CORRECTED: Judge issues rebuke of Special Counsel for falsely claiming Russia company was tied to Russian government

SEE UPDATE BELOW

Aaron Maté reveals on Twitter that a judge has issued a major rebuke of the Special Counsel in tying Concord, a private Russian company, to the Russian government:

 
The judge notes that the Mueller report says it “established” that the Russia government interfered in the 2016 election via the actions of Concord. But he then notes that Mueller didn’t establish anything because he never actually linked Concord to the Russia government.

 



 
Maté continues…

 
This is important because the the judge says the Special Counsel’s office violated a rule in telling the public something that was not true:

 

 



 
UPDATE: This is apparently more nuanced than Maté had indicated on his reading of the court opinion. The main issue was not that Mueller hadn’t proven that Concord was tied to the Russian government, but that he and his report had publicly claimed that they were connected, without actually proving it.

The court wasn’t therefore rebuking Mueller for not proving that Concord was connected to the Russian government, but for saying they were connected when he hadn’t made the connection.

Thus, the judge ordered no more public statements of this under threat of sanctions by the court, noting that contempt would not be appropriate at this time:

 
Here’s the full order from the judge if you want to read it.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

128 thoughts on “CORRECTED: Judge issues rebuke of Special Counsel for falsely claiming Russia company was tied to Russian government

  1. This is the most excited I have seen Slantry attacking a Court decision .Is it because the decision favors Trump? Yes. Slantry your liberal biases are showing.You cannot find anything in this judge’s decision that you like?

  2. Let me see, so many of Mueller’s team of FBI Agents were using that little secret ploy, lying to and FBI Agent then being Indicted.How about that huge Lie by Mueller and his team that the Russians were hugely involved in our elections and trying to connect our President to those activities.What a bunch of rotten Apples in that Mueller Barrel.

  3. Russia, Russia, Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s all been a ruse ALL ALONG! :facepalmg: 😡 Can we move on to fighting back the socialist/ communist lefties & crazies and illegals now! They are all a threat to the US.

  4. 2 years and 21 zillion dollars later, and almost all that the public got was fabricated allegations by the lead investigator? Of course we all knew this would happen, but now we have the hard proof that it did- I’m sure Trump will be mentioning this soon- and rightfully so- this was a witch hunt right from the start- everyone knew it-

    1. @bob434 “All the public got…” I disagree, sadly. The poisonous propaganda made its way out into the public consciousness, and those not previously inoculated from it will continue to believe the lies.

      This “hard proof” will convince no one who didn’t already know the truth.

    2. I just wish there was some way the people could get their money back from these… cretins, traitors (Aaaaah! I really don’t have words that fit)!!! We can’t get back the time blown on this mess but I hope a way is found to sue each and every one who created, aided and abetted this clown show and recoup all if not most of the money spent on it. And it wouldn’t bother me in the least to see jail time there too.

      1. [[(Aaaaah! I really don’t have words that fit)]]
        .
        I find ‘Doo Doo Breath, Boogerfaces” works nicely lol- seriously though, i understand the frustration- Seems like justice hardly ever prevails, which makes it even more infuriating- I struggle to describe them without resorting to swearing too-

  5. TDSer’s will want nothing to do with this. They’ve got a narrative and ain’t nothing gonna screw it up. Jesus himself could whisper the truth in their ears and they’d argue with him.

    And how much of this do you think the propaganda ministers will report? I’m sure Facebook has an algorithm to put a halt to it on their site. Google search engine wont have any of it I’m sure. Smh

      1. Oh yeah, read the report!

        Which I did, and still no Trump collusion or obstruction. Weird!

    1. Ssshhhh! The Dems involvement is right in there with ole Bill’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. Mustn’t mention those pesky little inconvenient facts like corruption, collusion, treason, etc., etc., doncha know? :chuckle: :facepalmg:

    2. @eddieeureak60 Wow Eddie, good article. And of course, it is well ignored by the leftist media because they can’t have the left and the DC swamp exposed to the massive corruption with all of the deals made like Uranium One and more.

