158

I’m using the word in the sense used by House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler last night. He spoke to Barr:

Is it 700 pages? But more on length of this below. For now suffice it to say that if it is 700 pages that’s pretty substantial but but maybe not as substantial as this book you’re reading now-which in all due modesty I think you’ll agree is pretty substantial in its own right. 

Of course it’s not all about length-pun intended?

But if we can switch gears for a moment here’s a question for you: does the Mueller Report Barr Letter prove or disprove the Steele Dossier? Yes or no?

Ok it’s a trick question:

There was nothing about the pee tape-or wether Cohen went to Prague, nor did the Barr Letter tell us anything regarding the Dossier. In truth it didn’t say darn near anything at all.

Yet you see so much malarkey from the MSM-Trump is vindicated! The Mueller Report is a win for ‘President Trump!’

Uh it wasn’t the Mueller Report!

And what’s amazing is how from this totally flawed premise-that the idea that Mueller didn’t prove collusion beyond 90% confidence means that there is zero evidence of collusion-ie confidence is 0% is presumed. Which is absurd-if there weren’t a shred of evidence of collusion the investigation never would have opened in the first place-as to open an investigation you need probable cause.

Yet you hear it repeated again and again by some folks you really want to think know better-Ari Melber-that ‘President Trump is not guilty of chargeable collusion and that should be good news for the country.’

Ok so if he’s guilty of un-chargeable collusion we’re supposed to call a curtain call for the nation? Let alone the fact that aside from wether or not there was collusion-there was wether chargeable or not-we know that Russia successfully interfered in our election to elect ‘President Trump.’

But what’s happening is a bizarre thing where the MSM assumes that ‘nonchargeable collusion’ means proof positive there was not one shred of evidence of collusion-which is patently absurd. Manafort’s selling detailed campaign data to GRU operative Konstantin Kilimnik is evidence of collusion, as is the emails between the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, and Jerome Corsi in the Summer of 2016 showing they knew two months in advance of the coming Podesta emails and were planning accordingly. Heck, Russia if you’re listening is evidence of collusion and the fact that the Russians begun attempting to hack Clinton’s office in Chappaquiddick the same day is more evidence.

So now you hear it said that anyone who called Trump the Manchurian Candidate needs to take it back. This is absurd-even if you wrongly assume there was no collusion no one denies Russia successfully elected ‘President Trump’ which makes him the Manchurian Candidate by definition. I mean even if they weren’t successful Trump was their guy-this is what Manchurian Candidate means-an American candidate favored and boosted by the Russians.

So from the flawed premise-if collusion isn’t charged it didn’t happen, there’s zero evidence it happened-again, if that were true there would have been no criminal or even counterintelligence investigation in the first place-the MSM then reverse engineers things to the point that literally everything ever written or said about Russian interference is 100% false. You now have Carter Page strutting around the halls of Congress as if he’s somehow also been ‘vindicated.’

Vindicated of what exactly? I didn’t hear Barr mention Carter Page-did you? Anymore than he mentioned the Pee Tape, Michael Cohen Goes to Prague or anything else from the Dossier.

By the way this is one of the many reasons we really need to see the Mueller Report-I’d be very interested to see what Mueller has to say about Carter Page, the Dossier, Roger Stone, why Manafort sold the polling data to a GRU operative, what that GRU operative did with the polling data, what he made of Russia, if you;’re listening, Roger Stone-Jerome-Corsi, why Stone at one point in late July, 2016 was saying the Russians might have been behind the hacks and then he did a 180 in early August claiming with 100% certainty it wasn’t the Russians. 

Then there’s Peter Smith who in an email to the highest levels of the Trump campaign-then Campaign Director Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn-expressing his clear intent to pay the Russian hackers and work with Wikileaks to get Clinton’s emails. There was the WSJ story that Smith paid hackers in a hotel room and the email after the election which suggests that Smith might have paid the hackers behind the Podesta emails.

Let’s be clear-I’m not saying conclusively if Smith did actually pay the hackers behind the Podesta emails just that based on the email it’s plausible which is why we need to see the report. After all, Barr’s Letter didn’t say a word about Peter Smith.

I’m very interested to know what Mueller found-he was investigating Peter Smith’s machinations-how much actual fire was there? I don’t know but it’d be fascinating to know what Mueller found.

