin’s..”.

          It was witnessed by multiple people. Soon after you showed up as “moneyshot” and now with this screen name. You are just a sick piece of garbage. You will never be able to post here without being reminded of it.

          1. “You will never be able to post here without being reminded of it.
            Turd also needs to be reminded to pay off his bets, the scumbag.

        2. You’re socking in this thread as “Blowhard Woodchip” Shreek.

          No one believes your denials.

    2. “Worked for the Con Man. In fact this is a typical wingnut conservative tactic.”
      ‘You can keep your doctor!’ Yep, typical conservative tactic right there.
      Do you post here to prove how stupid lefties can be? You’re good at it.

    3. I understand you linked to kiddie pr0n (or showed people how to do so). Do you still think trying to denigrate other people as a a “wingnut” is really all that effective?

      . . . not that it was ever effective in the first place.

    4. Hey Buttplug — go read about LBJ and his campaigns.
      “Making shit up” is party-agnostic. “Honest politician” is an oxymoron.

  22. Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has appeared on video for the first time since 2014. The self-proclaimed caliph acknowledged ISIS’s loss of territory in Iraq and Syria but promised “there will be more to come after this battle.”

    There is no way that the media is going to go on-and-on and admit that Trump’s strategy kicked ISIS’s ass where Bush and Obama could not.

    1. Obama made no attempt to fight ISIS, and Bush was long gone as president before ISIS were created.
      I don’t credit Trump with destroying ISIS since ISIS were decimated mainly by Syrian forces backed by Russia. There wasn’t a lot left for Trump after he got elected. It was a minimal clean up job.

  23. “Robert Mueller Told William Barr His Memo to Congress on Collusion, Obstruction Lacked Context”

    See, if you squint, get the light over our left shoulder and hold your mouth like this, you can kinda see where Trump might be….
    Get over it. You lost, loser.

    1. The report just loses something when its not in its original Klingon.

  24. “Aiming to move fast with deep data, Benioffs give $30 million to UCSF to study homelessness”
    […]
    “The hope of the Benioffs’ gift, said the University of California, San Francisco’s Dr. Margot Kushel, who leads the center, is that evidence-based data will be tapped by policy makers, homelessness service providers and advocates and the general public. The money also will be used to train a new generation of homelessness researchers.
    “A lot of this is a problem of political will,” said Kushel, a UCSF professor of medicine and a nationally known expert on the health effects of homelessness. “We hope to be seen as a trusted, neutral resource to provide value to these discussions.””
    https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/04/24/homelessness-homeless-marc-benioff-lynne-ucsf-gift.html

    I have a feeling the data will show the need for more funding, and more graduates with ‘Homeless Studies” degrees.

    1. Just give the actual homeless people doctorates in Homeless Studies based on life experience and hire them all at UCSF. Problem solved!

  25. “Massachusetts uses #MeToo as a Pretext to Rob Shareholders of $35 million.”

    That should be the title of an article about this story:

    “Massachusetts gambling regulators said casino giant Wynn Resorts Ltd. can retain its license to open a new casino in the state but sharply rebuked Chief Executive Matt Maddox over his leadership of the company amid sexual-misconduct allegations against founder and former CEO Steve Wynn.

    The Massachusetts Gaming Commission fined the company $35 million over its handling of those allegations, along with $500,000 to be paid by Mr. Maddox personally. “

    The article goes on to say that Wynn Resorts’ Encore Boston Harbor cost $2.6 billion to build and is expected to open in June.

    Why do regulators in Massachusetts have the right to extort $35 million from a publicly owned company if they want to open and operate their $2.6 billion investment in the state–despite the fact that the activity in question was perpetrated in a location outside of Massachusetts by an executive who is no longer associated with the company?

    #MeToo and Fuck you. That’s why.

    Here’s the kicker:

    “The company will be required to hire an executive coach to train Mr. Maddox on leadership skills, effective communication with employees and increasing his sensitivity to workplace issues such as diversity and sexual harassment.”

    P.S. This would have been Amazon’s life every day if they’d built their headquarters in New York City.

    1. They could have saved a bundle by simply greasing a few palms.

      “Nice casino you have there.”

  26. “Camille Paglia should be removed from UArts faculty and replaced by a queer person of color,” reads a recent student-created petition calling for the firing of the legendary art critic whose views on gender and sex have occasionally offended the modern progressive left. “UArts: you are disrespecting your students and putting them in danger. Do better.”

    This is a legitimate tribute to Camile Paglia’s intellectual honesty and value to the university. Anyone at such a university in a liberal arts program who hasn’t been targeted by social justice warriors by now should be ashamed of themselves. This a feather in Paglia’s cap.

    1. The complaining students are disrespecting their professor and putting her in danger. Discipline or expulsion is in order.

