12 ms·
The Mueller Report [pdf]
- taytus 7y agoWould love to see the traffic spike on this one!
- 32032141 7y agoreport.pdf 21.12M 1.84MB/s eta 2m 18s Seems to be handling it.
- taytus 7y agoI meant # of views :)
- francisofascii 7y agoLooks like they are using an Akamai CDN. In the response header... Server: AkamaiNetStorage
- who-knows95 7y agoIs this the full report?
- jackschultz 7y agoRedacted. According to the ABC news segment on it right now.
- ceedan 7y agoYes, but redacted.
- shittyadmin 7y agoA redacted version of it, but yes.
- markovbot 7y agoWell obviously it's redacted, but presumably this is the full redacted report, which is what was supposed to be released today
- atoav 7y agoThere are multiple sections which are censored with "HOM" (Harm to Ongoing Matter) and "Personal Privacy"
- bubbabojangles 7y agoI thought the whole thing was redacted, but it's just getting hugged to death.
- humblebee 7y agoMirrored on IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQpAGbPda8yZ2VMT27FbG1DvJnaXbw5kyGRjEwvPLZXHW https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQpAGbPda8yZ2VMT27FbG1DvJnaXbw5kyGRjEw...
- hotdogs 7y agoIt says part I of II, is the second part located anywhere?
- bacondude3 7y ago> FYI: Volume II starts on page 208 — psawaya https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19691575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19691575
- hotdogs 7y agoAh, thanks, I didn't see a table of contents for it so I figured it'd be a separate doc.
- simlevesque 7y agoit starts at page 208.
- psawaya 7y agoFYI: Volume II starts on page 208
- okket 7y agoMirror (NBC): https://dataviz.nbcnews.com/projects/20190415-mueller-report-embed/assets/full-mueller-report.pdf https://dataviz.nbcnews.com/projects/20190415-mueller-report...
- xutopia 7y agoWhat is the point of getting a redacted report? Why is it redacted?
- KevanM 7y agoTo protect whistle-blowers, or other assets that require anonymity.
- simlevesque 7y agoand the president's childrens...
- bacondude3 7y agoWhy not wait for evidence of unjust redactions before making a claim like that?
- simlevesque 7y agoWe might never know. Do you think we should never think about what was redacted ?
- dragontamer 7y agoUnlikely. Remember that the House Intelligence Committee has a full set of Top-Secret clearances, as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee. They're not allowed to tell us any top-secret information, but you can usually tell if something is getting hidden from the public based on their reactions. If something is getting hidden, expect Ron Wyden (or other Democrats on those Committees) to make a big, vague, stink about the matter. In effect, the existence of those top-secret committees ensures that the redactions are fair. Unlike most committees, the law states that Democrats AND Republicans must be as close to 50/50 split on those committees as possible, due to their great importance in matters such as these.
- threatofrain 7y ago
- hellllllllooo 7y agoCan anyone explain the criteria for redaction and who gets to decide in this case? The DoJ? A brief skim through shows whole pages redacted.
- Ygg2 7y agoI assume that relevant agencies redact anything that could possibly compromise their field agents, informants, etc.
- creaghpatr 7y agoGrand Jury info, investigative methods, info relevant to ongoing investigations, and executive privilege, although Barr said there was no Exec privilege invoked for this report.
- dugditches 7y agoOn the wall at the National Security Archive office down at George Washington University, we have a piece of White House email that was sent to Colin Powell when he worked in the White House. The two versions are almost mirror images in the sense that the top and bottom of one version are blacked out. The middle of the second version was blacked out. The top and bottom were released, and they were declassified 10 days apart. The punchline: it was the same reviewer both times. I called him up. His name was on the document. "What were you thinking?" I asked. And he says, "Well there was probably something in the Washington Post that was sensitive about Libya the first week, so I had to cut that paragraph out. But the next week it wasn't Libya, it was the Saudis or something, so I had to cut that paragraph out."
- joshmn 7y agoPage 59 has Trump Jr's interaction with Wikileaks. (67 in the pdf)
- krisrm 7y agoAnd now we test the capacity of the justice department's file servers :)
- DBYCZ 7y agoThe "Harm to Ongoing Matter" Report
- moftz 7y agoRight, there are tons of things still going on. The report doesn't help other than to publicly say that there are a lot of not-innocent people involved.
