Mueller report sent to AG // UPDATE MAR 24 // Update **NO COLLUSION **

[Quickseller]

Multiple news outlets are reporting that Mueller has sent his report to the Attorney General and that the Judiciary Committee of Congress should expect notification of this. It is also being reported that a messenger from the DOJ is currently in route to Capital Hill, presumably to give notification of the above as required by the special council regulations.

President Trump has previously indicated he wants the report made public and the House of Representatives this week voted 420-0 on a non-binding resolution asking for the report to be made public.

The Mueller probe started with the intention of determining if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election. To date zero evidence has been presented that supports this claim, despite many Democrats claiming to have seen such evidence.

Earlier this week the Ukraine government has opened an investigation into government officials helping the Clinton campaign in 2016 after allegedly finding evidence of this.

The start of the investigation into the Trump campaign can be traced back to propaganda by the Russian government given to a former British spy and forwarded to the FBI. Neither the former British spy, nor the FBI have articulated why the propaganda had any reason to be believed. Those in the FBI investigating the Trump campaign and the British spy all largely did not want Trump elected. Clinton, during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama administration helped broker a deal to sell Uranium to the Russian government and her policies were generally friendly to the Russian government.

The Mueller report will be posted here once it is made public.

Update March 24: AG Barr has sent a letter to congress, who should be receiving it within the hour. The letter will likely include the principal conclusions and findings of the Mueller investigation.  

Updare2 March 24: The letter from Barr regarding the Mueller report, says the Russian government attempted multiple times to partner with the Trump campaign, however all of these offers were either not accepted or rejected. The Mueller report also did not specifically opine if Trump obstructed justice and deferred to the AG in regards to this question.  

The letter to Congress from AG Barr can be found here

[1714029688]

1714029688

[1714029688]

1714029688

[BurtW]

Finally.  It will be very interesting to see what it contains.

[KingScorpio]

Finally.  It will be very interesting to see what it contains.

why should anyone care? whats the proof ? it might and is even likely to be just a bunch of false flag strategic lies.

there are many in the usa that try to get rid of trump to start another row of russia hatred.

and foreign trade defizit us capitalism, that constantly enriches the us central banks.

after the collapse of uk the us is likely to be next.

whats the point dealing with governments and countries that constantly lie to get what they want.

under such conditions there can never be a unified world, because constantly lying is beneficial

regards

[KingScorpio]

>>after the collapse of uk the us is likely to be next.
Top notch analytics only on bct.
Sell your stocks folks.

well that is what top us economists also said recently.

i dont know which one, but it was an article on ccn

but the mindset was recently repeated

https://www.ccn.com/democrat-and-republican-parties-are-both-full-of-idiots-charlie-munger

[Spendulus]

...
The Mueller probe started with the intention of determining if the Trump campaign colluded ....

No it did not.

That was the stated reason, the pretense. The minimum required to comply with the rules.

You would like to establish the fact that this was all a sham.

But it was never based on facts, but on manipulating emotions of the population.

[Quickseller]

...
The Mueller probe started with the intention of determining if the Trump campaign colluded ....

No it did not.

That was the stated reason, the pretense. The minimum required to comply with the rules.

You would like to establish the fact that this was all a sham.

But it was never based on facts, but on manipulating emotions of the population.

This was the underlying topic Mueller was investigating, or at least should have been investigating. Realistically speaking, there was not sufficient reliable evidence to support opening an investigation, so instead, the FBI used information/evidence they should have good reason to believe was not reliable.

AG Barr has reportedly sent another letter to congress, and select congressmen should be receiving a letter within the hour. The letter will likely include the principal findings of the report.

[TECSHARE]

The warrant they used to start investigating Trump was based on "The Steele Dossier" which was paid for by HRC and the DNC. They did not of course disclose that to the FISA warrant judge (he was not happy). In effect this entire investigation was illegal, and now those responsible get their turn being hunted.

[theymos]

The letter makes the final report sound more positive toward Trump than I expected. I'll be interested to see the final report, especially the obstruction-of-justice part which seems less conclusive and which the AG's letter only briefly summarizes.

[Spendulus]

The letter makes the final report sound more positive toward Trump than I expected. I'll be interested to see the final report, especially the obstruction-of-justice part which seems less conclusive and which the AG's letter only briefly summarizes.

On the negative side, Mueller did snare a pretty routine, average member of the Washington District of Criminals, Manafort.

And he entrapped very unfairly, Flynn.

Those events stand as warnings to any who would think of going against the swamp.

