The Barr Exam: "Yes, this Lady appears to be somewhat pregnant but since there is no evidence of the intercourse, it must be the Immaculate Conception!" - ziz iz my Zumary of the AG Barr's Zummary, with all the due and mozt zinzere RESHPECT! | Palmer Report: William Barr’s supposed “summary” of the Robert Mueller report is complete bullshit, just as we suspected
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Mr. Barr, Me izzi not interezanto in your opinion regarding the vicissitudes and your interpretations of zeze theological issues. Az a matter of plain fact, my dear Sir, Me izzi not interezanto in any of your opinionz at all, if it comez to ziz matter.
I do want to read the original Mueller Report in itz entirety, OR:
OR: the American people have the option of hiring another AG, and most definitely another Prezident without Prezedent.
Your Zummary, my Mozt Dear Zir, look-iz more like a wishy-washy white paint job!
Do not sell yourzelf cheap, you are worth much more than ZIZ.
With zi mozt zinzere Rezshpect,
Michael Novakhov
5:26 PM 3/24/2019
1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (196 sites)
Show story changes ·
Today, March 24th 16:11
· Bill Palmer
·
analysis
politics
donald trump
robert mueller
william barr
Attorney General William Barr released a “summary” this afternoon of Robert Mueller’s report, and it’s provided zero answers and endless new questions. According to Barr, Mueller concluded that he didn’t find evidence that Donald Trump committed any acts of obstruction of justice, or collusion with Russia, that would rise to the level of a chargeable crime. This is, of course, total bullshit. So what’s really going on?
In short, we don’t know what this is. We’ve spent the past couple years watching Donald Trump commit blatant acts of obstruction of justice in plain sight, that anyone who’s ever so much as read the statute would understand is grounds for indictment. Widespread reporting from major news outlets has long made clear that Team Trump directly conspired with the Russian government in an attempt at altering the outcome of the 2016 election, and some of the key players have publicly confessed to as much.
WASHINGTON – Congress on Sunday got its first peak into what special counsel Robert Mueller found after years investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and any possible collusion with President Donald Trump's campaign.
The summary was compiled by Attorney General William Barr and put into a four-page sent to Congress. It was created after Barr spent days reading through Mueller's lengthy investigation, which was completed on Friday. It does not answer key questions that have hung over Trump's presidency, specifically whether the president committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
"While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the letter says on whether the president obstructed justice.
The report does conclude that the Trump campaign did not conspire with Russia during the 2016 election, according to the letter from Barr to Congress. It notes that Mueller's investigation found the campaign was given "multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign" but no one within the campaign or "anyone associated with it" conspired with Russia.
While the summary could help quell some of the questions and mystery surrounding the ultra-secretive report, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said they will push for a full disclosure of the report.
Mueller's report, which remains in the hands of Barr, marked the end of an investigation launched in secret months before Trump was elected, when the FBI began gathering clues that made them suspicious of aides to Trump's campaign.
The probe mushroomed to include whether the campaign coordinated with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, and whether the president himself attempted to obstruct it. And it produced a cascade of other criminal investigations targeting people around Trump, which have not yet concluded.
The investigation led to the indictment of 34 people and three companies on scores of charges. Dozens of Russian nationals were charged with hacking Democratic computers and spreading disinformation during the campaign. Several Trump aides were convicted of lying to Congress or investigators, or for campaign-finance violations or for tax and bank fraud.
Read Barr's letter to Congress in full below, outlining the conclusions of Mueller's investigation:
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller Ill and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.
The Special Counsel's Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). This report is entitled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election." Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.
The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign — joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. "l
The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.
The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Camparusign and the Russian government on election interference."
Obstruction of Justice. The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.[1]
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-ofjustice offense.
Status of the Department's Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a "confidential report" to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C.
401 (3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of' notifications to your respective Committees "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
[1] See A Sitting President 's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).
Read or Share this story: <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/24/mueller-report-read-william-barr-summary-of-russia-investigation/3255076002/" rel="nofollow">https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/24/mueller-report-read-william-barr-summary-of-russia-investigation/3255076002/</a>
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr will deliver to Congress on Sunday afternoon the main findings of the inquiry by Robert S. Mueller III, a Justice Department official said, just days after the conclusion of a sprawling investigation into Russia’s attempts to sabotage the 2016 election and whether President Trump or any of his associates conspired with Moscow’s interference.
