Great title. I feel like Linus waiting for the Great Pee Tape.
My phone is reminding me to "Watch Live", thanks to the Washington Post. I have some bamboo I'll be busily stuffing under my fingernails instead.
Great. Now I want stuffed bamboo.
Can I eat it when you're done?
Not expecting to get pwned on that one.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
The Mueller/Barr Report!
7: Has anybody finished reading it yet? I know we have some quick readers here.
Did you try urination video cassette?
This morning the WaPo headline mentioned something about "light redactions." These redactions don't seem very light to me - WaPo got played.
Footnote 112: Apparently the pee tape is real.
You made me look. Actual footnote 112:
112 A spearphishing email is designed to appear as though it originates from a trusted source, and solicits information to enable the sender to gain access to an account or network, or causes the recipient to download malware that enables the sender to gain access to an account or network. Netyksho Indictment para. 10.
13: TPM was complaining about that, too.
I guess there is more than one volume to this thing within a single document? I was looking at footnote 112 from Volume 2 - bottom of page 239 (or page 27 of Volume 2):
112 Corney 1/7/17 Memorandum, at 1-2; Corney I 1/15/17 302, at 3. Corney's briefing included the Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30, 20 I 6, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there' s anything else. Just so you know .... " 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said "tapes" referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped hos
If you're joking, it will kill me to find out to truth.
Are they trying to bury the pee tape with the holiday?
"Why is this night different from all other nights?
On all other nights, we tell stories proven and unproven about Trump, but tonight we only tell proven stories."
Also, Happy Passover where applicable.
You're a couple days early with that one. But 22 is much appreciated.
It goes on with that guy whose name is a typo saying the tape was fake.
Stopped flow of tapes...
Phrasing
I mean, at some point it's finally going to get kicked up a level and Trump will start openly jeering about how yeah, he lies all the time, but who's going to make him stop? Some version of the "reality-based community" speech, as farce. (The actual dialectical move is that farce and tragedy are now irrevocably fused.)
It goes on with that guy whose name is a typo saying the tape was fake.
He said he was told it was fake. That's different.
Right. I'm sure it's real, but that's not the same as proving it exists.
30 comments at midnight Eastern. We really are getting sluggish.
The executive summary, read out for your morning commute.
From my unlawyerly listening, it's crystal clear Trump did his level best to obstruct justice and Congress is obliged to impeach. Which McConnell will of course decline to do. I think though the House should go ahead anyway. Months of hearings and whatnot should drown out any Trumpy narrative among Democrats.
Also, it seems clear that while Trump is perfectly willing to cooperate with Russia, he isn't actually a controlled agent. Which, silver lining? Tinfoil lining at least.
I think that question was defined as beyond the scope of the inquiry. Like, Trump could be receiving a check every month from Alfabank labeled "For services to the Motherland" and it wouldn't come up in the report. I could be wrong.
33: For some time now I have been coming around to the position that the House should impeach (or at least start an impeachment inquiry). Can understand positions for or against, but I think this adds greatly to the argument to impeach (not to mention impeaching Barr*), No course looks clean, but I think with a guy like Barr in place I think Trump/Republicans now have an edge their "race" to corrupt the federal government beyond short-term repair. No real way for impeachment (or not impeachment for that matter) to devolve into a Trumpian shitshow, but to the extent possible I think it best to focus on Republican complicity and lack of action. (I don't think "nice" appeals to their good government instincts (Ha!) will truly split any of them from Trump**).
*Ok, that is probably not a good idea. No time for me to start on it now but am interested in a "GOP daddy" scorecard. Barr always a shit, but I wonder to what extent Fox*** brain rot has further pickled his already blackened soul. The mixing of metaphors, let me show them to you.
**Although there may be some sharply-worded tweets.
***Every once in a while it is good to remind ones self of how through the looking glass they were on Obama. This compendium is a good short look reminder. (And had forgotten they railed against his use of Twitter.)
Also, in the exec summaries, not much redaction. A couple of pending matters (or one several times) and IIRC one redacted name. I expect the journalists following this will be ale to guess what those things are quite accurately. I was struck that there was IIRC nothing in the summaries that hadn't emerged already in reporting and indictments.
It does appear* that the redactions have been relatively "light" as advertised. One of the rare Barr/DOJ claims that seems to have been correct.
Unlawyerly eye here, of course.
The extent to which Barr accedes to Trump's desires to weaponize the DOJ against "opponents" will be something to watch in coming days. His shameless "spying" routine in front of Congress does not bode well on that front. but who even knows where these quasi-institutionalist Republican bull whiteys draw their lines.
In conclusion, it is important to future generations across the globe that the Federalist society be thoroughly demonized and marginalized* as a terroristic threat to civilization.
*It's going to take a very looonnnggg game.
I can remember when it was just an ordinary snake cult.
The Constitution isn't a death pact.... without our help.
I wanted Sarah Sanders to say that she didn't lie because she said "countless" and you can't count zero.
The Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena Robert Mueller to resolve one crucial matter-- the official correct pronunciation of "Mueller".
Thank you so much for your great information, It is too useful for me.
Thanks again!