  6. The judge doesn’t express any opinion on whether there is or isn’t a link between the IRA and the Russian Government.

    She instead takes government attorneys (including Barr) to task for making prejudicial statements about defendants in a pending criminal proceeding. Those statements fall into two categories:

    1) Statements expressing an opinion on the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
    2) Statements referring to facts and conduct not charged in the indictment.

    The Russian gov’t link falls into category two. Of course, had the link been alleged, it would have fallen into category one. Which is to say, the issue isn’t that the government was making untrue statements about a link that didn’t actually exist, but that the link, whether it existed or not, was not relevant to the conduct charged and thus should not have been discussed while the case was pending.

    In other words, Maté has this wrong. Whether that is intentional or not is something I can’t answer, but it’s facially obvious that he’s misreading the order. More specifically, he’s not wrong that she’s rebuking Mueller, Barr, and others. She’s not, however, rebuking the claim itself or accusing them of dishonesty. She’s rebuking the fact that they made the claim in public.

    I comment anyone interested to read the full opinion. It’s short. https://doc-0s-ao-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/4v2sjmso79l5vao7jl80akiqnoqb9g28/dnpdbdbhjd0aamft73nq21qdbqp16q6f/1562688000000/06676993748907257124/18058958474945191593/1DAJoC6Km2tT4Iz-yMN5FTTpuOIBLqTsk?e=download&nonce=m4ctdbt4akkcc&user=18058958474945191593&hash=2517qgu5okh9udovkhl91u6v1rmchra9

      1. Yes. As is Scoop’s comment that the problem is that he only alleged a connection and did not establish one. The problem isn’t that he “only alleged” a connection, it’s that he didn’t allege a connection but then made public statements implying a connection. Had he alleged it, of course, the statements would still butt up against local rule 57.7 because he’d be expressing opinions about the guilt or innocence of an untried defendant.

        1. That was the point of the Mueller report though, to show how Russians interfered and this company was an example.

          1. Agreed, but the argument is that they should have redacted information relating to Concord and the other defendants in this case.

    1. The relevance to the Special Counsel investigation is that they made statements equating the actions of the IRA to the actions of the Russian government, which they have never established to be true.

      For the court case involving Concord, the significance is whether the statements were prejudicial to the case, which the judge has ruled they are.

      For the Mueller investigation itself, it’s abundantly clear that the report was claiming actions by the IRA corporation were driven by the Russian government, otherwise why would it be included in the report? It’s exactly that kind of innuendo that the Special Counsel could get away with in a report, but would not stand up in court.

      And this is a pattern of the Special Counsel report, where every contact with a Russian person or Russian company is implied to be suspicious and improper, with the clear implication that the Russian government was presumptively behind the contact. For example, Carter Page’s Russian business contacts were treated as suspicious, even though it was literally his work to do business in Russia with Russians in the Russian energy sector. These insinuations are still being relied on by House Democrats who are still trying to re-investigate the Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

      1. The time to establish those claims, if they were relevant to these charges, would be at trial.

        The judge ruled that they are prejudicial not because they are untrue, but because they may affect a jury pool’s view of the case regardless of whether they’re true or not. This is why the judge believes that prejudice can be cured through the passage of time, voir dire, and jury instructions.

        As an example, in the hope that this clears it up: if someone’s awaiting trial for murder, and the government lawyer announces to the public that the defendant is also a child molester (but doesn’t bring those charges), that government lawyer would be subject to the same sanction for the same reason, regardless of whether the accusations of child molestation are true or not. The judge deciding that sanctions motion would, as was the case here, not resolve the question of whether the defendant actually was or wasn’t a child molester because the statement is prejudicial either way.

  7. For anyone who pays attention, Mueller and Weissman have a long history of playing hard and loose with “the facts.” Under intense scrutiny many of the “guilty implications” in the Mueller report will fall apart.

    1. And they know there won’t be cross examined in a court of law, so they can get away with it.

  8. I am puzzled by the Memorandum Opinion & Order. It seems that the judge has ruled that criminal contempt is not appropriate, which may be correct, but he seems to have put the entire thing under wraps. I guess that means Mueller can’t be questioned about it in the hearing… if he testifies. This all seems quite odd to me.

