Anonymous wrote:Rudy has written a 55 page rebuttal for a document that exonerates the president. Does that mean the rebuttal un-exonerates the president?

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.

Unfortunately Americans have been in the eye of the democrats and MSM hurricane for 2 years now.

The eye is passed and Trump is still standing. Now pick up your shingles and limbs and stfu.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:The Mueller report is just like the 2016 election.

If Hillary would have won- the election would have been the gold standard in American elections. Because Trump won, it was a nightmare mess of voter suppression and Russian interference.

The Mueller report was the gold standard in investigations. Mueller was a saint/pitbull and his team was as well. The report was awaited with glee and thankfulness by democrats and Trump haters. It would save us and America.

But it’s not what democrats wanted and now it’s trash and lies.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ has already discussed report with White House “numerous” times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html

What are the implications of DOJ briefing the white house?

Anonymous wrote:DOJ has already discussed report with White House “numerous” times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html