Mueller report to be released mid April – but it will be redacted

I am being urged by some commenters not to feel vindicated yet about the results of the US Special counsel investigation into charges of collusion between the Trump team and the Russian Federation (see Getting out alive – why we should always demand evidence). Perhaps not surprising as there is a small chant going around – “wait till you see the full report.” Although I notice no one was chanting that when the corporate media was going wild with their own conspiracy theories at multiple times over the last two and half years (see Collapse of the “Russiagate ” myth exposes how corporate media has failed).

It looks like the report will be released in mid-April. The US Attorney General makes clear there will be redactions – probably no surprise to the sensible person. But I can see the conspiracy theorists beam in on these to keep their collusion narrative alive. However, I can’t see that particular conspiracy theory will get a lot of traction as it is simply turning the outlandish into a complete farce.

Here is the letter which describes what sort of redactions we can expect:

Interestingly the President will not exercise veto power and the report will not be submitted to him for “privilege review.”

I guess it was too much to hope for though. There will be redaction of sections which “the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods.” Given the role of at least part of the intelligence community in fostering the Russiagate hysteria, I would have thought it was essential to investigate its behaviour.

As I said, too much to hope for.

Similar articles

13 responses to “Mueller report to be released mid April – but it will be redacted

  1. So, Ken, we are going to actuality wait and see what’s in the report before deciding what’s in the report? Outstanding plan!!!

    Like

  2. Of course Steve I have said that along – and I know my action contrasts sharply with the unethical behaviour of the corporate media as my last post showed. But have said since the release of the summary I do know this is in the report:

    “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Unfortunately, a few people are investing an even more fantastic conspiracy theory to somehow deny this.

    As for the thiungs I would like to know – these concern the role of the intelligence community and the FBI in manufacturing this Russiagate hysteria. Unfortunately, because these agencies (as well as Mueller himself) are involved in the redaction process I think it would be utopian to expect satisfaction.

    The deep state protects itself.

    Like

  3. And how do you know that out-of-context, incomplete sentence is in the report? It may or may not be, but I’ve not seen anyone deny that is. I’ve only seen people making the logical request to see the report before claiming what they know to be in it. Not sure how that is a conspiracy theory. Have you seen the report yet?

    So, assuming you haven’t seen the report, a logical assumption since Trump hasn’t yet allowed anyone but his own people to see it, you really don’t know what Mueller found. Yet, not waiting to see the evidence you’ve been demanding, you’re claiming the whole thing was some sort of “deep state conspiracy”? Ken, I’ve given you the full benefit of doubt in regard to Trump, but that’s nothing but the same rhetoric that comes out of his mouth. You can do better than this. Just wait until the damn thing comes out and we’ll see whether you’ve been vindicated or not. Why is that so difficult for you to do?

    Like

  4. Steve, I am somewhat surprised that you are resorting to an even more extreme conspiracy theory to avoid the conclusion in that quote from the Mueller report.

    I think you should examine your own progress in this. You appear to have swallowed the kool-aid and accepted an outrageous and completely silly conspiracy Manchurian candidate conspiracy theory. For you that is the null position – a position that has no evidence to back it up but one you have become committed to.

    So when I come along and point out that the Mueller report confirms what I have been saying (based on my perception of the evidence or lack of evidence) you get upset and ask me to wait. Why does the way I feel worry you? I think I have has far more reason to worry watching people I formerly respected being sucked into this whole Russiagate hysteria.

    This reminds of when I used to run long distance races at school and when I was passing someone who fancied himself he actually grabbed me to hold me back!

    No, I feel vindicated – you cannot take that away from me. I am looking forward to whatever else I can get out of the redacted report in a few days. And I won’t let someone hold me back because they had drunk the kool-aid. Especially it is they who should now be analyzing the way they have blindly accepted the narrative and start to question their gullibility.

    The point is, Steve, I have been through two and a half years of abuse from people online for daring to point out the Emperor has no clothes. Those people could not hold me back with their nasty slurs and your appeal to “wait” will not hold me back either.

