Nothing, and I really mean nothing, released under William Barr's signature will have credibility on this topic.
The unredacted version must be given to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Those committees can decide in secret what needs to be redacted before it is released to the public.
2
Always thought collusion was a long shot, but Barr's and Rosenstein's decision on obstruction mystifies me. Not only do we have the savaging of the Justice Department but Sally Yate's warning re. Flynn. And all those horrible deprecations of the sitting AG, sessions,
Barr "is also likely to acquiesce to any decision by Trump to assert executive privilege to withhold certain materials like communications with the president or agency deliberations."
Barr believes that Trump has a sweeping view of executive power.
In other words, Trump will have power to use his executive privilege to withhold material from Congress and the public.
Barr was hand-picked by Trump for a reason. Now we know why.
Trump should have been required to answer questions under oath. He would have incriminated himself. Now he claims, “a complete and total exoneration” from the Mueller findings. “This was an illegal takedown that failed.”
This story isn't over.
2
Earth to liberals: there was no collusion *because Trump is fundamentally lazy, and collusion would have required effort on his part*.
The thing that matters is the money: he has cheated his entire life (just like his daddy). There is proof of that buried in his tax returns and business holdings.
Focus on the real not on the imagined crimes: he's too lazy to be big-time, but the small-time stuff still matters.
4
I’d like to see Jeff Zucker under oath having to answer for CNN’s suffocating, all-encompassing, obsessive coverage of the Mueller investigation these past few years, almost to the exclusion of everything else newsworthy. How was this not a deliberate effort at distracting the masses? We already know from polling done during the midterms that this investigation was fairly low on voters concerns. The media’s role in all this has been unconscionable, as indeed it was in the run up to the 2016 election. Endless hours of pundits speculating wildly about possible outcomes.
2
@Xoxarle: If the coverage presented by CNN was that “suffocating”, why didn’t you bother to pick up your remote and CHANGE the channel to something more to your taste? Everyone is going to read into this upcoming report what they so badly want to see, according to their political leanings.
3
I am still not clear on one point. If a sitting president, by JD policy, cannot be indicted, and barring an indictment, info or legal opinions resulting from an investigation cannot by policy be released (contrary to Comey’s opinion of Hillary’s carelessness), then is it not possible that Mr. Trump is in fact still an un-indicted conspirator, and only because he is sitting in the Oval Office, Mr Mueller has no recourse? And if that is true, how did we get to a place where the Criminal under investigation gets to choose the man, who basically told him in a legal opinion that he was immune, to be the guy who decides whether or not to let Congress and the People know the facts that might in fact indict him? And that, if Congress is forced to sue, the majority of the court likely to decide in his favor was completed by the Criminal himself, aided and abetted by a bogus policy invoked by one man in the Senate that denied a sitting president of his right to advice and consent? Is it really possible in our Democracy that a President can shoot someone on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the votes of a few thousand people in Kentucky are ultimately responsible for letting him off, Scott Free?
4
@Mark Andrew
Sadly, YES!
And if that person happens to be a Dem (politician) or worse, a minority, you can just watch the Republican machine UNEARTH their great-great grandparents’ civil disobedience records merely to paint them as UN-patriotic and thus UN-American.
1
And so it ends, not with a cleansing fire, but an exhausted sigh. Trump wins. Like the most impervious of Mafia Dons, the Donald simply rode over his critics with a blanket of lies and rage and obfuscations so deep and so pervasive no one could keep up with the onslaught. Ripping apart the pillars of our government and urinating on centuries of decency and history, Trump wallowed triumphant through his own filth with such bravado no one knew what to do....and so America lost. Yes, a cowardly Congress abandoned its role and let the sewage wash over us with barely a whimper or complaint, and the press, while ranting a bit, found it had no teeth with which to fight corruption on such a massive scale. America lost, big time. Mr. Trump and his appalling family have won. We, collectively, simply did not have the will to fight for our own country, and so are left with this swaggering Don still not done with his destruction. By 2020 there will be very little left to fight over, and the Millennials will be left with the ruins their parents bequeathed them.
5
@Mike Graff
Voting the Dems back in 2020 with a clear MAJORITY (and that means appealing to the MAGA-hat crowd and not denigrating them) is the only way... but there needs to be a plan in place by the Dems on how to deal with civil strife, if and LIKELY, the current Rep. leader decides NOT to vacate his ‘throne.’
2
Barr has said he will release as much information as he can. Well, here is the conundrum: Under DOJ rules the president cannot be indicted, and under other DOJ rule prevents the publican of the results of the investigation as to anyone who has not been indicted.
Why is no one talking about this?
Sometimes, it's a small consolation being right.
From day one of Donald Trump's presidency, some of us have insisted he's a crook and a threat to our democracy who should be investigated for the abundant evidence of his malfeasance and corruption. When the Mueller probe began, some of us saw trying to prove Trump is a traitor as fools' gold.
With signs of Trump's corruption abundantly clear, most of those opposing Trump choose to overlook his criminal behavior. Instead, they were enthralled with the dream of seeing Trump take the perp walk for betraying the nation to the Russians. Now, the overreach of that fervent hope may backfire. Trump may claim exoneration of treason, making his criminal corruption seem petty.
There is still a chance that Mueller has shifted the indictments of Trump Jr. and possibly Trump himself to the Southern District of New York where Trump's pardon powers are limited.
But in our eagerness to see justice, we may have blundered and let a lawless president off the hook.
I really hope I'm wrong.
1
@Civic Samurai
Nope, you got it right. Liberals got caught up in some paranoid fantasy. This is why having someone like AOC in congress matters: she didn't grandstand, she asked questions that will matter in the long-run.
But this is all besides the point: everyone knew he was a dumb, lazy bum, and half our population voted for him anyways because they hate the other half and want to hurt them.
And they are the problem, not Trump.
3
The most important questions I would like to know the answer to are "What did Mike Flynn say to Kislyak? What, or who, prompted him to say what he did? What was it about that conversation that he lied to the FBI about? Why did he lie?"
1
I'm still praying this newspaper has a full copy of the report locked in their vault.
1
The NYT, and many of the posters here, seem to think we are still operating in a reality-based world where facts matter, but that train left the station long ago. The Trump administration has already claimed the Mueller Report provides vindication and their supporters, led by the propaganda wing of the GOP, Fox News, are solidly on board, happy to believe whatever Hannity tells them. It's all in the marketing, it's all smoke and mirrors and facts be damned. Reality and reality TV are now fully merged in the American consciousness. Hey, I like wallowing in righteousness as much as the next liberal, but this is not Watergate Redux, Trump is not the cause but a symptom of an institutionalized system of government by the rich, of the rich and for the rich. You can thank Citizens United for that.
3
Will we see out of the wildly abusive pundits of my side (the Left) wisely step forward on their own with a sort of "truth & reconciliation" process, whereby they acknowledge their Trump derangement and therefore cool the firestorm they have created with overblown predictions of convictions for treason and/or justification of a coup? Will they have the guts and decency to cut their losses and admit how horribly wrong they have been? Will the NYT institute an investigation into derangement lockstep on the part of it's staff, and design procedures to prevent this sort of "fact burying for career gain" in the future? I'd like to see my Liberal side succeed, and I'd like to see the NYT get back on track, and I'd like to see Trump defeated. Hence my questions.
2
Re: "...It’s quite simple: What will the public get to see, and when will that happen?"
3 Unanswered_Questions:
1.) What did the president know about this R.I.C.O._Scandal?
2.) When did he first, know it?
3.) Why did he fail to STOP the Russians / his underlings, 'N, family members / himself????!!
What appears to me to be clearly wrong is the ability for Trump to preview the report and claim executive privilege on information included in it. As I understand it during the investigation the Trump administration provided information and did not claim executive privilege regarding it. To allow him now retroactively claim executive privilege would gut the report and make worthless investigative work that relied on this information. The rule should be that Trump permanently waived executive privilege for the information given to investigators.
Another concern is that Trump will get to see the entire report where Congress will not. This seems unfair and brings into question the influence Trump could bring to bear on his appointee Attorney General Barr to exclude damaging information. For this investigation to be seen as independent and objective both Trump and the Congress should get to see the entire report.
2
Here's an interesting question: can anyone whose reputation has in effect been maligned by the MSM or crusading members of Congress, but whose guilt has not been substantiated in fact sue those who have maligned them? Or are they covered by privilege?
Regardless of the outcome of the Mueller report or what happens to Trump, there is one problem that has not been addressed that could have prevented this debacle:
The electoral college that allowed an unqualified and dangerous scofflaw to get elected as president.
If we Americans fail to heal this festering sore in our democracy than we have only ourselves to blame when another Donald Trump is elected!
1
Let’s compare something...Muellers investigation over 2 years cost $25M. Trumps weekend golf excursions cost about $92M, PLUS the $6.4M budgeted for local governments in Florida and NJ. The AF1 flights alone have cost $57M. His golf resort in Scotland cost us $68K, a luxury rental car, same location cost $1M . So now should we wonder WHY the government deficit is in the trillions?
1
How significant is the role Russian investments in Trump's businesses play in Robert Mueller's investigation? Aren't they evidence enough for collusion?
In 2008, Donald Trump Junior said: "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
In 2014 Eric Trump reportedly bragged about an influx of Russian money into their organisation.
2
I would like to know why President Trump hired Paul Manafort as campaign chairman. Surely this is central to Trump’s connections with Russia? Does the Mueller report elucidate this?
I would also like to know if the Mueller report goes straight to Donald Trump to review and if so, why does he get to review the report prior to congress?
1
Does Trump and his family know what the “Emoluments clause” is that they took an oath not to abuse? He has paid his businesses from the US Government budget!
Now the rest of America knows how black and indigenous Americans feel when a white police officer shoots an unarmed person in public with video evidence and still walks free. Trump knows how the system works and knew nothing would happen. At least he was honest and admitted he could shoot someone and get away with it. In the meantime democrats have done zero about the justice system and have a front runner candidate,
Harris,who represents everything wrong with the system.
So move along, get over it, the system has spoken and you just need to deal with it. Those words should sound familiar.
1
No collusion by Trump *or anyone else*. No interference in the investigation. Two facts. Real journalists would have no problem reporting them. Ideological journalists will drag in everything else and avoid them.
As we understand our civics education, Mr. Mueller has defined the project. Now, as Ms. Pelosi has indicated, Congress should defer to the Courts for the next step.
Here’s a simple way to understand why you’re wrong: the questions of collusion and emoluments are political questions, to be dealt with via the political process up to and including impeachment and removal.
But the questions of breaking finance laws, bank and charity fraud, money laundering and criminal conspiracy are legal questions, to be answered via the legal process.
No reason the people cannot advance on all fronts gloriously together.
Why do you lead with "why you're wrong?" ...
“When will Putin release his Trump tape?” and “What will he want for it?” are really the only questions left.
4
@A. Stanton
It's possible that Trump has his own Putin tape or material, showing behavior that would turn even Putin's most ardent Russian fans against him. Sort of a "Mexican standoff" (please pardon the irony).
1
Correction to the last comment:
It’ll just be a political and judicial showdown, barring ANY MIRACLES resulting in FULL disclosure or overdue indictments for the WH occupant.
2
Must we wait for Julian Assange to Wikileak the report? Oh, wait... What was his role in helping Dirty Don get elected?
5
Can a future democratic Attorney General release information Barr sees unfit to disclose?
5
As far as I can tell, Trumpists share two things with their little tin god: a total absence of an attention span, and an inability to come up with more than a few slogans.
It’s kind of a good thing, really—Dick Cheney had a lot more on the ball, and so was able to do much more sophisticated damage—and in the end, it just may be that Trump’s simply too incompetent and loud-mouthed to get away with it.
The questions will be, just how much will he stupidly wreck before he crashes and burns? And will we stop squabbling and show up to vote?
This is a very good exolanation of the current issues; thanks, Times folks. I learned a good deal.
4
Are we sure Mueller isn’t a secret trump loyalist?
2
It was her turn...for gosh sakes....it was her turn....this is simply not fair....it was her turn...fair and square....she had waited in line....it was her turn...
2
If it holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted but there is substantial evidence that there were crimes like money laundering committed, can/will Trump be prosecuted after we vote him out in 2020? What is the statute of limitations on crimes like this?
4
Much is being made about Mr. Barr's announcement that Mr. Mueller will not bring any more indictments. But, a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted (per Nixon era DOJ policy) and Mueller has gone on record many, many months ago as saying he would honor and adhere to that standing policy and not indict a sitting POTUS. Even if the evidence were overwhelming, slam dunk even, Mueller, a man of integrity, was never going to try and indict trump, a man with none. The solution is a political one: impeachment. And that door is still wide open, winter is coming, and the frigid air is drafting through the house. The White House.
4
Mueller’s team meticulously laid the foundation for the heavy lifting required of Congress to indict the President. It also provides a firm basis for various state government indictments. Mueller’s indictments was strategic to forcing the witnesses to provide the information needed for the report. Now it up to Congress and the Justice Department to follow through.
2
@JohnH
Congress can't "indict the President." Congress can only impeach.
1
@GMoog
Right and Congress won’t impeach because the Dems don’t have the votes. And Russians (aka Republicans) won’t vote out one of their own.
And the Dems fear if they tried too early, they will fail and thus LIKELY being faced with the prospect of another thrashing in 2020.
1
Appreciate the effort, NYT!
Given the fact the report cost at least $25 million to the taxpayers, don’t see ANY reason why it shouldn’t be made PUBLIC in a DEMOCRACY, no less.
And not to sound the partisan alarm, why was Ken Starr given so much leeway investigating the Lewinsky scandal and Mueller confined to a limited scope with ULTIMATE power resting in the hands of an appointee (AG Barr) by the same person who’s being investigated in the report (and his campaign)?
Sounds very IMPARTIAL, doesn’t it?
And most importantly, the part in the article that left me SPEECHLESS and extremely disappointed, ‘one or more of the House committees investigating various aspects of the case...will want to call him to testify, though Mr. Barr, the attorney general, will have a say in whether he (Mueller) can do so.’
If the entire report can be withheld from Congress on some flimsy ‘exec. privilege’ grounds and the person who authored the report could be prevented from testifying in Congress by the same appointee, who wishes to protect the WH occupant at all costs due to ‘loyalty’ or some antiquated DOJ practice about ‘not indicting a sitting Pres’, which holds no relevance in this era of CORRUPTION & FAKE NEWS, then what a COLOSSAL waste!
I know, I know the report hasn’t been released...but just wait and see. It’ll be a political and judicial showdown, barring FULL disclosure or overdue indictments for the WH occupant.
I hope to be proven wrong for the SAKE of the Republic.
4
To those who pray that the press may deliver us from this evil if Mueller is not able to.
The press -- as I've learned as a journalist for fifty years -- is a thin reed to depend on. They were never, for example, able to provide us with Hillary's speeches to the bankers -- and hundreds must have heard those.
And, come on, how can they not find Trump's tax returns?
Perhaps somebody, like our billionaire lefties in Katona or the Bay Area, could offer a huge reward for anybody putting Trump's tax returns into the public domain, no questions asked.
Where oh where is our next Edward Snowden or S Hersh when we need them?
The nation calls out for you.
You might win a pulitzer...but certainly a noble...
2
For those that have been following along a goal of the Mueller inquiry was always to use his findings to spur other state and federal investigations from which DJT could not hide.
That has been accomplished.
DJT will run hard for re-election. Very hard- knowing that he cannot escape indictments after he is voted out of office.
It will be interesting to see what happens after DJT is no longer of any use to putin.
The fact that manafort was more afraid of telling the truth than he was of federal prosecutors should tell you all we need to know about who DJT is indebted to.
One thing is for sure- DJT’s life after 1600 Pennsylvania Ave will not be pleasant.
1
What are the chances of the Mueller report or the attorney general’s report getting leaked?
Regardless what the report actually says, the White House will no doubt spin it as a total exoneration: “See? It was just like I said a millions times: No collusion.” What is really troubling is the likelihood the White House will then spin “no collusion” into its oft-repeated claims of “no interference”: “See? Just like Putin said all along. Russia didn’t do it.” And thus take the pressure off protecting our elections from even greater Russian interference in 2020.
1
The problem before Trump is that the FBI reports to DOJ and the DOJ reports to Trump. Who wins if one tries to win an argument with their boss?
Apparently the SDNY is also under DOJ in some sense (I gathered). The DOJ could stifle the SDNY investigation.
So folks, we gave the President too much power in our constitution, and he has the Senate and the Justice apparatus on his side...
We're stuck with him, but at least we have the House and 2020...
One question not raised is whether Mueller's investigation budget was being squeezed by the Justice Department, and
that it was a shortfall of funding (with little prospect of additional
funding to come) that made him decide to submit what his budget had allowed him to finish. Whittaker's role in this, if indeed it is an important issue, would seem an appropriate subject for investigation.
2
The most important questions weren't addressed at all.
1. If Mueller had sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution against Trump, did he decline to do so only because of the Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president?
2. If so, can the evidence collected by Mueller be used by the Justice Department in a prosecution after Trump leaves office?
3
Actually, both were specifically addressed. If you read the thing, that is.