      1. Yes, but, regardless, if Camile Paglia is offending social justice warriors, then she must be doing something right. Again, anyone who hasn’t offended social justice warriors at a liberal arts college should be ashamed of themselves at this point. They might as well be accusing her of intellectual honesty.

    2. >>>This a feather in Paglia’s cap.

      yes.

  27. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) accused of violating the separation of church and state with “He is Risen” Easter post.

    “The First Amendment and its free exercise clause doesn’t apply to Republican Christians, so separation of church and state has been violated.”

  28. This Washington Post reporter beclowns himself by trying to defend the use of the word “coup” to describe the people of Venezuela rising up to overthrow the vicious dictator who’s oppressing them to the point of starvation.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/04/30/is-whats-happening-venezuela-an-attempted-coup-first-define-coup/?

    Maduro, China, Cuba, Russia–and socialist sympathizers in the American media–seem to prefer the word “coup” to describe the legitimate leader of Venezuela calling on the Venezuelan people to rise up and depose a vicious dictator whose sole claim to legitimacy rests on the back of a sham election.

    Because capitalists prefer the term “revolution” doesn’t mean that isn’t what it is, and misinformation is often couched in phony claims of objectivity. The objective way to look at the holocaust is to denounce it as an unmitigated evil and the objective way to look at what’s happening in Venezuela is not to call it a “coup”.

    If what were happening to the starving people of Venezuela were happening to Christians on Easter, I suppose socialists in the media would call them “Easter worshipers”. Imagine if Reason’s headline from yesterday had been rewritten by socialists in the media as “Video Shows Venezuelan Government Forces Slamming Armored Vehicles Into Protesters [Coup Supporters]. Every time you read something with the word “coup” about Venezuela that isn’t in quotes, you’re probably reading something written by a shithead.

    1. Anyone who will defend Maduro is a disgusting human being.

      1. They might not have the balls to defend Maduro by name . . . for now, anyway. If his naked corpse ends up hanging from a lamp post, all bets are off on that, but, for now, they just want to use words like “coup” to describe the revolution.

        1. You keep lauding the Venezuelan “revolution” – and it keeps going nowhere.
          I know you really, really want to believe that the Venezuelan people are rising up as one against their socialist tyrant, but that isn’t what seems to be happening.
          I’ll applaud if they do, but I’ve seen no indication that >50% of the population is opposed to Maduro.

          1. See the comments below.

    2. Is a coup necessarily illegitimate? Or does it just mean an extraconstitutional transition of power? I really don’t know.

      If the point of the protests, etc. is to return to the pre-existing constitutional order, I don’t think “revolution” is the right word either.

      1. Both Maduro and Guaido have claims to legitimacy. Just because we hate Maduro and what he stands for doesn’t mean he’s necessarily illegitimate. That’s for the Venezuelan people to decide… and I don’t see overwhelming support for either side.
        If the Venezuelan people want to oust Maduro, great. But so far they’ve only managed feeble and sporadic demonstrations. Hell, the yellow vests in France are putting up more of a revolution than Guaido’s faction in Venezuela.
        I am not at all convinced that this uprising is as domestically popular as we’d like to believe.

        1. I don’t think you fully appreciate what’s happening there in terms of electricity shortages, inflation, and, especially, the shortage of food.

          Average people are suffering from a lack of nutrition.

          Inflation in Venezuela is now at 3.2 million percent (3,200,000%).

          https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi

          I think it’s unreasonable to assume that Maduro enjoys any popularity at all among Venezuelans under those circumstances–no matter what anybody says. If the Venezuelan people were so brainwashed that Maduro still enjoyed any support under those circumstances, they’d need to have been brainwashed like the Japanese soldiers who died in human wave attacks or kamikaze pilots. The only Venezuelans who still support Maduro are the ones who would be executed if and when Maduro loses power.

          Maduro’s support in the military is alleged to be mostly driven by Cuban political officers who are embedded in every battalion.

          I certainly wouldn’t put down the Venezuelan people for not rebelling. They’re starving, they’re unarmed, and they’re going up against a vicious dictator who would just as soon turn them into dog food.

          1. “In the view of many of Mr. Maduro’s opponents, however, Cuba is to blame in large part for the Venezuelan president’s endurance in office. They point to the presence of Cuban operatives in the country — spies, intelligence and political advisers, counterintelligence agents, military trainers — and contend that they have propped up Mr. Maduro by helping to suppress dissent within the armed forces and throughout society.”

            . . . .

            María Corina Machado, a Venezuelan opposition leader, said in an interview that the presence of Cubans in the Venezuelan armed forces was “unacceptable.”

            “In testimony to the United States Senate in 2017, Luis Almagro, the secretary general of the Organization of American States and an outspoken critic of Mr. Maduro, asserted that there were about 15,000 Cubans in Venezuela and likened it to “an occupation army.””