  9. The correction is appreciated but the article is still wrong. It’s not that the connection wasn’t proven—the opportunity to prove it, if it were relevant to the charges (in which case it’d be alleged in the indictment), would be at trial. Even if the link were provably true, and relevant to the charges, the statements would still be subject to sanction because they would be extrajudicial comments on the guilt or innocence of a defendant before trial.

    The judge didn’t determine whether the statements were true or not, or proven or not (and it would have been grossly improper if she had), because it was the fact of the statements themselves that were improper.

    To repeat my example but edited slightly to show that it doesn’t matter whether the conduct alleged was a crime:

    Imagine someone accused of murder awaiting trial. The prosecutor holds a news conference saying that the defendant also cheated on his wife (which isn’t a crime). You’d have the same motion and the same result, because the accusation will prejudice the defendant when it comes time to be tried for murder, since the jury pool now thinks he’s the kind of guy who cheats on his wife. In resolving the motion, the judge wouldn’t determine whether the defendant was actually an adulterer because it doesn’t matter.

  10. Gee, I wonder if the Senate will withdraw their invitation for him to come in and testify? 😛

  11. This is why I knew Manafort got rail-roaded. Mueller has been proven a liar, a deep-state hack, and a murderer.

  12. This is why I knew Manafort got rail-roaded. Mueller has been proven a liar, a deep-state hack, and a murderer.

  13. Let me see, so many of Mueller’s team of FBI Agents were using that little secret ploy, lying to and FBI Agent then being Indicted.How about that huge Lie by Mueller and his team that the Russians were hugely involved in our elections and trying to connect our President to those activities.What a bunch of rotten Apples in that Mueller Barrel.

    1. And didn’t we hear the Dems say they HAD proof! Yeah, right they did. Will wait for the media to ask them the details they all had. The biggest lot of liars.

  14. Russia, Russia, Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s all been a ruse ALL ALONG! :facepalmg: 😡 Can we move on to fighting back the socialist/ communist lefties & crazies and illegals now! They are all a threat to the US.

        1. Thanks Ms liberty,just a fantastic response.You are right those appear to be the agents that seem to catch everyone lying to them and Mueller has not recognized the oddness of every report submitted to him begins with ,hi Bob,we got another one we can twist,he was lying too us.

  15. This is the most excited I have seen Slantry attacking a Court decision .Is it because the decision favors Trump? Yes. Slantry your liberal biases are showing.You cannot find anything in this judge’s decision that you like?

    1. I’m not attacking anything! I take no issue with the decision itself, which was obviously decided correctly. I’m literally just trying to explain what the decision does and does not do, which doesn’t involve an expression of my opinion on it at all.

      1. ….and to do that you have to disagree with everyone on this site except Tracy.Come on,you have never been this active on any of Scoops posted articles.

        1. I’m not disagreeing with people because we aren’t discussing matters of opinion—the content and meaning of this order isn’t an opinion, it’s a knowable fact.

          I’m not usually this active because there aren’t usually posts that are factually wrong. This one is.

    1. Innuendos,translated lies.Mueller’s Report is full of lies and every word of it should be re-investigated and lets see how much truth is really inside that report.I’m willing to bet the President comes out a winner and Mueller come out the lose he is.

  16. I am puzzled by the Memorandum Opinion & Order. It seems that the judge has ruled that criminal contempt is not appropriate, which may be correct, but he seems to have put the entire thing under wraps. I guess that means Mueller can’t be questioned about it in the hearing… if he testifies. This all seems quite odd to me.

  17. The correction is appreciated but the article is still wrong. It’s not that the connection wasn’t proven—the opportunity to prove it, if it were relevant to the charges (in which case it’d be alleged in the indictment), would be at trial. Even if the link were provably true, and relevant to the charges, the statements would still be subject to sanction because they would be extrajudicial comments on the guilt or innocence of a defendant before trial.

    The judge didn’t determine whether the statements were true or not, or proven or not (and it would have been grossly improper if she had), because it was the fact of the statements themselves that were improper.

