By now you all know that the full (but redacted) Mueller report has been made available to the public. I am slogging through it now. It’s long. Four hundred and eighty eight pages long. And I’m only one guy. It’s gonna take me awhile to get through it all.
But I have read a decent amount of it. It’s broke down into two volumes.
Volume I details Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and "if the Trump Team conspired with the Russians."
Volume II deals with the president's “actions towards the FBI investigation” and if any of said actions are "obstruction of justice."
So far - I have some thoughts.
So, what does the Mueller report actually say about Russian interference and collusion?
A lot. Like, way more than I ever expected it to. From Mueller’s introduction to Volume I of the report:
“The Russian Government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the DNC and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Release of hacked materials -hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month …. Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos … (said) that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The information prompted the FBI on July 31st, 2016, to open an investigation into weather individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.
That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations,” and, “these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”
So, this all makes it very, very clear that Russia, a hostile foreign power, endlessly interfered in the US presidential election. That’s not even in debate.
The next part of the introduction talks about how Mueller was assigned, came on board in May of 2017 as Special Counsel and was authorized to investigate “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election,” including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.
Okay. We all know this. And then the report clearly says this:
“As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered …. principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Hrmmm. The words “numerous links,” and “did not establish” don’t seem to fit together. Let me unpackage it all:
Mueller felt that the while the Russians instigated cyber terrorism and the Trump team accepted the stolen material there was technically “no collusion,” because both groups acted independently towards the same mutually beneficial goal.
Okay. I understand. That’s fair. The Trump team never called up the Russians and said, “Can you steal a bunch of stuff in order to help us win the election?” In which case, for it to be collusion, then the Russians would have to respond with, “Of course! We’ll break into the US Government and steal a bunch of information that will help you win!” Because that specific agreement - tacit or express - did not seem to happen - then there was “no collusion.”
Which … is not exactly how Barr’s four page summary spun it. But, whatever.
Also, I’m only about fifty pages into the report so far.
More to come.
At Foul Play-by-Play we provide play-by-play and color commentary of foul play in sports on and off the field, pitch, court and ice. Here are the headlines, cheats of the week and a trip back in time when foul play was fair game to John McGraw.
The NFL Players’ Association filed a non-injury grievance challenging the NFL’s new national anthem policy, Tuesday. According to our comrade Al Neal of PeoplesWorld.org, “[w]ith the league changing the policy without first negotiating with the union, it will need to rely on the broad powers given to the commissioner, Roger Goodell, through the personal conduct policy.”
What I took from the piece at People’s World is the players’ chances sort of depend on the definition of detrimental conduct and whether a majority of four, mutually-selected neutral arbitrators would consider kneeling during the national anthem to be conduct detrimental to the NFL. It seems the conduct has been detrimental to the league if you consider television ratings. A survey released in February found that 50 percent of U.S. consumers who watched less football in 2017 did so because of the anthem protests. But in-game advertising revenue actually increased, so what qualifies as evidence of detriment? Is loss of fans enough or does it have to be quantified in dollars?
And what kind of precedent would this be setting if the NFL’s national anthem policy remains unchanged? Neal mentioned prayer being challenged in his piece, but Tim Tebow proved taking a knee for Jesus is profitable for the NFL, but probably not during the anthem. And apparently taking a knee for a minority murdered by police who go free is detrimental to the league, which is just another example of American racism that didn’t go away because we had a black President; it intensified instead. I think eliminating prayer would be the last thing on the NFL’s wish list. I’m sure the old, white, can’t-dance owners, of which there are 30, would prefer to implement penalties as stiff as their hips for the hip-thrusting dancers we all love like Antonio Brown. I just don't think there's any way the NFL wins this because of the means by which they adopted the policy outside the collective bargaining agreement and without considering the players' association. But they could get an anthem win elsewhere...
In more NFL legal news, the NFL is asking arbitrator Stephen Burbank to issue a summary judgement in Colin Kaepernick’s collusion lawsuit against the league, which would bring an end to the saga and give NFL owners another win on the anthem front. Burbank’s refusal to issue a summary judgement would allow the grievance to move forward and allow Kaepernick an opportunity to collect.
