Thread by @JoThoHalloran

Again, it’s critical to understand that this is the criminal standard applied to charging decisions.

So, again, the discussion about standards of conduct is essential to the analysis here.

No surprise here, but significant nonetheless.

Didn’t the Attorney General just tell us that the Executive was completely cooperative with the investigation?

That first sentence there. Hm.

This section on the IRA is heavily redacted, which is probably okay (that is, the level of redaction here shouldn’t make folks shriek coverup—this seems fine).

This redaction, on the other hand, raises an eyebrow

A lot of this is useful separating the wheat from the chaff of the reporting on these issues. But there is a lot of vindication here for a lot of journalists on the job that they did with this story.

These redactions also raise an eyebrow.

There’s a lot to parse here.

It strikes me as bizarre, given the lengthy discussion previously in the report about the enthusiasm to obtain Clinton emails, that Papadopoulos didn’t tell this to anyone in the campaign.

The description of the June 9 meeting in the Report is simultaneously much less and much more inculpatory than in previous tellings. This section is truly weird.

I mean, almost farce levels of inept political maneuvering: Some folks are promising Clinton dirt to get a meeting, others unaware that that’s what the Campaign is expecting, disappointment and frustration from everyone because the purpose of the meeting was misunderstood. Weird.

Again, this has been reported on, but in the context of the report is still a little startling. The date here is August 2, 2016.

On my reading, this falls somewhat short of complete vindication—even under the heightened standards of criminal culpability.

I want to draw your attention to the word “agreement” and, again, to the criminal standard being applied.

Fun with legal citations.

As @TheSandmanEsq would acknowledge, not accidental. And probably telling here.

Oh, hai, redaction.

There is a lot of rubber meeting a lot of road under this particular black splotch, folks. And the fact that it’s “ongoing”? *eyebrow*

That wraps up my reading of Part I.

The Report is pretty credulous. While I agree with the Special Counsel on questions of conspiracy, I wonder how we should be talking and thinking about a campaign who knowingly acted in anticipation of a benefit (absent agreement).

Onwards.

Um. The index of Part II is quite the document in and of itself.

Barr’s declination decision is absolutely astounding in light of this. Absolutely astounding.

Again, this must be read in light of the heightened criminal standards being applied by the Special Counsel.

This, I think, is also a critical bit of process information.

This theme of a “close; but not too close” dance is really interesting throughout this Report.

Did we know this? Because this seems pretty significant.

The theme of the fear of illegitimacy of the election is Shakespearean or Freudian.

But it’s really an amazing motivating force for the actions of the President.

I don’t remember hearing this vignette before either.

This seemed to be on the radar of the White House staff at the very least...

McGahn is a complicated character in all of this.

*now with Star Wars scroll!!!*

Again, when considering intent, if you have a bunch of people telling you not to do a thing because it looks like obstruction and you keep doing that thing...

The discussion of Comey’s firing is revelatory.

Holy cow.

Now, I’m not sure that I would put this paragraph in the top-20 most important in the Report, however, dimes to dollars, I bet that this one is leading off a bunch of newscasts.

The McGahn stuff is just amazing.

So. It’s interesting the effort that the Special Counsel put into discussing the June 9 meeting in the obstruction section—when efforts to publicly conceal that meeting couldn’t plausibly be criminal obstruction—seems like an interesting discretionary choice.

Unsurprising summary of a very public program to influence witnesses.

Should have included this in the last tweet: Publically influencing juries as well (though I think the criminal intent on this one is a little tenuous compared to the witness tampering).

This is amazing from a political standpoint. I should note that there is a lot of discussion in the immigration sphere about noncompliance with the President’s orders, and it’s a worthwhile question as to whether that noncompliance is a sufficient bulwark.