    To repeat my example but edited slightly to show that it doesn’t matter whether the conduct alleged was a crime:

    Imagine someone accused of murder awaiting trial. The prosecutor holds a news conference saying that the defendant also cheated on his wife (which isn’t a crime). You’d have the same motion and the same result, because the accusation will prejudice the defendant when it comes time to be tried for murder, since the jury pool now thinks he’s the kind of guy who cheats on his wife. In resolving the motion, the judge wouldn’t determine whether the defendant was actually an adulterer because it doesn’t matter.

      1. I mean maybe the whole claim of any connection between the IRA and the Russian Gov’t actually is false. The issue is that this order doesn’t resolve (or even endeavor to resolve) the truth or falsity of those accusations.

          1. Just a little mistake by Mueller’s team.How about all those little lies that Mueller’s FBI team were alleging about everyone they spoke with.Little lies or little mistakes that led to to their indictments.Maybe little mistakes.

  18. So we are learning that not ALL of the entire judicial system is necessarily a part of the attempted coup.

  19. Mate is right. If there is one lie found in the report, how many others are there? Reading today that the Dems are going to be grilling everyone but Mother Theresa, they just can’t let go. And it’s only going to be to their detriment. I hope they all lose their seats in Congress. Every last one of them.

  20. Gee, I wonder if the Senate will withdraw their invitation for him to come in and testify? 😛

  21. The Democrats will still try and press forward with the whole Bogus Russian Collusion Narrative regardless. It’s all they have left.

  22. The Congressional idiots were so adamant that Mueller testify – wonder how they’ll like giving the GOP a chance to ask him about this?

    1. The Dems have limited his questioning to 4 hours before each committee. They’re gonna slow walk their questioning and not give the Republicans time for any in-depth questions!

      1. Shouldn’t need much in-depth. The “violation” seems pretty cut and dried. Surely there is at least one member of the GOP smart enough to take advantage of their limited time.

        And yes I know that the ones least apt to do the smart thing will probably run their mouths the most.

  23. This basically makes the entire first volume of the Mueller report an empty document.

    If you read the Special Counsel report, the entire Volume 1 of the report is taken up with findings on collusion. In pretty much every case for people in the Trump campaign, there are multiple paragraphs describing the accusation and circumstances, loaded with innuendo and insinuations of something suspicious — or, as Eric Felten described it in his article (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/03/insinuendo_why_the_mueller_report_doth_repeat_so_much_140692.html), “insinuendo” — which then end with a phrase like, “no evidence was found to establish” the accusation.

    The only part of Volume 1 that claimed supporting evidence was the section dealing with the actions of the IRA company, and this judge has just eviscerated the claim that there is any evidence pointing to this being the actions of the Russian government itself.

    That effectively means Volume 1 not only found no collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, it didn’t even find coordination between the Russian government and the Russian social media campaign.

    And there’s no real evidence establishing Russian coordination between the DNC hack and Wikileaks. much less between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. The only claims of evidence are from a report by the security firm the DNC hired, Crowdstrike.

    It’s been said we need to ask Mueller when he knew there was no collusion. I’d suggest he knew it from the beginning, and the whole investigation was an attempt to provoke Trump into obstructing the investigation. In short, as Andrew McCarthy has said, the Mueller investigation was always an obstruction investigation. Into a crime that never existed.

    The Mueller report is going to end up thoroughly discredited within a year or two.

    1. “this judge has just eviscerated the claim that there is any evidence pointing to this being the actions of the Russian government itself.”

      Except that she didn’t. Nothing in the order discusses whether a connection actually exists or not.

      1. The judge made clear that the Mueller report does not establish a connection between the IRA and the Russian government.

        What matters is whether such a connection has been proven, not whether it might exist.

        Indeed, it would not be the judge’s role to deal in speculation.

        1. Nor is it a judge’s role to evaluate the substantive claims of a report not in evidence and not at issue in a case that hasn’t even gone to trial (and, unless the trial is a bench trial, it’s never the judge’s job to evaluate those claims, since factfinding is the province of the jury). The judge didn’t evaluate whether or not the report proved anything at all, seeing as that was not a question she was called upon to resolve.

          Do me a favor: point me to literally anything in the opinion that substantiates what you said in your original comment. The excerpts quoted here, which only summarize what the indictment alleges and what the report says, do not substantiate what you said, so you’ll have to go through the opinion.