- diggan 7y agoHere is the NBC mirror but served over IPFS if someone is having difficulties reaching it: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVZoRuiYD8ekwd7vXDj7XiGjqWkANa9GKXuYW2kVw6oQ9/full-mueller-report.pdf https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVZoRuiYD8ekwd7vXDj7XiGjqWkANa9GKXuYW2... Edit: finally fully downloaded the PDF from justice.gov's servers. The files are identical.
- silveira 7y agoA good start would be OCR this whole thing.
- M4v3R 7y agoThe URL is quite interesting. Is this the only report on the whole justice.gov website?
- penagwin 7y agoYeah I noticed that too. Best guess is they assigned some random "tech guy" to "put it online" and they must not have a standard for this kind of document? Doesn't seem like it's a good choice as surely that's terrible future proofing?
- koheripbal 7y agoNo, they have tons of releases. This is very odd.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> No, they have tons of releases Tons of releases of special counsel final reports? I don't think so.
- davvolun 7y agoIf you only knew...
- basch 7y agoAs far as I can tell, the "storage" folder has never been used for a release like this before, so either this is the first public file in a giant folder, or somebody noticed that "storage" was available, and decided to be cute. To be honest .tdl./storage/ is probably available for a lot of companies to utilize if they like.
- VikingCoder 7y agoCan someone convert this into a Searchable PDF? Using OCR?
- nickthegreek 7y agoabcnews on their livefeed said they would be producing a searchable document
- humblebee 7y agohttps://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVM5vkWxopNKRNszADnCKcPp66XEbsNBT2HsnFfkCbWXJ/ https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVM5vkWxopNKRNszADnCKcPp66XEbsNBT2HsnF... That contains both the original report and one I ran through ocrmypdf (version 6.1.2) from the Ubuntu 18.04 repo.
- jkoudys 7y agoYou can also, as before, find the indictments and convictions (with hundreds of pages of attached evidence) from the investigation: https://www.justice.gov/sco https://www.justice.gov/sco Numerous convictions for top-level members of the campaign. Detailed operations of the Internet Research Agency, including the many US identities stolen and their work with Cambridge Analytica. Indictments against the "Russian Lawyer" from the Trump Tower meeting that imply she's a spy. Over $60M taken from pro-Russian sources leading up to the invasion of Crimea, that was laundered through NYC real estate. Don't go into reading the report thinking you'll find something new in there that'll blow your mind. You've already had plenty of giant scandals sitting on a public government server for months.
- jchw 7y agoI don't know why anyone expected this to be a bombshell. If what we knew already wasn't enough, I have no idea what it would actually take to end this presidency. On the flip side, I have the strangest feeling we're going to see better polling numbers during the next U.S. presidential election.
- rootusrootus 7y agoIMO it's not much different than the situation with Nixon. It took an explicit, textbook demonstration of obstruction of justice, printed on paper and signed by the president, before the tide turned against him. Edit: It was tape recording, not paper. Not sure how I forgot that detail.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoI was a bit too young to follow Watergate in detail. Could you be more explicit about what the president signed?
- berbec 7y agoI believe it wasn't actual paper, but the release of the tapes with transcripts.
- jchw 7y agoIs it me, or did this actually get removed from the front page? Perhaps anti-SPAM due to how fast it's rising?
- dave5104 7y agoLooks to be removed from mine as well.
- clessg 7y agoMost likely it got flagged. Articles involving politics tend to get flagged on HN.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoDoes this article meet conditions where flagging it actually justifies action? To me, I cannot see how it could.
- penagwin 7y agoI'm assuming it's automated so that after a certain number of flags it's removed for manual review. Whether it should or shouldn't be flagged is up to HN readers. Whether it stays is for the moderators.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y agoIt could upset some Republicans. HN at some point decided to hide any sort of controversial story. It arguably doesn’t much matter in this case, where it’s hard not to hear about it in some way. In other cases, it strikes me as an abdication of responsibility. Most recently, as but one example, when the tech community embarked on their ethics-in-astronomy harassment campaign against a female programmer: HN was one of the fora where this actually happened, but all submissions of stories on it, from reputable mainstream news sources, were quickly flagged into oblivion.
- bacondude3 7y ago
- Larrikin 7y agoWas this flagged off the front page?
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoThis post appeared to instantly drop from position 1 on the front page to position 32-33 on the second page of HN just a moment ago. What could cause such a dramatic and sudden drop, especially for a link that seems politically neutral (just sharing the report, no editorializing), and most of the comments seem to be about the redaction process...?
