The Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion Paperback – April 30, 2019

I purchased the paperback version of this report. Perhaps the key question to answer is why did I bother to pay $7.79 for a report I could read online or download. One issue raised by some purchasers of this and other editions is the print quality. Certainly the print quality of this version is very good and the paper appears excellent. Though it probably won't last 100 years, this appears to be well bound and durable. It is very easy to read from viewpoint of the print quality. But the PDFs seem readable to me as well. Maybe that was not true initially but I certainly have found good downloadable copies.So the decision to pay $7.79 vs nothing comes down to the additional commentary included with the book. This is the only version I have purchased, so I am not sure what is in the other bound editions. The Washington Post has an edition of which Rosalind Helderman and Matt Zapotosky are listed. I presume they have provided commentary. They are both young reporters. Ms. Helderman has a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and she has won a Pulitzer prize for one of her prior articles. Mr. Zapotosky has a bachelor's in journalism from Ohio University. That's different from Ohio State University, by the way, and of the two I think that Ohio University probably has a better journalism program because has the acclaimed Scripps College of Communication in which their journalism school is a component. So they both appear to have an excellent background. Both report on topics relevant to the subject matter in the Mueller report. On the other hand, Alan Dershowitz is a highly acclaimed emeritus professor of law at Harvard. He has been on the legal teams of some of the most famous legal cases in recent American history. He has written a huge number of legal articles and numerous books.Probably Rosalind Helderman and Matt Zapatosky offer excellent commentary and it may be worth paying what currently appears to be $9.00 for that edition. But I suspect that what I would get would be essentially the same political analysis offered by virtually every media outlet in the US, with the exception of Fox and, I guess, Sinclair (I've never actually knowingly watched Sinclair but they are supposed to be more right-wing than Fox). I have heard the standard media summaries numerous times. Dershowitz has, of course, appeared on Fox lately, so I realized that I had probably heard at least some of his arguments as well, though not as frequently as the mainstream media articles which are blaring from every source virtually 24 hours a day.I chose the Dershowitz edition because I wanted to read his arguments put together in one document rather than occasionally hearing him answer some questions on television. An important distinction is that he actually makes "arguments" rather than mere commentary. By that I mean he states what seem to me to be solid legal facts and then gives some actual reasoning leading to a conclusion. Typical media summaries, either from the left or the right, start with the conclusions, typically that Trump is a known bad guy, and then start piling on anecdotal evidence purporting to "prove" how bad Trump is. Or, for the right wing commentary, they start with the idea that Trump is the best President ever and then pile on "evidence" claiming to "prove" it. So I bought Dershowitz's edition because I wanted to read his legal arguments, albeit simplified for a lay person such as I.I am happy that I made the choice that I made, though I must admit that his commentary is a bit short. He provides 12 pages which comprise Chapter 1. It is a succinct and, to my mind, cogent argument. It was great to read it all in one place rather than in snippets on television. The 12 page commentary is Chapter 1. He also provides Chapters 2,3,4,5, and 6, each of which contain one page of introductory explanation, which I presume was written by Dershowitz or an assistant, and then (except for Chapter 6) some exhibits, generally letters or quotations from a statute. Chapter 6 has no exhibits. It is just a key to the redactions and i am not sure whether it was written by the Mueller team or by Prof. Dershowitz. It probably is from Dershowtiz. Then there is chapter 7 which gives volumes I and II of the Mueller report. This is pretty much the same as the downloadable free PDF except that the footnotes are converted to endnotes. Chapter 7 also contains Appendices A,B,C, and D, which are present in the downloadable report. So you get a little more from Prof. Dershowitz than just the 12 page legal analysis.To me it was well worth the $7.79. I see it now costs $8.00 but that would still be worth it in my opinion. It is possible that I might decide in the future to purchase one of the other versions, such as the one from the Washington Post mentioned above. But probably I'll borrow someone else's to see what's in these other versions.

I must admit that I'm a bit of a media junkie, so when the report was first released, I went onto the DOJ's site to read it, but it was such a cumbersome document, filled with pages of redacted text and poorly organized and formatted. I decided to purchase the e-book of The Mueller Report, hoping that it would be an easier read, and I was right!This e-book edition is perfectly formatted. I read a comment below about someone concerned with the formatting, but I'm guessing that was just a glitch on their end. It reads perfectly fine on my Kindle. You can even click on the different chapters in the table of contents and it brings you right to the spot.Plus the introduction by Alan Dershowitz, who succinctly unpacks the report and even grades it (I won't spoil it!), is worth the price of the book in itself.Definitely worth a read as this is a historic document for every American and citizen of the world.

