Quoted from Volume II, page 182:<p>----<p>Conclusion<p>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.
Wow, if you check the paragraphs directly before the summary the reports effectively lays out A) a legal argument that the president <i>can</i> 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."<p>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.
"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."
Here is the NBC mirror but served over IPFS if someone is having difficulties reaching it: <a href="https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVZoRuiYD8ekwd7vXDj7XiGjqWkANa9GKXuYW2kVw6oQ9/full-mueller-report.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVZoRuiYD8ekwd7vXDj7XiGjqWkANa9GKXuYW2...</a><p>Edit: finally fully downloaded the PDF from justice.gov's servers. The files are identical.
I used ocrmypdf to generate a searchable version here: <a href="http://35.235.68.220/searchable_report.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://35.235.68.220/searchable_report.pdf</a>
This 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.<p>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...?
Question 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 <i>not</i> redacated.
A good visualization on the whole report <a href="https://twitter.com/ajchavar/status/1118915893508083712" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/ajchavar/status/1118915893508083712</a>
You can also, as before, find the indictments and convictions (with hundreds of pages of attached evidence) from the investigation: <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco" rel="nofollow">https://www.justice.gov/sco</a><p>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.<p>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.
So 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.<p>The media also blew this so out of proportion that I was more or less stunned by the fact that there <i>wasn't</i> an impeachment at the end.<p>Whatever you think of Trump if he really didn't collude then the media have some internal retrospecive to do, I think.
It's disappointing that the PDF is not machine-readable; definitely a regression from the Obama years: <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government-" rel="nofollow">https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/0...</a><p>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.<p>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.
>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<p>For example, the word "Sanders" appears on page 23, but this instance does not show up in searches.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/qwrrty/status/1118980162324959233" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/qwrrty/status/1118980162324959233</a>
The 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.