Mueller investigation close to being Finished.

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
31,779
6,164
From today's USA today. Your tax dollars at work. Hire a special prosecutor and you get indictments and no explanations.

If this ends up being true, it's an authorization failure. Won't y'all be pissed if he doesn't try to indict Trump.

We should have asked for a comprehensive review of the Russian meddling.

Robert Mueller has spent two years investigating Trump and he hasn't said a word. It's possible he never will.

"A public narrative has built an expectation that the special counsel will explain his conclusions, but I think that expectation may be seriously misplaced," said John Pistole, who served as Mueller's longtime top deputy at the FBI. "That's not what the rules provide, and I really don't see him straying from the mission. That's not who he is."

The Justice Department's special counsel rules don't call for Mueller to make any public statements about his work, let alone deliver a report of what he has found. Instead, his confidential report must explain why he filed the charges he did, and why he might have declined to bring charges against others. It would be up to the attorney general to decide whether that becomes public.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
31,779
6,164
So let's review.

The moment Mueller was authorized under the rather flabby authorization letter, he began to look for crimes related and unrelated to Russian Meddling. He's a prosecutor, not a government consultant or an historian. He's not going to explain anything about how the Russians meddled in our election or what we might do to stop them in the future. He has indicted a number of Trump associates and some Russians. Should we take this to mean that only Trump associates and Russians were involved in the Russian meddling? If he doesn't answer questions or provide a report to the American people, what purpose did the Mueller investigation fulfill?

This post is totally on topic since the supposed end of the investigation should invite these kinds of questions.

A bit of speculation. Do you think the american public will find this outcome worth the investment?

A bit of history of a similar investigation.

The Starr Report got Clinton impeached. 20 years later, its author wants to remind you why.

Bimbo eruptions. Vince Foster's suicide. A bad land deal called Whitewater. Travelgate, Filegate, Troopergate. Monica Lewinsky. Perjury. Obstruction of justice. Fellatio near the Oval Office. Starr was the dogged independent counsel trying to get to the bottom of metastasizing Clinton scandals who eventually found the finger pointed back in his own direction, accompanied by accusations of a "witch hunt."

"A nightmare that won't ever go away," Starr's wife, Alice, said back then, when they were living in McLean, Virginia, under 24-hour police protection.

Trying to make sense of it all is like trying to fold a fitted bedsheet.

Bill Clinton's approval rating went up, and he retired to elder statesmanship. Hillary Clinton won the third-highest vote total in the history of the republic, well ahead of the man whom Starr voted for instead.
What Americans think about the Mueller investigation. (December 2018 report from NPR). BTW I still think polls are fake news, but the question of how the public views this investigation is worthy of speculation and it has political implications.

NPR/PBS NewsHour Marist Poll: Americans want Mueller Report Fully Disclosed

More than three in four Americans (76%) think the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election should be released to the public in its entirety – however for the first time since the investigation began, Americans a higher negative than positive impression of Mueller.
  • 76% of Americans think the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election should be released to the public in its entirety, 6% think portions approved by the Trump administration should be made public and 10% think none of the report should be released.
  • 91% of Democrats, 68% of Republicans, and 75% of independents believe the entire report should be released.
 
Last edited:

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
101,940
89,776
West Coast 4 Life
So let's review.

The moment Mueller was authorized under the rather flabby authorization letter, he began to look for crimes related and unrelated to Russian Meddling. He's a prosecutor, not a government consultant or an historian. He's not going to explain anything about how the Russians meddled in our election or what we might do to stop them in the future.
I like how you try (not very successfully, btw) to hide what you've already decided inside some sort of impartial "review" of what's happened.

He has indicted a number of Trump associates and some Russians. Should we take this to mean that only Trump associates and Russians were involved in the Russian meddling? If he doesn't answer questions or provide a report to the American people, what purpose did the Mueller investigation fulfill?

This post is totally on topic since the supposed end of the investigation should invite these kinds of questions.
It remains to be seen who is indicted in the end. Tough to answer that question in the middle of the process.

A bit of speculation. Do you think the american public will find this outcome worth the investment?
It's impossible to assign one reaction to "the american public". For being so anti-binary reaction most of the time, you regularly fall back into the world of binary thinking. There will be some who will be satisfied and some who won't be. And there will probably be about a hundred different reasons someone may or may not join either of those camps. This is America, so there will also be a large number of people who don't care or aren't interested regardless of the outcome.

A bit of history of a similar investigation.

The Starr Report got Clinton impeached. 20 years later, its author wants to remind you why.



What Americans think about the Mueller investigation. (December 2018 report from NPR). BTW I still think polls are fake news, but the question of how the public views this investigation is worthy of speculation and it has political implications.

NPR/PBS NewsHour Marist Poll: Americans want Mueller Report Fully Disclosed
Yes. Polls that you can spin as lining up with what you believe are borderline alright. Others are fake news.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
31,779
6,164
Flabby answers. It's a speculation question and invites speculation.