The NFL, according to Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, hopes to force Kaepernick to ‘put his cards on the table’ and prove they have enough evidence of collusion to continue the lawsuit. So even if the NFL doesn’t get the summary judgement, they’ll know the trial plan of Kaepernick’s team of lawyers. But law requires all facts to be viewed “in the most favorable light” towards Kaepernick, meaning it shouldn’t take much to force the continuation of the case.
I’m assuming Kaepernick doesn’t have a recording of a phone call with an NFL owner saying “I can’t hire you because the other owners said I can't,” so what could Kaepernick possibly have to prove collusion besides the statistics of his last season being better than most backup quarterbacks who played, and why can't that be enough? The only chance I think Kaepernick has is if NFL owners unanimously agreed that the backlash from Donald Trump's tweets would be more damaging to their bottom line than blackballing Kaepernick.
Disney’s $71.3-billion offer for the movie and television assets of 21st Century Fox has been granted provisional approval by the Department of Justice as long as Disney sells the 22 regional sports networks it would acquire in the acquisition. While Comcast could still outbid Disney for Fox’s assets, they too would likely be required to sell the regional sports networks (RSNs) in order to receive DOJ approval.
With Disney’s assets already including ESPN and ABC programming – the homes of Monday Night Football, the NBA Playoffs and NBA Finals – the company that rode the coattails of a cartoon mouse to mountains of money has found plenty of new ways to invade your home. But Disney’s potential acquisition of Fox’s assets opens doors at the box office as well, uniting the Marvel Cinematic Universe to include the X-men, Fantastic Four and Deadpool along with Disney’s Avengers and Black Panther.
The condition of divesting Fox’s RSNs demanded by the DOJ is intended to preserve competition and protect consumers from monopolistic price gouging, but will it? Andrew Bucholtz of Awful Announcing expects Comcast, holder of the second-most RSNs behind Fox with seven, Charter, owner of five RSNs, and AT&T, owner of three RSNs and a minority shareholder of Seattle’s Root Sports, to be frontrunners for the 22 RSNs Disney will be forced to sell.
Sports teams could also acquire their respective RSNs. YES Network, formerly owned by the Yankees, could once again become an asset for the pinstripers. Eight professional sports teams are featured on Fox Sports Southwest, so it’s possible that a few RSNs end up owned by teams, but taking the best offer might not be the best deal for Disney.
Selling the 22 RSNs individually might result in the most money made from the sale of those networks, but packaging all or most of the RSNs together in a deal allows the buyer to set a higher price for access because of a lack of competition that would remain, which would allow Disney to, in turn, hike the price of its offerings to match that of the acquiring party, resulting in more revenue long-term despite the lower purchase price.
Colombia striker Radamel Falcao accused American referee Mark Geiger of favoring England in Colombia’s World Cup loss to England in the round of 16, last Tuesday. Colombia was the recipient of six of the game’s eight yellow cards and were whistled for 23 of the 36 fouls.
Geiger was also responsible for England’s only goal during open play, resulting from a penalty he called on Colombia midfielder Carlos Sanchez. Falcao thought scheduling a referee who only spoke English for a game involving England allowed for bias and that “through small calls,” Geiger was pushing Colombia toward its own goal.
We talked a bit last week about the attitude of soccer players in our discussion of the Swedish coach complaining about the German team celebrating its win in stoppage time in front of the Swedes’ bench. And while players and coaches find a way to complain about officiating in every sport, FIFA’s history of corruption has to be considered before Falcao is labeled a crybaby. I didn’t watch the match, so I can’t comment on the calls Geiger made, but I don’t need to watch the game to make a decision in this case.
If it can be avoided, I don’t think a native English speaker, and certainly not a speaker of only English, should officiate any international contest in which native English speakers are involved. I understand that coaches and captains, not necessarily every player, should be able to communicate with officials, but FIFA is known to have its favorites, and Colombia has never been one of those. England, meanwhile, has exceeded everyone’s expectations at the World Cup. Even if the scheduling of Geiger for this game wasn’t an intentional attempt at foul play, FIFA didn’t do much to silence sceptics like Falcao and Foul Play-by-Play.