[Quickseller]

The warrant they used to start investigating Trump was based on "The Steele Dossier" which was paid for by HRC and the DNC. They did not of course disclose that to the FISA warrant judge (he was not happy). In effect this entire investigation was illegal, and now those responsible get their turn being hunted.

There was a footnote that said:

(on page 23)[Steele] was hired by [GPS Fusion] to conduct research into [Tump's] ties to Russia. [Steele] provided the results of his research to [GPS Fusion], and the FBI asses that [GPS Fusion] likely provided this information to [Perkins Cole] that hired [GPS Fusion] in the first place. [Steel] told the FBI that he only provided this information to [GPS Fusion] and the FBI.[Redacted]The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press."

This in fact does not mention either Clinton, nor the DNC being the ultimate client. Nor does it disclose Steele's anti-Trump bias.

Interestingly, it also cited the Director of National intelligence, but instead of getting a sworn statement from him, they used statements he made on TV, obviously not under oath, nor in an interview with law enforcement, making any lies he said not a crime. There were also lines marked "(U)" (unclassified, I believe) that were redacted.

The FISA laws need to be reformed, but that is off topic here....

The letter makes the final report sound more positive toward Trump than I expected. I'll be interested to see the final report, especially the obstruction-of-justice part which seems less conclusive and which the AG's letter only briefly summarizes.

The obstruction of justice piece is based on things Tump did in the public eye.

An obstruction case against Trump could have been derived from one of two things, his firing of Comey, or his criticism of the Special Counsel investigation.

As President, Tump has the constitutional right to fire Comey, as Trump is politically accountable to anything Comey does as FBI director. As a US Citizen, Trump has the right to protest any government action he does not like, and to petition the government to change its policies and/or laws.

If the special counsel tried to prosecute the President based on either of the above actions, any conviction would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.

I am also interested to see the final report, but I am going to speculate it contains a lot of innuendo regarding the effect of Russia's election interference. It will likely contain incomplete information, as I believe it was only investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, not Russian election interference in general, so Russia may have also helped Clinton, and this would not be in the report. One could also argue that Russia was intentionally inefficient in their efforts, and made their efforts easy to uncover in order to hurt Trump in the event he ended up winning.

And he entrapped very unfairly, Flynn.

Flynn deserves a Pardon, as does Rodger Stone. Even though Manafort is not a good guy, the only reason he is being persecuted is because of his ties to Trump, and as such I think he should be pardoned too.

[Spendulus]

.....Flynn deserves a Pardon, as does Rodger Stone. Even though Manafort is not a good guy, the only reason he is being persecuted is because of his ties to Trump, and as such I think he should be pardoned too.

I agree. Like I said, Manafort's roughly average mindset for the DC crowd.

But he's not a traitor, or a Russian agent, and there was no collusion.

Nobody cares about his tax returns. Nobody.

Stone has came across as a straightforward and honest guy.

Flynn's entrapment is a disgrace. Nobody cared when it was drug dealers subject to those techniques. But they should care in this case.

Can the agencies be reformed? How many have to be fired? I am doubtful this could happen unless DC was broken up. Move the FBI to Kansas, the CIA to Texas. Move the EPA to Louisiana.

[TECSHARE]

The warrant they used to start investigating Trump was based on "The Steele Dossier" which was paid for by HRC and the DNC. They did not of course disclose that to the FISA warrant judge (he was not happy). In effect this entire investigation was illegal, and now those responsible get their turn being hunted.

There was a footnote that said:

(on page 23)[Steele] was hired by [GPS Fusion] to conduct research into [Tump's] ties to Russia. [Steele] provided the results of his research to [GPS Fusion], and the FBI asses that [GPS Fusion] likely provided this information to [Perkins Cole] that hired [GPS Fusion] in the first place. [Steel] told the FBI that he only provided this information to [GPS Fusion] and the FBI.[Redacted]The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press."

This in fact does not mention either Clinton, nor the DNC being the ultimate client. Nor does it disclose Steele's anti-Trump bias.

Interestingly, it also cited the Director of National intelligence, but instead of getting a sworn statement from him, they used statements he made on TV, obviously not under oath, nor in an interview with law enforcement, making any lies he said not a crime. There were also lines marked "(U)" (unclassified, I believe) that were redacted.

The FISA laws need to be reformed, but that is off topic here....