This is important-I and what’s called the #Resistance and many regular Americans just want to see the report. We paid for it, we’ve been discussing and listening to the press discuss it for two years. We want to know what happened. The GOP attempts-with much assistance from the MSM-to dismiss this as ‘politics’ as ‘an investigation in search of a crime.’

All we want to do is impeach Trump. Well I do want to impeach Trump-if after the evidence is in-not just the Mueller report but the criminal investigations as well as the House Democrats’ own investigations-amazingly the ‘SmartSet’ is warning about the Dems ‘overreaching’-they’ve been here three months and have had one public hearing so far. Sometimes I worry my party is unnderreaching. 

Yes the idea that the Barr DOJ is now trying to overturn Obamacare in total is an emergency. But understand the cause-the false narrative of the Barr Letter is giving Trump a feeling of impunity that he finds quite glorious. So the Democrats declaring ‘forget Mueller let’s protect the ACA-are failing to see how the two are related:  to the extent the Democrats are failing to fight for the Mueller report is emboldening Trump to think he can get away with anything-even taking away preexisting conditions.

In fairness to the Democrats the idea they are ‘turning the page’ on the Mueller Report may be-and hopefully is-more media spin than anything.

‘Even Pelosi’-who much of the Savvy are suggesting is losing interest in this fight is making it clear where she stands:

Let’s be very clear: IF Pelosi is on the case we will see that report-the worry has been maybe she’s not. But she’s made it clear it’s a fight she is willing to have.

As for impeachment I will cop to it-if he’s impeachable he should be impeached-never mind Senate conviction that’s something else that may in time come.

I’ve gone through the history elsewhere in this book on Stupid Watergate: the American people want accountability.

People are beyond sick of all these Republican co-conspirators always getting off scott free. We need to put our own party-the Democrats-on notice. Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon, Bill Barr letting the Iran-Contra co-conspirators off the hook timed to protect Bush Sr. during the 1992 reelect, the Bush-Cheney and Wall Street criminals getting off in 2009 and coming back from the Dead in 2010 and 2016.

But beyond that there’s a genuine desire to know the truth. Chris Matthews-as I noted in previous chapters-discussed how as a young guy in the 1970s he and many folks were disappointed when Ford pardoned Nixon-not just because Tricky Dick escaped accountability-though that was a big part of it. But also they just wanted the information of what happened.

Part of why I and many of us are so thirsty for any actual information out of Mueller’s own mouth or in his own words is this genuine desire to know the truth about what happened whatever it’s legal or political implications.

Speaking of the Mueller Report we at least seem to have it confirmed that it’s not 1000 pages long but at least in the ballpark-could it be 700 pages? Nadler was willing to say it was less than 1000 but wouldn’t say yes or no when asked if it was 700 pages.

But who suggested it was 700 pages? Would you believe Fox News’ own Andrew Napolitano? What he said is very interesting: there is evidence of both obstruction and collusion in the Mueller Report. 

The Mueller probe may not be over just yet. Judge Andrew Napolitano said there positively “some” proof of Trump-Russia conspiracy and obstruction of justice in the 700 page report.

“In the 700 page summary of the 2 million pages of raw evidence there is undoubtedly some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction of justice,” he told FOX Business’ Neil CavutoOpens a New Window.. “Just not enough evidence.”

So while Fox News is rightly seen as Trump’s own personal Kremlin State Television, Napolitano is giving us the straight truth in a way in which certainly no on on MSNBC has yet-not Maddow while Katy Tur expresses befuddlement: how can Adan Schiff still be saying there’s collusion after the Mueller Report?!

Well, Katy, start with the fact that it wasn’t the Mueller Report.

But then a lawyer like Ari Melber also hasn’t figured this out yet-that just because there isn’t chargeable collusion doesn’t mean there was no collusion-it ought not to be too subtle for a lawyer of his level but-like the old African American saying puts it only the truth hurts. 

But Napolitano gets it: Even if there’s not 90% evidence doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. 

Ok so Mueller’s 700 page summary of 2 million pages of evidence. Ok this book may end up being longer than the Mueller summary-great companion pieces I would say!-but it certainly isn’t as long as the 2 million pages of raw intelligence. That will be some fun reading…

Finally Bill Barr. My take on his performance is that my instincts were right-never trust a GOPer. The notion of a Republican institutionalist is a contradiction in terms. That what Coverup General Barr didon Sunday, March 24, 2019 is exactly what he did in 1992.