2
@bloggersvilleusa
Regarding your 2nd question, I think it can be, but the problem remains unless it’s done at the state level (SDNY, FL) the federal law will prevail. Due to the unprecedented partisan makeup of the Supreme Court bench, any rulings at the federal district level would likely be challenged and likely overruled by the Republican-controlled Supreme Court justices in DJT’s favour. Seems UNREAL but sadly it’s true.
In other words, it has to be a crime that can only be prosecuted at the state level and thus cannot fall under federal jurisdiction for any appeal to a federal court.
Anyone specializing in this area, feel free to offer your insight.
1
Thank you so much for this helpful exercise; it was brilliant to seek questions from the public, and you assembled a seasoned and astute group of journalists to respond. As have millions of people, I have followed the Mueller investigation saga carefully. I appreciate these concise answers and explanations of the legal and political questions surrounding the handling Mueller report.
2
Maybe I’m a genius, but I figured I would not waste two years and simply wait til the report come out before asking any questions or making any assumptions or predictions.
Why does the Times and all other news sources waste so much energy speculating about a report that will be made public in a few days. We learn nothing from your reporters simple guesses regardless how "informed" they may think the are. I have stopped reading or listening to any of the so called reporting on the report. I am sure there are other newsworthy events that in the world that you could be covering instead of selling papers filled with nothing but rumors and innuendo.
8
On the contrary, I found this a valuable exercise.
Becuse it’s news, news involving the President and Russian interference in our elections, and because—as reading the article would have told you—figuring out what gets released and how is more than merely complex.
The owner of Mar a Lago
Was now palpably desperado
His namesake was sweaty
But the choppers were ready
To ferry both to Florence, Colorado
1
Russia destroyed Mueller’s investigation. We need a new special prosecutor to investigate the investigators.
So, Dirty Don did not do anything indictable. If memory serves, this was the most positive thing they could say about Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese. Two questions: why do Republicans have such low standards for themselves and such high standards for others? and why do Democrats let them get away with it?
5
If Barr suppresses what Trump tells him to, what was the point of the Mueller exercise to begin with?
I must admit that I will miss the pre-dawn swat team raids on unarmed American citizens and their lawyers, all covered by CNN and its team of dedicated civil libertarians.
So here's a proposal: Let's keep it going. And as we are all so polarized, Barr, or better yet, Rosenstein, should appoint not one but two more Muellers, one to scour the Trump real estate empire, the other the Clinton Foundation and all the destroyed Hillary emails that relate to it.
The goal would be to answer two questions:
1. Which represented the high water mark of "Russian collusion" and obstruction: (i) the channel of money and dirt that started under Obama and ran from the Clinton Campaign, through the DNC the Perkins Coie law firm, thence to Fusion GPS, and on to Christopher Steele and his Russian "contacts, then laundered back through Deep State types like Brennan, Ohr, McCabe and Comey into the dossier-fueled FISA warrants, or (ii) anything the Mueller Report discloses about Trump and the Russians?
2. Who made more money and how: Donald Trump as an private citizen from real estate and related investments, or the “public servant” principals of Clinton, Inc. from pay to play?
And by the way, FBI raids on the law offices of lawyers representing targets – such as David ("Scrub-a-Dub”) Kendall at Williams & Connolly – are fair game.
Deal?
2
@Frank McNamara Bravo. Bravo!
Thank goodness Mueller has other copies of the report. Does anyone trust trump and his henchman Barr?
2
Dems need to think hard about taking action because they just can’t stand Trump and can’t let it go, or take a step back and focus their energies on more productive things. That’s what I’d tell an employee of mine. That’s what I’d tell my representatives.
Beto ranted today that “in my opinion” Trump colluded! Ok, so what’s the standard? What’s Schiff going to do now to get on TV? Let the voters take care of Trump. You’all get something done.
3
It's appalling that only a few questions into this "we'll tell you what to think" piece, the Times refuses to disabuse itself and its sycophants of the notion that the Mueller inquisition report is still all about alleged and wholly falsified misdeeds of President Trump, or the total fantasy of how our President might sap the strength of the report.
Already, we see how news is being shaped and formulated post-Mueller to not put this whole anti-Trump charade to rest.
1
Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone else in this silly country. Somewhere there is a court that will entertain it.
2
@Steve Bolger
This is:
1. 100% true; and
2. The first time I have ever agreed with Steve
So if Trump is cleared by the report, the public can rest easy knowing that the President is simply a liar and a cheat - and all of his associates were in cahoots with the Russians and other foreign governments? Or they themselves were committing other felonies?
How far has the Republican party fallen? Do they now consider it a bonus that a President is skillful at juggling mistresses?
4
Do we know if there are indictments under seal from Mueller?
2
The "Democrats" should just state.." release it ALL now....or we will when we're in the White House".
You can run...but you can't hide from the truth.
The truth...the whole truth....and nothing but the truth....
Seems pretty simple
1
No matter what comes out of this report it won't be enough to save this democracy and put the criminals in jail where they belong. The lesson from these past two years is that a healthy dynamic democracy can be in jeopardy just by the deeds of a President who was not legitimately elected and who has no respect for the law or anybody. This $25 million plus investigation is teaching us that We, the People are just minced meat to the machine that elected and protected this man. All the more reason to vote him out in 2020. The power of the vote maybe our last chance to save this country.
2
Here's what will come next.
1. Trump will NOT be impeached. Sadly
2. Trump will NOT be indicted. Sadly
3. Trump will WIN reelection in 2020. Sadly
1
So maybe the worst-case scenario is that Democrats and Independents will have to dump Trump the old-school way: actually coalescing around an electable candidate—foresaking the silos of perfection—and ridding the country once and for all of this menace.
2
17 answers? In other words neither you nor anyone else has a clue what’s actually going to happen next.
But if I was going to lay money on it, I’d say nothing.
1
I believe the president already knows what's in the report, I think Whittaker briefed him, or he briefed someone like Nunes who then briefed Guilliani, then Trump. We are pinning all of our hopes on people who are republicans, some Trump republicans others more Regan/Bush. My guess is that Barr told Mueller to wrap things up, right now, and is probably furiously trying to get through all of the pages of the report. I'm sure he isn't alone, the full force of the GOP, NRA, Russian troll party, Fox news is letting him know how important protecting this president is for their agenda. This is the fox guarding the hen house, there won't be any hens left soon only foxes...
1
I'd be very surprised if there's a "smoking gun" to be found in this report. Even if Trump did collude, there will be no evidence of it. He has no need to get his hands dirty. He has people to do his dirty work for him.
Putin wanted a weakened America, and with Trump, he got it.
2
17 different answers to what comes next and you missed the most patently obvious.
Now that the country has confirmation that the entire fake Trump Russia collusion nonsense fairy tale was in fact a corrupt Democrat plot, the plotters, of course, will be brought to justice.
This is going to be fun.
2
When will this nonsense end? Probably not until Trump wins again.
1
Oh the glory of speculation!
Do people really get paid to do this?
1
Per the NYT analyses of Mueller's investigation, the following is clear:
Trump has long surrounded himself with greedy, small-minded narcissists who would have gladly colluded with Putin's devious toadies - if they only knew how to do so!
Part of the problem now is Trump's "immunity" from indictments as long as he is president. That's a lot of motivation to encourage election-meddling - and worse - from malevolent foreign powers and sociopathic supporters.
1
While it's possible that, under normal circumstances, an indictment might "unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties," it's highly unlikely that would occur with this president. Since Trump's calendar is mostly empty day after day, with the hours filled by "executive time" (meaning TV watching) an indictment wouldn't interfere with anything at all. Neither Nixon's Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel or even the writers of the constitution could have possibly foreseen a president with as little interest in the job and as much time on his hands as Trump has.
When Trump in the 1970s was going to be convicted of racial bias in his attempt to keep housing segregated in the period directly following Civil Rights Act, he settled, got caught again, then paid more fines.
But he walked away free man and claimed it a victory.
He blames it on a corrupt federal government.
When Trump in the 90s threatened a long bankruptcy court battle with the banks and investors who were out over $4Billion due to his mismanagement, the investors chose not to ruin Trump with no guarantee of getting anything from him (Trump was personally $900,000,000 in debt at the time) because the TRUMP letters were atop all the buildings they were losing money on. Trump was removed from management but kept on as spokesman, then took his con overseas to Deutsche Bank and Russia, who have thrown money at him since.
Trump kept his lifestyle and then conned the public with The Apprentice that he's an amazing and successful businessman, though he really just played one on TV.
He now blames that episode on the New York real estate market.
When Trump in the 2010s avoided trial by settling for $25Million with the Americans he defrauded in his Trump University scam during the Great Recession, the only blame he admitted to was directed at an American judge of Mexican heritage.
Then he kept running for POTUS.
These are but three of the many escapes that Trump has bought himself out of thanks to being born a wealthy conman.
Let's see him buy himself out of this one.
1
Mueller supposedly has left no stone unturned to get to the bottom of the truth in as much of a nonpartisan impartial manner as was possible. In fact I argue that he went way way beyond trying to investigate the alleged witch hunt of Trump's campaign colluding with Putin. He investigated the past of crooks and con men who wiggled their way into Trump's affairs. He investigated Manafort and Cohen for matters unrelated to their association with Trump. If anything I would demand that the Trump campaign or president Trump not let any shady characters into the white house door or door to his campaign.
I think the brain washed among the democrats who could not endure the loss of their nominee to a novice running for the highest political office and way outside the elite political establishment should have to open their minds that America during the Trump presidency is way better off than it would have been if their nominee had won. So do not make the election about Trump you will come empty handed. If you have better ideas of how USA could be better, please bring that to a public debate. I don't think medicare for all is a good idea but let us debate it. I don't think Soviet or Venezuela style socialism is good for America but please let us just debate it. If there is a democratic nominee who could be better for America than Trump has been , nominate that person.
As an independent observer of the 2016 presidential election, I once again repeat, Trump won that fair and square.
2
Trump took the side of Russian Intelligence over U.S. Intelligence repeatedly and publicly. His only explanation is that "Putin strongly denied it."
A general is not supposed to take the side of opposing troops. The Commander in chief is not supposed to take the side of an opposing intelligence agency. The fact that Trump has repeatedly taken the side of a hostile intelligence agency with no detailed or logical explanation of why he would do such a thing, is on its face, treason, a high crime. Russia is a hostile power with nuclear missiles aimed at the USA, and with agents attacking our electoral and other systems. (Just because we do it to others, including Russia, doesn't mean the president of the USA is supposed to take their side.)
If the Mueller report does not explain these acts of apparent treason, then we will need to continue investigating, until we find out why Trump is taking the side of Russia against the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. (I have done a lot of research into these agencies and criticized them strongly, but I have never taken the side of a foreign agency against my own national defense.)
I look forward to what Mueller has to say about Trump's apparent treason.
I hope the AG summary will answer all the loose ends; e.g. Why all the Russians attending the Republican Convention and Presidential Inauguration, what transpired between members of 45's Presidential campaign staffers and the Russians in the tower, smoke store, and the Seychelles, why did Russia have priority in providing information to the world regarding US-Russia meetings, what is to become of Maria Butina, and what was transmitted to the Tower server from a Russian bank?
1
The failure by Mueller to interview trump was a fatal mistake to any kind of impartial investigation. Cutting that kind of deal is very suspect. That most likely indicates that any trust in this investigation is misplaced.
The Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, states: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” Since the U.S. President holds the highest federal office and is responsible for executing the supreme law of the land, it has been thought that lawsuits cannot be brought against a sitting president as it would violate The Supremacy Clause. However, in Clinton v. Jones, U.S. Supreme Court (1997) Justice Stevens wrote that while a president must be shielded from liability for actions taken in office, so he can “perform designated functions effectively without fear,” that protection and immunity from civil suits in federal court does not extend to matters unrelated to the presidency and that the separation of powers did not prohibit the federal courts from hearing Jones’ sexual harassment suit against President Clinton because , “[t]he litigation of questions that relate entirely to the unofficial conduct of the individual who happens to be the President poses no perceptible risk of misallocation of either judicial power or executive power.” (President Clinton ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement with Jones for $850,000.) This precedent seems to allow for a Trump indictment, as Trump’s crimes relate entirely to unofficial conduct.
1
All I really want to hear is how Trump, who for two years now has excoriated the Mueller investigation as a "witchunt" and a "hoax," explains how he can be exonerated by a "hoax." Does that mean Mueller's report is phony and he really IS guilty of colluding with Russia?
1
So, essentially, we are in the hope that anything that was passed to the SDNY, and other agencies is what will incriminate him, his family and, cronies.
This report may tell us nothing.
As I look at the last two years of the Trump regime, foisted on us by the neoliberal Democratic Party which lied its way to unbridled power, laying waste the aspirations of the masses as it trod into the dirt every attempt to achieve even some reasonable equality, I can't help but opine that this colossal waste of time and money was yet another chapter in the cunning game and theatrical farce which both mainstream parties use, have always used, and intend to continue to use, to blind and keep the masses in a constant state of unwaryiness, unable to grasp how carefully the disenfranchisement is occurring.
The excerpt defines what the goal has been, since 1970, a goal achieved, which both parties will move heaven and earth to maintain -
" ... neoliberalism in the U. S. arose from a conscious political mobilization by capitalist elites in the 1970s who faced two self-described crises: the legitimacy of capitalism and a falling rate of profitability in industry. Neoliberal ideologies such as monetarism and supply-side economics, had been long advanced by elites, translated into policies by the Reagan administration resulting in less regulation and a shift from a tax-financed state to a debt-financed one. While the profitability of industry and the rate of economic growth never recovered to that of the 1960s, the political and economic power of Wall Street and finance capital vastly increased due to state driven debt-financing"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
3
Journalists like these will still be contriving Trump conspiracy theories long after he eventually passes away. None of this is about probable cause & evidence. It’s about revenge; 2016 election bitterness still flames hot. I’d suggest these reporters turn their attention to investigating the Obama DOJ which increasingly looks corrupt beyond the pale. I won’t hold my breath for that though.
1
mitch?
Well?
....mitch? What say you?
As the senate “leader” we will be looking to you to be that check. That balance!
Demanding answers and ensuring all Americans that everything that can be shared from the report is made public.
I agree with others posting here. We the people paid for that report and Mr. Barr works for us.
The next 18 months will be nothing short of a demand that we the majority in this country get the answers we are seeking.
If not, every politician currently serving is in their last term in office. Including DJT.
... someone go find mitch, please!
1
I have only one question about the release of this report:
Why is there even a question?
The paternalism that our government has shown for decades in the interests of so-called national security, in protecting the country from itself, is outrageous. Whether it's serious or frivolous, the question of who killed Kennedy, what's in Area 51 or now this, the public has the right to know, and the government has the duty to inform us. Nothing that the lying, deceiving Trump has to say about it should matter.
56
@Perfect Gentleman
Oswald was the patsy
The mob took out Kennedy
Area 51 is developing germ warfare and delivery systems
4
@Perfect Gentleman
Andrew McCabe redacted the price of a conference room table he bought for himself, on national security grounds.
The logic must have been that the people would revolt if they knew the way they waste tax payer monies, on $70,000 tables.
Revolts are national security threats.
7
@Perfect Gentleman. the 16 Democrats on the mueller team debunked the entirety election fable of Trump and Russia. It was a coup attempt by people who just refused to accept the election results. People committed crimes with the FISA warrants and now use be held accountable. The dossier, paid for by the DNC and Hillary was collusion with Russia and the only collusion with Russia. People must go to jail for treason.
1
Executive privilege: surely this cannot be asserted to hide or excuse the commitment of a discovered crime. ( It certainly cannot be asserted for chargeable offences committed before being a member of the Executive Branch ). But it can be asserted to prevent such a discovery in order to prevent a partisan fishing expedition of the executive branch. That is where the privilege comes in. Since no one is above the law, including the president, executive privilege cannot shield a felon. This notion that a sitting president cannot be indicted is spurious. It rests on the nonsensical idea that the sitting president is governing the country all by himself or herself alone - that an indictment will therefore prevent the government from functioning. This idea is demonstrably false. If a sitting president were to stand trial, the governing of the country continues uninterrupted and other actions required of the Executive Branch can be performed by the VP or cabinet secretaries.
33
@Vanderlund, Given the number of hours this man spends enjoying his "Executive Time" every morning, his 5 second attention span, and the time he spends tweeting, one has to assume the people around him are doing most of the governing anyhow. Too bad they're not better at it.
8
@Vanderlund. NO collusion, no crimes by Trump, just crimes by the DNC and Hillary related to the illegal FISA warrant ( and collusion with Russia) and the attempted coup attempts.
1
The biggest question is not being answered and the GOP does not care a wit.
Why did Putin and the Russians influence the election in Trump’s favor?
The answer to that question will be avoided at all costs by the GOP and Trump as they would have to face the probability that Russia wasn’t being altruistic towards the US. The endgame is still in play.
52
@glennmr
On the contrary, if only the Obama Administration and intelligence agencies hadn't been so hellbent on eliminating Trump they might have been able to deal with this Russian interference.
It was on Obama's watch that this occurred. He, alone, is responsible.
2
@AACNY No way. Hillary is responsible too. Obama and Clinton should both go to jail for helping russia elect trump
@glennmr
Simple -- Putin preferred Trump to HRC. No -- Surprise there! HRC was not loved by many world leaders.
