Been raining here for almost 24 straight hours, pouring rain, not just sprinkley rain, POURING, therefore no walks, but instead hold up here in my nook, reading the bits and bobs and opinions of the pundits on twitter and cable news talking heads, of the “news”, aka the redacted Mueller Report.

At a high level, without digging into the meat of it, there are many things to unpack, many a tangled web, and such the report lays out the nefarious deceptions, the attempts at obstruction, the guardrails around the POTUS who prevented that obstruction, or ‘those’ obstructions, as the ol’rumpTus made many an attempt.

So, amongst all of that, what first stands out is AG Barr’s strange, em, I don’t know if there is any other word, but lies concerning what conclusions the report makes. Well, and of course Barr’s problematic apologetic argument better suited to a defense attorney, protecting his client, and such a spin is NOT in the job description of the United States Attorney General.

For instance, Barr asserts that Mueller’s conclusions of whether Trump’s actions added up to obstruction of justice were NOT based on OLC policy of not indicting a sitting President. However, the report itself says quite the opposite;

Then Barr compounded the deception in his news conference Thursday before his release of the report. Without Mueller present, Barr took a question from a reporter who asked whether Mueller’s non-decision on obstruction “had anything to do with the department’s long-standing guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel on not indicting a sitting president.”

Barr responded that he had a private conversation with Mueller, who told him that he “was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.” Regardless of whether Barr’s recounting of the conversation was technically accurate, it’s clear that Barr’s answer was highly misleading. 

POLITICO | The Obstruction Case Against Trump that Barr Tried to Hide
By RENATO MARIOTTI April 19, 2019

In fact, the report does say just that, that but for the OLC (Office of Legal Council) policy, Mueller concluded that finding a POTUS guilty of obstruction, but unable to charge with the crime due to this policy, it would not be fair to the POTUS since he would not be able to answer to those charges in a court of law – “Fairness concerns” arising from the inability to indict a sitting president was the key factor in Mueller’s decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice [ibid].

So, why would Barr lie about this when quite obviously anyone who reads this report will clearly read for themselves what Muellers’ intentions were? Why?

Well, these guys know their audience, and the bulk of the rumpTus minions do not think for themselves, they do not read, their critical thinking skills are often limited by their lack of higher education, and so it is entirely plausible that whatever Barr says would be taken as gospel, and didn’t challenge the ‘deep state’ crowd, and for that niche of loyalists who DO have critical thinking skills and higher education, or atleast enough to smell the rat, those folks don’t really care a rats rump because the bottom line for them is that Trump is good for their wallet, and therefore they really don’t mind any criminality or obstruction charges that may be dangling in the wind.

Now, the other takeaway is that the guardrails that prevented Trump from obstructing justice? Well, all those figures are no longer in his orbit, as they have been fired, quit, etc…and replaced with “acting” heads and other weak-minded minions all too willing to carry out his wishes.

Not at all surprising, but the very people who were, basically, not doing what he wanted them to do were in effect protecting the president, so he threw them out; replaced by those who would do his bidding, regardless of what exposure that gives him to criminality or obstruction. Which I guess just goes to show how much of an idiot the man is, too stupid to understand that by not carrying out his incompetent and dangerous wishes, that they were, intentionally or not, protecting him, even if that may not have been their objective.

The final takeaway is that the report serves to lay out the roadmap for Congress to pursue impeachment hearings, and/or, continue with investigating him and gathering up the indictments for after he leaves office.

Thing is, there is A LOT of loose ends, of evidence that was not available since various person’s destroyed communications, refused to answer truthfully, and generally made it difficult to draw any concrete and indictable charges as to conspiracy.

Also, that there are something like 14 different spin-off cases that are still on going, whose involved, what charges, or anything about those cases is redacted.

Finally, that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling is clear, that they knew of and gave assistance to, is clear – from forwarding known Russian generated anti-Clinton memes, to Manafort providing polling data to suspected Kremlin connected contacts he had.

Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee, ⁸³⁹ to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign — including internal polling data, although Manafort claims not to recall that specific instruction. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.

{…}

As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a “disagreement”—a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort’s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. 

New York Times – The Mueller Report (redacted) – Vol. 1, Page 129, 131

So, maybe the final takeaway instead is really that from the top down, the Trump campaign for office was about greed, deceit, and corruption and winning by any means necessary.

Which, should surprise no one; I mean, does the man, or has he ever acquired anything without cheating in order to get it?