Ray's Reviews > The Mueller Report

The Mueller Report by Robert S. Mueller III
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
765636
's review

liked it
bookshelves: nonfic, politics, ebook

The Mueller Report by Robert S. Mueller, a somewhat different kind of book review.

Well, I made it. I slugged through the entire report. It’s all free online, and I didn't even have to steal it.

As eBooks go, this is not the most entertaining “page-turner.” There are a lot of footnotes, for example, which tend to interrupt the flow.

Moreover, as a narrative this is one of the all-time most anticlimactic tomes out there.

As a book on its own merits, it's really more about the news cycle context than anything else.

All this makes it rather difficult to judge.

But let us try. Firstly, there is Volume I. This section heavily details Russian interference in that infamous 2016 election via social media spamming as well the DNC hack. Is this still a controversial fact in some circles? If you are interested in learning about the IRA—the Internet Research Agency—this report is as good a source as any. If you dismiss it as a left-wing conspiracy theory or something, then nothing will really convince especially some legalistic government report.

The schizophrenia of the U.S. government at this time is quite fascinating, how the highest level of the executive branch can have such a different spin than the entire intelligence apparatus (although recent tweets may have finally admitted that he had help, if we are going to get into tweets).

Which perhaps is the whole point. In these post-truth times, can anyone be convinced of anything anymore?

Then we have endless detail on collusion. Yes, outright collusion. There’s a colorful cast of characters, such as foreign policy “expert” George Papadopoulos and the ever-present diplomat Sergey Kislyak. There’s Richard Gates, Roger Stone, and of course Don Jr. and the big tower meeting. What a stream of reports and reports and reports about how much they welcomed Russian help and even tried and failed to collude but couldn't get as far as they liked due to incompetence.

It does not make for a very satisfying read. To learn all this, and then find out that the legal term for conspiracy is so narrow that they ultimately find it inconclusive and then don’t charge the big guy. Cue the right-wing exoneration talking points.

One particularly close example of what may be illegal, as far as specifically trading campaign work for favors, is the question of the Republican party changing their stance on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine at the RNC convention. This highlights the entire problem with the report right there: we have a question that is unanswered. Did or didn’t officials in the campaign trade influence? It’s even part of the written answers with the president, which were dismissed and not followed up on. More on that failure of a Q & A below.

These near-misses continue, again and again it’s a running theme. Was it illegal for Don Jr. to have a meeting with Russians, whether or not it was really about adoptions? The answer is yes, due to campaign finance law. But then it is written that let’s go ahead and not charge him because he probably didn’t know it was illegal and it would be hard to prove intent in court and whatever in this case ignorance of the law is apparently a valid excuse.

So much painstaking research, and so much giving up. These impossible standards keep making it frustrating for the reader.

Not that there aren’t plenty of convictions and crimes uncovered. Paul Manafort was a pretty large get, let’s acknowledge that. But when it comes to the most powerful of the powerful, there is a sense of exasperation. That in the end, America is about protecting those who are too big to lose and the system will always find a way to make sure those on top will never face the consequences they deserve.

And now we have gotten to Volume II: Obstruction. Here is where it may or may not get good. There are the ten examples of the president unambiguously obstructing justice to the best of his ability. Public witness-tampering, changing the story on firing Comey, live on TV no less, demands of loyalty, the whole thing. There’s quite a lot.

[And please don’t give me that line about how there can’t be obstruction if there’s no underlying crime. 1: That’s not true, period. If it was true, wouldn’t it be an incentive to obstruct because if it works criminals would get away with the crime? 2: More importantly, there were so many crimes! The president’s personal lawyer Cohen lied about the Moscow tower, is in jail now, and let’s not even get into the campaign finance violation with the porn star affair hush money. If nothing else simply firing Comey in order to protect his friend Michael Flynn, a criminal, then that is clearly obstructing justice. It’s not only about evidence of collusion/conspiracy at the top. It’s still plenty about obstructing investigations to protect his dirty circle. If that’s not corrupt, what is?]

So, then it all ends in a pathetically lame copout in which DOJ guidelines say they can’t indict so they don’t bother indicting. Yes, Mueller went on television trying to explain his logic puzzle of how you can’t charge a crime with someone who isn’t on trial, even though at the same time it's not an exoneration, punting to Congress as he hints that only they can hold the office to account. Yeah, like that’s going to go well.

This is the core frustration of this document, and this entire era we live in. It is postmodern enough that everybody gets their own talking point. You get to interpret the whole investigation however you want, witch hunt or call to impeachment; pick and chose your own interpretation. Attorney General Barr certainly wants you to interpret it in a political way that benefits his side, based on his initial coverup-y behavior. Mueller simply wants you to be smart enough to read 400 pages and decide for yourself (one of the most naïve positions possible in this age).