Kam Chancellor has announced his retirement after eight seasons as safety for the late Legion of Boom. His announcement doesn’t qualify as an official retirement, though, because he isn’t medically cleared to play and is retiring as a result.
That means the Seahawks will be required to pay Chancellor the $6.8 million he’s owed this season because he was on the roster after Feb. 10. Chancellor is also due the $5.2 million guaranteed next season, NFL.com’s Ian Rapoport explains.
I think this is money Chancellor has already earned simply by sacrificing his body to play previous seasons, but some people might be up in arms over the fact Chancellor is being paid not to work, even if they qualify for workers’ compensation when they’re injured on the job.
The Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles will likely be without starting linebacker Nigel Bradham for their opening game of the 2018 NFL season against the Atlanta Falcons. Bradham, 28, just signed a five-year, $40 million extension with the Eagles.
A one-game suspension could be coming for Bradham as a result of a 2016 alleged assault at a hotel in south Florida. Bradham turned himself in and was charged with aggravated battery, but he avoided jail time. Ray Rice was only suspended two games for his third-degree aggravated assault, so do you think the NFL gave Bradham a break because of how he handled the allegation or because we don’t have a video of the alleged assault, which Bradham said has been resolved legally?
Our dishonorable mention this week is New York Yankees outfielder Brett Gardner, who told Newsday he wasn’t happy about being fined “thousands of dollars” for taking too long to get into the batter’s box. Gardner complained about pitchers throwing to bases to waste time while he takes “three seconds too long to get in the box.” Gardner isn’t the first or only player fined for pace of play violations. Adam Jones told MLB Network Radio he was fined $50,000 last year for violating the rules. I don’t think Gardner has good argument here because throw-overs are necessary, legal in-game action, while Gardner tightening his batting gloves or adjusting his nut cup is simply inaction.
Bronze Balls: Speaking of nuts, owner of the bronzest balls this week is New England Patriots receiver Julian Edelman for appealing his four-game, performance-enhancing drug suspension and losing.
Silver Syringe: Winner of the silver syringe this week is Indianapolis Colts running back Robert Turbin, who is facing a four-game suspension for performance-enhancing drug use, which he confirmed on Twitter.
Two-bit Cheat of the Week: And our two-bit cheat of the week is my boy, Grayson Allen, who got tangled up with the Atlanta Hawks’ Trae Young in the final Summer League game for the Utah Jazz. A more apt description of the incident might be that Allen tied up Young, with his arms draped over Young’s shoulders in what was at least an intentional foul (VIDEO). Allen received a personal foul and then technicals were given to both players for the foul play after Allen’s foul play.I like this attitude of Allen’s showing up early in his NBA career because he can make up for some of his defensive inability by flirting with the boundaries of foul play. It’s also fun to watch given his history.
On July 8th, 1902, player/manager John McGraw earned his release from the Baltimore Orioles after being suspended indefinitely on June 29th because he and his players incessantly argued with umpires even after McGraw told Johnson he’d put an end to it. McGraw proceeded to protest calls by umpire Jack Sheridan by sitting down in the batter’s box until he was expelled, and continued to encourage his players to berate umpires.
Upon his release, McGraw organized the purchase of 201 shares of Orioles stock with John Brush and Andrew Freedman from Orioles president John J. Mahon for majority ownership of the franchise so they could ship players to the Cincinnati Reds or New York Giants franchises Brush and Freedman also owned. Knowing that Johnson intended to move the Orioles to New York and the American League after the season, McGraw secured the rights of four players to play for the Giants, and Brush claimed three more for the Reds, leaving the Orioles with just five players.
The Orioles had to forfeit a game to the St. Louis Browns on July 17 and borrowed players from other teams to complete their schedule. Johnson announced the intended move of the Orioles to New York and the American League, and Brush purchased the Giants from Freedman. And in the second year of its existence, the World Series was cancelled because McGraw refused to play the American League due to his feud with Johnson. He agreed to play the following season, winning the 1905 World Series. John McGraw went on to win two more World Series for the Giants in 1921 and 1922. These McGraw-inspired antics are what I miss most in this era of replay.