The release of the special counsel’s conclusions will culminate 22 months of work by Mr. Mueller and his handpicked team of prosecutors, but it could be just the beginning of a lengthy constitutional battlebetween Congress and the Justice Department about whether Mr. Mueller’s full report will be made public. Democrats have also called for the attorney general to turn over the report and all of the special counsel’s investigative files.
The Russia investigation has buffeted the White House from the earliest days of the Trump administration, with numerous current and former aides to Mr. Trump brought for questioning to the special counsel’s warren of offices in a plain office building in downtown Washington. F.B.I. agents fanned out across the nation and traveled to numerous foreign countries. Witnesses were questioned by members of Mr. Mueller’s team at airports upon landing in the United States.
The report will bring closure for some who have obsessed over the myriad threads of a byzantine investigation. A cottage industry of Mueller watchers has spent months on social media and cable news debating thorny constitutional issues, spinning conspiracy theories and amassing encyclopedic details about once-obscure figures — Carter Page, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, George Papadopoulos and others.
How many minds it changes is another matter. Opinions have hardened over time, with many Americans already convinced they knew the answers before Mr. Mueller submitted his conclusions. Some believe that the special counsel’s previous indictments, twinned with voluminous news media reporting, have already shown a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Some believe that the investigation is, as Mr. Trump has long described it, a “witch hunt.”
Mr. Mueller’s work has proceeded in the face of blistering attacks by Mr. Trump and his allies, who painted the investigation as part of a relentless campaign by the “deep state” to reverse the results of the 2016 election.
Still, the release of Mr. Mueller’s findings could force a decision by Democrats on a simmering issue they have said would wait until the investigation’s end: whether to begin impeachment proceedings against the president. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has said it would not be “worth it” to try to impeach Mr. Trump, but suggested she could change her mind if an overwhelming bipartisan consensus emerged.
For months, the president and his lawyers have waged as much of a public-relations campaign as a legal one — trying to discredit the Mueller investigation to keep public opinion from swaying lawmakers to move against Mr. Trump.
The Justice Department regulations governing the Mueller inquiry only required the special counsel to give a succinct, confidential report to the attorney general explaining his decisions to either seek — or decline to seek — further criminal charges. Mr. Mueller operated under tighter restrictions than similar past inquiries, notably the investigation of President Clinton by Ken Starr, who ended up delivering a 445-page report in 1998 that contained lascivious details about an affair the president had with a White House intern.
Mr. Mueller was still given a wide mandate — to investigate not only Russian election interference but “any matters that may arise directly from that investigation.” Mr. Mueller has farmed out numerous aspects of his inquiry to several United States attorneys’ offices, and those investigations continue.
Mr. Mueller will not recommend new indictments, a senior Justice Department official said on Friday, ending speculation that he might charge some of Mr. Trump’s aides in the future. The Justice Department’s general practice is not to identify the targets of its investigations if prosecutors decide not to bring charges, so as not to tarnish their reputations. Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, emphasized this point in a speech last month.
“It’s important,” Mr. Rosenstein said, “for government officials to refrain from making allegations of wrongdoing when they’re not backed by charges that we aren’t prepared to prove in court.”
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr will deliver to Congress on Sunday afternoon the main findings of the inquiry by Robert S. Mueller III, a Justice Department official said, just days after the conclusion of a sprawling investigation into Russia’s attempts to sabotage the 2016 election and whether President Trump or any of his associates conspired with Moscow’s interference.
The release of the special counsel’s conclusions will culminate 22 months of work by Mr. Mueller and his handpicked team of prosecutors, but it could be just the beginning of a lengthy constitutional battlebetween Congress and the Justice Department about whether Mr. Mueller’s full report will be made public. Democrats have also called for the attorney general to turn over the report and all of the special counsel’s investigative files.
The Russia investigation has buffeted the White House from the earliest days of the Trump administration, with numerous current and former aides to Mr. Trump brought for questioning to the special counsel’s warren of offices in a plain office building in downtown Washington. F.B.I. agents fanned out across the nation and traveled to numerous foreign countries. Witnesses were questioned by members of Mr. Mueller’s team at airports upon landing in the United States.
The report will bring closure for some who have obsessed over the myriad threads of a byzantine investigation. A cottage industry of Mueller watchers has spent months on social media and cable news debating thorny constitutional issues, spinning conspiracy theories and amassing encyclopedic details about once-obscure figures — Carter Page, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, George Papadopoulos and others.