- rootusrootus 7y agoIt's politics. Many HN readers will flag it immediately for that.
- icebraining 7y agoI'm one of the flaggers. While I'm totally ok with politics on HN, it should have something more than that. Americans have enough places to discuss their party politics.
- rootusrootus 7y agoI didn't flag it, but I tend to agree that it doesn't really belong on HN. It's one of the topics that makes me feel worse about the HN community, and I'd prefer to stay delusional in that regard.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoWell... yes, they should. But they don't have many places where they can have an actual, rational, fact-and-evidence-based discussion. HN is a place where that kind of conversation can happen. And yet, HN too often fails to be such a place when politics comes up. Ideally, we should be able to handle it here. If and when we can't, dumping the toxicity rather than wallowing in it is probably the correct response.
- salawat 7y agoThis belongs everywhere. If we can't sit down and have a civil discussion on a legal proceeding with impact at the highest levels of our government, we have bigger issues. This isn't some trivial wardrobe malfunction political soap opera. This is the culmination of an investigation into one of the most destructively divisive Administrations in modern history. This has the potential to absolutely undermine the faith of a large swath of the American people in their government's ability to conduct business on their behalf without being absurdly vulnerable to outside interference. This goes so far beyond merely being a partisan shot at Trump. Everyone should read this. Everyone should take a day to really sit down and absorb all the details in this report and ask themselves if there is any room in how they believe their country should operate for these findings to be considered a sign of the "healthy" operation of the system. I'm floored to be quite honest. There are fundamental issues and questions raised by the underlying facts outlined in this report I'm not sure anyone has ever dreamed of needing to be asked. Please, read it, don't try to suppress it. For once in your life, accept and honor your civic responsibility to be informed.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- terryschiavo22 7y agoIt's weird to think that more work has gone into this one report than I will put into my career in my lifetime.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y agoIt’s less than a tenth of an F-35, to put things in perspective. And the Manafort restitution alone almost pays for it.
- yingw787 7y agoIt's disappointing that the PDF is not machine-readable; definitely a regression from the Obama years: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government- https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/0... Can anybody give percentages of redactions for relevant sections and breakdowns for reasons ("Harm to Ongoing Matter", "Grand Jury", etc.)? I skimmed the report and saw a handful of pages completely blacked over, and I believe those revolve around Internet Research Funding and associations with the Trump campaign. I'll wait until Congress receives the full, unredacted report and closed-door testimony from the Special Counsel and hear what Schiff et al. have to say before making a judgment, but ultimately the fact that the 2016 election came this close in the first place was a severe failing in and of itself.
- Qub3d 7y agoI suspect the whole document got squished down to prevent issues we've seen previously, like redactions being removable in PDF progams. (And yes, I checked. No dice)
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago> definitely a regression from the Obama year Of all the things one could choose to focus on... :) Be glad there even is a digital copy. First indication was printout only, and according to rumors I just made up, “interpretative dance” was another option considered.
- legitster 7y agoPDFs have a hidden meta layer of text. It is INSANELY easy to "block out" text thinking you are redacting it, but it is still right there in the document. The only safe way to handle document redaction is convert a PDF to a series of images. Let someone on the public side do all the work of converting it to text.
- yingw787 7y agoAhh I didn't think about this. I was thinking more in the lines of Photoshop, where you can have multiple layers and then compress them together when exporting and lose the metadata. But yes, this is definitely sensitive enough to not take any chances.
- eCa 7y agoQuoted from Volume II, page 182: ---- Conclusion Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
- tmaly 7y agoI don't know about you, but this investigation has been exhausting and extremely divisive for the country as a whole.. I think if no action is going to come out of this investigation, then its time for us to move on and think about bigger and better things.
- tim333 7y agoNot much chance of that before the 2020 elections.
- majewsky 7y agoIt will be interesting to see how the next president after Trump handles this matter (whether in 2021 or in 2025). I think there's a nonzero chance that even a Democratic president would pardon Trump in the name of national unity.
- LyndsySimon 7y agoThis seems a good summary to me. After all, you cannot prove a negative.
- mcphage 7y agoIt goes farther than that: > At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. So if it looks like he didn't commit obstruction of justice, they would have said that. They can't prove a negative, but if there hadn't been any evidence, they would have been willing to make a judgement that Trump was innocent. But they did find evidence, so they're unwilling to say he's not guilty of obstruction.