          1. All you’re trying to do here is make me prove a negative. The judge didn’t have to establish whether there was a connection. The Mueller report failed to prove a connection.

            That is the relevant fact.

            This is much like the discussion of the Steele dossier. The question isn’t whether I can prove every part of the Steele dossier is false, but was any of it established as true.

            Perhaps you can go through the Mueller report and show me where the IRA’s actions were proven to be the actions of the Russian government. That would be the relevant question.

            1. I’m not trying to prove a negative, I’m asking you to prove your claim that the judge “eviscerated” the idea of an IRA/Russian Gov’t connection or, for that matter, decided, one way or the other, anything about the merits of the report and/or what it proved regarding any link between the IRA/Russian Gov’t (and/or any other matter discussed in the report). You seem to say that the judge said that the report failed to make a connection; my question is: on what words from this opinion do you base that assertion?

              Unless you’re just voicing your opinion, completely separate and apart from the content of the opinion in this case, that the report doesn’t prove that connection, and not in any way implying that anything in the opinion in this case substantiates your assertion (or provides any other support for it, direct or indirect). If that’s the case, then obviously there’s no reason for you to have to quote anything from the opinion. But you should revisit your original statement since you pretty explicitly draw the link between the two.

  24. So the judge is considering contempt? Good! Mueller and his team, especially Weissmann, should be held in contempt individually.

      1. If these idiot judges refuse to hold the corrupt lawyers in contempt, then they can spare us their “major rebukes”—it’s infuriating for a judge to point out these lawyers’ contemptible actions and then just let them go on their merry way with no consequences whatsoever!!

    1. The coverage is a little bit misleading. It looks like the judge has already denied the request to hold the DOJ in contempt at this point — which is the whole point of the order — but it’s still a possibility in the future if violations continue.

      Presumably they won’t, now that the issue has been raised and responded to, and the Special Counsel investigation has ended.

      1. I mean the possibility of contempt always remains when if a judge declines to impose contempt for certain behavior that is subsequently repeated. That’s true of every single case in every court in this country though.

  25. Obviously the judge is a Trump lacky being paid by Putin.

    Probably a racist, woman hating homophobe as well. /s

  26. Also, let’s not forget that Mueller’s FBI didn’t directly find Russian hacking of Hillary emails, but they trusted a private company that also happened to work for the DNC to give them that information. WTF!? They trust a private entity for investigation since DNC refused to give up the server? Mueller should be ashamed of himself for the sham investigation he put this country through.

  27. For anyone who pays attention, Mueller and Weissman have a long history of playing hard and loose with “the facts.” Under intense scrutiny many of the “guilty implications” in the Mueller report will fall apart.

    1. And they know there won’t be cross examined in a court of law, so they can get away with it.

  28. The judge doesn’t express any opinion on whether there is or isn’t a link between the IRA and the Russian Government.

    She instead takes government attorneys (including Barr) to task for making prejudicial statements about defendants in a pending criminal proceeding. Those statements fall into two categories:

    1) Statements expressing an opinion on the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
    2) Statements referring to facts and conduct not charged in the indictment.

    The Russian gov’t link falls into category two. Of course, had the link been alleged, it would have fallen into category one. Which is to say, the issue isn’t that the government was making untrue statements about a link that didn’t actually exist, but that the link, whether it existed or not, was not relevant to the conduct charged and thus should not have been discussed while the case was pending.

    In other words, Maté has this wrong. Whether that is intentional or not is something I can’t answer, but it’s facially obvious that he’s misreading the order. More specifically, he’s not wrong that she’s rebuking Mueller, Barr, and others. She’s not, however, rebuking the claim itself or accusing them of dishonesty. She’s rebuking the fact that they made the claim in public.