However, interestingly Napolitano’s analysis at least makes plausible a counter-theory-Louise Mensch’s theory. Now let’s be clear I don’t buy all her theories by any stretch-particularly her claim that Comey is this great American Hero-I think his record is at most mixed. I mean we wouldn’t be in this mess if not for him and even on Trump-Russia you can argue he moved quite slowly really.

On the other hand those who want to dismiss everything she’s ever said or written as FAKE NEWS ought to remember that one piece of egregious FAKE NEWS she didn’t spread was NYT’s Executive Editor Dean Baquet’s howler.

Baquet simply ruined what should have been a major piece about Trump-Russia and the Alpha Bank server in Trump tower-after his miserable intervention it turned into a story that had the advantage of being damnably false-that there was no there there in the Russia story. This after an absolute NYT orgy on Emailgate three days earlier after Comey’s damnable letter.

Isn’t it interesting? The Barr Letter, the Comey Letter they always cut against the Democrats and in favor of the GOP.

Mensch on the other hand ran a story about the Trump Tower Alpha Bank connection prior to the election. Yet Baquet is treated with great respect and she’s treated as FAKE NEWS.

If you want to argue she’s a charlatan well no more than Dean Baquet is.

In any case-the utter trainwreck that is Dean Baquet’s record on both Emailgate and Russiagate notwithstanding-Mensch’s theory is that Barr is-appearances very much to the contrary!-is one of the good guys. 

Her main argument is that more indictments are coming-from other Mueller spinoff investigations. And indeed, we got news yesterday that the Mueller Grand Jury is still open for business.

In any case I wasn’t particularly awed by her argument when I read it though it’s notable that the Mueller Grand Jury is still continuing robustly. 

But Judge Napolitano’s analysis does offer a counternarrative where Barr could be one of the good guys-though I’m going to continue to assume the worst about him until proven otherwise at this point. At this point I’ll presume that a GOP institutionalist-a Republican who puts any thing-the good of the country or any institution above GOP partisan power and ideological victories-is a contradiction in terms-it doesn’t exist. Now there are plenty of Democratic institutionalists-which means the Democrats lose either way as both Democrats and Republicans are wiling to hold Democrats accountable but only Democrats are willing to hold GOPers accountable-and many Democrats are so ‘queasy’-Comey’s word-about being seen as-eke partisan, a la Obama-they actually take it easier on GOPers too.

However Napolitano’s theory is interesting and would imply that Barr is actually on the side of the Patriots this time.

“Last Sunday afternoon, U.S. Attorney General William Barr released a letter he said summarized the report he had received from Special Counsel Robert Mueller about alleged crimes that may have been committed by President Trump.”

“Barr wrote that the president’s exoneration is complete with respect to any conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. He also wrote that though Trump will not be prosecuted by the Department of Justice for obstruction of justice, the special counsel did not exonerate him.”

Note a few things. This is what is making the Katy Turs and Ari Melbers lecture Democrats ‘You should be proud you’re ‘President’ is not a traitor’ and making Carter Page think we’re suddenly about to canonize him for his treason or something, while others presume the Dossier has been disproven root and branch.

And Napolitano is a Trump guy-so he should be happy-right? Yet he’s not:

“This is a head-scratcher.”

“The head-scratcher is why Barr revealed any ambivalence on the part of anyone in the DOJ on the issue of obstruction of justice when he needn’t have. As well, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, he shouldn’t have. Those rules, which prohibit the revelation of evidence for and against prosecution of people not actually prosecuted, also prohibit the revelation of the existence of such evidence, as well as any disagreements among prosecutors over the legal significance of the evidence.”

Ie, while Chuck Todd Nation is for now totally misreading the punchline of what Barr wrote, Napolitano recognizes a fact that even Rachel Maddow hasn’t wrapped her head around just yet-Barr most certainly did not say there was no evidence of collusion. By saying Mueller wasn’t able to ‘establish collusion’ means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict but that there is some evidence. 