    I do not care if you agree that I have been vindicated. The important thing is how I feel – especially after the abuse I have been treated to.

    I suggest you “wait” for the report before promoting another silly conspiracy theory of something being out of context and falsely presented. It only makes you look silly to speculate along those lines at this stage. Wait till you have seen the report.

    You will only have to wait a few weeks.

    Like

  5. Steve, read Caitlin Johnstone on this. She is an excellent writer and very perceptive and worth following. Her article:

    There Are Still Democrats Praying For A Deus Ex Mueller Ending

    As she says in response to the claim now being heavily promoted – “Mueller has not reported anything:”

    “This lays out clearly where the victims of the Russiagate psyop are being herded in response to Mueller’s report.”

    Unfortunately, this is how I see it. I am getting pushback – and so are many others. But those doing this pushback are being herded. People should think for themselves.

    Like

  6. David Fierstien

    Ken,

    This was the conclusion of the Mueller Report, from Barr’s own summary, about which you feel vindicated:

    “The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.”

    and

    “The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.”

    I still don’t get it. Why would you feel vindicated about that?

    Like

  7. I still don’t get your straw clutching and attemtps at diversion. My feeling of vindication came from Mueller’s conclusion:

    “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    I have been very clear about that.

    As for the two unrelated matters you raise – yes I would like to see what evidence the report has for those statements. Again, I have seen absolutely no evidence over the last two and a half years. I suspect, like almost all references to those issues, there is an axiomatic acceptance of the January 6 “intelligence” report which was completely devoid of evidence. If that is the case with Muller then I will obviously disagree with him.

    I am thinking for myself on these issues – I refuse to blindly accept the narrative pushed by corporate media.

    However, there are other issues around this whole hysteria and I am hoping the published report will provide some insight into them.

    Like

  8. David Fierstien

    The two quotations from Barr’s Summary of the Mueller report WAS the conclusion of the Special Counsel.

    “The Special Counsel’s investigation determined . . ”
    and
    ““The Special Counsel found . . ”

    That means that the Special Counsel concluded. Check your Thesaurus.

    Ken: ” As for the two unrelated matters you raise – yes I would like to see what evidence the report has for those statements. Again, I have seen absolutely no evidence over the last two and a half years. ”

    Response: First of all, these aren’t unrelated matters. These are the conclusions of the Special Counsel, and your reaction to these conclusions are the subject of this post.

    In the second place, you have seen evidence, but you brushed it off. So I don’t have to go back and look it up, could you remind us all what you said about that insignificant troll farm in St. Petersburg, which you have admitted did exist?

    Like

  9. Get a life, David. I have been very clear over the specific conclusion of the Muller report which vindicates me. And vindicates a number of independent journalists.

    You will be (or should be aware) I have looked at the tweets from the St Petersburg social media harvesting company, the IRA. I have directed you to my article where I provide a link to those tweets

    It is ridiculous to see these tweets as somehow sowing division in the USA or influencing an election.

    As I said, David, Get a life.

    Like

  10. David Fierstien

    Hmm . . You looked at the tweets from IRA. Wow. I guess you did your research. Shut my mouth. I guess you kicked my ass.

    Well wait a minute, . . Then you have seen some evidence of interference in the U.S. election. You admit that, correct? So when you say, “I have seen absolutely no evidence over the last two and a half years,” that’s not exactly true, is it. . . Fibby Fibby!!

    And since you’ve done all this research, you must also be aware that by 2016 its monthly budget exceeded $1,250,000. (See Mueller Indictment of IRA page 7.) That’s $1.25 Million Per Month.

    And since you’re on top of this whole situation, you must also know that Facebook admitted that as many as 126 million people — or one-third the U.S. population — may have seen material posted by that Russian troll farm under fake Facebook identities between 2015 and 2017. Now, why would Facebook admit such a thing? UNLESS . . . They’re part of the anti-Trump conspiracy too? — YES!! Hillary got to Facebook too!!

