Parkinson’s is a horrible disease and a horrible way to die. I feel sorry for Mueller and his friends and family who could do nothing but watch this progressive disease take his life...
Mueller was obviously not up to the job of special counsel. People knew that. Yet they propped him up and kept him in the position.
There are Parkinson's patients that slowly deteriorate over many decades and others that decline over the course of only a few years. The cognitive decline issues are almost always a very late stage manifestation. I am not sure at all that it is fair to say that Mueller had any cognitive dysfunction at the time of his investigations. I don't even recall any motor issues being mentioned, which are a much earlier sign.
MAGA fans never read a word of his report, sadly. His investigations were into the real rather than imaginary attempts by Russians to interfere in the 2016 election and the real rather than imaginary communication of members of the Trump team with Russians that (famously) did not rise to the level of "collusion" (a meaningless term) or a "criminal conspiracy" (the actual important term).
The bottom line is that the so-called Russia hoax was no hoax at all, it was a real series of events that did not rise to the level of a provable criminal conspiracy.
Imagine you are accusing a spouse of cheating because you know that your spouse went out to dinner with another man, but there's no clear evidence that they had sex. So... she's claiming that she is therefore cleared of the "infidelity hoax".
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
I'm pretty much sure that every critic of Meuller and his investigation on this forum did NOT read his report. At most they read Barr's mischaracterization of it and then believed all the misinformation that has been passed around in Trump loyalists circles ever since. This is obvious because most of what they claim is in the report is NOT there or isn't what they claim it to be.
Anyway, here's the report: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
While we're at it, the same people have also refused to read Jack Smith's Election Interference report. Here it is: Final Report on the Special Counsel's Investigations and Prosecutions Volume One
It's likewise clear that defenders of the President in that case haven't read any of it.
You need to stop that “reading the report” nonsense.
Prosecuting attorney reports of his own criminal investigation are never fair. They are not unbiased. They will never include known exculpatory evidence. The subject of the report cannot comment because the subject will not have seen it. The reports are only unchallenged allegations. They are like opening statements. They add next to nothing to an open and honest review of all the important facts.
I watched in real time Mueller’s congressional testimony about his report. His testimony was pitiful. He knew little to nothing about the contents of it. I felt sorry for him. Whomever put him in that position should be hung by the short ones.
As far as the merits are concerned, the September 2025 document release pretty well shot down all the Russia business. It turned out to be another grassy knoll which was extensively litigated on the old forum.
.
Sorry, not going to happen. It's why I'm more informed about these cases than you. They contain information gathered from interviews and depositions under oath, physical evidence, videos, documents, etc. There's no need to say that they're biased. Of course they are. Both also contain information about defenses made by potential coconspirators as well. However, there are a ton of facts in each of those reports. Facts that are important. There is information of which you're purposely ignorant and that makes your thoroughly biased and uninformed assertions about facts and the reports themselves look silly. Your refusal to even skim these reports and reviewing the facts they contain is not admirable. It sure doesn't make you look interested in the whole truth or make you look knowledgeable and smart about either report. You didn't even watch Smith's closed-door testimony (the better one without the grandstanding of politicians in the open hearing) or read the transcript yet claimed things that weren't supported in the hearing either.You need to stop that “reading the report” nonsense.
Prosecuting attorney reports of his own criminal investigation are never fair. They are not unbiased. They will never include known exculpatory evidence. The subject of the report cannot comment because the subject will not have seen it. The reports are only unchallenged allegations. They are like opening statements. They add next to nothing to an open and honest review of all the important facts.
As an attorney, I'd think you'd want to review all the information and not just what Twitter Twits and politicians say. Sadly, you do not want to know more than you "know." I suspect it would make you uncomfortable. Just guessing though.
What September 2025 document release are you talking about? What "Russia business" was shot down? You don't have a clue what was found and reported in the Mueller Report because you didn't read it. You have no idea what was reported or whether anything was shot down.I watched in real time Mueller’s congressional testimony about his report. His testimony was pitiful. He knew little to nothing about the contents of it. I felt sorry for him. Whomever put him in that position should be hung by the short ones.
As far as the merits are concerned, the September 2025 document release pretty well shot down all the Russia business. It turned out to be another grassy knoll which was extensively litigated on the old forum.
Just to clear the air.
I read Smith’s indictments and many of his court filings. Those are more reliable than his ‘reports” because court filings carry a responsibility that reports do not. He was obviously furthering an agenda, not justice. That is the reason Garland chose him and the choice was not typical. He is not a good attorney. That was obvious.
I didn’t read all of the Mueller report because much of it was brain diarrhea. Weissmann wrote it. That whole fiasco was born in and nurtured with politics, not law.
Edit: I also read Smith’s materials in support of the Arctic Frost subpoenas. He put stuff in there and cited criminal statutes he knew were going nowhere which is why he used strange interpretations of obscure statutes when he finally filed indictments. The guy was not only hopelessly immersed politics, but he was in over his head.
Previously suppressed documents about Obama’s intelligence operation laundering information was declassified in September (maybe August).
Just to clear the air.
I read Smith’s indictments and many of his court filings. Those are more reliable than his ‘reports” because court filings carry a responsibility that reports do not. He was obviously furthering an agenda, not justice. That is the reason Garland chose him and the choice was not typical. He is not a good attorney. That was obvious.