    I comment anyone interested to read the full opinion. It’s short. https://doc-0s-ao-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/4v2sjmso79l5vao7jl80akiqnoqb9g28/dnpdbdbhjd0aamft73nq21qdbqp16q6f/1562688000000/06676993748907257124/18058958474945191593/1DAJoC6Km2tT4Iz-yMN5FTTpuOIBLqTsk?e=download&nonce=m4ctdbt4akkcc&user=18058958474945191593&hash=2517qgu5okh9udovkhl91u6v1rmchra9

      1. Yes. As is Scoop’s comment that the problem is that he only alleged a connection and did not establish one. The problem isn’t that he “only alleged” a connection, it’s that he didn’t allege a connection but then made public statements implying a connection. Had he alleged it, of course, the statements would still butt up against local rule 57.7 because he’d be expressing opinions about the guilt or innocence of an untried defendant.

        1. That was the point of the Mueller report though, to show how Russians interfered and this company was an example.

          1. Agreed, but the argument is that they should have redacted information relating to Concord and the other defendants in this case.

    1. The relevance to the Special Counsel investigation is that they made statements equating the actions of the IRA to the actions of the Russian government, which they have never established to be true.

      For the court case involving Concord, the significance is whether the statements were prejudicial to the case, which the judge has ruled they are.

      For the Mueller investigation itself, it’s abundantly clear that the report was claiming actions by the IRA corporation were driven by the Russian government, otherwise why would it be included in the report? It’s exactly that kind of innuendo that the Special Counsel could get away with in a report, but would not stand up in court.

      And this is a pattern of the Special Counsel report, where every contact with a Russian person or Russian company is implied to be suspicious and improper, with the clear implication that the Russian government was presumptively behind the contact. For example, Carter Page’s Russian business contacts were treated as suspicious, even though it was literally his work to do business in Russia with Russians in the Russian energy sector. These insinuations are still being relied on by House Democrats who are still trying to re-investigate the Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

      1. The time to establish those claims, if they were relevant to these charges, would be at trial.

        The judge ruled that they are prejudicial not because they are untrue, but because they may affect a jury pool’s view of the case regardless of whether they’re true or not. This is why the judge believes that prejudice can be cured through the passage of time, voir dire, and jury instructions.

        As an example, in the hope that this clears it up: if someone’s awaiting trial for murder, and the government lawyer announces to the public that the defendant is also a child molester (but doesn’t bring those charges), that government lawyer would be subject to the same sanction for the same reason, regardless of whether the accusations of child molestation are true or not. The judge deciding that sanctions motion would, as was the case here, not resolve the question of whether the defendant actually was or wasn’t a child molester because the statement is prejudicial either way.

  29. TDSer’s will want nothing to do with this. They’ve got a narrative and ain’t nothing gonna screw it up. Jesus himself could whisper the truth in their ears and they’d argue with him.

    And how much of this do you think the propaganda ministers will report? I’m sure Facebook has an algorithm to put a halt to it on their site. Google search engine wont have any of it I’m sure. Smh

      1. Oh yeah, read the report!

        Which I did, and still no Trump collusion or obstruction. Weird!

  30. 2 years and 21 zillion dollars later, and almost all that the public got was fabricated allegations by the lead investigator? Of course we all knew this would happen, but now we have the hard proof that it did- I’m sure Trump will be mentioning this soon- and rightfully so- this was a witch hunt right from the start- everyone knew it-

    1. @bob434 “All the public got…” I disagree, sadly. The poisonous propaganda made its way out into the public consciousness, and those not previously inoculated from it will continue to believe the lies.

      This “hard proof” will convince no one who didn’t already know the truth.

    2. I just wish there was some way the people could get their money back from these… cretins, traitors (Aaaaah! I really don’t have words that fit)!!! We can’t get back the time blown on this mess but I hope a way is found to sue each and every one who created, aided and abetted this clown show and recoup all if not most of the money spent on it. And it wouldn’t bother me in the least to see jail time there too.

      1. [[(Aaaaah! I really don’t have words that fit)]]
        .
        I find ‘Doo Doo Breath, Boogerfaces” works nicely lol- seriously though, i understand the frustration- Seems like justice hardly ever prevails, which makes it even more infuriating- I struggle to describe them without resorting to swearing too-

    1. Ssshhhh! The Dems involvement is right in there with ole Bill’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. Mustn’t mention those pesky little inconvenient facts like corruption, collusion, treason, etc., etc., doncha know? :chuckle: :facepalmg:

    2. @eddieeureak60 Wow Eddie, good article. And of course, it is well ignored by the leftist media because they can’t have the left and the DC swamp exposed to the massive corruption with all of the deals made like Uranium One and more.