How many minds it changes is another matter. Opinions have hardened over time, with many Americans already convinced they knew the answers before Mr. Mueller submitted his conclusions. Some believe that the special counsel’s previous indictments, twinned with voluminous news media reporting, have already shown a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Some believe that the investigation is, as Mr. Trump has long described it, a “witch hunt.”
Mr. Mueller’s work has proceeded in the face of blistering attacks by Mr. Trump and his allies, who painted the investigation as part of a relentless campaign by the “deep state” to reverse the results of the 2016 election.
Still, the release of Mr. Mueller’s findings could force a decision by Democrats on a simmering issue they have said would wait until the investigation’s end: whether to begin impeachment proceedings against the president. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has said it would not be “worth it” to try to impeach Mr. Trump, but suggested she could change her mind if an overwhelming bipartisan consensus emerged.
For months, the president and his lawyers have waged as much of a public-relations campaign as a legal one — trying to discredit the Mueller investigation to keep public opinion from swaying lawmakers to move against Mr. Trump.
The Justice Department regulations governing the Mueller inquiry only required the special counsel to give a succinct, confidential report to the attorney general explaining his decisions to either seek — or decline to seek — further criminal charges. Mr. Mueller operated under tighter restrictions than similar past inquiries, notably the investigation of President Clinton by Ken Starr, who ended up delivering a 445-page report in 1998 that contained lascivious details about an affair the president had with a White House intern.
Mr. Mueller was still given a wide mandate — to investigate not only Russian election interference but “any matters that may arise directly from that investigation.” Mr. Mueller has farmed out numerous aspects of his inquiry to several United States attorneys’ offices, and those investigations continue.
Mr. Mueller will not recommend new indictments, a senior Justice Department official said on Friday, ending speculation that he might charge some of Mr. Trump’s aides in the future. The Justice Department’s general practice is not to identify the targets of its investigations if prosecutors decide not to bring charges, so as not to tarnish their reputations. Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, emphasized this point in a speech last month.
“It’s important,” Mr. Rosenstein said, “for government officials to refrain from making allegations of wrongdoing when they’re not backed by charges that we aren’t prepared to prove in court.”
Read the whole story
· · ·
|
Was he smart and was he tough?
What will say his epitaph?
Putin Rex
"Властитель слабый и лукавый..." - Putin, the producer of Fake News (and also Fake Ideas and Fake Emotions). Putin is a Big Russian Fake himself; the National Treasure in this respect. Give him fines non-stop 24X7, and bring the criminal charges too, for the blatant disrespect to Humanity and perpetual, sick, pathological lies on the grandest possible scale. "He thought of himself as the Russian XXI Century Cesar but he was a Big Liar and a Big Pretender although a bad actor, and it showed." That's what his epitaph will say, methinks. M.N.
12:43 PM 3/19/2019
I
Властитель слабый и лукавый,
Плешивый щеголь, враг труда,
Нечаянно пригретый славой,
Над нами царствовал тогда.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
Russia has banned fake news, while also being one of the world's prime exporters of fake news Business Insider
Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a new law that heavily fines those who spread those who spread what the state decides is fake news. Russia is one of ...
23 hours ago - Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed into law a set of bills that will make it ... non-free) courts from the game,” Maria Snegovaya, an adjunct fellow at the ... authority to determine that any speech is unacceptable under the new law.” ... or groups to call for public protest activity against any action taken by the state.”.
20 hours ago - Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed into law a series of bills that would ... fines of up to 1.5 million rubles under the new legislation, according to reports. ... Free speech advocates have warned the laws could repress political speech, ... Press advocates say that laws against "fake news" are used by governments to
6 hours ago - Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed two censorship bills into law Monday. ... Insults against Putin himself can be punished under the law, The Moscow Times ... White House Says Anonymous 'Coward' Behind New York Times Op-Ed ..... Public Service Announcement [xkcd.com]: The right to free speech means the ...
23 hours ago - Websites that fail to comply with the new rule will be blocked Credit: Yuri Kadobnov/Pool ... Mr Putin signed off on the legislation against the advice of human rights activists, ... and would be abused to further crack down on freedom of speech.
5 hours ago - Putin signed off on the legislation against the advice of human rights activists, who warned the laws ... to censorship and would be abused to further crack down on freedom of speech. ... Even the usually pliant media criticized the new laws.
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
Comments
Post a Comment