Kan du Mortenxx, hjelpe oss med hva som sto i rapporten, om du har lest den ?
Jeg tenker da på kun det viktige, relevante og evt. nye som ikke har vært særlige ute.
Kort og godt en beskrivelse av rapporten på få linjer.
Er det noe oppsiktsvekkende av noe slag vi ikke har hørt særlig om, og som det kan
være greit å merke seg ?

Eller, er det noen andre som har lest og kan superkort formidle ?

William Barrs tolkning av rapporten var villedende og fordummende.

"There was no collusion" er et meningsløst utsagn. Jeg kommenterte utsagnet i januar 2018.
https://forum.hegnar.no/thread/1959/view

"No collusion" var Barrs eget ordvalg. Det stemte ikke overens med Muellers ordvalg eller med innholdet i rapporten.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUM7NjEmc5Q

Robert Muellers pressekonferanse 29. mai.

BREAKING: Robert Mueller Resigns | MSNBC
https://youtu.be/M-2BvtRJbmM

William Barr gjorde nøyaktig det han er pålagt å gjøre. Etter å ha laget sin egen memo, offentliggjorde han hele rapporten.
At Mueller ville han skulle bruke han eget memo, bestemmer ikke Mueller. Barr er sjefen, og valgte å konkludere på vegne av Rapporten.
At det i ettertid når noen har lest litt av rapporten(demokratene stod ikke i kø for å lese den i helhet) har også noen konkludert med at det Var "obstruction of justice" Det er en tolkning som nødvendigvis ikke er riktig, men siden en hær av tidligere statsadvokater og advokater har laget ett opprop om at det er FLERE tilfeller som er " obstruction" har enkelte i kongressen erklært det.
Siden spesialetterforsker ikke hadde anledning til å be om etterforsking for en kriminell handling da en sittende president ikke kan straffeforfølges, tolkes dette som en "go". eller en "løype" til kongressen, om å forfølge saken som da er impeachment mot presidenten basert på rapporten.

Dette er faktisk feil, da alle har tolket Mueller sin rapport som om at han ikke ville konkludere med straffeforfølgelse av presidenten, da han likevel ikke hadde mandat til å gjøre det. Noen spør seg hva var da ideen med hele rapporten.

Barr spurte Mueller direkte om det var klare nok bevis til at han ville anbefalt tiltale mot presidenten om det ikke var en regel som hindret ham i å gjøre det. Altså at regelen om at en sittende president ikke kan straffeforfølges.
Mueller hadde da svart NEI.Bevisene var ikke klare nok til at han ville få en dom.

Dermed hadde ikke Barr sin memo "missrepresentert" Mueller sin konklusjon. Den ville uansett bli "No obstruction ,no collusion"

Forøvrig antyder Mueller i rapporten at det er tilfelle, uavhengig av denne omtalte regelen. Som Mueller sa på pressekonferansen hadde han ingen innvendinger mot Barr sin måte å håndtere saken på. Barr hadde håndtert det etter boken, hvilket han også gjorde.
Nå er det kun "spinning " omkring hva som BURDE vært en sak å Impeach presidenten på. Mueller har konkludert, og som han sa selv: Han kommer ikke til å uttale seg mer om denne saken, eller møte til høringer.

Den juridiske logikken i rapporten ligger over mitt nivå. Jeg klarer ikke å gi noen enkel forklaring på disse tingene.

Robert Mueller fulgte i hovedtrekk 3 forskjellige regelverk.
1. Special Counsel regulation.
2. Justisdepartementets normale regelverk ("håndboka").
3. OLCs policy om at man ikke kan tiltale en sittende president.

Folk som argumenterer med hva en prosecutor normalt skal gjøre ignorerer de 2 spesial-regelverkene. De tolker ikke oppgaven korrekt.

Jeg pleier ikke å lese regelverk eller å pugge lovparagrafer. Jeg har kun sett på det første regelverket.

Det er ingen som har kritisert den juridiske logikken i rapporten ... de 4 punktene om hvorfor han valgte å ikke komme frem til noen avgjørelse om hvorvidt presidenten hadde begått lovbrudd. Det er ingen som har påpekt feiltolkning av regelverk eller andre slike ting.

Det som folk har påpekt er at den manglende avgjørelsen strider mot "deres indre forestillinger om hva en prosecutor normalt skal gjøre" og andre lignende ideer. Dette gjør at jeg ikke har funnet noen gyldige motargumenter som jeg kan vurdere.

William Barr unnlater å bruke juridisk logikk. Han forsøker isteden å gjøre sin egen rolle mer "sosialt akseptabel".

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II

This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which
states that, " [a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney
General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special
Counsel] reached."

Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the
ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related
matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. The Order appointing the
Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the
FBI's Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection
with Russia-related investigations. The Special Counsel's jurisdiction also covered potentially
obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel's investigation itself. This Volume of our report
summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President.