  31. So we are learning that not ALL of the entire judicial system is necessarily a part of the attempted coup.

  32. Mate is right. If there is one lie found in the report, how many others are there? Reading today that the Dems are going to be grilling everyone but Mother Theresa, they just can’t let go. And it’s only going to be to their detriment. I hope they all lose their seats in Congress. Every last one of them.

  33. The Democrats will still try and press forward with the whole Bogus Russian Collusion Narrative regardless. It’s all they have left.

  34. The Congressional idiots were so adamant that Mueller testify – wonder how they’ll like giving the GOP a chance to ask him about this?

    1. The Dems have limited his questioning to 4 hours before each committee. They’re gonna slow walk their questioning and not give the Republicans time for any in-depth questions!

      1. Shouldn’t need much in-depth. The “violation” seems pretty cut and dried. Surely there is at least one member of the GOP smart enough to take advantage of their limited time.

        And yes I know that the ones least apt to do the smart thing will probably run their mouths the most.

  35. This basically makes the entire first volume of the Mueller report an empty document.

    If you read the Special Counsel report, the entire Volume 1 of the report is taken up with findings on collusion. In pretty much every case for people in the Trump campaign, there are multiple paragraphs describing the accusation and circumstances, loaded with innuendo and insinuations of something suspicious — or, as Eric Felten described it in his article (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/03/insinuendo_why_the_mueller_report_doth_repeat_so_much_140692.html), “insinuendo” — which then end with a phrase like, “no evidence was found to establish” the accusation.

    The only part of Volume 1 that claimed supporting evidence was the section dealing with the actions of the IRA company, and this judge has just eviscerated the claim that there is any evidence pointing to this being the actions of the Russian government itself.

    That effectively means Volume 1 not only found no collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, it didn’t even find coordination between the Russian government and the Russian social media campaign.

    And there’s no real evidence establishing Russian coordination between the DNC hack and Wikileaks. much less between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. The only claims of evidence are from a report by the security firm the DNC hired, Crowdstrike.

    It’s been said we need to ask Mueller when he knew there was no collusion. I’d suggest he knew it from the beginning, and the whole investigation was an attempt to provoke Trump into obstructing the investigation. In short, as Andrew McCarthy has said, the Mueller investigation was always an obstruction investigation. Into a crime that never existed.

    The Mueller report is going to end up thoroughly discredited within a year or two.

    1. “this judge has just eviscerated the claim that there is any evidence pointing to this being the actions of the Russian government itself.”

      Except that she didn’t. Nothing in the order discusses whether a connection actually exists or not.

      1. The judge made clear that the Mueller report does not establish a connection between the IRA and the Russian government.

        What matters is whether such a connection has been proven, not whether it might exist.

        Indeed, it would not be the judge’s role to deal in speculation.

  36. So the judge is considering contempt? Good! Mueller and his team, especially Weissmann, should be held in contempt individually.

      1. If these idiot judges refuse to hold the corrupt lawyers in contempt, then they can spare us their “major rebukes”—it’s infuriating for a judge to point out these lawyers’ contemptible actions and then just let them go on their merry way with no consequences whatsoever!!

    1. The coverage is a little bit misleading. It looks like the judge has already denied the request to hold the DOJ in contempt at this point — which is the whole point of the order — but it’s still a possibility in the future if violations continue.

      Presumably they won’t, now that the issue has been raised and responded to, and the Special Counsel investigation has ended.

      1. I mean the possibility of contempt always remains when if a judge declines to impose contempt for certain behavior that is subsequently repeated. That’s true of every single case in every court in this country though.

  37. Obviously the judge is a Trump lacky being paid by Putin.

    Probably a racist, woman hating homophobe as well. /s

  38. Also, let’s not forget that Mueller’s FBI didn’t directly find Russian hacking of Hillary emails, but they trusted a private company that also happened to work for the DNC to give them that information. WTF!? They trust a private entity for investigation since DNC refused to give up the server? Mueller should be ashamed of himself for the sham investigation he put this country through.

Comments are closed.