General Discussion

pnwmom

(108,978 posts) Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:06 AM Apr 2019

HERE'S THE MUELLER REPORT OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.

448 pages

Vol. 2 starts on page 208

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HERE'S THE MUELLER REPORT OFFICIAL DOCUMENT. (Original Post) pnwmom Apr 2019 OP

Thanks! It'll be total overload on the government servers for awhile FakeNoose Apr 2019 #1

Thanks! flying_wahini Apr 2019 #2

NBC has it also FoxNewsSucks Apr 2019 #3

that is NOT "lightly" redacted. fuck that asshole crook barr. Javaman Apr 2019 #4

I'm skimming through it now FakeNoose Apr 2019 #5

FakeNoose

(32,639 posts)

1. Thanks! It'll be total overload on the government servers for awhile

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:09 AM

Apr 2019

Everyone please be patient.

flying_wahini

(6,600 posts)

2. Thanks!

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:09 AM

Apr 2019

Keeps crashing.

FoxNewsSucks

(10,433 posts)

3. NBC has it also

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:16 AM

Apr 2019

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551

138 mb download

Javaman

(62,530 posts)

4. that is NOT "lightly" redacted. fuck that asshole crook barr.

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:18 AM

Apr 2019

he hates this country.

FakeNoose

(32,639 posts)

5. I'm skimming through it now

Reply to Javaman (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:58 AM

Apr 2019

It's going to take me awhile - maybe all weekend - to read this thing. But it looks like a lot of the redaction in Part 2 have to do with Roger Stone. But that's only a guess. Of course everything's a guess at this point, and we're seeing a few blacked out areas on almost every page.

My thinking is that "HOM" and "Harm to Ongoing Matter" refer to Roger Stone's case which is still in litigation.

Areas that are blacked out with "Personal Privacy" well that's something else, not Roger Stone.

Anybody else got any ideas?

Reply to this discussion