The question is did Trump actively search out the Russians -- and it seems the SP found no evidence.
We still don't know how J Assange got the e-mails .... it was originally believed to be an inside job .... was it the Russia?
1
Although the Special Counsel recommends no further indictments on his part, he has triggered investigations by other agencies.
The Trump Organization has become he focus for relationships with Russia. While Mueller seems to find no direct collusion with the campaign outside those contained in his 34 indictments, more can possibly be established by further examinations of the Trump Organization and Trump family and friends. Mueller's report will be the basis for the direction other investigations will take.
18
@David N What I find most outrageous, and seldom discussed, is that Trump did basically nothing to punish the Russians for interfering in 2016 and basically nothing to ensure they did not repeat it again in 2018. Trump seems to feel that if they help him their interference is OK. Do we seriously want to run future elections this way, with foreign governments backing various candidates with virtually unlimited budgets and cyber staffing?
3
Barr seems to be the gatekeeper here. Other than Mueller (and perhaps some Mueller aides), these are the only people who know the true scope of what is in the report at this time.
It seems that no one else is legally entitled to see the whole, unfiltered report, unless Barr lets them.
Is there some protection of the report so that if Barr does not release it in it's entirety, the integrity of the report will be maintained for posterity?
If Barr provides a summary, who, in the future, would be able to release the full report? Could this become like the Warren Commission Report that still has not totally seen the light of day?
13
@Erik
Nothing can be sealed forever just on the word of one or two people alone. Even if Mr Barr limits release now, the next time a Democrat controls the executive branch we might see more. But only if it furthers the Democratic agenda.
1
Re: "Is there some protection of the report so that if Barr does not release it in it's entirety, the integrity of the report will be maintained for posterity?" {@Erik}
Who does Mr. Barr think he's playin', with...here???!
I'm reminded of the late Jerry Ford's (dissolved) political_career post Nixon_Pardon!
If this report is leaked / otherwise 'forcibly', released, (via subpoena, and/or as part of an appearance by Mr. Mueller), Vs. 'released, S.O.P.', by Mr. Barr...
Mr. Barr will always bee seen in exactly that same sickly, pale light as (I view) Mr. Ford!
The idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted is holding up. Recourse could be found in impeachment except the Republican Senate is likely to acquit rendering that a dead end. So, nearly three dozen sealed indictments are sitting out there waiting. Waiting for what? Maybe for a "sitting" president to be unseated.
12
Those of us sickened by Donald J. Trump's behavior and his positions have been extremely tense about how deeply he's cut into the nation's core. If feels personal, almost as though he's stabbing each one of us. The country is sinking, and there is no comfort from what's happening around the world. Beyond the misery here and elsewhere, climate change is reeking havoc. Robert Mueller was looked upon as our savior from the demon Trump and his swamp mates. Whatever the conclusions of Mueller's report, at the moment, it is inconclusive. Will the people organize strongly against Trump day after day? Being at war with on another makes that particularly difficult to do. Trump's been very effective at inflaming and deepening the divisions. Without stopping him very soon, each day brings more dread. We cannot get away fro him. He doesn't shut up and commands more and more space just as his marquees invaded our streets. His appetite is ferocious, suffocating and malevolent. HELP!
3
Someone will leak the report. And God bless them.
4
Another 25 million in the hole and I'm pretty sure nothing will change. Trump incriminates himself with his words and actions daily, and yet he marches on unchecked.
5
I paid for this report. I want to see it.
The American people own it.
5
Do we get to see the fully unredacted FISA warrants, given transparency and all?
4
Question: If a sitting POTUS, on camera, in full view of millions, takes out a gun and shoots someone, he can't be indicted for murder? He would be tackled, disarmed, and arrested immediately, no? Where's the line . . .?
1
Can you explain Mueller “not recommending any new charges be filed”? I love your answer. Your deflection is noted. If this were a debate, I could envision Hillary answering it the exact same way.
1
The Podesta group is mentioned today in a front-page article, without explanation. Whatever happened to the Clinton Foundation, the concern about a former Secretary of State using the office for personal gain? Seems important, lost in the myth-making that has been the lifeblood of cable news for two-plus years. (The issue wasn't just "her emails" , it was the contents of the emails.)
2
Right, that was the issue, and yet, the FBI found there was insufficient evidence to pursue any criminal indictments. Hmm.
1
@AFR
The Clinton Foundation was investigated, but no wrong doing was found. Trump's charity on the other hand was shut down because it was breaking numerous laws.
I'm no fan of the Clintons, but you can't whatabout your way out of this.
Democrats are digging their own grave. The election on November 3, 2020 looms. More attempts to bring down President Trump with more and more baseless investigations will likely result in yet another Republican landslide similar to those of 1972 and 1984. The more that our President is attacked by Democrats still bitter about HRC’s loss in 2016, the more decent people will side with their President.
4
@John Murray
Trump keeps committing and confessing to crimes in public. That doesn't make them legal. It means they need to be investigated,
Thanks for your Republican advice. I will put it in the round file.
@John Murray Regardless of the Mueller Report outcome, we have ample evidence that "Decent" and "Trump" don't belong in the same paragraph.
Despite the opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, evidence in the report that points to there having been crimes committed, either by the president himself or at his direction, should be pursued and legal action taken against him.
It's hard to believe that examination of his financial entanglements, for instance, wouldn't have turned up money laundering and witness tampering.
He seems to be in a somber mood now. He has to be aware that the report contains information that will damage his credibility and his power to effectively discharge his duties as president.
3
We know Mueller’s task was to investigate Russian coordination with and/ or links to the Trump campaign. We know Mueller looked at the Russian interference based on the Russian indictments. I would like to see details on the scope, extent and evolution of Russian interference in the 2016 and subsequent elections - it seems that that has to be explained in the report. And because the term ‘links’ is used to outline his mission, the report has to detail how that interference does and doesn’t connect to the Trump campaign. Even at that, Mueller has to go the extra mile. We know that Trump has that mob style nudge nudge wink wink communication thing going, plus some of the potential communication is through loans and banking transactions, so a portion of the report has to address this indirect communication as well, i.e. an explaination regarding the apparent connection between Deutsche Bank, Russia and Trump.
2
The Constitution is a wonderful document, but it just hasn't kept pace with the times. It is fundamentally flawed for the Attorney General to investigate the President who selected him, and doubly flawed for the AG to be able to withhold the results of that investigation from the other two branches.
4
Either Trump committed impeachable offenses or he didn’t. Congress will pretend to figure all this out out except they will be using their personal political calculators. The rest of us continue to be taken for a ride by the president, the politicians and increasingly the media which goes less and less reporting, more and more positioning. Let’s start thinking for ourselves. Without this there will not be a democracy left.
5
The Mueller Report should become public. It's the only way this country can gain its integrity again.
We are Americans why do we need the truth at this point in an entire history built on lies? If the truth were to come out it could be the end of this country as no one would know what to do with truth as reality sets in.
1
None of us knows what the “truth” is anymore; we all have to settle for “truthiness.”
How far does the argument, that a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office because the stigma and burden of the trial would unduly interfere with the presidents ability to oversee his constitutional duties, et cetera, et cetera.
What is the argument for indictment while in office if a president should "shoot someone on 5th Ave", NYC, at 3am in the morning.
Does a trial then have to wait until he is out of office?
1
The information coming from Trump's DOJ, 'No more indictments are coming from the Special Councils office' would be true even if in Mueller's report there is a recommendation that Congress pursue an impeachment first and then an indictment after, so that there is no chance that all this gets caught up in whether or not a sitting President can be indicted?
We should also consider the possibility that indictments are on hold until after the 2020 election because even if Trump is impeached, indicted, and found guilty, along with all of his co-conspirators, Pence could pardon all of them.
@Maria
The remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors by the president, under the Constitution, is impeachment. If a president could be indicted for high crimes and misdemeanors that would make the impeachment clause moot. Since no law can make the Constitution moot, as far as I can see the impeachment clause makes indicting a sitting president unconstitutional. (I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, but I try to stay informed.)
@McGloin for the possible co-conspirators Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, etc. that could have been indicted as part of this probe, I am simply suggesting that the reason Mueller didn't do that could be because Trump or Pence (if Trump is impeached and removed from office) would likely immediately pardon them. Also, my point was that Mueller likely wanted impeachment first for Trump and then indictment just to avoid any back and forth on this issue because a sitting President has never been indicted.
However, I am informed and you might want to read up on the fact that the framers knew how to write a clause granting such immunity when they wanted to. Early on they wrote that members of Congress enjoy 'privilege from arrest' in civil cases when going to and from Congress and may not be criminally prosecuted for 'any speech or debate' in Congress. If the framers wanted to protect the president from prosecution while in office and to make impeachment the sole mechanism for proceeding against a president, they could and would have said so. They didn't.
Missing from this list of questions is this.
It's now proven that Sec State Clinton interfered in Putin's 2011 Presidential election and it's been proven that Putin interfered in Clinton's 2016 Presidential election using similarly measured tactics.
Are we all square now?
1
@Erica Smythe
There is one problem with your attempt at peace with Russia. They are still attacking our electoral systems.
I'm good with unilaterally stopping our interference in foreign elections, including Russia and Venezuela, because I think that it does more harm than good to U.S. national interests, but that doesn't mean we should just let Russia hack our elections without trying to stop them.
So no, we will not be good until Russia stops interfering in our elections.
It may be that Russia was the aggressor in all of this, and Trump was just dumb enough to hire a bunch of people that work for Russia. Or it may be that Trump made up the Russia hoax himself to obscure real crimes. Or it may just be a series of coincidences.
What I do know, is that the Citizens of the USA need to know the truth.
@Erica Smythe
Yes, they like to blame Trump for Putin's behavior toward Clinton, but she brought this on herself by questioning his election results. Trump was a pawn in their personal battle.
I'm not defending Putin's interference. On the contrary, Obama messed up badly. Too busy going after Trump, no doubt.
There is a huge conflict of interest in our government where the person that gets to decide the release of special council report details (AG Barr) was also appointed to his position by Trump, who is the subject of the special council. How can this be a fair system of checks and balances when the chief is the executive branch (Trump) controls all the knobs? This is a banana republic, who made these rules?
2
This report must be delivered to Congress in its entirety. Absolutely nothing should be removed. Anything less is Executive censorship and obstruction of justice! It should then be up to Congress to determine what should be redacted for national security reasons and that should be the one and only reason.
What should or should not be released from the report should not be in the hands of a single person that was hand picked by Trump and under Trump's own direction. This in itself is collusion within the Executive branch.
2
As long as the republicans remain in control of the Senate and the presidency, the farce will go on.
2
The mass media, particularly CNN and MSNBC have done a grave disservice to the viewing public. First, they decided to conflate the concepts of collusion and conspiracy.
Conspiracy is defined in our criminal states but collusion is not. But by beating the 'collusion' drum they created the impression that they were one and the same.
Now the public is wondering why there's no indictment for collusion with the Russian's?
Russia Gate itself became more of an editorial campaign than fact based based journalism.
Was there Russian hacking and phishing going on prior to the election? Yes. Was it unusual or extraordinary compared to the snooping and spying that is typical from them and a dozen other countries? No.
The Nation magazine only last week featured a debate between cyber experts on whether there even was a hack of the DNC. No mention at all on cable news.
The conclusion of that debate demonstrates why there was no conspiracy indictment from Mueller. Again, no commentary from the cable talking heads.
Meanwhile, Trump's real crimes, campaign finance violations, conspiracy to cover up that felony, potential tax fraud, violation of immigration laws, violation of labor laws and tax fraud and more have, for the most part been left unexamined.
Some good journalist have taken this on and done a fine job. But they weren't working to cover up the mistakes of the DNC as cable news seemed to be.
Trump may yet be indicted for his crimes. But Russia was always a bridge too far.
@Drspock
It was Trump that kept saying "no collusion. no collusion." That wasn't the media's word. It was Trump's word. The media should have used the word conspiracy because if there was coordination between Trump and Russian intelligence (even in public as it seemed to be) that would indeed be conspiracy.
By the way, the Russians have not only been accused of hacking into DNC emails. They have also been accused of hacking into state attorney general's offices (where elections are actually overseen), state election rolls, and vendors of election hardware and software.
I have long said that if there is a "Russia hoax" it may have been created by Trump himself to distract from his real crimes, whatever they may be.
But still there are quite a lot of coincidences concerning Russia and many Trump appointees. Hopefully we will learn the truth.
With all the investigations still going on, we won't get much for a while. Probably a long while.
1
After the aggressive way Mueller pursued his investigation and secured significant indictments and sentencings, it is difficult to imagine that his report will now just wave the white flag and let Trump go on his merry way.
2
If the table was turned and it was up to Republicans to obtain all the report and documents, Trey Gowdy would set his hair on fire and jump on Devlin Nunes' shoulders.
All Congressional chairmen need to raise their voices, and be emotionally prepared to discover that republicans do not care if Americans are provided the facts about the odd Mr. Trump's numerous violations of the Constitution.
3
@Steven of the Rockies
Yes, and no matter what is going on, the mission of Republicans has been to overturn the Constitution for as long as I can remember.
They have been calling our government "the enemy" for 50 years. "The government" is Our Republic and the Constitution ratified by We the People, is the operating instructions of Our government.
The Republicans oppose most of it.
The Constitution says Justice and Tranquility. They push unjust laws enforced by a violent militarized police state.
The Constitution says defense. They demand a global aggressive offense.
Promote the General Welfare? The Republicans promote the specific welfare of global billionaires and their corporations.
Liberty? Only for those that can afford the best lawyers.
Posterity. They measure it with quarterly reports.
Article one demands that Congress tax and regulate trade to spend on the mission described in the preamble. Republicans are against taxes (unless you live in a blue state), regulations, and spending (except when they can borrow and spend to throw favors at the billionaires again).
They attack most of the Bill of Rights, which is supposed to protect citizens from government overreach, calling them technicalities, unless of course it applies to one of them. Giuliani spent his career demanding that police be able to do no-knock searches and flip informers, until he suddenly started calling them "gestapo tactics" when applied to Trump.
Any traitor can hold a flag and sing an anthem.
Trump and his people want to suggest that a sitting president can’t be indicted. But the whole question is whether this is, in fact, a sitting president. If he took office by illegal means, perhaps even treasonous ones, then no defense by way of the office can stand.
3
I sincerely hope that Mueller kept a copy of his report. I have no confidence that an unredacted, unedited, original version of the report will ever be given to the American people by this administration.
3
No less than the stability, confidence in, and future of the American Justice system is at stake here. The Mueller Report must be released in full, redacted only to protects methods and sources as well as truly innocent parties, immediately. Director Mueller must testify in open hearings as to the conduct and context of the investigation and the subjects, and to address any possible legal steps that were not taken and why. This case has components touching on class privilege, campaign finance, tax evasion, witness tampering, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, impeachment and treason. This is no witch-hunt. This is drop dead serious.
2
I especially find the reasoning behind the practice or finding of not prosecuting a sitting President peculiar. It does nothing to preserve his authority if the people he interacts with know, as they undoubtedly would, that here sits a man who, were he not POTUS, would be facing [criminal] charges.
What is true is that being involved in court proceedings as a defendant would impinge on the President's time, but in the particular case of Donald the Magnificent, that would merely curtail his visits to his own golf resorts. The buffer is quite huge.
1
"the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch" That is an incredibly weak argument. Being indicted and put on trial would interfere with just about anybody's job performance. Sorry but there needs to be a better argument than this when the opposing argument is quite simply "nobody is above the law!"
3
The same Democrats in congress that are calling on Mueller to release the complete report are the exact same people that have blocked the release for the last 2 years of the reports that started the investigation in the first place.
Now they claim they need to subpoena Muller to testify before congress because they won't accept anything from the A.G.
1
"If anyone is to be indicted down the road, it won’t be by Mr. Mueller. "
How do we know that Mueller hasn't already filed sealed charges?
1
Is there any reason to believe that any grand juries are still reviewing evidence from the Mueller investigation? Could that lead to new indictments directly related to his team’s investigation? Or, have all his cases sent to grand juries been concluded? Asking the knowledgeable legal community.
1
Whatever comes, it won't be enough.
26
If Donald Trump dashes into the Russian embassy and asks for asylum, does the U.S. government have legal authority to go in and forcibly bring him out?
38
@Raised Eyebrows
In principle, if the Russians accept to keep him, no. The use of force to extract him would be an act of war.
Also, the distraction he causes just by being President and the manner in which his behavior and statements undermine faith in (American) democracy mean he is of significantly more use to them in the White House. And this is regardless of whether he acts under their guidance or fear of exposure or just by being who he is.
The GOP is so nervy complaining about a two year investigation. After about six years of investigations, calls for locking up someone who was found innocent, and now STILL calling for more investigations of HRC? Give us a break. They are only crowing about stealing a SCOTUS seat and then stealing an election. They have NO reason to crow about Trump himself and they know it. They also pushed through the things they wanted first, we all noticed. Just in case.
44
@lil50
Well AG Burr said he will get to the bottom of troubling bias shown against candidate and now President Trump by the Obama administration, FBI, DOJ and National Intelligence agencies.