    I ask why FB would admit it, because such an admission didn’t really help their bottom line. They hurt themselves with that little disclosure.

    One more thing, I’ve got a great life. I’ve got my own vineyard on 5 acres in beautiful Northern Michigan, a beautiful wife who is 22 years younger than I am (and she makes more money than I do!! Yea! 🙂 ), a dog who is almost as smart, if not smarter, than Dr. Bill, I’ve got a pool, a hot tub, . . and because I live in such a marvelous age, I get to argue politics with a pro-Russian blogger from the other side of the planet. It doesn’t get any better than that, does it.

    Like

  11. David Fierstien

    Sorry, . . I forgot to mention the boats.

    Like

  12. Good, you have retreated from your original claim I felt vindicated by Barr’s reference to claims of meddling.

    No, I have not seen any evidence of interference in the US elections – although there is bound to be a lot of the ordinary sort we see for Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc. I am sure the Russian Federation will have worked to put opinion pieces into US publications related to their hope for a relaxation of tension (although the Russian leadership did not choose a candidate to support in the way the Saudis, Israelis, Ukrainians, and UK intelligence did.

    Budget inforamtion about the IRA is not intervention. And arguments based on possible readership of tweets is just silly – look at the tweets for yourself. Come on, consider some of the evidence I have.

    As for Facebook, they are hardly an objective source considering they offered RT a deal for participation in election posting – a deal RT turned down. And facebook givers this testimony under pressure from the Senate. Then, of course, there are the financial links between Facebook, the Atlantic Council, Integrity Initiative, etc. Facebook is another component of the Corporate media.

    Like

  13. David Fierstien

    Ken: “Good, you have retreated from your original claim I felt vindicated by Barr’s reference to claims of meddling.”

    Response: I made no such claims. It would be confusing as hell to read a debate between you and Billo, because neither of you can read. I asked you a question again . . and again . . and again. And I never got an answer.

    I still don’t know why a pro-Russian blogger like yourself would feel vindicated about Barr’s Summary. It says Russia did it. It lets Trump off the hook. You consider Trump a buffoon. Why would you care if Trump gets let off the hook.

    I’ll ask the question again if you like, but I doubt I’ll get an honest answer.

    Question: Why exactly would you feel vindicated about Barr’s 4 page summary of the Mueller Report when the sole purpose of that Summary is to exonerate Trump in the public eye?

    Happy?

    Ken: “No, I have not seen any evidence of interference in the US elections. . . . . . Budget inforamtion about the IRA is not intervention. ”

    Response: No? Then what exactly did they spend $1.25 Million per month on? You say you feel vindicated by Mueller’s report. Mueller indicted IRA, and part of that indictment was a reference to funds spent. Some of those funds were spent in the United States on operatives who were actively working to influence the election.

    So . . you feel vindicated . . Why? You feel good about the Mueller Report, but you seem to deny everything in it. . . other than Barr’s little version that Trump didn’t do it. Barr’s story is that Trump wasn’t involved with the Russians. The Russian’s did it, but Trump is innocent. That is why you feel vindicated? Wow!

    (by the way, Caitlin Johnstone, whom you have described as “brilliant,” seems to have jumped the gun a little bit. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18294547/mueller-barr-leaks-new-york-times
    Maybe you should learn to start thinking for yourself rather relying on sources with whom you agree because they keep you in your comfort zone.)

    Ken: “As for Facebook, they are hardly an objective source considering they offered RT a deal for participation in election posting – a deal RT turned down.”

    Response: It would be great if you would learn to document some of these things you come up with. Are you talking about Twitter? “RT editor says Twitter pitched outlet on buying election ads” https://thehill.com/policy/technology/357279-rt-editor-says-twitter-pitched-outlet-on-election-ads

    As for proof from Facebook: An attorney, under oath (which includes penalty of perjury, disbarment, possible loss of freedom and capital if found to be lying) , in testimony before congress, making admissions that Russian actors used their social media platform to reach 126 million U.S. citizens . . . is proof.

    If you are in denial about that, you are one lost cause.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s