Then there’s the issue of obstruction of justice. Many are wondering why Mueller didn’t rule on it himself. My read is that he actually intended for Congress to make the call. It’s clear he found evidence of Obstruction-as Barr himself says-that Mueller pointedly chose not to exonerate the illegitimate ‘President.’

The Barr revelation constitutes the same violation of federal rules and DOJ policy that FBI Director James Comey committed when he announced in the summer of 2016 that Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted for using private email servers to communicate about classified materials and then revealed that the FBI had convincing evidence against her and then revealed what that evidence was.

When the president learned of the Barr summary of the Mueller report, he naturally rejoiced, and then he thoughtlessly asked for the full Mueller report to be made public. That was a mistake.

Of course, Fox News and Napolitano cheered Comey at the time-and demanded he show all the evidence-in fact even now Lindsay Graham wants to rifle through more evidence on the emails.

“Though the president will not be charged with conspiracy to receive something of value from the Russians in order to affect the outcome of a political campaign (a felony), Mueller clearly found some evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence (probably the 100-plus communications, some in person, between them), but not enough evidence “to establish” the conspiracy — that is, not enough evidence to prove the existence of the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“We know Mueller found some evidence of such a conspiracy because if he failed to find any evidence, Barr would have said so. He didn’t.”

“The second conclusion related by Barr is that Mueller found the evidence against Trump of obstruction of justice (interfering, or attempting to interfere, with an FBI investigation for a self-serving purpose) to be equivocal. That means Mueller found there is evidence that the president obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice and there is equally as strong exculpatory evidence or public policy or credibility reasons for not prosecuting, as well.”

Both of these conclusions were made known to Barr three weeks ago, but he revealed them last Sunday.

“Why would Mueller punt on the obstruction charge? It is not uncommon for prosecutors to view the same facts and the same law and come to different conclusions about whether a crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“In the conspiracy charge, Mueller concluded he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. On the obstruction charge, he allowed his boss, Barr, to make the decision about whether to prosecute the president. Such a “kicking the case upstairs” is not uncommon in high-profile cases.”

“Why Barr revealed all this is a mystery, as it will beat the drum for the release of Mueller’s full report and perhaps the evidence on which that report is based so that members of Congress who want to second-guess Mueller or examine for themselves what evidence of conspiracy and obstruction he found may do so.”

So Barr actually set ‘the President’ up for a big fall. Now the question if wether that’s knowingly or unknowingly-if the former than Mensch is right, Barr is actually an undercover good guy in all this, if the latter then he’s another bumbling co-conspirator-a la Rudy Giuliani.

“What’s next? The Barr letter is a summary of the Mueller report. The Mueller report is itself a summary of the millions of pages of raw evidence Mueller and his team accumulated. That raw evidence consists of grand jury transcripts; FBI notes of interrogations of witnesses; transcripts of wiretaps, emails and text messages; prosecutors’ impressions of the quality of their evidence; and more than 1 million pages of campaign and White House documents voluntarily surrendered to Mueller.”

“If the 700-page summary of the evidence or the trove of raw evidence on which the summary is based are revealed, there will be much in there for Trump’s adversaries to feast upon. It’s a mistake for the president to call for the revelation of anything that he or his lawyers have not seen.”

I disagree with Napolitano’s theory that Mueller intended for Barr to make the call-my best guess is that he wanted Congress to make it. But it’s a good point while Barr didn’t say much he said enough so that those even functionally literate on legal issues  can see that there clearly is evidence of both obstruction and collusion.

Again, maybe Barr slipped on a banana peal-a la Giuliani-or maybe he is an undercover good guy-in this case. I’m pretty partial to the former but the latter is at least plausible .

But another very interesting question is Napolitano himself. First of all where did he get this information it’s 700 pages? And what’s his purpose in stating this publicly? After all, he’s a Trump guy on Trump State TV-where the policy is you’re not allowed to say things that politically embarrass much less hurt the ‘President’ and Napolitano clearly does both here.

My conjecture: Napolitano got this information about the length from the Trump Russia House loop-Barr himself or someone close to him? And he’s trying to warn ‘the President’ and those close to him to make sure the Mueller report much less the millions of pages of raw intelligence never see the light of day.

UPDATE: The latest news suggests the Mueller report is-‘at least 300 pages.’

https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1111272815821504512

So less than 1000, at least 300, possibly 700.

 

 

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book