I'm sure the Democrats will demand that this investigation not be interrupted, impeded or otherwise blocked so that the American public can get all the information and let the chips fall were they may.
@lil50
No SCOTUS seat was stolen. Obama did not persue Garland for senate consideration. GOP simply followed the Joe Biden rule. Garland was never interviewed nor voted on. Holding the senate is the important thing that Democrats seems to not understand. It is the senate that confirms Justices and SCOTUS nominations.
@lil50, sadly lil50, the swamp did not actually investigate Hillary or email-gate. We know the confidential national security related emails were hacked by the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians - but somehow no investigation. hmmm...
Still interested to know if Barr will have a sit down questions to ask that Mueller was not able to get? Wouldn’t it be a confidence booster for everyone to here what can be reconciled to the country.
2
I read that Robert Mueller was increadibly thorough with his work, starting right at someone’s birth certificate and discovering things that the subject had themselves forgotten.
As a result I am hoping one of the results of the investigatin is that President Donald Trump was born in Kenya.
40
Trump has lost all moral and presidential authority by his own actions. Not indicting him, if he has committed obstruction of justice or other crimes uncovered by either the Mueller probe or in the SDNY does nothing to remove the perception of his criminality and unfitness for office. Our allies have already made their conclusions.
34
@Kathryn Aguilar
Not at all. This is not only misguided but extremely arrogant. If anything it's his critics that are losing their moral authority.
It's telling that so few on the left are happy there was no collusion found. Rational Americans would be happy to have this confirmed.
If they don’t release the whole thing the question becomes - what are they hiding?
If they release a summary that says the report contains no allegations of illegal activity - why not release the whole thing? Again, what are they hiding?
If they release a summary that alludes to or explicitly outlines allegations of illegal activity, the reason for not releasing the whole report is obvious and democrats will say it’s a coverup, courts will get involved....
Long story short, I don’t see a way AG Barr can NOT release the whole report without either creating a clear implication blatant attempt at a coverup.
22
Like the Pentagon Papers the Mueller Report must be leaked and published, I suspect it is the only way the public that paid for it will see it.
It must be bad because Donnie has for two days been silent, a record for him.
36
@Paulie, it is not at all like the pentagon papers. some are confused.
@Paulie And do you think any of the establishment "news" organization have the journalistic integrity or courage to do that? If we are ever going to see this report it will come via the way we have discovered so many other things the political powerful and the government whats to keep secret and hidden. WikiLeaks.
@Paulie
I think he's sleeping it off. He's not tweeting because he's dropped into a dead sleep from all the stress and exhaustion. Now that he knows he won't be indicted at least while in office, he is finally not in 24-hour-a-day torment.
On the other hand, how boring. Perhaps he'll resign now - the fun is over.
(Oh, I can dream.)
One last thing on the collusion. Trump said after he talked to Putin, that he told him he didn't interfere on his behalf. The second time, in Helsinki, when asked directly by Reuters, Putin said, Yes, we helped Trump. Plus there is all that direct evidence.
So, one last crazy conspiracy theory (the truth is already stranger than fiction). Early in "The Interview", a brilliant satire if you haven't seen it, the protagonists conjecture as a joke, yeah, we'll do this and then we'll do that, and then we'll escape thru a secret tunnel to where a submarine is waiting to pick us up. Well, this turns out to be exactly the plot line.....In the Russian interference--the KGB actually installing one of their agents, or useful idiots, as PRESIDENT of the United States-- during the Trump Miss Universe pageant, some crazy Russian guy who set that up, said, yeah, not only that, but we're going to make this guy President of the U.S. Could it be....that Putin or the KGB saw this....and thought that's really crazy, but why not. And after pulling this off, they've been watching this unfold, like we watch Korean drama (if you do), for all the funny scenes (to them) that they know are coming next. W.C. Fields couldn't have made up a more bad, bad guy.
8
Trump's recent change of heart regarding the release of the report is beyond suspicious. There are no coincidences in high stakes politics. He knows that Barr has his back.
26
Why write about what might happen? A report is imminent. It’s so stressful thinking about what might happen. No one knows until the report is released. I haven’t slept well in two years.
I appreciate the stories that report the actual news. You just don’t know yet. Why not wait one more day?
11
@Awake in LA
Because there has to be "breaking news" 24 hours a day. Even if the "breaking news" is that there's nothing to report yet.
Hey, if it's been an hour and a half, Facebook will have already drawn its conclusions. For the American people, this is already over, essentially. "No collusion," Trump fans crow, and consider the matter wrapped up.
@Awake in LA, why? journalists / papers make money by your page views. our page views. our worry. our misery. our outrage fuels their revenue.
beware their agenda.
Funny. I'm upping my investments in Ambien, Paxil and Prozac. The news media circus from here to 2020 should be a doozy.
It seems, there are some above the law.
21
Did Mueller walk into the Justice Department with the report in a briefcase or on a pallet jack? Is that asking too much to find out?
6
If the entire report is not released, I suspect it will be leaked as were the Pentagon Papers. One way or the other, we will see it, hopefully before Election Day 2020.
26
Remember how calm trump was about the brief FBI investigation into Christine Blasey Ford's youthful mishap with Brett Kavanaugh? He already knew the outcome. Note his relative quiet this weekend. He is one of the most powerful criminals in the world. They have ways of getting the results they want.
Sorry to be pessimistic but if his obvious shady dealings at the expense of the American people (and having nothing to do with collusion real or imagined) aren't enough to get him hauled off in restraints, it is unlikely anything in the long awaited report can get the job done. The fix is in.
39
@Nadia, imagine if such deviousness could be used for good instead, if only given the chance. I don’t seem to sound pessimistic either, but my feeling from reading here today is that it won’t and it doesn’t matter.
10
@John Doe Correct. It really doesn't matter. The sun will come up tomorrow, no matter how many liberal heads explode. If the economy keeps an even keel through the next election cycle (whatever that is), Trump is in. Even Bill Clinton would agree.
With the amount of indictments and convictions already done as a result of the Mueller investigation I can't imagine vindication in the offing for DJT. And that's just one investigation of well over a dozen more that we know of. It's not likely that DJT or his offspring will be sleeping well anytime soon. I do keep thinking though that had Comey not put his thumb on the scale so close to the election, none of this would have happened. No DJT, no Trumpism, no Javanka, no daily lies, no chaos. That scenario would have been so much more preferable.
22
Wow. If Trump walks away from his dirty deeds smelling like a rose, justice in this country is literally dead. Democracy hangs by a thread. Cowards look the other way and pretend they can't see it. Lawyers without spines make excuses. Maybe Bernie is right. It's time for a Revolution.
54
@kay, the special prosecutor with a very long and very thorough investigation finds no crime.
And you, are convinced from afar that he has dirty deeds?
Justice is alive and well, and so is due process and Rule of Law.
Mob justice is not thriving, luckily.
Armchair quarterbacking though is alive and well
10
@Kay. He won’t smell like rose, but technically, there WAS no collusion. Sure, Russia and Saudi Arabia used fraud to help get Trump elected. And Trump knew about it. Did he ask them to do it? No. Although he sure rewarded them afterwards. But it wasn’t technically collusion. Trump knew this early on, which is why he’s said “no collusion” a thousand times—he is framing the investigation in everyone’s minds as only about collusion.
However, there are illegal things he did do in that report, like Obstruction of Justice, for starters. And getting caught in multiple lies. There’s a reason his lawyers wouldn’t let him testify under oath, and it’s because no matter how much they coached him, he wouldn’t make it through without committing perjury multiple times.
28
@Joe Yoh
"...the special prosecutor with a very long and very thorough investigation finds no crime"
What leads you to say that?
There was never going to be an indictment of this President, so called.
But absence of indictment does not mean absence of indictable crime.
I have no clue what that report says, and neither do you.
As for justice, if you're happy with learning that no President may ever be indicted for anything because he or she is just too important, whatever you imagine justice to be it isn't American.
Its the opposite of American.
The vaunted "Rule of Law" is stone cold dead.
There will be repercussions on the street, and you will have no leg to stand on.
If you're happy with that, then I'm sure you see a sunny future of this once-great nation.
This must be how Romans felt, there at the end.
1
One thing is certain. Given President Trump is still President we'll see what they want us to see. But we can be sure of one more thing. At some point, when the Democrat's regain control, we'll only see more if it further's their agenda. They will certainly not release anything that counter's their current accusations. After all they're just as self-serving as the Republicans.
4
@Mark
The only reason for the report to be held as "confidential" is if it shows Trump knew all about the Russian meddling. Why hide the report if it shows otherwise?
Dems are just as self serving ??? When have the dems stolen a supreme court seat? And also installed a possible attempted rapist on the supreme court ?
Just as self serving ??
21
@Getreal
Of course President Trump knew about the meddling back then. Everyone knew about it. The DNC email leaks, etc.
Guess you don't believe in the veracity of the report. Mr Mueller said he would not recommend anymore prosecutions. If there had even been a hint of real collusion, and I'm not referring to the fantastical delusions the Democrats have, he'd have forwarded them to DoJ for prosecution.
Now we're left with Democrats desperate to give traction to their claims, which were not proven. So desperate that New York State, one of the great centers of Socialism in the US, has signed on as a proxy attacker since the Fed's don't have anything to go after.
And yes, the Democrats are just as self-serving. As are all politicians, as they have always been.
@NYTimes, this question wasn’t answered. Could you get someone to answer it?
“What would the worst-case scenario version of the report look like for Trump? What conclusions would it reach, and why would those be bad for Trump?”
5
@Amiros
Why bother? There's a real report. This endless speculation is pure self-indulgence. Or worse. A tacit acknowledge of the addiction to Trump animus.
This man truly leads a charmed life. He barely managed to escape indictment for decades in NYC (well, perhaps it was not so much being charmed but rather campaign donations to the right people). And now he has somehow morphed into the Pied Piper with millions of ignorant followers in his thrall.
27
"Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president..."
This problem is this this begs the question "does the person in office actually have the "ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties".
25
Tax returns, please. None of these readers' questions or journalists' responses address this.
On February 21 in this newspaper, David Leonhardt rebutted the House Democrats' arguments for waiting for Mueller's report to subpoena Individual 45's returns.
Rep. Richard Neal of the House Ways and Means Committee: Let the subpoenas roll down like a mighty stream!
31
@doodles5, his tax return his hidden under Obama's birth certificate where no one will ever find it.
his tax return is NONE of anyone's business actually.
where is yours?
4
@Joe Yoh
It's not at all far fetched that the tax return of an individual that has the trail of financial wreckage that Mr. Trump has from his past, and is now POTUS, should be examined and questioned. When one enters public office, yes, any "cloak of secrecy" SHOULD be removed and one's finances are certainly something that should be open to full scrutiny.
22
trump is the President of the United States of America! (Sad as that statement sounds). His financial background, including recent tax returns, is/are the business of every citizen in this country.
ANY president of this country should be held to a higher standar. than the average citizen.
27
Unless the reporters cite their source, their analysis and/or speculations about meaning imply a journalistic authority that simply is not warranted. Certainly no better than the comments of informed reader's.
4
I came across an old ABC news article, from late last year, talking about "several dozen" sealed indictments that are in the court where Mueller's team has been presenting their case(s). It was speculative in nature, but it basically said that there more more than usual sealed indictments there and that it was likely that some, or all, were from Mueller.
Does anyone know about this in any greater detail and what it might mean?
22
What happened is unique in world history. It is a first. International chess of the highest order Tacitus or Suetonius would have loved it.
5
I'd like to know what is happening with the counterintelligence investigation that was started by the FBI and passed onto Mueller. There still seem to be a number of dangling threads: what is Rick Gates still cooperating about? ditto Mike Flynn? what else does Mueller know about Manafort's efforts to collude with Russia (through Kilimnik?) and how does he know about them? what about that meeting between Manafort, Gates, and Kilimnik in NYC, the several attempts to set up a back channel with Russia, the change in Russia's favor in the Republican platform, Stone's interactions with Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, not to mention Trump's several private and secret interchanges with Putin, etc., etc., etc.
21
@Charlotte Rosenthal
Start with the dossier. Move onto the FISA warrants. Why did UN Ambassador Power issue over 200 requests for the names of Americans in FISA reports? She claims she knew nothing about them.
Someone used her name thinking they would remain hidden. This is like hiding expenses among legitimate accounts. Well, they've been audited. Americans deserve answers.
Its sad that many posts are dems or republicans. As an american this report is critical to understanding whether or not the president is corrupt. If the president is corrupt he should be removed. If the president is innocent, the country can move on. The country cant move on until this report is public.
15
Am I the only one who is skeptical that the report would actually be released in a satisfactory way?
10
As a former Secretary of Defense once said..."there are knowns, unknowns knowns, and unknowables". I suspect we may read or hear 'all of the above' from the Mueller report.
2
@tippicanoe
man, you butchered that quote! What he said was:
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
6
The theory behind not indicting a sitting president is that "the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties". Deserving indictment according to available evidence and not being indicted is also a stigma that interferes with a president's ability to lead.
The results of this are worse for the country than a president with diminished ability to operate efficiently. It splits the country between those who view the president as deserving indictment and those who dont. Those who think he deserves to be indicted will naturally think of him the way birthers thought of Obama, as someone who has no right to hold the office and hangs onto it only because he is above the law that should limit and bind him.
When a substantial minority or even a majority of citizens take this view, the country becomes ungovernable, at least in a democratic way. The government has lost its legitimacy, and only an airing of the charges will restore it. The alternative is for an indictable but unindicted leader to continue in power, which gives the legitimacy of power, the sort of legitimacy that Putin enjoys.
12
What should happen, and what does happen are often two different things. I cannot believe so many people around trump were involved with acquiring Russia's help in the 2016 election, that trump's hands are clean.
My $0.02 cents:
*The report will indicated that trump and those around him conspired to obstruct justice.
*Also, there was an effort by people around trump that knew of the help Russia wanted to provide in the 2016 campaign, too facilitate that help.
*However, because of the (inaccurate) premise is that a sitting President cannot be indicted, Mueller did not go further with his investigation.
Lets see how accurate my hypothesis is.
18
@rslay My $0.02 cents: Don't go to Vegas.
An honest person, Trump is not, with nothing big to hide, who knows with Trump, would order the Attorney General to release a not redacted complete copy of the report and weather the storm. A Nixonian person who like Trump is not the above will hide the report or massively redact it and claim it contains noting of interest. My bet is on the latter aided and abetted by the spineless wimps in the GOP and his brainless MAGA followers who would believe Trump if he announced that tomorrow the sun would rise in the west per his orders.
18
"Mr. Barr has long adhered to a sweeping view of executive power under which the president, as head of the executive branch, has a constitutional right to control the exercise of discretionary policy making by a subordinate such as himself…” From the March 23, 2019 N.Y. Times
Trump should be publicly and privately urged to pardon himself in advance of crimes committed while president, a slight variation of what Ford did for Nixon. With this done Barr would then be in a position to fulfill his transparency promise and release publicly everything in the document that relates to potential unlawful presidential conduct.
@Olyian
If Trump attempts to pardon himself, impeachment hearings should commence immediately.
Evidence suggests we have a crime family in the White House, yet the law seems unable to do anything about it.
73
If Barr won't release the report, can the Russians share it with us?
64
Questions indicate skepticism that Barr is anything but a GOP-Trump damage control mechanism. Any “summary” or paraphrasing of the report will be deeply suspicious. Prepare for Trump to unleash the hounds of “no collusion.”
10
It is amazing how the Trump apologists here are consistently making claims--praising Trump--about a report that they have not seen.
Critical thinking continues to decline as entropy increases. yea.
13
@glennmr, that is hysterical.
actually, those who haven't seen the report have for two years predicting indictment. are you also concerned about their critical thinking ability?
in the interest of intellectual honesty, perhaps both sides are silly? no? no balance? ok
I'll just wait for the movie.
11
Hopefully everyone will calm down now. Dems need time to lose the 2020 presidential election.
6
"...the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties..."
FYI; he's already failed in carrying them out. He's certainly not been forthcoming, not been honest and has not been compassionate to anyone or thing that didn't make for photo op, help him self-aggrandize.
His policies have failed to serve all Americans, unless all means Corporations and the wealthy. He's committed acts of atrocity by jailing children and separating them from their parents. He's insulted our allies, and is actively cozying up to a despot to maybe, improbably have a "win" with the DPRK.
His daughter and her husband have belligerently used personal emails for communicating with foreign governments. Contrary to protocols and his own admonitions of HRC.
The whole report should be made public. If a president can make policy via tweet, can negotiate with foreign nations via tweet, there is no executive privilege anymore.
But the problem will be few Americans will read it. Instead they'll rely on their favorite pundits interpretive dance on it. Hannity, Fox and Fanatics will spin it into cotton-candy, and deem it a waste of time and money.
Extreme liberals will deem it unfinished if theres no almost smoking gun.
It should be released, and read. In the off chance some reality and the fruits of the rule of law peels a few off the Trump train.
18
Any idea that "Mueller came up with nothing" is both premature and illiterate when there is no public release of the report. Meanwhile, the phrase "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" is apt. The cast of characters for that role includes some players of whom we are even yet to know.
