Scan barcode
omnibozo22's review
3.0
Mueller's report takes a legally very conservative approach to the mountains of evidence that Dumbtruck, his family and his associates personify, at best, the concept of "basket of deplorables." These fools largely escape prosecution exactly because they are such idiots, fortunately for them. Despite Mueller's timidity, the second volume alone provides ample evidence for continued investigations and the inauguration of impeachment proceedings. Let's not let Dumbtruck get away with the Ronzo Rayguns dementia defense. If he tries it, at only half way through his term, that alone is sufficient reason for removal from office. That would also save his ass in some ways. Consider it Donny.
drakedw's review
3.0
If you are a lawyer, political junkie, or just someone who cares, read this before you tell everyone your own opinion on weather or not Trump should be impeached or prosecuted.
For anyone who actually takes the time to read this(I'm sorry), it is noteworthy that I am a registered Republican voter, that did not vote for Trump in 2016. Before anyone claims I was for HRC, realize that my state was solid Red, so my vote for 3rd party was a protest vote against both candidates. If not for the Electoral College, I would have voted for Trump over HRC.
After reading the full text, it is my opinion (I am not a lawyer) that President Trump did not conspire with the Russian Government to interfere with the election. That being said though, once the investigation into Russian interference begun, Trump did try (unsuccessfully) to derail or end the investigation. Weather his intent was to keep himself or members of his campaign out of trouble, or as he claims, to not impede his ability to run the country, is a grey area that is not anything that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. It is up to Congress to decide if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with additional investigation, and potential Impeachment hearings. The fact that the report came out in early April, and still no decision has been made, tells me Congress does not have enough to proceed. Obviously subject to change.
Of note, I will say for such a supposed Brilliant Businessman, Trump surrounds himself with less than highly intelligent persons, including his own son Donald Trump Jr. as well as Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, and Roger Stone to name a few.
Notes from text: (spoiler alert)
"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities."
"Based on the facts..., we are unable to reach judgement. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
"The President's counsel has conceded that the President may be subject to criminal laws that do not directly involve exercises of his Article II authority, such as laws prohibiting bribing witnesses or suborning perjury."
For anyone who actually takes the time to read this(I'm sorry), it is noteworthy that I am a registered Republican voter, that did not vote for Trump in 2016. Before anyone claims I was for HRC, realize that my state was solid Red, so my vote for 3rd party was a protest vote against both candidates. If not for the Electoral College, I would have voted for Trump over HRC.
After reading the full text, it is my opinion (I am not a lawyer) that President Trump did not conspire with the Russian Government to interfere with the election. That being said though, once the investigation into Russian interference begun, Trump did try (unsuccessfully) to derail or end the investigation. Weather his intent was to keep himself or members of his campaign out of trouble, or as he claims, to not impede his ability to run the country, is a grey area that is not anything that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. It is up to Congress to decide if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with additional investigation, and potential Impeachment hearings. The fact that the report came out in early April, and still no decision has been made, tells me Congress does not have enough to proceed. Obviously subject to change.
Of note, I will say for such a supposed Brilliant Businessman, Trump surrounds himself with less than highly intelligent persons, including his own son Donald Trump Jr. as well as Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, and Roger Stone to name a few.
Notes from text: (spoiler alert)
"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities."
"Based on the facts..., we are unable to reach judgement. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
"The President's counsel has conceded that the President may be subject to criminal laws that do not directly involve exercises of his Article II authority, such as laws prohibiting bribing witnesses or suborning perjury."
jenny_n's review
4.0
I read this to be a witness to this present day catastrophe. It was dense and at times took the form of a legal brief, particularly when discussing whether or not a president was subject to the laws regarding obstruction at all. Mostly, it was a more detailed account of what I had learned from my other media sources after its initial release. It was reassuring to know that my secondary sources have been reliable. However two things do stand out from the this report in its original:
1) The fact that coordination/conspiracy was not substantiated against Trump or the Trump campaign was not a proof of innocence. Rather, the obstruction from the Trump organization was significant enough to prevent full fact-finding. Also, it was very clear that the Trump campaign whole-heartedly welcomed the interference and would have conspired if the Russians had more dirt to give and if the Trump people were more competent at being conspirators. SMH.
2) Trump's answers to the written questions (in lieu of a live interview) were almost exclusively "I do not recall." It turns out that is apparently a fine way to plead the 5th without the prejudicial tone of literally pleading the 5th. Also, it is reminiscent of Reagan's answers during questioning about the Iran-Contra scandal. But Reagan was shown later to already be suffering the affects of Alzheimer's disease. What is Trump's excuse?
But mostly, my take away is that Trump and all the loyalists who surround him are incompetent in terms of government administration, and certainly unethical, and there is no way that any of them should be responsible for the well-being of our country.
1) The fact that coordination/conspiracy was not substantiated against Trump or the Trump campaign was not a proof of innocence. Rather, the obstruction from the Trump organization was significant enough to prevent full fact-finding. Also, it was very clear that the Trump campaign whole-heartedly welcomed the interference and would have conspired if the Russians had more dirt to give and if the Trump people were more competent at being conspirators. SMH.
2) Trump's answers to the written questions (in lieu of a live interview) were almost exclusively "I do not recall." It turns out that is apparently a fine way to plead the 5th without the prejudicial tone of literally pleading the 5th. Also, it is reminiscent of Reagan's answers during questioning about the Iran-Contra scandal. But Reagan was shown later to already be suffering the affects of Alzheimer's disease. What is Trump's excuse?
But mostly, my take away is that Trump and all the loyalists who surround him are incompetent in terms of government administration, and certainly unethical, and there is no way that any of them should be responsible for the well-being of our country.
bibbo's review
Do not plan to review, beyond stating that from a legal document standpoint this is a well written document complete with footnotes and legal citations where needed. Ironic that as I post my completion, I read that many members of Congress have still not read this report.
dennilaine_reads's review
4.0
A good summation of all the facts in a (mostly) jargon-free narrative that the average rational American can should be able to understand.
merthelibrarian's review
“A general ban on corrupt action does not unduly intrude on the President’s responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ U.S. CONST. ART. II. To the contrary, the concept of ‘faithful execution’ connotes the use of power in the interest of the public, not in the office holder’s personal interests.” - Mueller Report