They didn't mention Clinton because she is getting one of the thousands of sealed indictments

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

[Daniel91]

After this report I think that democrats have no chance against Trump in the next presidential elections.
It's obvious that they are to much divided among themselves and without clear direction and goal.
This report was last chance for them to dismiss the president Trump but if Mueller couldn't find any evidence that Trump and members of his team cooperated with the Russians, nobody will.

[Quickseller]

After this report I think that democrats have no chance against Trump in the next presidential elections.
It's obvious that they are to much divided among themselves and without clear direction and goal.
This report was last chance for them to dismiss the president Trump but if Mueller couldn't find any evidence that Trump and members of his team cooperated with the Russians, nobody will.

Democrats and the media were largely staking their credibility on the Mueller report and after everything is said and done they won’t have much credibility left.

I suspect there will be a large republican majority in the house in 2020, I am not sure what the senate election map looks like and Trump will probably win by a large margin.

[Spendulus]

After this report I think that democrats have no chance against Trump in the next presidential elections.
It's obvious that they are to much divided among themselves and without clear direction and goal.
This report was last chance for them to dismiss the president Trump but if Mueller couldn't find any evidence that Trump and members of his team cooperated with the Russians, nobody will.

Democrats and the media were largely staking their credibility on the Mueller report and after everything is said and done they won’t have much credibility left.

I suspect there will be a large republican majority in the house in 2020, I am not sure what the senate election map looks like and Trump will probably win by a large margin.

The really interesting thing here, not just interesting but rather astonishing, is that he'd really deserve such margins on the basis of actual accomplishments.

This is a man that really did fight both parties, and won.

[Quickseller]

Mueller is testifying in congress today.

Earlier he testified there is no basis to charge Trump for collusion or conspiracy.

[theymos]

Mueller is testifying in congress today.

I watched the first couple of hours before I couldn't stand it anymore. Congressional hearings are always cringy and boring.

From what I saw, the Dems seem to have come out somewhat ahead, partly because Mueller was more on their side to begin with, and partly because the Republicans performed poorly. The Republican strategy was to entirely discredit the report, but this is too difficult to get across in few-minute snippets. It comes off more as a conspiracy theory. A better strategy would've been to reference over and over again Volume I's strong support for the Trump campaign not being involved in any Russian conspiracy. Volume II's legalistic arguments would then be overridden in many people's minds with the idea, "If he didn't commit an underlying crime, how can he be guilty of obstruction?" Also, although Volume II pretty clearly argues that Trump is guilty of obstruction (without actually saying so), there are plenty of snippets which could've - in isolation - been used to support Trump, and Republicans should've used this.

I don't know if this hearing will have much effect, though. Partisans will be unmoved, and how many undecided people are going to watch even snippets of this? The stated purpose was to get the public onboard impeachment, and we're still very far from that. Articles of impeachment would at this point still be a win for Trump.

[Spendulus]

Mueller is testifying in congress today.

I watched the first couple of hours before I couldn't stand it anymore. Congressional hearings are always cringy and boring.

From what I saw, the Dems seem to have come out somewhat ahead, partly because Mueller was more on their side to begin with, and partly because the Republicans performed poorly. The Republican strategy was to entirely discredit the report, but this is too difficult to get across in few-minute snippets. It comes off more as a conspiracy theory. A better strategy would've been to reference over and over again Volume I's strong support for the Trump campaign not being involved in any Russian conspiracy. Volume II's legalistic arguments would then be overridden in many people's minds with the idea, "If he didn't commit an underlying crime, how can he be guilty of obstruction?" Also, although Volume II pretty clearly argues that Trump is guilty of obstruction (without actually saying so), there are plenty of snippets which could've - in isolation - been used to support Trump, and Republicans should've used this.

I don't know if this hearing will have much effect, though. Partisans will be unmoved, and how many undecided people are going to watch even snippets of this? The stated purpose was to get the public onboard impeachment, and we're still very far from that. Articles of impeachment would at this point still be a win for Trump.

It's a shit show in a clown circus and everyone's watching something way more interesting.

[Quickseller]

Mueller is testifying in congress today.

I watched the first couple of hours before I couldn't stand it anymore. Congressional hearings are always cringy and boring.

From what I saw, the Dems seem to have come out somewhat ahead, partly because Mueller was more on their side to begin with, and partly because the Republicans performed poorly. The Republican strategy was to entirely discredit the report, but this is too difficult to get across in few-minute snippets. It comes off more as a conspiracy theory. A better strategy would've been to reference over and over again Volume I's strong support for the Trump campaign not being involved in any Russian conspiracy. Volume II's legalistic arguments would then be overridden in many people's minds with the idea, "If he didn't commit an underlying crime, how can he be guilty of obstruction?" Also, although Volume II pretty clearly argues that Trump is guilty of obstruction (without actually saying so), there are plenty of snippets which could've - in isolation - been used to support Trump, and Republicans should've used this.