13
When Barr started we heard this“Tomorrow will be the first day that President Trump will have a fully operational confirmed Attorney General,” Matt Schlapp wrote 2/14/19 on Twitter. “Let that sink in. Mueller will be gone soon.”
He wasn't wrong. And what of Mueller's team stating this past Wednesday the “press of other work” as their inability to meet a court deadline? A little odd, no?
Simple. Barr went in, gave Mueller a deadline, and these are the results of it. And Trump wins again by rigging the rules.
11
There is an upcoming election. Trump will be a candidate. Trump has acted in a treasonous manner. We deserve to know. Seems pretty straight forward.
14
This is like finding the cheese gone and the rat trap triggered and empty.
Pull back the spring, put in more cheese, and try again.
We know there is a rat in the house.
18
Equal before the Law.......
We'll see....and that means we'll see whether he get the free pass
we gave the banking institutions......
Ask yourself....Are we, the non-wealthy equal before the law?
Doesn't look like it from my perch.
Vote
6
What did the president know, and when did he know it?
4
@John Murray
We the people don’t have a president.
Trump successfully hacked the United States
10
Q. "How much did the Mueller report cost?"
Steve Satterwhite, Duncanville, Tex.
a. "As of Sept. 30, 2018, the special counsel’s investigation had cost more than $25 million."
So, about what it costs U. S. Taxpayers to fly our president to his well-gated Mal-a-Largeo Country Club a couple times?
23
Reporters say that an unusually number of indictments were filed since August but sealed filings don’t disclose the investigation or subject.
CNBC reported that there are no sealed indictments.
Can anyone outside the AG or SC office know for certain whether there are sealed indictments or not?
4
I've read that people will usually refrain from releasing negative information about a person who was ultimately not indicted. This makes sense in general, but if the individual in question wasn't indicted because of procedural norms and not lack of evidence, it is ridiculous to me that should still apply.
Is what I've heard true? Would they just refuse to release anything negative about Trump simply because he wasn't indicted?
8
@karp
Who said he wasn't indicted because of procedural norms and not lack of evidence?
The Mueller investigation was broadly focused on Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election which undeniably favored candidate Trump while maligning candidate Clinton. Robert Mueller and his team looked at all individuals, including Donald Trump and those involved in his campaign, who might have aided and abetted the Russian government. This was not an investigation solely into Donald Trump, even though he was the most prominent individual. Several criminal indictments and convictions have resulted from Mueller's investigation. To call this a failure or even a witch hunt, regardless of the detailed contents of Mueller findings, is entirely inaccurate. Furthermore, however this report ultimately impacts the presidency of Donald Trump, historically it will reflect very badly on Donald Trump's reputation and his presidency since so many of those already indicted and convicted have close ties to him. After all, we are the company we keep. Additionally, Donald Trump's reluctance to even acknowledge Russian meddling and his attempts to discredit both Comey and Mueller, coupled with indirect threats to derail any investigation into Russian meddling, do not reflect the behavior of an innocent or honorable man. Whether the findings of the Mueller report determine criminal activity on the part of Donald Trump or not, the 2 year investigation did forever cement the character and morality of him that only similar like-minded and behaving individuals would admire.
14
Perhaps, yes. But that tarred reputation you cite, along with its owner, will still be occupying the White House, and the nation will continue to sink into its rank pit.
6
Trump has rights as a citizen investigated like every other, and also as our president out of respect for the office he holds but does not fill. This means if no crime, be slow and be careful impugning anyone's reputation. Anyone's. We are very much a country of laws. Set partisanship aside and think law and country.
That said, much if not all of what he and his people are said to have done or tried to do was in pursuit of a public office, often using federally monitored campaign money, in publicly subsidized debates, etc. etc.
It is our country; the AG and the special prosecutor work for us on our salary, at our behest, for our good. All attempts should be made to make this investigation and report public. No man is above the law.
10
The Russian question vis-a-vis the 2016 presidential election and their involvement there, should be answered. Moreover, what steps are being taken to neutralize such a threat, otherwise the voters will never trust the system and stay home which may cause more manipulation in our voting process.
12
@freeasabird
In NJ, people accused of a crime but not prosecuted can have a "presentment" published about them from the prosecutor laying out the evidence. No prosecution does not mean no publicity. Does this apply on the federal level?
6
Some of Trump’s supporters are celebrating the news that no new indictments are coming from Mueller. Their glee may be premature. They may want to consider the possibility that Mueller has found alarming and damaging evidence regarding the President and feels it necessary to get it to the Congress and the public as soon as possible; leaving it to other offices and agencies to handle any additional indictments and prosecutions.
12
As the nation remains poised between completion of Mueller's investigation and knowing his conclusions, it's educational watching both ends of the political spectrum strut. The Trumpists are confident--with some justification based on the lack of additional indictments--that Trump and his circle are clear of any legal charges while Trump antagonists are railing about Mueller's limited range and inability to question Trump directly. We don't know anything really. We don't even know that Trump is not culpable and has escaped indictment because as a sitting president, he is not indictable. It's uncomfortable, but let's wait. We have no other choice.
10
The fact that the report goes through Barr means that any nuance d language that would encourage congress to do the right thing - investigate obstruction and abuses of power, and impeach if the facts support doing so - will be stripped out.
The report will simply say "yeah, russia tried to interfere, but we were unable to prove collusion, we indicted crimes that we did find, and we recommend no further charges" -- when it should say all of that plus factual commentary on Trump's abuses of power, obstruction, witness tampering, and refusal to cooperate.
22
@KH--- well stated!
3
Mueller is totally goal directed. At some point he decided whether Trump had obstructed justice and/or cleaved and comforted an enemy (in the Constitution's words). If he decided either, he then determined how to render Trump responsible. That's all he cares about.
Trump can't be indicted. Sure, legal arguments can be raised. But Mueller would never put his eggs in an uncertain basket.
Mueller knows the players, like Barr. He would not hand off the report to Barr simply to watch it dissipate. If his goal is to render Trump responsible for nefarious acts, he will only use Barr if he has absolute confidence in him.
But we've already seen another method. I've read some who claim only Barr and Rosenstein will see the report. Not so. Almost everything in it pertains to Cohen's activity in one way or another. Certainly Trump's commercial Russian activity during the campaign. The Southern District will see Mueller's report.
The notion that information warfare can't be addressed in the Southern District is wrong. They can do it all. They have many more options than the Justice Dept. Congress can act on their information just as readily.
Mueller knows what he wants. We just have to wait.
20
Without questioning President Trump under oath, Robert Muller will get an "Incomplete" on his work.
Sorry, Republican Special Prosecutor.
And now the Republican Attorney General will conceal most of the "incomplete report", from Congress, the Senate, and the American People.
The 2016 election is invalid, and the 2020 election is under attack from Russian Intelligence Officers in favor of the Putin/Trump ticket.
14
With no indictments, it implies the President and his family are in the clear with regards to the Russian meddling. However, I see the peril more from investigation into his financial activities down the road, which probably wouldn't be prosecuted until he left office. But in the end, Trump may get away with everything, just like he always has. And even if the report implies obstruction, does anyone think the GOP and rabid Trump supporters care? They do not.
9
I'm sure we'll see Mueller's full report - real or fake - coming from the Kremlin and possibly through WikiLeaks.
Wouldn't the outing of trump and his ilk as agents of our most formidable military foe compromise American intelligence, sources and methods? Hopefully our intelligence agencies have safeguarded or extracted critical assets that could be compromised before publicizing the report.
"Trump’s lawyers consider it one of their greatest accomplishments that he never sat for an interview." What an accomplishment, to protect a likely traitor and agent of many foreign powers - Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel for starters - from accountability leaving an agent of tyrants in place. Quite an achievement!
If only Bill had the proper sense to legitimately say "none of your business or the nation's business" when Starr questioned his sexual activities. Or like trump, refused to be questioned at all - I'm sure the Republicans would endorse that, NOT. Trump is not allowing himself to be questioned is his way of pleading the fifth without having to say it - as all people above the law can do.
9
The president never sat for an interview. How is that a complete investigation? The whole special council investigation is starting to look like a travesty of justice. Those of us that have followed the last two years of Trump’s actions know he has broken numerous, serious laws. For one: how can Don Jr have not been indicted for lying under oath to congress? This is fact. How can Trump not have been charged with obstruction when he fired Comey over Russia. He admitted it on TV for us all to see. That is fact.
Between this and Manafort’s slap on the wrist sentence I’ve lost faith in my country and our judiciary.
How do we survive this?
22
The "collusion" happened in plain sight, every time Trump lied about his dealings with Russia (the Moscow tower deal), or kissed up to Putin, choosing to "believe" the foreign autocrat over American intelligence (as if "believing" was all there was to it). Unfortunately, it is not illegal to lie to the American public, no matter how often you do it ("I have nothing to do with Russia").
Those same lies would be illegal if they were told under oath to investigators, in law enforcement or Congress. That's why Trump's lawyers forbade him from being interviewed by Mueller's office. If there's a flaw in the investigation it's that prosecutors did not subpoena the president.
15
No indictment does not mean he is out of the woods. We all know a sitting POTUS is not indictable. As the release of summary conclusions postponed, the water gets murkier by the minutes.
5
The Mueller report should be available to the American taxpayers immediately or more accurately yesterday.
The fact that it isn't shows how damaged Washington DC is and how the lower and middle class are merely considered pawns.
83
@Hal Or it shows just how strong these institutions are in abiding by a set of rules laid out long before the current inhabitants.
@Hal
Not only that, the FISA applications to wiretap Trump associates, and all communications within the Obama Justice Department regarding opening a "counterintelligence" investigation should also be made public. Let's have complete transparency and get ALL the facts out there.
3
@J. Waddell The FISA app was made public.
12
One aspect of the report that is not known is how many referrals for prosecution that Mueller made to other agencies. If there are any, we can expect these agencies to release indictments. We just have to wait.
5
Complete fiasco for Democrats. Mueller came up with nothing. It was nothing but a witch hunt, as Trump claimed all along. His re- election odds just shot up.
31
@Richard You do realize that there were many indictments and convictions from Mueller's investigation.? There will be more to come from SDNY and others. The "fiasco" is in The White House.
51
@Richard
When did you read the report? If there was nothing of note in the report why hasn't Barr released it (now nearly 24 hours after he received it), and where are Trump's stream of tweets touting his vindication?
41
@Richard The main point of the investigation was to establish Russian interference in the elections. The second point was whether any US nationals collaborated in this interference. The first has been proven amply, so scratch your "nothing". For the second, we have to wait to see what the report says.
Finally, what the investigation has shown is that Trump has surrounded himself with liars, frauds and that he is involved in campaign finance violations. That Trump is a consistent liar who has stuck his nose, well, his mouth, in affairs being investigated, something that no official should do. If you are happy with this, good luck.
37
So where is the smoking gun?
2
With a name like Robert S. Mueller III you know straight away the guy and his team are Republicans. Republicans investigating Republicans - what a joke!
13
Mueller goes by “Bobby Three Sticks.” That sounds more blue than red! Or maybe more mob than GOP, but who can tell the difference these days!
1
@CK
That's funny. That's been his name for the past two years. And during that time, not one prominent Dem, nor any of the major liberal commentators (Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews, Chris Hayes, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Jeff Toobin, etc) EVER suggested that Mueller was credible, competent and impartial. You sound like a 5 poorly-raised 5 year old, complaining that the umpire was biased after you lost your little league game.
trump is hiding his criminality behind this bogus report. We need brave Democrats like Chairman Schiff to arrest trump immediately under inherent powers!
3
“And justice for all “ in America as American salute the flag?
3
My worst (and 'growing') fear is that 'what's in' the Mueller Report will result in trump's pivoting from his "witch hunt"/'conflicted-Mueller, best-friend-of-bad-cop Comey'/'illegal investigation by 13 [or more] angry [lifelong republican] democrats' cant ... to illiterate paeans to Mueller's integrity and to the 'propriety' of Mueller's report --accompanied and 'abetted' by trump's proselytizing an innocence 'found' that … regardless the 'findings' reported .... can naught but be imagined.
2
What may come next?
Mea culpa from all Those journalists who were sure he had done something wrong, and made us believe in some conspiracy. Ahhh, after very very thorough multi-year review, a big yawn.
But of course, instead of moving on the media will spin and deflect and encourage outrage and division
5
I see Pulitzer Prizes for Maggie Haberman, Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and the New York Times. Thank you! Your hard work is a gift to democracy.
28
In reply to Hortencia Charlottesville
I see President Trump’s re-election in November 2020.
2
The Truth Will Never Be Known!!!
Barr will not make the report public. He wouldn't dare if he wants to keep his job.
The first dictator of America will continue to rule & ruin until his death. Democracy is dead in America.
The leaks & hints are already beginning. Fox News will break the report first before any other news because trump will see that Fox gets it first.
7
With all respect, I don’t think democracy is dead, not even mortally wounded. More like a flesh wound. And yet, someone better stop the bleeding. If we can get rid of Trump in 2020, our democracy will likely survive. The 2020 election will be very, very important.
14
Here’s an 18th opinion regarding “what may come next”: Nothing. Trump’s base is certainly already screaming, “See, no collusion! No treason! It WAS a witch-hunt!”. It doesn’t matter to these minds how much of the report is ever released. They’re not going to read it. All they know is that their boy was found innocent (in their minds) of treasonous conspiracy with Russians.
Personally, I’m a bit nauseated. But maybe this will prove to be the best outsome of this lengthy investigation after all. If Mueller had immediately called for Trump’s indictment the red cappers would certainly have wailed that the game was rigged. So this would seem to have immediately eliminated much of that gas from their bags.
But “nothing”, for all practical concerns, is what I think will happen next.
9
Seems that Trump's tweets are silent this morning.
9
@From American Outback (Escalante, Utah)
Trump is silent because Mueller has delivered the country to the USSR.
1
Trump obstructed justice by firing Mueller and admitted the reason on TV. Thus, we know for certain that he is a criminal. Why wasn't he indicted for that if nothing else? It baffles the mind.
8
@Michael McDaniel I think you mean firing James Comey.
4
@dairyfarmersdaughter I think you're right.
Can Congress subpoena Mueller to testify?
10
@Sue Burn
Absolutely
1
Presidents are above the law only when a Republican is in power!
23
All the power of William Barr.......here is history in the making.
What authority and control does Barr have over the federal prosecutors in New York?
1
@Doug I believe all federal prosecutors report eventually to the Attorney General.
1
I believe the epilogue to Trump Affairs (and last laugh) will come from the SDNY; shortly after Genitals One is out of the Oval Office and he and his brood will face that which cannot be avoided and/or cheated: The US Law!
3
If the full report is not made public then--Russia if you're listening...
127
@Citizen 0809
Good one!
6
The problem is that Donnie being president benefits the Russians or at least Putin. No way they want us to see it.
7
The full report with evidence, not just the conclusions, now needs to be published and widely distributed to the public, just like materials produced or created using public funds. To be sure, nothing would have been done to try to stop this train wreck Administration if we relied upon personal integrity or corporate ethics. All of it belongs to the American people, and we will decide what next to do, including at the ballots in 2020.
15
''Mr. Trump’s lawyers believed heading off an interview was such a great success because if he had testified, he would have been at risk of making an inaccurate statement and increasing his criminal exposure.''
Why was this allowed? To keep the matter of can a sitting president be compelled to testify out of court?
6
@Lawrence
It was allowed because we have a Constitution, with a 5th Amendment. Ask any jr. high student to explain it to you.
SDNY and other New York based investigative agencies may be able to prove that Trump and his organization has engaged in corrupt practices even if past the statute of limitations such negative outcomes could hurt Trump's reelection chances. The GOP and the TRump cult of followers may look the other way on having a corrupt president but I'm sure the democrats ,independents and some republicans may see it has a disqualifying factor in handing the vast power of the USA govt to such an individual.
1
The whole reason for this report can be attributed to one person, Trump. The process has, to some extent, great or small, paralyzed our government. Important issues have gone wanting - healthcare, education, infrastructure, meaningful tax reform, and on.
So let the AG make his report to Congress, and let’s all move on to 2020. The Trump presidency has been a side show anyway. He is a child, unfit and unable to govern.
It’s time we put people in DC who will move our country forward. Political gridlock must stop. We would be better off keeping these things in mind during the upcoming year. Let’s send Trump and his family of grifters back to NYC where they belong.
And say a prayer for the poor people of NYC when he goes back.
13
@HeyJoe
He Wouldn't dare........I'm from NYC........
As I read the comments one thing is painfully clear to me, most people's opinions of Trump BM (Before Mueller's report) have not changed one iota AM--they hold their same opinion of Trump. Trump's supporters are elated because the report "vindicates" the president because there was no indictment recommendation. Trump's critics are disappointed because the "wicked witch" is not yet dead. The passion with which the left hates the president is as strong as the vitriol with which the right hates the left. How long before the "United" States are just merely A "collection" of states...kind of like the European "Union"? Our country is at a watershed moment. Either we, as AMERICANS, come together and get on with the business of fixing our country's many ills and problems OR we divorce and begin dividing our states/territories into "this stuff is ours that stuff is yours". The United States of America--we will become the EAST/WEST coast states of America and the Middle STATES of America. Or the LIBERAL territories versus the CONSERVATIVE territories. Maybe Putin's meddling in our election was not to get Trump elected but more about payback by bringing about the implosion of our democracy. Similar to what occurred to the former "United" Socialist Soviet Republics.