I didn’t read all of the Mueller report because much of it was brain diarrhea. Weissmann wrote it. That whole fiasco was born in and nurtured with politics, not law.
This is a strange take you have. I did read the report. It wasn't diarrhea. It was exactly the kind of report you expect from a special prosecutor, except Mueller being Mueller, it was far more technical, objective, and moderated than other historical examples.
I don't know what happened to you except the obvious. You seem to have checked all your objectivity in your desperation to support Trump. Everything you say about Smith, Mueller and their reports are a completely radical outlier of a take. I follow several legal blogs on the left, right and bipartisan and your take wouldn't be in any of them. I think we're done because you refuse to read materials that don't necessarily comport with your unshakable but apparently unsupported opinions. You know, I've not changed one iota from any of my conservative opinions that I'm aware of, but the fact that I see Trump as a man of exceptionally poor character who's not fit to be President and who should embarrass Republicans, is just not acceptable to those of you who've decided to twist themselves into knots to defend everything he says or does. I just can't do that, and I won't.Just to clear the air.
I read Smith’s indictments and many of his court filings. Those are more reliable than his ‘reports” because court filings carry a responsibility that reports do not. He was obviously furthering an agenda, not justice. That is the reason Garland chose him and the choice was not typical. He is not a good attorney. That was obvious.
I didn’t read all of the Mueller report because much of it was brain diarrhea. Weissmann wrote it. That whole fiasco was born in and nurtured with politics, not law.
Edit: I also read Smith’s materials in support of the Arctic Frost subpoenas. He put stuff in there and cited criminal statutes he knew were going nowhere which is why he used strange interpretations of obscure statutes when he finally filed indictments. The guy was not only hopelessly immersed politics, but he was in over his head.
Of course, it's not. I've read it and linked it here for everyone to read. It's well written and supported point by point. I will say Jack Smith's report is written in a style I personally prefer more.Just to clear the air.
I read Smith’s indictments and many of his court filings. Those are more reliable than his ‘reports” because court filings carry a responsibility that reports do not. He was obviously furthering an agenda, not justice. That is the reason Garland chose him and the choice was not typical. He is not a good attorney. That was obvious.
I didn’t read all of the Mueller report because much of it was brain diarrhea. Weissmann wrote it. That whole fiasco was born in and nurtured with politics, not law.
This is a strange take you have. I did read the report. It wasn't diarrhea. It was exactly the kind of report you expect from a special prosecutor, except Mueller being Mueller, it was far more technical, objective, and moderated than other historical examples.
Not that I need to justify myself to you, but I read Reynolds, Turley, Volokh, and Hinderaker regularly, and a couple of them daily. I read SCOTUS Blog on a as needed basis. The individuals largely agree with me about smith. Everything Smith says and files is to advance Democratic and Never Trump politics. The manner of his selection and appointment should have been your first clue. Judge Cannon read that right.
And I’m sick and Tired of your description of my “desperation attempts to defend Trump” routine too. I tried to explain nicely why you are full of shit about that and why I say what I say. It doesn’t take with you.
So you can add me to your dumb poster notion too. What you have to say no longer has any cred with me.
Sorry, not going to happen. It's why I'm more informed about these cases than you. They contain information gathered from interviews and depositions under oath, physical evidence, videos, documents, etc. There's no need to say that they're biased. Of course they are. Both also contain information about defenses made by potential coconspirators as well. However, there are a ton of facts in each of those reports. Facts that are important. There is information of which you're purposely ignorant and that makes your thoroughly biased and uninformed assertions about facts and the reports themselves look silly. Your refusal to even skim these reports and reviewing the facts they contain is not admirable. It sure doesn't make you look interested in the whole truth or make you look knowledgeable and smart about either report. You didn't even watch Smith's closed-door testimony (the better one without the grandstanding of politicians in the open hearing) or read the transcript yet claimed things that weren't supported in the hearing either.
As an attorney, I'd think you'd want to review all the information and not just what Twitter Twits and politicians say. Sadly, you do not want to know more than you "know." I suspect it would make you uncomfortable. Just guessing though.
I go back and forth on whether he's a parody poster. If not, he's a victim of the algorithms.
I read those blogs and I do not think they do agree with you much at all. Hinderaker, probably. I used to read him a lot on Powerline but he’s changed a lot. Sorry.Not that I need to justify myself to you, but I read Reynolds, Turley, Volokh, and Hinderaker regularly, and a couple of them daily. I read SCOTUS Blog on a as needed basis. The individuals largely agree with me about smith. Everything Smith says and files is to advance Democratic and Never Trump politics. The manner of his selection and appointment should have been your first clue. Judge Cannon read that right.
And I’m sick and Tired of your description of my “desperation attempts to defend Trump” routine too. I tried to explain nicely why you are full of shit about that and why I say what I say. It doesn’t take with you.
So you can add me to your dumb poster notion too. What you have to say no longer has any cred with me.
That settles it. You don’t know what you are talking about. Hinderaker was a nationally known effective trial lawyer who knows evidence, issues, and arguments from inside the bar experience. He is not an observer from the classroom or looking for viewers and clicks from a pundit desk. You’ve claimed I’ve changed and now you claim the same for Hinderaker. I’ll take that.
Latest Post: Where do Indiana’s Opponents Project in Initial SP+? Our newest member: Heather Herod Recent Posts Unread Posts