For example, we know that the public didn't like Ken Staar or his investigation. Why? What didn't they like or dislike? Is it simply because they like Bill Clinton and didn't care about accusations of rape? The fun part about speculation is that it is editorial in nature and therefore not news. Lead your newscast with polls (which are editorial in nature) and that is not news or if you will, fake news.

But speculating about what people think is an editorial context and not a news function. Polls are guesses about what the public thinks. So was my question.

As the Mueller investigation winds down speculation about its political impact will accelerate. Here at political hot wire, speculation should be the very essence of the "hot" in hot wire.

So, care to play? You can keep on insulting me, I don't care.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
72,401
61,456
So. Md.
On the topic of the original Russian investigation.

The man being quoted (our friend Peter who said "well stop it" about the Trump run for the POTUS) didn't see strong evidence for the collusion connection that led to the Mueller authorization. So if the lead investigator didn't see a strong case for collusion, why exactly was Mueller authorized? That's my question, one that is unlikely to get answered because Mueller's job is to indict people. He is a prosecutor. Does that job serve a public that has been told what a big deal the Russian meddling was and how important it was? Or was it just a dragnet search for crimes and any crimes will do?

The Russia Investigations: What The Justice IG Report Revealed
Hence the investigation. How can you find out if it happened or not without an investigation?
 
Likes: boontito

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
101,940
89,776
West Coast 4 Life
Speculation is fine. Speculation can be fun and healthy. Your game is to lay your spun facts down though as the factual foundation and then speculate from there. That's just gaming the system.

And again, the American people don't feel one way or the other about the Ken Starr investigation. Humans are a lot more complex than you're allowing them to be for argument sake.
 

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
101,940
89,776
West Coast 4 Life
Hence the investigation. How can you find out if it happened or not without an investigation?
It's this weird theory that the only things we should ever investigate are the things that we already know about.

I mean... seriously?
 
Likes: Babba

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
72,401
61,456
So. Md.
From today's USA today. Your tax dollars at work. Hire a special prosecutor and you get indictments and no explanations.

If this ends up being true, it's an authorization failure. Won't y'all be pissed if he doesn't try to indict Trump.

We should have asked for a comprehensive review of the Russian meddling.

Robert Mueller has spent two years investigating Trump and he hasn't said a word. It's possible he never will.
I never expected Mueller to say anything to us. Now, Congress may want to talk to him if the AG doesn't pass along whatever Mueller reports to him. One way or another the Democrats in Congress are determined to know what Mueller finds out about the Trump campaign and Russia.
 
Likes: kmiller1610

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
72,401
61,456
So. Md.
Flabby answers. It's a speculation question and invites speculation.

For example, we know that the public didn't like Ken Staar or his investigation. Why? What didn't they like or dislike? Is it simply because they like Bill Clinton and didn't care about accusations of rape? The fun part about speculation is that it is editorial in nature and therefore not news. Lead your newscast with polls (which are editorial in nature) and that is not news or if you will, fake news.

But speculating about what people think is an editorial context and not a news function. Polls are guesses about what the public thinks. So was my question.

As the Mueller investigation winds down speculation about its political impact will accelerate. Here at political hot wire, speculation should be the very essence of the "hot" in hot wire.

So, care to play? You can keep on insulting me, I don't care.
The American people didn't think Clinton raped anyone and they didn't like it that Starr was sniffing around a consensual affair. They didn't like the way Starr carried out the investigation and all the leaking and the salacious Linda Tripp and whole thing stank and all that came of it was that Clinton lied about an affair. None of it was any threat to this nation. What Trump and his associates may have done would be a threat to this nation. And if they did do what's suspected then Congress needs to know.
 
Likes: kmiller1610

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
31,779
6,164
Speculation is fine. Speculation can be fun and healthy. Your game is to lay your spun facts down though as the factual foundation and then speculate from there. That's just gaming the system.

And again, the American people don't feel one way or the other about the Ken Starr investigation. Humans are a lot more complex than you're allowing them to be for argument sake.
Actually, my game is to try and inject discussion into threads where I have an interest. I don't suffer under the two common delusions that breed here, the inane idea that we have a large audience of targets we can influence and/or convince and the idea that whack-a-mole is fun. A secondary part of my game is to keep my writing sharp (I often write here as my bullpen session before doing actual-for-pay work). The last part of my game is to have some fun, which certainly can involve lots of spinning. For example, the idea that conservatives don't recognize the danger of Russian meddling can be "trumped" by suggesting a 911 style commission that would investigate all causes and all players. That one is a , "so you think you are serious about Russian Meddling!!!?" counterpoint. Just popped into my head. There was literally no deep thought or effort put into it. Then when I read the NPR and USA today pieces stating flat out that the public wants to see some product out of this whole schlemiel, I thought my intuitive grab of that spin made more sense than I had anticipated.

Until we have actual formal debates around here, with a jury and rules, there is no "gaming the system" because there is no system.