Very Concerned American
11
Am I the only one who is feeling really fatigued by all of this? I see all the coverage and know I should read it and I do want to stay informed but it's all beginning to feel like math homework.
6
This was not at all helpful. Why weren't there any answers about who will manage the case against Roger Stone?
1
All I care about is whether we can arrest Trump or do we have to wait for the Southern District of New York to hand down indictments? We all know Trump is a criminal -- if only for the wholesale destruction of American governance and values.
7
No mention of where the money from Deutsche Bank came from? Why was this not apart of the Mueller investigation?
7
"Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president — either through impeachment and removal, or because his term is up."--NYT answer to why a sitting president can/can't be indicted.
So Trump's above the law & will continue to put our nation to shame until enough cowards in Congress decide that this POTUS is guilty enough to not cause them to lose their seat when they rise up against him.
Makes sense...
3
I am monumentally disappointed there are no new indictments. I am worn out from two years of an investigation of this outlandish behavior only to have this dud result. A significant chunk of my life has been spent open-mouthed in front of my television waiting for a correction, for justice .... and now we're supposed to wait more years for the SDNY. When will this nightmare end? How do we cope with this travesty?
31
I have zero faith that Barr is inclined to do the right thing by the American people.
Given that the Republicans in the Senate believe that they have every interest in protecting Trump and that Trump himself is the most dishonest public servant that I have ever witnessed, I believe that it will be some time before we know the contents of the report in its entirety.
In simple terms, I don't for one second believe that I live in a democracy.
9
The Justice Department says a sitting president cannot be indicted because it conceivably would impinge upon “a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties.”
So, why can’t Trump be indicted? He certainly has demonstrated he can’t oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties. So, it’s hard to see how an indictment would interfere with his incompetent performance.
9
Restrictions on the release of the Mueller report which is a confidential report to the Attorney General resulted from the salacious report issued about Bill Clinton partially authored by Brett Kavanaugh who wrote a public account of Clinton's sex infidelities with Monica Lewinsky for which he was likely rewarded by a current Supreme Court post.
If the Report remains secret, which is Bill Barr's prerogative its questionable as to whether the current version whatever it says is worth the attention and the taxpayer money. All material save material involving another investigation or classified information should be made public by law. Lets hope Barr does the right thing and releases as much consistent with these constraints as possible.
3
Could Mueller have issued sealed indictments that, tho not technically "new," are currently unknown (but will become known when they are unsealed in the future)?
1
@JiMcL
And what of the status of the FBI's investigation as to whether Trump has been compromised by Russia? All we know is that an investigation was started. Will we ever learn what they concluded?
1
If only Robert Mueller were a Democrat. I can only dream of a Trump vs. Mueller 2020 presidential election.
1
Kriminy, just fax me a copy of the report and I'll read it aloud in a conference call with reporters and Congressional leaders.
3
@james haynes
Do people still send things by fax?
Hurry up and wait.....these dishes are best served cold anyway.
1
So the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president because, like the British, we rely on tradtion in government. But that cannot prevent the Senate from impeaching such a president. Why is this distinction not being made loudly and clearly in this allegedly expository piece that seems to be composed of questions selected on the basis of their arcane and erudite lawyerly content?
4
How about saving us all the drama and taxpayers' hard earned money....each citizen, xcept of course the Republicans, contribute $100 and send DJT and his family out of 1600 and to the Tower or Mar-a-Lago for a one time only trip with a bundle of cash. As it is, we are in for lots more for security and what not over their lifetime. A do over for the country while he gets what he wanted his whole life: a whole of money for nothin'.
1
So, conservatives like Justices Scalia & Thomas used to be “strict constructionists”, which means they’d allow a President to be indicted because:
“Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution”
Unless they’re hypocritical, which I assume they are.
6
“I’ve got plenty of nothing, and nothing’s plenty for me” - Robert S. Mueller
4
What criminal investigation does not include an interview with the key person involved ?
This seems like a big mistake at best and ,at worst, another one of those deals for people in the "club."
10
More prognostication. Does this never end? How much time and money has been spent on this goose-chase and where does it end? Charges have been filed and those of us who are Trump nay-sayers have to let this go. There are no more surprises, just speculation and media clamoring. Give this a rest!!
What a sham of a process. William Barr's shameful policies as AG during Bush Sr. (preventing entry to the U.S. of HIV+ people, anti-gay lobbying, mass incarceration) have been thoroughly discredited. Like everyone in Trump's cabal, however, he saw an opportunity for career promotion by publicly criticizing the Mueller investigation. Now he is screening the report dutifully for Trump's lawyers to redact any info they do not want disclosed. My only comfort is that eventually, maybe years from now, the truth will be revealed and these deceitful, throughly corrupt men will all be exposed as frauds.
7
The question is just what kind of report is it that Trump would like to see released ,if something must be released?
One where he can say: "No collusion?" "Witch hunt. I told you so?" How dose he want the public to rate this report or what's left of it?
Trump wants a "report " that the public will rate as three cofefies and a la dee dah. It is not going to happen.
Come election day, because the Trumpist senate will never convict Trump if the House impeaches him, the white nationalist dead enters who cannot tell truth from lies and don't care will vote for him; but the vast majority, report or no report, in spite of all of Putin's help and Russian money and hacking, will toss Trump out on his ear awaiting the indictments which will be waiting for him in New York. He will be arrested as soon as his term ends and the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.
2
"The idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president."
As applied to this president, this is a laughable justification.
When has he ever "overseen the executive branch and carried out his constitutional duties"? His presidency consists of nothing more than unhinged, impulsive actions, deranged tweets and endless "rallies" with his rabid supporters.
4
Here is the deal. My tax dollars paid for that report and it is owed to me and to all of you.
It is also vital that our government show that it is capable of doing the “right” thing and trusting to the American people to take the report and learn from it.
Bet Mitch McConnell would try to block that!
5
@Sandra How many reports from your tax money you have seen or actually read? If we did that we would be better off!
This country has reached an absurd state. The only material that should be censored in the report are the names of our spies. Executive privilege is baloney. Trump is not a king. So is the idea that he can’t be indicted. All he does, when he’s not opening national monuments for exploitation, is watch Fox News and send out Tweets. This country is supposed to be run by the people, not a bunch of rich oligarchs. Nor is it to be run by the military-industrial complex. Somewhere along the line we got it wrong. Really wrong.
5
I have one more question. Is it possible that if DOJ does not release the complete report, someone, say the Congress, can somehow get ahold of a full copy of it?
1
The POTUS is a very powerful position. And when you have a president like 45 (and we have seen enough of abnormality) the question becomes:
Is the POTUS powerful enough to alter our democratic instituons in a way it weakens the foundation of our democracy?
This is the big test, and we might be witnessing the rollout of the answer to such a question.
Stay tuned.
3
Mueller is a true a American hero. Now we need a couple of more. Barr may be an enemy or maybe not so much. It is one thing to say that the special prosecutor should never have been appointed but it's quite another thing to violate the law by keeping the report from Congress. At least, unlike most Trump appointees, he is not ignorant of the law and what the law says he should do. If he breaks it he will at least know what he did and he will certainly understand what his legacy will be. He knows that the history books will not be written by Rupert Murdoch, they will be written by constitutional lawyers and university professors. No one has forgotten the heroes Richardson, Cox, and Jaworski. History will forever tell the ugly and sad story a criminal president, what he did before and after he was elected, and how the country's democratic government was able to respond.
2
So 13 angry Democratic loving prosecutors and one conflicted special counsel came up with diddly squat on collusion and obstruction of justice by Trump.
Now Adam Schiff and his ilk are claiming they wont accept the conclusions of the Mueller report from the A.G. unless Mueller is hauled before congress to testify that's all he wrote. Nada nil zip no collusion nothing burger waste of time and money.
4
Just another way to not concern themselves with the true state of the union, poverty, gun violence, drugs, failing infrastructure, education and the immigration debacle, is to investigate, investigate, investigate. What do politicians, who get great health care, crazy time off, and the ability to purchase stocks on insider information, actually do to benefit the union!?!
2
It is inconceivable that only Michael Cohen will go to jail for lying to Congress and other crimes. This would be a gross perversion of "justice".
When will we see Junior, Jared and others indicted by SDNY, NYAG or Manhattan District Attorney?!
6
I won’t hold my breath, but I would hope Barr would do the right thing for the country and release the information and not be Trump’s sidekick, kickback. How would you Barr like to be remembered in the history books? Someone who helps a criminal or defeats one?
2
He committed treason in plain sight in Helsinki in front of millions of viewers and Putin himself. There were no staff in the meeting. He profits from the presidency. He attacks news media endlessly and indicates a transition of power may not be peaceful. And America does nothing. The tolerance of corruption is staggering.
9
My question is: What of the 30 sealed indictments?
100
@ainabella1 That's my question too!
5
I have just one question, if the Justice Department believes that information on individuals not charged, should not be released and they also believe a sitting president can’t be charged, then how will we ever know if trump SHOULD be charged?
9
For months we have been told that the Muller investigation was the most thorough and impartial look at the possible collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians (that was the principal charge against Trump). The investigation had to be protected at all costs and the conclusions needed to be reached and heard.
Well let’s hear the principal conclusions and move on with our lives and allow the government to focus on the daily task of governing. Every President deserves the right to govern without constant distractions brought about by myriad investigations.
9
Unfortunately that never happens.
@Serge Troyanovsky With trump, it is better to keep him preoccupied with distractions, rather than allowing him a clear path to continue tearing up our government.
5
Some people are paralyzed by what seems like the anticlimax of the Mueller report. While that whole story is still unfolding, the REAL work is organizing coast to coast to keep making our communities more progressive not just by electing better people, but by agitating for more progressive policies from the elected officials already in power. Yes, we want and need Trump and the gang out. But long range we need to fashion a system of government as good as our people. Democracy now.
29
Actually we have democracy, just FYI. You may not always like the results of each election but that is what makes a democracy
3
@Joe Yoh. We technically have a democracy, but it doesn't always function very well. A democracy is not just a thing you have or don't have.
I hope the report has some significance; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if nothing comes out of it—and if it did, Trump & Co. will probably get a slap on the wrist.
America, get off your butts and VOTE in 2020; that’s the ONLY WAY to get rid of Trump & Co.
47
If what you suggest turns out to be true, then neither you, the NYT or the dozens of DNC astro-turfers that have been filling the Times comments section with anti-Trump vitriol for two years will spend even one second on self reflection. Maybe the real problem during the 2016 election was that Hillary was such resoundingly bad candidate that even Donald Trump could beat her.
3
@Fred Rick. It wouldn't change anything else Trump has clearly done, who he is, or how he runs this country and his administration. So, no, I don't think it would change anyone's mind one way or the other. There's more than enough to despise Trump for as it is.
1
Trump hand-picked Barr for a reason. Part of it was an agreement to protect Trump. So now Barr can determine how much of the investigators’ findings should be made public. We are getting screwed. I do not trust Barr’s ‘update to Congress’.
Barr showed a bias on how he might handle the Mueller investigation when as a private citizen he criticized the Mueller probe for ‘proposing an unprecedented expansion of obstruction laws’ that could have ‘grave consequences’ for the executive branch. He believed that this overly broad interpretation of the law and could have far-reaching ramifications down the road.
He wrote a memo last year where he argued that Mueller’s obstruction-of-justice investigation into Trump is ‘legally unsupportable’ and should be be sanctioned by the Justice Department. He had controversial views on executive power and the Mueller’s investigation into the Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election.
And now we are now supposed to TRUST Attorney General William Barr to do what is right?
72
@Carol Ring I agree, and so have been tamping down any hopes of justice coming out of this report for months.
The awareness that none of this is likely to go anywhere is also supported by the fact that Mueller is a lifelong Republican and Barr's son is serving in the capacity of Trump's personal attorney. (if you can call that service.)
I think we can expect the least of the least out of this report.
14
When will Vladimir Putin start coming to Washington DC and occupying the Oval Office of the White House whenever Donald Trump is away vacationing and playing golf?
23
There is no news, only that it has been released. Speculate all you want, but none of that does any good until you read the report. If it is not released as a complete document, then the struggle begins, but not before.
5
Two years of thorough investigation.
No further indictment
Yawn
3
If "negative information about people whom prosecutors scrutinized but decided not to charge with a crime" won't be released, and if Muller respects the Justice Dept guidelines saying that a sitting president can't be indicted, then it seems that even if Muller found mountains evidence that incriminates Trump in various illegal activities, we will never know about it.
15
after very very thorough multi-year review, a big yawn.
Let’s move on
The DOJ memorandum is the elephant in the room. No where in our Constitution or in statutory or case law is it forbidden to indict a sitting president for crimes committed while in office. It has been opined that "structural principles" in the Constitution implicitly bar indicting a president. In a case of this magnitude, this memorandum should be ignored, because it is against the rule of law - that no man is above the law, not even the president. We don't know how Mueller came to his conclusions, but we know that it was in strict compliance to the DOJ memorandum. The House of Representatives should demand that all of the evidence be made public and then use it to indict this president, and/or impeach him to avoid a miscarriage of justice and a blot on our democracy.
13
The Mueller Report is merely the end of the beginning. This will go on for decades.
8
"This interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is nevertheless binding on Justice Department prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller."
It's unsettled, but it's binding?
Indicting trump would be soul cleansing for America; and, it would give Pence something to do.
9
I hope the Mueller Report provides a detailed account of the mechanisms by which Russia and other nations twisted the 2016 election and put(s) our system of elections in jeopardy. I hope there are serious recommendations for upgrading protections for electoral process on the basis of what Mueller's team uncovered. I hope that the report galvanizes congressional committees to budget modernization nationwide of upgrading voting machines and all the apparatus around conducting elections. I hope that the report urges Congress to work on specific needed changes in election laws and policies. I hope it presses Congress for changes in the profit structure and practices of social media, and proposes an initiative to educate voters recognize foreign interventions.
It strikes me that in all of the reporting about the emerging Mueller Report there's virtually nothing about the grave danger for which the investigation was initiated in the first place.
(In the interest of "balance" I'll leave the other political threat to our electoral system out of this post)
11
@Jean L. So much is already known as to how Russian operatives were actively meddling in the 2016 election by identifying and sending erroneous/bizarrely wrong information about the candidates to potential voters. Facebook has admitted its errors and has taken some steps to protect the public. Statements on line about Clinton seem to show that the work of the Russian trolls was effective and remains to this day. We don't need the Mueller report to understand what was done to the electorate.
2
@Jean L.
Amen to that. I intend to hold my representatives responsible for making changes to protect our electoral process.
Not even the length of Mueller's report is known. So when Barr submits his report o the report, will we know how much he deleted?
$25 million by Sept. 2018, that figure is bound to leap into millions more when the last six months are added up.
I have the sense that this will be anticlimactic. But I hipe that at least it serves as a warning for future presidential candidates on where the limits are. I don't think it will serve as any kind of scarecrow to the Russians, or any other country that wants to try to meddle, given the venues to do so in the current system of internet and global communications. (But at least conspiracies with campaigns and candidates to interfere will be more difficult...).
3
Several comments state that the report will be released, one way or another--leaked if not outright released. I certainly wouldn't argue that point...just wanted to point it out . Seems in the 21st century nothing can stay private or secret for long.
However...Donald Trump's financial disposition has remained private through out the inquiry.
4
Its too early to draw any conclusion. One thing is undisputable: The Mueller report is certainly not comprehensive without at least a personal interrogation of Trump himself.
Let's hope that Special Counsel Mueller addresses this point in is report.
Anyway, the Mueller did ignite the public interests in this dangerous constitutional crisis.
The night is still green. Don't celebrate yet, the Trump family.
8
Trump serves in a public office. Taxes pay his salary. Transparency is paramount. The report should be made public.
Period.
24
I understand there were several sealed indictments filed as a result of the investigation. What happens to those?
7
Can anyone confirm that -- new indictments or no -- there still remain some 8 to 12 sealed files at (some) District Court in Mueller-initiated matters?
6
I’d love to see the GOP in the dustpin of history, however this whole Russia gate affair has been a big distraction and excuse for Democrats from focusing on putting forward real progressive positions that benefit working people. Some folks still can’t aknowlege that the elections were mainly lost because of the ineptitude of Clinton and that meddling in foreign elections is what the US has been doing for ages now..at least as much as Russia is doing it. Not that I like it, but it’s just what independent powers do to further their national interests.
6
It is entirely possible we will never know the whole truth, but every effort to get it through legal and evidence-based investigations, is worth it to serve as a warning to those who would corrupt our government and abuse their power in the future. There must be at least the threat of discovery and punishment when individuals make decisions about whom they will work for and protect and what lines they will cross. We have seen much of the corruption surrounding Donald Trump by those in his service and seeking his favor. Imagine how deep and wide the corruption would be in there was no threat of being caught?