- Qub3d 7y agoWow, if you check the paragraphs directly before the summary the reports effectively lays out A) a legal argument that the president can be prosecuted and B) evidence that he obstructed justice. And then the summary pulls off this lukewarm "we chose not to make a decision, so he isn't guilty but neither is he exonerated." Its really weird, I wonder what on earth Muller and Co. were thinking here. I almost suspect they reneged on making a choice because they knew that Barr would fuck with things.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoI read that more as "we chose not to make a decision, but he isn't clearly not guilty". Not "therefore", "but".
- jadell 7y agoThey didn't choose to prosecute him because it's Department of Justice policy not to indict a sitting President. They're leaving it up to Congress to impeach him first.
- davidcollantes 7y agoFrom the "Introduction to Volume II:" "... if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
- jkoudys 7y agoFULL EXONERATION! It was only CLINTON that colluded with Russia! -- Half your country, somehow.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- bufferoverflow 7y agoInnocent until proven guilty is a good standard. They couldn't prove any guilt, therefore he is considered innocent.
- falcolas 7y agoInnocent until proven guilty is important for a justice system. But by the same token the lack of a conviction is not proof of innocence. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Being unable to, for example, convict someone of a robbery doesn't mean they didn't commit the robbery; it may just mean that the evidence was improperly collected by the police.
- bufferoverflow 7y agoYou're absolutely right. But since there's no evidence, we can't label someone guilty, like the mass media have been doing for years now. /I'm not even a fan of Trump./
- falcolas 7y agoPerhaps I'm reading the doc wrong, but I'm not seeing that there's an absence of evidence, but that the justice department is not the correct venue to evaluate and act upon the evidence which was found.
- dragontamer 7y agoThe Justice Department innately cannot prosecute the President, because the President can always fire people as the case is made. (Edit: Also President can theoretically pardon himself) The Justice Department (and the Attorney General) serves at behest the President. It is Congress's duty to prosecute the President through impeachment proceedings. At best, Muller's report should be seen as a gathering of evidence for a potential impeachment process. As such, it is very important for Congress to read over the details of this report, and decide if the level of Obstruction here rises to impeachment levels. (Remember: President Bill Clinton was impeached on Obstruction of Justice. It wasn't illegal to have sex with his intern, it was illegal for him to cover-up the fact). In either case: there won't be any removal of Mr. Trump from office. Democrats control the house, but Republicans control the Senate. The impeachment of Nixon only really happened because Democrats controlled both sides. The House can technically impeach (just as Bill Clinton was technically impeached), but the (Republican controlled) Senate can just sit around and do nothing about it. Still, its important for Congress to go through the process, even if its a foregone conclusion.
- dandersh 7y agoThe bit about Trump ordering Lewandowski to deliver a dictated message to Sessions to limit the investigation to future elections (Volume II pg. 90-94) is something new and interesting.
- davidcollantes 7y ago"The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation was "very unfair " to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and "let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do." -- Page 217 on the OCR version that is going around.
- jkoudys 7y ago"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
- Kye 7y agoQuestion for people who work with text processing: is it possible to use some kind of statistical analysis to make a guess at what's behind some of the redactions? I notice a lot of them have big blocks of black with footnote references, and those footnotes are often not redacated.
- GPUboy 7y agoI used ocrmypdf to generate a searchable version here: http://35.235.68.220/searchable_report.pdf http://35.235.68.220/searchable_report.pdf
- jpindar 7y agoThis version is good, it doesn't have the incomplete search issue.
- silveira 7y agoA good visualization on the whole report https://twitter.com/ajchavar/status/1118915893508083712 https://twitter.com/ajchavar/status/1118915893508083712
- jpindar 7y ago>the searchable copies of the Mueller Report now circulating have been incompletely OCRed. It looks like OCR failed on any line that included any redaction at all, so there's substantial text that will still not show up in search For example, the word "Sanders" appears on page 23, but this instance does not show up in searches. https://twitter.com/qwrrty/status/1118980162324959233 https://twitter.com/qwrrty/status/1118980162324959233
- apexalpha 7y agoSo not to be a cynic here, but from the outside (EU) it looks kinda like there is merit to the presidents claims of this investigation being a with hunt and what not. The media also blew this so out of proportion that I was more or less stunned by the fact that there wasn't an impeachment at the end. Whatever you think of Trump if he really didn't collude then the media have some internal retrospecive to do, I think.