Mueller report PSA: Prepare for disappointment

And be forewarned that the special counsel’s findings may never be made public.

President Donald Trump's critics have spent the past 17 months anticipating what some expect will be among the most thrilling events of their lives: special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on Russian 2016 election interference. They may be in for a disappointment. That’s the word POLITICO got from defense lawyers working on the Russia probe and more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election case. The public, they say, shouldn’t expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump — not to mention an explanation of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller sleuths.

Perhaps most unsatisfying: Mueller’s findings may never even see the light of day. “That’s just the way this works,” said John Q. Barrett, a former associate counsel who worked under independent counsel Lawrence Walsh during the Reagan-era investigation into secret U.S. arms sales to Iran. “Mueller is a criminal investigator. He’s not government oversight, and he’s not a historian.” All of this may sound like a buzzkill after two years of intense news coverage depicting a potential conspiracy between the Kremlin and Trump’s campaign, plus the scores of tweets from the White House condemning the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt.” But government investigation experts are waving a giant yellow caution flag now to warn that Mueller’s no-comment mantra is unlikely to give way to a tell-all final report and an accompanying blitz of media interviews and public testimony on Capitol Hill. “He won’t be a good witness,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth Starr now working as a senior fellow at the nonprofit R Street Institute. “His answers will be, ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘maybe.’”

For starters, Mueller isn’t operating under the same ground rules as past high-profile government probes, including the Reagan-era investigation into Iranian arms sale and whether President Bill Clinton lied during a deposition about his extramarital affair with a White House intern. Those examinations worked under the guidelines of a post-Watergate law that expired in 1999 that required investigators to submit findings to Congress if they found impeachable offenses, a mandate that led to Starr’s salacious report that upended Clinton’s second term. Mueller’s reporting mandate is much different. He must notify his Justice Department supervisor — currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — on his budgeting needs and all “significant events” made by his office, including indictments, guilty pleas and subpoenas. When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigation-findings-914754

>>3540710

I do trust the plan…don't you think it's interesting that a narrative like this is being put out there at this time? Soft blow, before the hard punch? Take a look at the loudest voices these last couple of weeks…coincidence?

>>3540721

Indeed, All I can say is finally,kek

>>3540757

Absolutely Agreed

Is This True?

A Fake News Database

Disinformation is everywhere. We're tracking it down and explaining why it's fake, where it appeared and who shared it. We're asking readers to submit hoaxes [bogus, fabricated reports], impostors [websites or social media content masquerading as known, reliable news sources] and doctored items [visuals altered to deliberately misinform].

What is "fake news," really?

Popularized by President Donald Trump, the term “fake news” has become ubiquitous in political discourse as an insult or to dismiss certain information. POLITICO, however, is focused on intentional disinformation – false political content created explicitly to deceive or misinform.

Collect, debunk and chronicle:

By both crowd-sourcing information and scouring the internet ourselves, POLITICO will identify potential pieces of disinformation, which will be vetted by our staff. If the items fit our parameters for fakes, we will report on our findings.

How you can help:

Send us any reports, websites or social media posts that you suspect may be disseminating disinformation. These reports flagged by users, along with those identified by POLITICO staffers, will be vetted and, if deemed appropriate, added and categorized into our public database of disinformation.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/is-this-true/about/

Note: I wonder who makes the final decisions on these, hmm Sounds a bit like some of the other social media websites.

Evergreen State College’s enrollment is both better and worse than expected

How can it be both? Well, that requires a bit of explanation. In September a professor at the school named Mike Paros wrote that there would be less than 300 freshmen at the school this year. I was one of the first to write about Paros’ claim and it spread quickly. Two days after that story circulated, the official Evergreen Twitter account tweeted this: We estimate we will have 350 new freshmen this year, and new student enrollment of 700 to 735, bringing us to about 3100 students this academic year. We're a vibrant learning community, focused on the future. — Evergreen (@EvergreenStCol) September 12, 2018

These estimates were slightly better but they were a) still estimates and b) still lower than previous years. The final figures weren’t available until 10 days after the start of the semester. Today, the College Fix reports the number of freshmen is down from Evergreen’s own estimate but the total enrollment is a bit higher than expected.

Last month when Mike Paros said the incoming class would be 300 freshmen he described that as “a fifty percent drop from two years ago.” So with an actual incoming class of 309, the decline must be pretty close to that 50% estimate after all. It’s obviously bad news that the freshmen class is this small because it means the impact isn’t limited to people who were on campus when the trouble started. The impact is to the school’s reputation, i.e. people who might have considered the school for their future at one point but now are not.

ttps://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/18/evergreen-state-colleges-enrollment-tally-better-worse-expected/

The Evergreen State College is a public liberal arts college and a member of the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges, located in Olympia, Washington, U.S. Founded in 1967, Evergreen was formed to be an experimental and non-traditional college. Full-time students enroll in interdisciplinary academic programs instead of classes. Programs typically offer students the opportunity to study several disciplines in a coordinated manner. Faculty write narrative evaluations of students' work in place of issuing grades. Evergreen offers a Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Bachelor of Science, Master of Environmental Studies, Master of Public Administration, and Master in Teaching. As of 2017, there were 3,907 students, 3,610 of whom were undergraduates, and 223 faculty members. In 2017, protests over claims of racial discrimination and free speech issues repeatedly shut down the school, and led to the resignation of two professors, Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying. Evergreen later paid the couple $500,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that the college failed to protect them from race-based threats and hostility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College

>>3541027

Has anyone tried to get a clear image of his shirt, wonder what the picture on it is…

>>3541140

Too bad for you, don't care if you filtered or not..but you should be vigilant enough to check an anon's postings before you criticize/comment, otherwise you are nothing more than ignorant.

Judicial Watch Files Bar Complaint Against Lawyers For Christine Blasey Ford

Government watchdog Judicial Watch has filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Responsibility in Washington D.C. against the Democrat operatives who legally represent Christine Blasey Ford. Ford is the woman who testified in front of Congress during Justice Brett Kavanaugh's nomination process. The filing was made after it was revealed during testimony that Ford was never informed by her attorneys, Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks and Michael R. Bromwich, that staffers for Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley were willing to fly to her home in California, or anywhere she chose, for a private interview instead of public questioning. The offer was made after Ford said she has a fear of flying, despite regularly taking flights across the country and the globe. "By not informing their client Dr. Ford that Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee offered in a letter to 'fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford… in California, or anywhere else, to obtain (her) testimony, Katz, Banks, and Bromwich violated the following District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct," Judicial Watch released Friday. "Rule l.4(a) – A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information [and] Rule 1.4(b) – A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation."

During her testimony, Ford stated she did not know the offer was made by Grassley's office. "We are concerned that ethics rules were violated by Dr. Ford’s attorneys during the Kavanaugh confirmation and took action to get accountability,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton released in a statement. “We already filed a Senate ethics complaint against Sen. Cory Booker over his admitted rule breaking and are considering additional steps to address the misconduct committed by Justice Kavanaugh’s opponents.” Katz is a long time activist for the left and has attended "resistance" rallies since President Trump won the White House in 2016. She also refers to those who work for Trump as "miscreants." In addition to Ford, Bromovich is also an attorney for fired and discraged Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/10/19/judicial-watch-files-bar-complaint-against-lawyers-for-christine-blasey-ford-n2530098