3
It seems that any solution for misconduct by the president is political, not legal. And given the Republicans’ willingness to keep lowering the bar on acceptable behavior by the president, it’s entirely possible, and I’ll bet highly probable, that the report will do nothing except fuel more outrage on the left. And that, in turn, will empower Trump.
2
@MWR It should empower the Democrats to get out and vote at every election for Democrats.
2
"Mr. Trump’s lawyers consider it one of their greatest accomplishments that he never sat for an interview. "
Isn't Mr. Trump's side irrelevant? Mr. Trump's testimony isn't really credible evidence, when compared with both the facts in the Mueller Report and the patterns of the testimonies of Trump's team that Mueller was able to interview. The transcript of Trump's interview, if it were recorded, would have been disallowed as executive privilege and national security. He will have ample opportunities, via Twitter and his press secretary, to make statements. He's more at home as a spectacle than as a witness, I should imagine.
7
Are there sealed indictments out there against members of Trumpworld? Are there federal investigations not yet completed of members of Trumpworld? Will the State of New York, or other states investigate, and/or indict members of Trumpworld? The answer to one or more of these questions is, wait for it, YES. It's going to take a long time to hunt down all of the criminals in Trumpworld, and deliver justice to them.
3
if it is not released we are not going to believe anything we hear, are shaken Trust of will be broken completely.
4
the special council 's report might possibly include information that genuinely needs to be kept secret - for example, ways to identify intelligence agents, facts that might allow our adversaries to draw conclusions about our intelligence gathering techniques, call outs concerning military installations or equipment, etc. in short, bona fide state secrets. at the same time, the President and his staff, his political supporters, and his employees deserve no special dispensation for themselves, for no matter what AG Barr believes, the President works for us, he is not the king, we do not need to defer to him, he does not get to decide unilaterally what Americans deserve to know about him and his actions and associates, and executive priveledge, as I understand the intentionally vague concept, is about the office of the presidency, and not about its current occupant.
4
No trust for Trump or Barr. We have no idea of what we will or wont get to see. The criminals are running the roost and we can't trust any of what is released. But it is likely to be a Trump whitewash and where will that leave us? It's becoming clear that our system of government was not set up to deal with a strong criminal element getting into the Oval office. But here we are. I am beginning to wonder how deep the Trump effect has invaded DOJ. But it can't be good.
7
Indeed, the notion that a sitting president cannot be indicted is disputed...by the man who wrote the 1973 DoJ review of this issue. The US addressed this question 6 times in internal memos and litigation briefs. These documents shows that it's not clear what criminal prosecution steps are (or should be) precluded—and there's no longstanding policy against indictment of the president. Consider Robert Dixon's the 1973 OLC memo stating that a sitting president should not be indicted. Far from being authoritative, it was essentially repudiated within months by the Justice Department in the United States’ filing in the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon. Perhaps the most important point emerging from a review of all the opinions is that only once has the US addressed the question of whether a president can be an unindicted co-conspirator. The conclusion was yes. Nixon was named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge Sirica and defended in United States v. Nixon. (The Supreme Court did not resolve the question.)
4
The 5th Ave. Republican base is emboldened. No indictments is proof positive to them. They are already calling 2020. I can't say I disagree if the Democrats latch hard on to this report. The main perps have already been sentenced. What's in the report that his own personal lawyer didn't already know? By all means, let's see the details. I don't expect it to make much of a difference. The longer it's drawn out, the more red meat he has for his upcoming MAGA rallies.
1
Everyone is missing one distinct possibility. Think of the Trump family as a criminal enterprise (i.e., "mob family"). Every Federal mob prosecution for conspiracy involves indictment of the ENTIRE criminal "family," including the mob boss at the top. The interlocking nature of a conspiracy absolutely requires that ALL necessary parties (a lawyer phrase) be included in the indictment and prosecution -- no one can be left out, especially the boss of all bosses. But DOJ has this rule that says sitting presidents cannot be indicted, and Mueller feels compelled to follow it. No one has ever seen or experienced a president whose immediate family is essentially his "crew." As such, assume an indictment for conspiracy COULD be brought against the president and members of his immediate family right now, because the president "cannot" be indicted, a conspiracy charge against other members of the Trump family without including the president (the "boss") himself would be only half a loaf, completely hamstrung and a loser without his involvement, testimony, etc., in the courtroom. A conspiracy indictment now with the president sitting comfortably at home in the White House, immune from indictment, while the rest of his family goes to trial? Impossible from a "mob" prosecution standpoint. As such, Muller's statement that "no new indictments" will be forthcoming. Until after the president leaves office -- then watch out.
3
@JTS
"Every Federal mob prosecution for conspiracy involves indictment of the ENTIRE criminal "family," including the mob boss at the top."
Umm, no. That is simply not true. You made it up.
I think it's time for a new legal opinion regarding indictment of sitting Presidents. Policies and procedures are just that, and they can change. No one ever anticipated a President who had as much Executive down time as Trump. He is not "running the country". He is ruining the country. Why should that be permitted? It's time for a new opinion.
3
There are good reasons to edit the report that the OSC submitted to the AG: There's an ongoing counter-intellingence investigation. Sources and methods shouldn't be compromised. Innocent parties should not be swept up into a morass. These edits apply to the underlying rationale and supporting documents. They don't apply to the conclusions, which Barr indicated go beyond a simple listing of who was indicated, who wasn't, and why.
What we have been waiting nearly 4 years to learn is, what happened in the 2016 election? Who did what, with whom, and with what effect? For me, that question is more important than who is charged with a crime. I am eager to learn what the report brings to light.
2
The dangers presented by Russians and others continuing to meddle in American politics and in our economy will not be paused while Attorney General William Barr tries to suspend or curtail release of the full Mueller report.
The sophistry of Barr’s views about an imperial presidency cannot be allowed to place Donald Trump above the law.
Robert Mueller appears to be a good man acting in good faith. William Barr does not.
History will judge how the American people and the men and women in charge of our institutions respond to a clear and present danger facing our democracy by the ongoing greed and disloyalty of Donald Trump.
Unfortunately, we must protect our nation now, rather than await the verdict of history.
The patriotic forces for decency -- and we should include The New York Times in that group -- are too polite by half. Men like William Barr will take advantage of that civility, if we let them.
4
I am not a fan of speculation posed as reporting.
There will be plenty of actual news in the days ahead regarding Mueller Report and Southern District of NY four system.
Thanks to the Times today, we can see the usual profile of the people in charge in this country.
For example, at this crucial moment, we have Robert Mueller and William Barr making the key decisions. They both know each other very well and their wives go to Bible Class together. They've been to the Best Schools, run in the "best" circles and fought in the best US wars.
They believe in all the American Myths you could round up in an hour and they will lie and deceive and say anything to sustain those myths in America. They will do anything to "Manufacture Consent" for those in power. I remember Mueller before congress promoting the lie of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.
They are dangerous people in more ways than one.
1
It's amazing that the Trump administration continues to break all "norms" of competence, ethics and decency and yet remains as President of the USA because a "norm" stating a sitting president cannot be indicted.
5
It seems like there is a lot of information, like grand jury stuff, that's protected from public scrutiny. Not just here but for all grand juries.
How can they possibly release the entire report under those circumstances?
1
Good analysis, Thanks.
Hopefully Director Mueller will soon be able to take a well earned, long vacation with his wife somewhere he's always wanted to go.
If anyone deserves a break, he deserves it. Being in that frying pan and leading such a high caliber, hard-charging team for two years without a vacation must have left him exhausted, to say the least.
Thank you Director Mueller, for your stellar public service and leadership.
21
@Ed It seems that Robert Mueller loves his line of work and thrives in his pursuit of justice so rather than be eager to go on vacation he may actually dread the prospect of relaxing. Instead, he'd probably prefer testifying before Congress about his investigation rather than watching the sunset from some exotic destination.
2
War. I don’t think this was ever really discussed or even mentioned. Could the Mueller Investigation have precipitated war with Russia? It’s fairly certain that President Putin believes the current order in the Balkans was formed at a time when Russia was down and the West took advantage of that weakness, i.e., when Bill Clinton was President. So, it’s reasonable to speculate that this was one of the main reasons he was against Hillary Clinton becoming President. Is this why Russia interfered in our 2016 election? Was this why Russia was supportive of Donald Trump? If the Special Council revealed even part of such a simplistic plot to meddle in our elections, how would they Russia have responded?
Maybe it was too frightening to contemplate, so the onus is on Congress to make the interpretation of the Report. Unless of course, President Trump chooses to pick up the course of action General George Paton wanted.
2
As lengthy as the report might be, wouldn't it fit on a thumb-drive? What are the chances someone with access leaks it to the press or to the House of Representatives? Fairly good, I would think, and without much of a delay.
107
@Joseph Flynn Were that leaking were so simple! If it were, don't you think we'd have seen Trump's tax returns?
1
I wait with bated breath for a leak of this report.
1
@Joseph Flynn I suggest having a sleuth, preferably an attractive female, "accidentally" spill some hot coffee on Bill Bar's lap. While he leaves his office to clean himself off, she sticks the thumb-drive into his computer and copies the report. Then see to it that it gets delivered to he proper people, who delivers the full report to the American people.
If Robert Kraft’s sexually graphic spa videos can be distributed to the public then why can’t the Mueller Report also be distributed, warts and all, no pun intended?
94
@Covfefe
I didn't know of 'the if,' I heartily agree with 'the then' -- but, most of all, I pray to 'un-see' the mind's-eye picture 'painted' with 'the if.'
2
Oh good, a panel of New York Times journalists. We can *totally* trust them to be objective on a matter of the Trump presidency. No doubt they will get right to the bottom of it .
29
@citizenjim, who do you consider objective? What criteria must be met for objectivity? How can you tell if a journalist is objective? Does one's education and training impact objectivity? Does the reputation and institutional commitments of a newspaper impact its objectivity? I assume you think that Rupert Murdoch has a long-standing commitment to objectivity?
8
@citizenjim
Unfair, uninformed, ad hominem attack.
They are some of the best journalists around and are actually doing a public service by explaining complex procedures.
This Q&A simply states facts. Remember those?
8
@citizenjim That's right. Only Trump can be *totally* trusted on matters of the Trump presidency. No doubt he will tweet right to the bottom of it, if he can hit bottom.
7
If the report is released in its entirety, we will know that it was a whitewash by a republican appointee. Shame. Shame!!
27
I’m hoping that the intrepid reporters at the New York Times or Washington Post have got confidential sources that will provide them with the full report if Barr does not release it. The people of this country have a right to read the full report for themselves.
383
@Anne V
The press -- I've learned as a journalist for fifty years -- is a thin reed to depend on. They never were, for example, able to provide us with Hillary's speeches to the bankers -- and hundreds must have heard those.
And, come on, how can they not find Trump's tax returns?
Perhaps somebody, like our billionaire lefties in Katona or the Bay Area, could offer a huge reward for anybody putting Trump's tax returns into the public domain, no questions asked.
Where oh where is our next Edward Snowden when we need them?
The nation calls out for you.
You could win the noble prize.
1
What happens to Stone, Corsi, Page and all those other lower level associates? Why was Corsi pressured to plea guilty to lying when others closer to the president also lied?
26
@Tedj
Corsi refused to be screwed by Mueller and refused to plead guilty. So Mueller dropped the case as he could not squeeze Corsi into testifying and had no case to begin with.
Good point:
"For example, could Donald Trump, Jr., already be indicted by Mueller but that indictment is sealed and we don't know about it? If that is the case, does no more indictments recommended mean anything?"
Mueller reportedly does not recommend any additional charges. But, as this commenter points out, there may ALREADY be sealed indictments out there that we just don't know about. Mueller's reported decision not to recommend any additional charges doesn't mean he hasn't already charged, say, Donald Trump, Jr. -- or even Donald Trump, Sr.
One imagines that Mueller would have seen fit to let us know already if he'd found evidence sufficient to support charges that haven't yet been made public, but who knows? Maybe he had good reasons not to tell us. We'll soon find out.
32
Some outlets have raised the question of a counterterrorism investigation—and possibly a separate report—dealing with Russia’s influence over Trump, whether via blackmail or control of his massive debt or otherwise. Were those issues within Mueller’s investigatory ambit? If not, are they under investigation and if so by whom and under what authority? Will we ever get answers to those questions?
37
Somewhere, someone has a flash drive copy of this thing. It’s only a matter of time before that’s released. I’m also sure Wikileaks is already working on this.
31
There have been rumors for months that Mueller has filed sealed indictments. What do we know about that? If there are sealed indictments, when and under what circumstances will they be unsealed?
86
@Steel Magnolia That's an interesting question that wasn't addressed in this article -- or else where to my knowledge.
5
@From American Outback (Escalante, Utah)
One article I've found on this, but it is only speculative as to their nature.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dozens-sealed-criminal-indictments-dc-docket-mueller/story?id=59249030
4
I am not hopeful that Barr will release the report. Sessions was fired in order to replace him with someone Trump felt comfortable with, someone capable of the fealty he expects. But no matter how the Republicans handle this, and they are in key positions to handle it, Trump has shown the world who he is. And it was not the media who ruined the man's reputation; it was his tweets.
99
@sailor2009
Surely ,the world knew who and what Trump is long before he got to the White House. He's had a bad reputation since he was a kid. How could it be ruined?
You're right about the tweets : they give a clear view of his character ,and it's not a pretty sight.
4
The thing is, Congress does have the ability to respond to Trump's crimes, and the crimes of his "gang", "mob" (or what ever you want to call it). And they have chosen not to pursue those options. I'm not sure what that says about where the country is, but I have an intuition it isn't good
29
@smarty's mom. Huh? Congress is going after his many hijinks.
It's impossible to classify the numerous comments on the NYT's article announcing the release of Mueller's report -- with just one exception: For a while, the focus will shift from "When will Mueller's report be released?" to "How much of Mueller's report will be made public?"
The new focus won't last long, though. Both Trump and Barr have indicated that the public should see the report. If they change their minds, it will be leaked. It should be made public, one way or another, and public release, rather than leaking, will be more likely to result in discreet redactions to protect innocent people identified in the report. I hope that happens, and soon, though the redactions should be kept to a minimum so that the report's narrative flow is not disturbed unnecessarily.
Whenever and however the report becomes public (i.e. through a leak, or through public release, or a little of both), the focus will soon shift again -- from "How much of Mueller's report will be made public?" to "Just because Mueller says there's not enough evidence to charge someone doesn't mean Mueller thinks he's innocent." That new "focus" -- and others -- will spawn many debates over the next few months.
And finally, one hopes, it will all go away, and we'll have something else to be pre-occupied about -- the 2020 election, perhaps.
8
@MyThreeCents
Yes we are all looking forward to 20/20 but the facts will come out and the GOP will be crushed along with the Con artist president, enough with the entire family. Hopefully respectable society will shun them going forward as they did with Nixon.
3
"There is also a wild card: Mr. Barr has long adhered to a sweeping view of executive power under which the president, as head of the executive branch, has a constitutional right to control the exercise of discretionary policymaking by a subordinate such as himself."
There seems to be a built-in conflict of interest here.
How independent and "prosecutorial" can the DOJ be when a President needs to be investigated and perhaps prosecuted, but the DOJ itself is part of the executive branch and with its head (likely to be of the same political party as the president) appointed by the President that needs to be investigated?
This reminds me of those clauses in corporate contracts where if there is a problem, the corporation investigates itself or there is an arbitration board that is anything but independent.
21
@PB
Investigate old man Barr interesting he so wanted this job . How many phone calls, meetings did he have with the Trump cover up squad .
Old man Barr survived Iran Contra affair I don’t think he will survive the will of the people.
History will remember him in the same negative manner as we remember Ken Starr and other traitors to democracy,
1
Trump should have been required to answer questions from the special counsel under oath.
Why is Donald Trump held to a different standard than everyone else? During his presidency Bill Clinton was threatened with a subpoena to answer questions about an affair.
This case deals with the national security of our country and whether our president conspired with a hostile foreign government to win an election.
Why is everyone so afraid of this immature man-baby?
567
@L I'm not a lawyer, so it stuns me that a central player in a conspiracy under investigation can get out of testifying because everyone knows he'll lie his face off. It's possible he lied in writing; his pathological dishonesty suggests it's even likely. Can anyone think of other alleged federal criminals -- apart from, say, Jeffrey Epstein -- who got to dictate the terms of their involvement in investigating their own lawbreaking?
It reminds me of the strip mall massage parlor scandal in that men under investigation have argued against the public release of surveillance video on the grounds that they'll be embarrassed.
I look forward to the day a punk robbing a convenience store implores the judge not to share any incriminating video because he's having a bad hair day, and video might undermine his newish youtube empire.
221
@L The rumor is that Trump's attorney's told Mueller that the President would plead the fifth to ever question past what is your name. Hopefully, this, and many other mysteries will be solved when the report becomes
public.
49
@jim Muller should have put Trump on the stand and let him "plead the fifth" away to any question. Let him do that and this fact would have have spoken for itself as an innocent person, as Trump claims he is, does not answer every question by pleading "the fifth". Period.
52
Does the law give the President the right to read the full report? Is the Attorney General required to show him the full version?