In the end, everybody is unsatisfied and the waters couldn’t be muddier. So if you want a sense of closure after reading this, you will still have a long while to wait as we see how history unfolds. So far, to put it lightly, I’m not sensing anything close to a national consensus in the near future.

Isn’t it amazing? This was supposed to be it, and the polls still show that right-wingers believe what they believe, they even have a few quotes to highlight to defend their position. While the rest of the country vaguely listen to mainstream news summations and have ever so slightly leaned towards kinda’ maybe let's-investigate-more-and-maybe-impeach-even-though-it’s-for-naught-cause-of-the-Senate.

Sadly, it seems that perhaps obstruction totally works and the people will never know. The appendix in which the president submits his written answers are certainly more of the same. Mueller even says more or less outright that the questionnaire isn’t enough but he must give up because a subpoena would take too long and he wants to get this damn thing over with. Over thirty answers of “I don’t remember” with no chance to follow up. Once again, the system let’s the powerful get away with anything.

Hell, perhaps all the good stuff is redacted. There are a lot of redactions. So if this is a coverup, then one can only conclude that coverups work.

The story is still continuing. The television drama won’t be over any time soon. In the meantime, the vast majority of Americans will not read this free report. They won’t even read the summaries.

I suppose all that’s left is to depend on the Democrats, and that is a sad notion indeed.

The country is in trouble.

For these reasons above, for this humble reader at this particular time in history, one can only judge this report however full of facts to be a disappointment. Three stars at most.
18 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Mueller Report.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

May 14, 2019 – Started Reading
May 14, 2019 – Shelved
May 14, 2019 – Shelved as: nonfic
May 14, 2019 – Shelved as: politics
May 17, 2019 – Shelved as: ebook
June 2, 2019 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Pamela (new)

Pamela Allegretto I read it all, and my take is that #45 is guilty on multiple counts. My hope is that one day (better sooner than later) truth and justice will win the day. Fingers crossed.


message 2: by Ray (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ray Pamela wrote: "I read it all, and my take is that #45 is guilty on multiple counts. My hope is that one day (better sooner than later) truth and justice will win the day. Fingers crossed."

Fingers crossed indeed, let's hope....


James Mc Donald you wrote, "Then we have endless detail on collusion..."

That's a whopper of a lie, big time. You've been disingenuous in your review.

Kindle section 605 reports the investigation did not establish the members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Kindle section 637 notes the investigation applied the term, “coordination” in that report did not establish the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Kindle section 651 again notes the investigation did not find any evidence any U.S. personal conspired or coordinated with the IRA.

Kindle section 680 repeats that the investigation did not find any member of the Trump campaign [conspired] or coordinated with the Russian Government in its attempt mess up the 2016 election.

You also wrote, "[And please don’t give me that line about how there can’t be obstruction if there’s no underlying crime..."

DNC's lawsuit against the Trump campaign was thrown out of court because the DNC failed to “raise a factual allegation that suggests that any of the defendants were even aware that the Russian Federation was planning to hack the DNC’s computers (referencing the Trump Campaign.

The fact is, there no proof of a crime referencing the Trump crew and the DNC as the FBI only obtained copies/images of the alleged crime scene from a private third-party well after the initial claim because if there had been any proof, that lawsuit would not have been thrown out on the street.

You also wrote, "the question of the Republican party changing their stance on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine at the RNC convention. This highlights the entire problem with the report right there: we have a question that is unanswered. Did or didn’t officials in the campaign trade influence? It’s even part of the written answers with the president, which were dismissed and not followed up on. More on that failure of a Q & A below."

You again distorted what's in the publication and proof of my accusation can be found directly from the Mueller report:

Kindle section 797 notes the Mueller investigation did not find that any “official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia."

There's more about your distorted review but I'll just leave it as is as you've lost any sort of credibility you thought you might it had.

You've lied dude.


James Mc Donald Oh yea, I did want to point out one more. You wrote, "If nothing else simply firing Comey in order to protect his friend Michael Flynn, a criminal, then that is clearly obstructing justice.

However Mueller reported this:

"The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia."

Mueller, Robert S.. The Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion . Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.


message 5: by Ray (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ray Wow a right-winger who is trying to be a fact checker.

You don't find that ironical at all, considering who your guy is?

Really?

Anyway if you actually read the report instead of just the parts cherry picked out for talking points, what I was saying in my review is that there does seem to be ample evidence of that campaign up to no good, but Mueller seemed to have an incredibly high bar to prove conspiracy/collusion and strangely chose not to indict. That's what is frustrating.

A lot of people smarter than me (and you) say the same thing.

And if nothing else I still don't get why the Don Jr. tower meeting doesn't count. Never got a straight answer "exonerating" that one.