We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation,
and then provide an overview of this Volume:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."¹ Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.²

(fortsetter)

JEG HAR KONTAKTET ADVOKAT.
De vil få svar fra min advokat. ok?
Mortenxx
I dag kl 13:31 39
Det er ingen som har kritisert den juridiske logikken

(fortsatt)

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.³
The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.⁴ And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.⁵

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern."⁶ Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
* * *

Mye trøstespising av paragrafer her men Noen Få men Kloke ord sier alt vi trenger:

his report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime

(de 6 fotnotene)

¹A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222,
222, 260 (2000) (OLC Op.).

² See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship
between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).

³ OLC Op. at 257 n.36 ("A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of
immunity").

⁴ OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not
preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by
resignation or impeachment").

⁵ For that reason, criticisms have been lodged against the practice of naming unindicted coconspirators in an indictment. See United States v.Briggs,514 F.2d 794,802 (5th Cir. 1975) ("The courts
have struck down with strong language efforts by grand juries to accuse persons of crime while affording
them no forum in which to vindicate themselves."); see also Justice Manual § 9-11.130.

⁶ OLC Op. at 259 & n.38 (citation omitted).

PBS NEWSHOUR

Inside the Mueller report, a sophisticated Russian interference campaign
https://youtu.be/b-E3WoBFYg0

Publisert 3. jun. 2019
The 448-page Mueller report contains copious detail about how Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, both by using social media to influence American voters with misinformation and by hacking into the Clinton campaign’s computers. Russian operatives also connected with WikiLeaks to release the stolen material. Lisa Desjardins and William Brangham share some of the key findings.
- - - - - - - - - -
Why 'numerous links' between Trump campaign and Russia didn't add up to conspiracy
https://youtu.be/rZCXFmlEjmg

Publisert 4. jun. 2019
Robert Mueller’s report lays out scores of contacts between the Trump campaign and people connected to the Russian government. In the second of their series examining key parts of the special counsel’s report, Lisa Desjardins and William Brangham explain why Mueller didn’t believe these contacts added up to a conspiracy.
- - - - - - - - - -
What the Mueller report says about Trump's firing James Comey
https://youtu.be/hCcByndW6ag

Publisert 5. jun. 2019
In the NewsHour’s week-long series analyzing the details of the Mueller report, we turn to its second volume, which deals with the question of whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice. Specifically, how does the special counsel view Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and what prompted Trump to take that step? Lisa Desjardins and William Brangham report.
- - - - - - - - - -
How Mueller himself factors into the Trump obstruction investigation
https://youtu.be/xvAxhhk9QwU

Publisert 6. jun. 2019
In the Mueller report's second volume, the special counsel lays out 10 incidents of potential obstruction of justice by President Trump. In each, Mueller identifies the obstructive action, what it obstructed and what the president’s intent was in performing it. In some cases, he found “substantial evidence” of obstruction, but in others, none. Lisa Desjardins and William Brangham report.
- - - - - - - - - -
What came out of the Mueller report? Here’s what you need to know in 6 minutes
https://youtu.be/V-noRviIzZI

Publisert 7. jun. 2019
After nearly two years, what did the Mueller probe find? First, the 448-page report is loaded with examples of how the Russians attacked the 2016 election. And though Robert Mueller found that the Trump campaign did not conspire or coordinate with Russia, the report lays out a long string of evidence that the president tried to obstruct justice. Lisa Desjardins and William Brangham report.
- - - - - - - - - -

(75 minutter)
Celebs Stage Mueller Report Play 'The Investigation: A Search for the Truth in Ten Acts' | NowThis
https://youtu.be/jeGZ-xL6FNU

Det er ingen som snakker om "russian collusion" lenger. Den største MSM-kringkastede konspirasjonsteorien i dette århundret er død og begravet.

Ex-Ecuador President: Assange Helped Trump Get Elected From London Embassy

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election from Ecuador's embassy in London to help Donald Trump get elected, the former Ecuadorian president has claimed. Former president Rafael Correa told CNN his country was aware that Assange was meddling in the 2016 election while it was happening. “We did notice that he was interfering in the elections and we do not allow that because we have principles, very clear values, as we would not like anyone to interfere in our elections,” said the former leader, who granted asylum in 2012 to Assange. “WikiLeaks' justification was that they were providing truthful information,” Correa went on. “Sure, but [it] was just about Hillary Clinton. Not about Trump. So, they were not saying all the truth. And not saying all the truth is called manipulation.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-helped-trump-get-elected-from-london-embassy-says-former-ecuador-president?ref=home

Mueller feiget ut fra høringen som skulle holdes i dag.Nå er den utsatt til 24/7-19.
Dems innser nå at Republicans vil stille flere spørsmål som vil avsløre Muellers
partiskhet.
Det er ventet at Mueller vil henvise til rapporten og si minst mulig,feig som han er.

Noen forslag til spørsmål til Mueller;
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/11/robert-mueller-testimony-227291

Nå er det ikke Mueller som er feig. Det er rottene i det republikanske partiet som vil spørre om alt mulig annet enn den nasjonale sikkerhets risikoen som russlands innblanding utgjorde. De selger kollektivt landet for sine egne politiske karrierer.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XZecK9qG0

Klar tale fra Sean Hannity som det viser seg får mye rett etter som bitene faller på plass.
Gode kommentarer før høringen med Mueller om ei uke.