Finally, the long awaited Mueller Report is here. Since last Thursday I have been reading a downloaded PDF version on my PC of Volume 1 and 2.Volume 1 did state that the Russian government did interfere with the 2016 Presidential Election. In addition, the FBI opened the investigation on 24 July 2016. Social media such as Face Book, Twitter and Instagram were hacked by the Russians.. (The numbers of 'hacked' accounts are listed and to me, are staggering quantities..).One of the most intriguing statements that I read concerned the framework of 'conspiracy' and not collusion. Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability in the US code. Most interesting to me.A discussion of the anti-Trump dossier published by Buzz Feed..Am expecting to hear lots more about this in future days. The Trump Tower meeting is discussed in detail.This report does state that the 'intent" was not there despite multiple actions (10) by the President.. Lots more to come on these actions, am sure. Also, no clear obstruction of justice so more to come on this, as well. There is also an explanation as to the reason there wasn't an indictment of the President. Many more subpoenas will be issued now that this report has been finally released. And, some of the investigations would delve into the attempts of obstruction of justice and conspiracy. And, of course, all inquiring minds want to know what those redacted comments say!! 'Ongoing matter' and 'investigative technique' were the two most common ones...So, am awaiting to see what these subpoenas eventually bring to light.There is a lot of information in this report and this review only covers the tip of the iceberg. Miles to go before we sleep with this report and the upcoming subpoenas. Now, it is time for the Democrats to take action...I thought it was most interesting read and a glimpse into how the wheels function in DC. Now, it is on my Kindle for future reference.I was also interested in the cost of this investigation and, of course, this was not in this book. Final numbers are not in yet but I did locate a couple of estimates on line. Newsweek estimates between $31 and 35 million and CNBC estimates $25 million..Highly recommended.

Huge efforts and means to finally conclude that the charges are not provable. No charges, non judgment. The Office’s Conclusion Doubt makes President Trump a free and an innocent man in front of the Justice.

No collusion.....but turns out there was a lot of criminality

Der Mueller Report macht auf mich den Eindruck einer akribischen datumsgeprägten Analyse. Mueller schreibt nicht nur nieder, was geschehen ist, sondern legt Wert darauf stets anzugeben, wann etwas gesagt wurde oder geschehen ist. Das macht mit Blick auf die ihm auferlegte Aufgabe auch Sinn, da es eine Rolle spielt, wer wann was gesagt hat. Infolgedessen liest sich das Buch beinahe wie eine Tagebuchaufzeichnung.Der Unterschied zu diesem ist nur, dass es ziemlich sachlich trocken zugeht, was auch gut ist, nachdem ich Bücher von Michael Wolff (Fire and Fury) und Bob Woodward (Fear) gelesen habe, die entweder einem bunten, lautstarken Journalismus frönen oder - wie im Falle von Woodward - mit einer sachlichen Berichterstattung ebensowenig zu tun haben, da sie - ein anderes Wort fällt mir dazu nicht ein - als Roman abgefasst sind, in dem die Leute unentwegt miteinander plaudern, sich gegenseitig Geschichten erzählen, was die Grenze des Sachlichen sprengt und sich im Raum purer Fiktionalität bewegt. Hier bei Mueller also ist alles trocken und sachlich niedergelegt. Vermutlich ist es das einzig gescheite Buch zum Thema.Wenngleich das mit dem Lesen manchmal so eine Sache ist, da durch die amtlich verordneten Streichungen an ein Lesen manchmal nicht zu denken ist. Lesen kann man sich in diesen Fällen auch schenken, nur staunen kann man ob der Zensur, die ausgeübt wurde. Zugegebenermaßen sind dies extreme Fälle wie der fotografierte Ausnahme (der mit Abstand extremste Fall), und man kann in der Regel manchmal zwanzig oder dreißig Seiten lesen, ohne dass man der Zensur begegnet. Aber sie taucht immer wieder auf und sei es auch nur in Form einzelner Zeilen.Neue Erkenntnisse hat mir dieses Buch nicht gebracht. Zwar wusste ich um die vielen detaillierten Fakten und Daten nicht (wie auch?), doch die zentralen Fakten sind schon zuvor durch die Presse gegangen.Was aber wirklich sonderbar ist, ist das Vorwort. Da gibt ein Alan Dershowitz zu Beginn seineBewertung des Reports, die man als vollkommene Reinwaschung von Herrn Trump bezeichnen darf, vergibt - wie in der Schule - der Arbeit Muellers Zensuren und kommt auf eine B-, was einer 2,3 im deutsche Schulsystem entspricht, für Teilbereiche des Buches sieht er schon mal eine C+ (2,7) gerechtfertigt. Also so was habe ich noch nicht erlebt - eine solche Anmaßung. Und dann - gegen Ende seiner Einleitung - nachdem er seine persönliche Einschätzung in aller Deutlichkeit kundgetan hat (aus der man ablesen kann: man hätte sich die ganze Arbeit schenken können), sagt der Herr, man möge sich eine eigenen Meinung bilden. Erst versucht man eindeutig Einfluss zu nehmen und tut dann so, als ob nichts wäre. Die Einleitung ist eine Frechheit. Das Buch selber ist, wer sich für Details interessiert, lesenswert, wenngleich man vieles schon x-fach in der Presse in verkürzter Form schon gelesen hat, hier bekommt man die akribische Form geboten.Spannend ist das alles aber nicht. Zu viel Trump in den letzten Jahren, zu viel journalistische Aufgeregtheit, dass man/ich ermüdet ist/bin davon - auch weil nichts davon Folgen zu zeitigen scheint. Wer das alles aber wie auf einem Zeitstrahl aufrgereiht, akribisch recherchiert, noch einmal nachlesen möchte, wird hier bestens bedient.

I was interested to read the report as it was to check the report itself. But I was shocked to view the introduction which claimed the Mueller report should never have been written and the special counsel should not have been appointed. This may be another judicial issue. The real political issue is not whether the special counsel appointment was appropriate or not, but what have been disclosed by its investigation.

IT WAS INFORMATIVE