            —-New York Times

            https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/world/americas/venezuela-cuba-oil.html

            Elsewhere in that article, they point out that Venezuela was sending 100,000 barrels of oil to Cuba a day, and the value of that oil when Cuba sells it on the international market is worth about 20% of Cuba’s GDP. Imagine what would happen to the Cuban economy if that oil flow were shut off permanently. If Cuba weren’t as heavily invested in keeping Maduro in power as they are, that would be remarkable. Imagine what would happen to Cuba if their GDP suddenly contracted by 20%.

  29. “did not fully capture [their] context, nature, and substance.”

    thats political speak in that I want everyone to interpret it any way they please just like the full report. Muller is just stirring the pot with this type of BS. BTW if Muller can determine if there was collusion then the same laws that allowed that then he could also determine obstruction or not, Muller is just another deep stater

  30. >>>Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr in late March expressing frustration

    hope it was haiku. can’t Mueller go on any channel at any time to tell the people what his panties are bunched about? letter to Barr avenue is stupid

    also, going after Camille Paglia is rich. may be the Bizarro point.

  31. Are people in the media still talking about Mueller–like really?!

    That story is so over.

    I guess media people would rather talk about that than the Green New Deal or whatever embarrassing cockamamie horseshit Warren has called for lately?

    1. it was all channels all night nothing but Mueller even the school shooting wasn’t important enough to get air time

      1. I don’t think anyone other than the converted cares anymore.

        1. This conversation proves it.

          1. Yes, commenting on the general apathy over it is totally evidence of the contrary. You called it. You are so smart.

            1. It’s Screech John. It’s another of his sockpuppets.

  32. Barr just told Feinstein that Trump didn’t really try to obstruct justice by telling McGahn to fire Mueller because Trump really believed that Mueller was “conflicted.” I am not making this up.

    1. “Barr just told Feinstein that Trump didn’t really try to obstruct justice by telling McGahn to fire Mueller because Trump really believed that Mueller was “conflicted.” I am not making this up.”

      You lost, loser. Grow up or fuck off; we’re tired of the whining.

    2. A day after the letter was sent, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

      In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials.

      When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the latter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

    3. Why are you socking again Screech?

    4. Why would Trump give the pleasure of firing Mueller to an underling. Considering how much Trump clearly hated Mueller I imagine he would get great pleasure in doing so himself.
      Let’s get to the bottom line here. If trump really wanted to fire Mueller, he would absolutely have done so and certainly wouldn’t have given the task to McGahn or indeed have allowed McGahn to stop him. Even if he had fired Mueller, there still would have been no ‘obstruction since he does not even have to give a reason for doing so. Trump is head of the executive branch and it is his prerogative to fire anyone for any reason.
      Trump chose to allow this pathetic investigation to go on for way too long and he did so without ever invoking executive privilege.
      There was no obstruction and just because Mueller stated that he would not exonerate Trump of obstruction means absolutely nothing next to the statement that he could not prove obstruction. Mueller is pond life and his statement of not being able to exonerate Trump is nothing more than a personal opinion with no basis in fact since his investigation was allowed to continue without Trump stopping it.

  33. Happy May Day to Dipshit Dave Weigel, Mary Stack, Citizen Crystals, Zeb, Sparky, Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, Rico Soave, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, and all the rest of the many Professional Fake Libertarians at Reason.

    It’s your favorite day of the year, so party hearty!!!

    1. Should have read Citizen Crustard.

      In any event, dance around the maypole a couple of times for me!

      1. WTF is “Citizen Custard”?

        1. teddrewes.com

    2. Gosh, I’m honored to play such a role in your bizarre, paranoid obsessions.

      1. professional? you get paid Zeb?

        1. Yeah, didn’t you know? Everyone except you is Dave Weigal and we all get big bucks from George Soros and the Kochs. I’ve been biding my time for 10+ years, consistently making individualist/libertarian comments on the stories of the day, so that one day I can make my move and overt communists will finally complete the takeover of Reason.com.

          1. make sure to leave the comments open …

          2. C’mon Zeb, you know there’s no true communists.
            -Nick Gillespie

          3. You make generally boring, not terribly libertarian comments. Stop holding yourself in such high regard.

            1. Have a wonderful afternoon.

            2. You do know that nothing bolsters a libertarian’s cred as a libertarian quite like another libertarian denouncing them as insufficiently libertarian, right?

              1. It’s all part of the plan. He’s Dave Weigal too.

  34. It’s not like Barr downplayed Mueller’s investigation by calling it a Matter.

  35. $35 million pretty much captures captures the context, nature, and substance.

  36. SHOW ME WHERE “CONTEXT” IS IN THE CONSTITUTION!
    YOU CAN’T THAT’S WHERE! SO STFU DEMONCRATS!

  37. […] has since emerged that Mueller himself, on three occasions in late March (twice in letters and once on the telephone) […]

  38. […] has since emerged that Mueller himself, on three occasions in late March (twice in letters and once on the telephone) […]

  39. […] Mueller has claimed the attorney general’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.