The Mueller Report

[Anonymous]

Assange is in there somewhere, in the redactions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assange is in there somewhere, in the redactions.

Yes! It is obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Memo to the Press: How Not to Screw Up on the Mueller Report

Back in February, writing with Susan Hennessey and Mikhaila Fogel, we laid out “Four Principles for Reading the Mueller Report.”

When we made these suggestions, we were candidly not anticipating what turned out to be an important intervening event: the release of Attorney General William Barr’s letter describing the top-line prosecutorial judgments Mueller had reached without releasing any of the underlying factual or analytic work product.

The press, to put it mildly, has not handled the confusion well. News reporting initially dramatically overstated what Barr had actually said about the report—to the point that Barr himself clarified in a second letter to Congress that he hadn’t been summarizing its content. The reporting also frequently confused prosecutorial judgments with normative judgments and presumed factual conclusions from declinations in a fashion that may well be incorrect.

It is rare that life offers a true opportunity for a do-over, but this is one of those times for the press. Testifying before the Senate Committee on Appropriations on April 10, Barr said that the report will be out next week. So the press will imminently have another chance to cover this document—this time the real thing—in a thoughtful and serious manner. To avoid needless errors, both factual and analytic, here are nine suggestions for writing about the document—things to do, and things not to do.

focus on what the report actually says.

The big story, at least initially, is not how people are reacting to the report.

accept that there could be more than one story to tell about the report’s contents.

be careful not to confuse prosecutorial judgment with facts.

the decision not to prosecute a person for some alleged conduct is not a historical judgment that the conduct didn’t happen.

the decision not to prosecute someone based on the factual record does not end the analysis of that record.

the declination of criminal charges does not answer counterintelligence questions that the same fact patterns may raise.

the declination of criminal charges does not answer counterintelligence questions that the same fact patterns may raise.

Finally, ninth, don’t look for unified field theories.

So let the report be complicated. It will be even if you resist.

This lawfare article is the best legal viewpoint I have read in a while. Very apt advice for media, but is also excellent thoughts for us to see the report beyond the partisan analysis and expectations.

Yes the media needs to take it slow like hurricane coverage.
Even if the eye of the hurricane is anticipated to make landfall at 11am, we don’t need breaking news coverage from 11am-12pm, with all conclusions drawn and debates beginning at 12pm. We need continued coverage, waiting out the storm (behind the scenes reading of the report) with slow and sure coverage over time. Just as the locals affected by a hurricane need calm and factual information to help them survive the aftermath .... the American people need calm and factual (not overblown or sensational) stories.

I agree. Media should not blow this opportunity by rushing.

There should be an agreed upon 3-week review period. All think pieces and analysis should come later.

There is SO much to unpack.

I started reading it backward, and I’m impressed by how many investigations by non-SCO there are. All the redacted stuff, but at the end you can see them enumerated.

There are 11 transfers and 14 referrals.
So potentially 25+ cases, though some may be overlapping entities, or also contain multiple entities.

~85% of those are redacted

I noticed in the referrals, the redacted headings are much shorter than a case name. Could be topical headings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God the section on Papadopolis is troubling. No wonder he went to jail.

And then lied via omission through his teeth in his book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not much on fake dossier in this report. Can't wait until the FISA IG report is released.

Much of the dossier has been proven true. There is nothing in the Mueller report that undermines the Steel dossier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not much on fake dossier in this report. Can't wait until the FISA IG report is released.

Much of the dossier has been proven true. There is nothing in the Mueller report that undermines the Steel dossier.

Except reference a person who claimed it wasn't true. There were like 3 sentences in the footnotes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not much on fake dossier in this report. Can't wait until the FISA IG report is released.

Much of the dossier has been proven true. There is nothing in the Mueller report that undermines the Steel dossier.

My prediction is that there will be plenty in the IG's report and future investigations that undermines the Steele dossier.

Oh, and by the way..........Cohen was never in Prague.

[Anonymous]

Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assange is in there somewhere, in the redactions.

He is mention in it. A lot!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

Break what law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assange is in there somewhere, in the redactions.

He is mention in it. A lot!!

Huh. I hadn’t spotted it yet nor done a direct search for his name. He’s on my list now.

First of my search terms were Comey
Ivanka
Kushner
Jr.
Sanders (Sarah)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dems continue to cry like a newborn baby

Honestly I’m less interested in simple trump discoveries. How about:
-sarah h Sanders is documented as a liar (to the press) in this report
-bannon and Erik prince’s month-long texts around the Seychelles meeting were probably deleted by them on both individuals’ devices. No problem with bannon’s Texts before that
-McGahn And KT McFarland turned pres down when he wanted them to obstruct
-that pres doesn’t recall a lot of things - does he do any work there besides “brief conversations” that he later doesn’t recall?
-there were a LOT of comms between Russia and the trump campaign (which we knew). But now is documented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

Break what law?

He repeatedly asked his staff to break the law. They held firm and did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

Break what law?

He repeatedly asked his staff to break the law. They held firm and did not.

What law? Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not much on fake dossier in this report. Can't wait until the FISA IG report is released.

Much of the dossier has been proven true. There is nothing in the Mueller report that undermines the Steel dossier.

Except reference a person who claimed it wasn't true. There were like 3 sentences in the footnotes.

And also Cohen and Trump weren't made aware of the claim that it later wasn't true. They continued to act that the claim was made.