Thank you so much for your great information, It is too useful for me.
Thanks again!
45: It's "Muller." The "Mueller" spelling is presumably due to an ancestor who had a heavy metal umlaut.
If it helps, picture Martin Mull, but more like him, so Mull-er.
I think of Americans who think Deutsch means Dutch and all becomes clear.
That was probably Pennsylvania's fault.
You signed your documents in Pennsylvania.
They used to say you had a friend in Pennsylvania. It's no 'famous potatoes' but better than some, I suppose.
Now they're dropped the pretence.
It was always more of a goal than a promise.
No, the potatoes are real. Very real.
They're real and they're spectacular.
14 is worth restating and it's one of my main take-aways from the report.
One attack line for Dems that emerges from the Mueller Report is, "What is Trump hiding?" Because he was clearly trying to stop Mueller from finding something. What is it? Shady dealings with Deutsche Bank? Russian mob connections? An episode where Trump tried to "accidentally" leave Eric in North Korea?
62 isn't even necessary. The AIUI the report makes clear that Trump has not been charged with obstruction, and possibly conspiracy as well, essentially because DoJ has decided it can't indict a sitting president.
On the small plus side, I think this is one area where a relatively small number of calls might make more of a difference to Democratic leadership strategy. I called Barbara Lee, who is officially now in House leadership, to express displeasure at the slow-walking. Pelosi constituents might do the same.
||
I was waiting for the bus today when some transit cops rolled up on the working class Black man and Native woman who were also sitting there. I decided to stay and observe for their civil rights. It's really remarkable how polite the police can be when there's a third party white man watching. More 'sirs' and 'ma'ams' than an Army base in Alabama. And nobody wound up getting arrested.
||>
You Schrödinger's anarchist, you.
Impeach! Impeach! Impeach! (But in more measured language.)
That's Guilty! Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!!
From 67:
the Office of Legal Counsel found that ruling out presidential liability for criminal conduct was not a threat to the rule of law because of the availability of impeachment as a remedy. But if impeachment is presumptively off the table in the face of facts as extreme as those the Mueller Report contains, then it's reasonable to ask whether impeachment is truly available at all where members of the president's party in the Senate comprise a sufficient number to block removal.
As if the two parties are symmetric. As if the Republicans wouldn't have initiated impeachment against Obama if they could have found the absolute slightest pretext to do so, if only he hadn't been so entirely squeaky clean.
This is on the Democrats. They should start impeachment hearings because he has actually committed an astonishing number of impeachable offenses. For them to worry about it backfiring politically is fucking insane.
I agree with 69. The Beltway Consensus is doing genuine harm on this one. The House majority can and should approach it seriously and reluctantly; imo, the potential blowback can be managed.
It seems to me that they should be asking themselves which is politically worse, the blowback from pursuing Trump, or the blowback from vindicating Trump. Those are the only items on the menu. There's not some third choice where serious people shake their heads, and know that he's a garbage human being, and a very bad president, and surely that will carry the day.
Certainly no one who had a goddamn thing to say about Benghazi or Hillary Clinton's emails should be listened to on this. It's true that our coalition is different, and has way higher standards of conduct. Trump meets any test anyone can articulate. JFC, Trump is already claiming complete exoneration: what possible advantage is there for us in acting that that's a plausible interpretation?
(I can totally see the argument that replacing Trump with Pence helps the Republicans' chances in 2020. I can also see that removal isn't actually going to happen.)
I suppose if they're doing thorough, serious investigations following through on everything Mueller couldn't, it doesn't matter so much in the short term whether they call them "impeachment proceedings" or not. But regardless they can't be doing the Repubs' work for them by preempting possible outcomes.
As long as they subpoena people and tax returns, they can call it wherever they want.
I want to agree with that, guys, but I think it's important that the frame maybe just a little explicit. Every time a reporter asks Dems what they are doing, the answer should include 'defending Democracy from blatant lawbreaking.' Some NYT journalist asks 'aren't you worried about dividing the country' it's fair enough for the politician to ask for a copy of their piece worrying about the divisive effect of the Benghazi hearings. Oh you didn't write one, even though the only reason for those hearing was division? GTFO my office.
And certainly every journalist suggesting that the House should focus on legislation should be asked why he (isn't it always a he?) thinks that the same Senate that refuses to consider accountability for the President is going to agree to legislation that improves the lived of anyone in the 99%.
Even if we could get bills passed, this still would be a priority. The choice you posit is utterly non-existent. GTFO my office.
(I'm kind of wrestling with my own little role to play here. I've been entertaining the idea of drafting a resolution for our county central committee calling for impeachment hearings. I can imagine that folks running statewide might have thoughts about that. At a certain point, though, standing up is just required.)
I don't mind this Hamlet bullshit from Schiff -- as long as he understands that the sonofabitch needs impeaching. It's okay with me if he wants to look like he was dragged reluctantly into it and just couldn't ignore the weight of the evidence.
But if he's serious about deferring to the Republicans in the Senate, fuck him.
Very Nice Post, I learned a lot through it. Thanks for posting.
Thanks for sharing this amazing article, it is very informative post good work keep it up.its good