Lastly, you quote me several times trying to refute me and then mention something unrelated. For example, it's still just as true that there can be obstruction regardless of so-called underlying crime, and that fact has nothing to do with the DNC lawsuit.

Moreover, firing Comey to cover up Flynn's crimes does not have to do with whether or not Flynn's crimes were a conspiracy with Russia. It has to do with Flynn comitting crimes period, and then the president telling the FBI director to go easy on him.

You guys trying to defend your corrupt dictator wannabe president, and all you do is deflect deflect deflect about the very definition of obstruction of justice...

Shame on your people. History is not going to be kind.


message 6: by James (last edited Aug 04, 2019 10:56AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

James Mc Donald Dude, you blew it with this review and rather than manning up and growing a set a nuts and at least attempting to respond to the specifics I pointed out using several passages directly out of the Mueller report refuting your bias in that you’ve distorted the information in this publication, you again revealed a lack of emotional maturity by accusing me pejoratively of a political ideology you disagree with… as an justification to excuse your inability to take responsibility for your public lies is just totally insane dude.

You don’t know what my political ideology is! Why don’t you engage with the topic at hand rather than trying to deflect I’ve publicly handed your butt back to you?

As for assuming I just cherry picked the publication for talking points, all I did is respond to the specifics you’ve claimed in your initial commentary pointing out that you've been disingenuous in your silly effort to distort what [you think] is in this publication.

You referenced the anomalies on why Robert Mueller was not able to prove a conspiracy AND you admit your questions are left unanswered even though you’ve been presented with specific details from the Mueller report explaining the POTUS or the people working in the campaign were investigated and the witch hunt failed to present the POTUS had anything to do with the DNC’s claimed security breach or anything else with the Russians, including the firing of Comey that people are using an effort to cover up the coup attempt in this nation.

You wrote, “… you quote me several times trying to refute me and then mention something unrelated. For example, it's still just as true that there can be obstruction regardless of so-called underlying crime, and that fact has nothing to do with the DNC lawsuit.”

Jesus Christ dude, you’ve gone and doubled down on something you have no clue about.

Let me remind you what the publication notes, specifically when you’ve attempted to again spew your bias in that somehow, the DNC lawsuit had nothing to do with the investigation in the first place. Cut & paste directly from the Mueller report points out: “The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official.”

Additionally, you could have actually opened up the book and read this: INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I:
At “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.”

On the same page about the introduction to this publication, it’s noted,” The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November. In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks’s first release of stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.”

Again, as a reminder you claimed the DNC lawsuit (that was thrown out of court) had nothing to do with the claimed DNC hack although the Mueller report references very specifically as part of the investigation, the Mueller team was required to investigate the claim the DNC servers were hacked and the POTUS was responsible/apart of the claimed crime.

Additionally the report references the Mueller investigation only got a copy/image of the of the alleged crime scene after the alleged crime, from a un-certified entity. Dude, that’s some serious BS that’s been played on all Americans regardless of political ideology.

The fired and disgraced FBI Director James Comey admitted in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee the FBI did not examine the Democrat National Committee’s hacked computer servers but made a deal in which the DNC would be allowed to have a private security firm look them over.

It would be similar to like your next-door neighbor calling the newspapers and the police claiming there was a crime in their home and alleged you were involved with it yet that same homeowner refuses police access to the alleged crime scene and only gave the FBI a copy of the alleged crime after the claimed crime was mitigated, all from a third party paid for by the DNC to protect access to the servers.

Congress asked Comey, “did the FBI request access”. Comey who was under oath, said; “We were not given access.” Then, a member of Congress asked Comey, “Do you know why you were not given access?” and Comey said, “I don’t know for sure.” “The information was shared with us by a private company”

As for general Flynn, he’s a he’s a three star general who served his nation for 33 years with honorable service in the United States Armed Forces. I could write a 1500 word essay on all of the efforts the Obama administration tried to do to destroy that honorable American because he knows where the bodies are buried but what’s the point when going back and reviewing all the crap you’ve created?

Indeed, A lot of people are smarter than you as evident by your latest effort to deflect from the fact you've blown it and have made yourself look like an idiot.

Shame on you!


message 7: by Ray (last edited Aug 04, 2019 09:35PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ray James wrote: "Dude, you blew it with this review and rather than manning up and growing a set a nuts and at least attempting to respond to the specifics I pointed out using several passages directly out of the M..."

Look, I get that you are very good at writing long-winded rants as comments. It's very impressive, I am truly in awe.

But when you pepper in terms like "coup attempt" (not to mention defending convicted criminal/warmonger Michael Flynn), it's just obvious to everyone that you are unhinged. You aren't trying to be some objective legalese expert, you are indoctrinated into a cult of personality using any conspiratorial language you can in the name of defending your dear leader.

This conversation is over, I'm out :)


back to top