7
If the Mueller team did find evidence of collusion (i.e., conspiring) or other crimes by the President or by his close associates including without limitation his family members and extended family (including former family members and his chain-migration in-laws), would that explosive and highly sensitive information appear in the report and made available to the President and/or others before other legal action has been taken? How would national security concerns inform what is and is not in that report? Might there be a shadow report as well?
5
Does the law allow the AG or President to order that certain things in or about the report be changed, omitted, added, or redacted?
Where and how will the report, and the evidence and work product that allowed its creation be stored, short term and for the long term? Are there laws or rules about that? May any of it ever legally be destroyed? Is there a sunshine date on which the report and/or supporting documentation must be released to the public? For that matter, is the President or AG permitted to share whatever parts of the report and/or supporting documents or evidence with whomever he wants? Say, perhaps, Putin or others in the Russian government or country, or their formal or informal allies? Are the AG or Trump allowed to reveal the report or substantive aspects of it to their wives or other family members but not to the general public (of which those wives/family are a part)? May people told about it or shown the report before it goes public be subpoenaed and deposed about it?
5
@C.D.M. I meant this as an honest question. It may seem obvious, but not to me. The report is made to the AG, who isn't the president's employee. Is there anything in the laws regulating Special Counsels that requires (or allows) the AG to share its contents with the White House?
4
Are there still sealed indictment? For example, could Donald Trump, Jr., already be indicted by Mueller but that indictment is sealed and we don't know about it? If that is the case, does no more indictments recommended mean anything?
18
@Eric Eitreim No. It's been reported there are no outstanding indictments from the SCO.
The other agencies investigating these crimes might indict people for crimes committed to benefit trump, or for crimes that came to light during the course of the primary investigation.
5
It’s real simple. Every American call in sick until the full report is made public. No excuse to withhold any part of it.
39
"Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president — either through impeachment and removal, or because his term is up. This interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is nevertheless binding on Justice Department prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller."
I understand that stigma and trial prep might "interfere" with a President's execution of the office, but what about Presidential activities that interfere with the Constitution the President is elected to uphold?
176
what about hours of playing golf with rich people and watching hours of Fox tv News? what about his time spent on tweeting and issuing directives to cover up suspicious activities of his relatives and on-going business? the question more rightly should be, does President Trump spend enough time paying attention to the responsibilities of his office as it is,or is he a part time employee?
12
Your story leads with, “...Does Not Recommend New Charges”
Why lead with that? DoJ has made it clear a sitting president can’t be indicted, so new charges weren’t expected.
11
They mean “no new charges” against anyone, not just the President. Notably, this includes the President’s children and their spouses (like Jared Kushner) as well as other friends and associates of Trump.
10
Mike A: “Additional charges” could have been directed at Trump’s children. There was considerable speculation about that.
8
@Mike A
He could still recommend them. They might not lead to indictment while in office, but if it has evidence of criminal conduct that could be used in impeachment proceedings.
6
Should I trust Barr? My gut tells me no.
194
@Patrick Lovell My only hope is that his avowed friendship with Mueller has some influence on his decision.
2
@Patrick Lovell.
Why should any of us be required to trust the AG, regardless of who and what administration that AG is? Isn't that the larger point, that somehow we are all required to trust our government
I do not care which party is in power when it comes to trust, I want transparency and utter and complete disclosure, period. I have lived through the Pentagon Papers (LBJ) and Watergate (Nixon), no one should ever trust the government, they will lie when it suits them even about life and death matters.
12
@Patrick Lovell
What? NOT trust the man who pursuaded George Bush (the 1st) to PARDON the whole Iran / Contra crew so they could NOT implictate Bush for his role in it?
Hmmm.... Maybe you're On to something there...
9
I saw no provision to submit a question. So I will submit here. My question is,
Will we see out of the wildly abusive pundits of my side (the Left) wisely step forward on their own with a sort of "truth & reconciliation" process, whereby they acknowledge their Trump derangement and therefore cool the firestorm they have created with overblown predictions of convictions for treason and/or justification of a coup? Will they have the guts and decency to cut their losses and admit how horribly wrong they have been? Will the NYT institute an investigation into derangement lockstep on the part of it's staff, and design procedures to prevent this sort of "fact burying for career gain" in the future?
I'd like to see my Liberal side succeed, and I'd like to see the NYT get back on track, and I'd like to see Trump defeated. Hence my questions.
27
@CK
You make more sense than any other comment I have read.
To be fair, after almost 3 years of investigation at an enormous cost in dollars and the well being of our country, the NYT should have run the headline “Trump Vindicated.”
All of us need to accept the results and move on to the next election.
3
@CK the “firestorm they have created”? “Justification for a coup”? And “guts and decency” and “fact burying”? It doesn’t sound like you have been paying attention for the past two years and it sounds like you listen mainly to Fox “News.” The statements “I fired him over this Russia thing” and “I take Putin at his word” and the obvious putting of private business interests over the nation’s interest are alone serious enough to raise alarm bells in the minds of any thinking person.
7
@Anne How do you know the report “vindicates” Trump?? At this point all we know is that an indictment of Trump will not occur at this time. Did you receive an advanced copy of the report?
What will the New York Times do to fill in all the content they published online and in print the past 22 months concerning the Mueller Investigation now that the report has been issued?
Obviously the editors will stretch this out for as long as possible, however it is evident the Times already has trouble filling content since the same articles or news reports are already duplicated in different sections of the online edition.
12
@MDCooks8
no matter what we all know trump will continue to beat this dead horse in his tweets because as with McCain dead things don't lash out anymore. So for the rest of this dictatorship until the ruler's death we will continue to see trump tweets about the witch hunt & how he has won.
3
How many pages is the report? Is it bigger than a bread box?
5
I’m not happy right now . We should have had a special commission to investigate this , not a special prosecutor who’s only looking for criminal activity that’s “ indictable “ . I’m VERY DISAPPOINTED. Maybe Democrats and other Independents like myself will be just as indignant as I am and will be motivated to get out to the polls and GET RID OF THIS CREEP in the Oval Office !
163
@KarenE My only consolation today was reading that the state of New York is actively investigating the Trump businesses. At least he won't be able to pardon himself and his family if found guilty in state courts.
9
@KarenE
It's up to us now. There is no savior out there waiting to free us from Trump. We need to get to work and end this nightmare in 2020. And Democrats need to step away from the circular firing squad and get behind whatever candidates are running no matter age, race, gender. If they have a D after their name, they will help get us on the right track, we can sort out the details later.
15
As in the past (Pentagon Papers etc) please publish the entire Mueller report when it becomes available.
54
Will there be an e-book version? Inquiring minds want to know.
7
@macman2
The temptation to speculate is very high but unless someone has access to an online search engine we may never know the truth.
Hope this clears things up for you.
2
if there are sealed indictments, would we even know? would the AG and WH?
22
Do we know that Mueller finished his investigation and was not shown the door by Whitaker and Barr?
24
No matter what Mr. Mueller concludes, trump and Barr must be jailed immediately!!
4
“Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president”
I don’t think an indictment would harm the ability to send tweets.
129
@Mark It might cut into his golf time.
6
Where does the Mueller Report —as far as we can tell so far—belong in the larger constellation of investigations and lawsuits surrounding the President?
4
Are there any other possible consequences if no other charges will be filed?
3
Impeachment, but that has already been ruled out by Pelosi, and is unlikely to ever proceed to a Senate conviction even if it did happen.
1
@Jeanne A
Of course there are, and in many cases more secure than anything Mr. Mueller may have come up with.
There are a few regional investigations (Southern District of New York, for example). The trouble with those are they are still liable to Mr. Barr directing they be stopped, or pardons for all convicted.
There are state investigations (New York and Virginia for a start) completely out of the reach of the White House or the Justice Department.
There is the potential for local investigations and indictments on a variety of issues in a variety of jurisdictions.
And, if we had a functioning Congress, there would be the possibility of conviction upon impeachment.
Beyond that, you must remember the Mueller probe was limited strictly to matters relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Many other important issues have been raised.
This is far from over and, although the Trumpers are doing their victory dance, it is way premature. They're hoping to trick you into giving up.
17
If Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report does not include any additional indictments as being reported by CNN this suggests no Russian collusion was found at all since the people already charged with crimes are for unrelated matters, than what justification does the Democratic controlled House of Reps have to continue there investigation?
If Nadler and Schiff are looking for other crimes again on what evidence?
12
@MDCooks8
Justification? How about 2 years of non stop lying? How about all the Russia connected advisers who are going to jail? How about Don Jrs repeated lying about meeting with Russian reps? Why did Sessions feel the need to recuse himself after lying about Russian contacts? How about Trumps obsequious behavior toward Putin?
Why do Trump and his brood act so guilty all the time? Don't you want to know?
159
@MDCooks8
"... this suggests no Russian collusion was found at all"
It suggests nothing of the kind. Mueller is a good soldier, and the (ridiculous) policy of his Republican Department of Justice is that a sitting President cannot be indicted so, even if he wanted to, he wouldn't.
Also, its a mistake to obsess on the matter of indictments. Trump may have behaved in ways bordering on treason that are not technically criminal. They may not be formally indictable, but he may still be held responsible.
Remember, too, that 'collusion' is a shorthand term leaned on by the media and heavily promoted by Trumpers as a distraction.
There is a lot more going on here. We're far from finished.
60
@TR
Yes, I want to know why they aren't indicted.
8
I'm trying hard to hope that #45 will not find a way to whitewash and cover up this report. But his utter corruption and that of all those around him, combined with grave doubts about Barr, make me as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
60
Thank you for breaking it down. There is so much going on and now I understand it better.
2
What happens to the 11 (or more) sealed indictments that the public was told about some time ago? Will these be handled by SDNY or D.C.? Also, is Mueller really done, or will there be wrap up legal work out of his office for some more days or weeks?
8
Do we know exactly what parameters were given to Mueller? Isn't it weird that Trump and his family never testified before a grand jury? Could it be that Mueller was directed to not touch the Trump family?
47
@Tracey
You have hit on the key questions.
Sure seems suspicious that Donald and family didn't testify.
3
@Tracey I think we should wait until the report of Mr. Mueller is known in order to make a valid judgment. So I will wait and see.
There's really only one question: "Did Russia interfere with the 2016 presidential election?" To my knowledge,they did not cast, change, or erase a single ballot, and if that is the case, nothing else matters.
So what if Trump wanted to build one of his towers in Moscow! So what if Hillary's emails and the DNC emails were hacked! Both Hillary and the DNC should have been more discrete in their communications, and they and no one else are responsible for their words and actions. And if Bradley Chelsea Manning was fully pardoned for his release of classified material, why should Wikileaks be guilty of releasing non classified material?
This whole thing has been a joke!
13
@Michael I'm sure the advertising industry would be shocked to learn that purposeful persuasion, including disinformation and propaganda and massive repetition, has no effect on how people make decisions.
20
@Michael. The question is not whether a foreign power cast, changed or erased votes. It is whether that foreign power tried to influence voters to vote for Trump (as seventeen US intelligence agencies say), and if so, whether they do so with help from or in coordination with “Individual 1” or his campaign.
There was evidence Trump’s campaign manager gave a Russian agent internal Trump campaign polling data. If he did that so that Russian trolls could use it to better direct and focus their influence efforts, would that just be “a joke”?
If Roger Stone, Trump’s acknowledged “dirty trickster,” coordinated the release of the stolen DNC emails with WikiLeaks to maximize their influence on behalf of the Trump campaign, would that just be “a joke”?
If the president of the United States is in thrall to a foreign power, whether because he wants to build the biggest hotel of his career in Moscow or because that foreign power controls hundred of millions of dollars of his debt, would that just be “a joke”?
Those would surely be some jokes on American democracy.
74
@Michael
Did Russia interfere? Yes. Eight U.S. Intelligence groups concluded Russia influenced the 2016 election to benefit Trump. You're not even a little concerned about this?
So what if Trump was lusting for a tower in Moscow? No problem except that he was running for President. Big conflict of interest there, don't you think? Why his
obsequiousness toward Putin? Why all the lying about having no business dealings with Russia?
What if Hillary and DNC e-mails were hacked? You have no problem with a foreign adversary hacking into computers of our political representatives? Would you have a problem with Russia/China/Iran etc. hacking Donald Trump's, Paul Ryan's or Mitch McConnell's emails to benefit their political opponents? Be honest!
What does Bradley Manning have to do with this? You seem to be justifying/defending Putin's attempt to influence our elections? Who's side are you on?
The real joke is all the denial/justifying of the attack on our democracy you hear from a certain segment of the population.
44
I wish to thank Mr. Mueller and all of his team for a professional execution of their duty.
Thank you, all of you.
97
@rosa
I assume that it was professional. But we do not know that.
3
No further charges? My heart fell to my feet.
84
@Islandgirl -- Mueller spun off some of the investigation which is a good thing. It means no charges from Mueller but there may be more from other sources. Also there may be indictments made but not yet acted on. So it means no further indictments from Mueller nothing more.
17
I know, we the public, has to wait a bit to see this report. However, I would like to know now how long the report is. Is is six pages or six hundred?
8
@Marlo "I would like to know now how long the report is. Is is six pages or six hundred?"
Answer: Probably somewhere in between.
2
What does this mean for Mike Flynn? His sentencing was delayed so he could continue to provide information to the investigation.
9
Uh oh.
"Barr is also likely to acquiesce to any decision by President Trump to assert executive privilege to withhold certain materials, like communications with the president or agency deliberations."
Any decision Trump makes? We know this guy's reasoning ability. Zero. He operates only on whim and anger. It's like letting you 3 year old decide on the dinner menu. Will Congress at least get to see the unredacted parts?
32
@Ex New Yorker Trump literally said he wants it released though soo?
@RingoS. You literally cannot trust or believe anything Trump says, though, so...?
We saw the collusion when Trump asked Russia for help finding the emails. Then the Trump tower meeting and what Cohen talked about the Russian secret meetings? The GOP very corrupt.
73
So let’s assume that Trump and his crew simply talked about a hotel deal in Moscow as being something that Putin could help approve.
So there would be nothing illegal about this, right? Trump was just using his new found medium of validity to get a deal. Right?
3
@Glenn Woodruff
And so what if the guy in charge of foreign policy has foreign dignitaries spending large sums of money in hotels that have his name on them? There's no way that anyone could reasonably conclude that foreign powers were essentially buying favorable treatment despite our national interests.
That sound you're hearing is a combination of me rolling my eyes as hard as I can and the founding fathers spinning in their graves.
42
"Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president — either through impeachment and removal, or because his term is up. This interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is nevertheless binding on Justice Department prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller."
What this essentially means is that the USA is an elective monarchy with a King as its leader rather than a Republic with a President as its leader.
Not quite what the Founding Father had in mind.
243
@Alistair.
Far from it. A sitting president can be removed via the impeachment process.
No “Kings” here.
1
@Norville T. Johnson
I agree that that's the constitutional position but as long as the 'Court' that is empowered to do the impeaching (Congress) is operating with the degree of partisanship that we've seen over recent years there is no effective impeachment process.
10
One good thing to come out of all this is the breakup of the facade that America is the greatest democracy. Never was, never will be.
2
Before I read a single report on the report I want to thank Robert Mueller and his staff.
I am grateful for the dedication, the calm, and the persistence in this troubled time.
To have been made a target for doing this for our country has given us all reassurance
that America is still America and that we follow the rule of law.
317
@Jann McCarthy let's wait and see what the man comes up with before telling him what a hero he is. I'm starting to have my doubts after reading comments that remind me of all that Trump and Co. have allegedly done and said. If nothing comes of this investigation or others in progress I will have lost my faith in American justice.
28
@sammy zoso
Hard to say "nothing" has come of this investigation when you look at the number of criminal indictments, convictions, and sentences already.
33
@sammy zoso Don't forget the many, many charges and indictments that have already come of this.
3
"Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution, and no court has ruled that they have any such shield. "
"Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president — either through impeachment and removal, or because his term is up. This interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is nevertheless binding on Justice Department prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller."
Essentially, a sitting President is above the law, and may do whatever he or she chooses with impunity, because the poor dear is so very busy.
Its the death of the "Rule of Law" myth.
There is no other possible interpretation, and it is the end of the America we believed we knew.
As you say, none of that exists in the Constitution, and the "Originalists" are exposed for who they are.
264
@oogada Any judge can see that Trump doesn't do much at his day job. I don't worry about that aspect.
7
@oogada, great point. And it certainly didn't stop Republicans from dragging Bill Clinton through the process, ostensibly over an affair (which, egregious as it may have been, did not affect political policy.)
23
Sorry my two earlier replies to this discussion seem to have bounced on time-outs.
Search the October ‘73 Times for Spiro Agnew.
He said he wouldn’t resign if indicted, then did, 10 days later, as he pleaded no contest to a just-unsealed indictment and immediately announced his resignation.
Nixon and Clinton would both claim this bizarre invention that goes beyond any extension if rights Conservatives ever accused the Warren court of inventing, but Nixon resigned on “no quid pro quo”, and Clinton found himself cleared, re-elected and in a position clearing him because it is not a crime to fool around with an adult page in the Oval Office - tacky but no crime.
It’s time to bury this lie and bounce the crook for good , and put an end ti the sick idea the President is above indictment for good.
16