I don't know if this hearing will have much effect, though. Partisans will be unmoved, and how many undecided people are going to watch even snippets of this? The stated purpose was to get the public onboard impeachment, and we're still very far from that. Articles of impeachment would at this point still be a win for Trump.

I listened to parts of it today.

After hearing what I was able to listen to, and reading about the immediate reactions to the hearing, this is what I was able to conclude:

*The 5 minute segments of questioning each congressmen/senator gets for questions is insufficient for high profile hearings/drama such as the Kavanaugh hearings and the Mueller hearing. Neither side is able to have sufficient time to lay a sufficient foundation to lay any hard hitting blows on the witness, which makes it more difficult to establish the credibility of the witness.
*Mueller's reputation took a hit. He was clearly not as sharp as a credible witness in court would be (who is testifying as an expert witness). He was clearly not intimately familiar with the report and was unable to recall even what should be basic facts regarding the origins of his investigation, such as who Fusion GPS is. He was also unable to explain the basis for holding Trump to the standard that innocence must be "proven". The highlighting of the anti-trump partisions on his team also didn't play well for his credibility. He was not able to even recall which president appointed him originally to be FBI director.
*Similar to the above, it appears Mueller may had not actually been in charge of the investigation. His unfamiliarity with the report (after reportedly preparing extensively for his testimony) makes it look like one of the anti-trump partisions may have been running the show. If one of the "angry democrat" lawyers was something closer to being in charge, it would remove credibility to the assertion that someone as neutral as his record in prior administrations would suggest was running the investigation.
*Trump (and to a lessor extent, Pelosi) emerged as a winner after today's' hearing. Today likely threw cold water on any impeachment push that may have existed, or that may emerge in coming months. Mueller specifically avoided using the word "impeachment" and refused to give Democrats sound bites from the report to use in political ads. The two above points also make Trump look good and Democrats generally look bad. Pelosi emerged as a possible winner because she will not have to deal with as much of a risk of the House (trying to) impeach Trump, nor having to deal with the likely political ramifications of impeaching him (especially without a conviction in the Senate, which is near certain).

[theymos]

I listened to parts of it today.

After hearing what I was able to listen to, and reading about the immediate reactions to the hearing, this is what I was able to conclude:

*The 5 minute segments of questioning each congressmen/senator gets for questions is insufficient for high profile hearings/drama such as the Kavanaugh hearings and the Mueller hearing. Neither side is able to have sufficient time to lay a sufficient foundation to lay any hard hitting blows on the witness, which makes it more difficult to establish the credibility of the witness.
*Mueller's reputation took a hit. He was clearly not as sharp as a credible witness in court would be (who is testifying as an expert witness). He was clearly not intimately familiar with the report and was unable to recall even what should be basic facts regarding the origins of his investigation, such as who Fusion GPS is. He was also unable to explain the basis for holding Trump to the standard that innocence must be "proven". The highlighting of the anti-trump partisions on his team also didn't play well for his credibility. He was not able to even recall which president appointed him originally to be FBI director.
*Similar to the above, it appears Mueller may had not actually been in charge of the investigation. His unfamiliarity with the report (after reportedly preparing extensively for his testimony) makes it look like one of the anti-trump partisions may have been running the show. If one of the "angry democrat" lawyers was something closer to being in charge, it would remove credibility to the assertion that someone as neutral as his record in prior administrations would suggest was running the investigation.
*Trump (and to a lessor extent, Pelosi) emerged as a winner after today's' hearing. Today likely threw cold water on any impeachment push that may have existed, or that may emerge in coming months. Mueller specifically avoided using the word "impeachment" and refused to give Democrats sound bites from the report to use in political ads. The two above points also make Trump look good and Democrats generally look bad. Pelosi emerged as a possible winner because she will not have to deal with as much of a risk of the House (trying to) impeach Trump, nor having to deal with the likely political ramifications of impeaching him (especially without a conviction in the Senate, which is near certain).

When I watched the hearing, I was surprised that Republicans were losing so bad. I'd expected the hearing to be worthless for both sides. Today, I'm surprised that the consensus seems to match your view, that it was actually the Republicans who came out a bit ahead... Not sure what to think about that.