McConnell rails against Mueller report politics in blistering floor speech: ‘Case closed’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a scorching floor speech on Tuesday, accused Democrats of rooting for a "national crisis" for political gain as he appealed to lawmakers to move on from the Russia controversy now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report is complete.
"Case closed," McConnell, R-Ky., declared. "Case closed."
Coming as Democrats clash with Attorney General Bill Barr over his handling of the report while using the findings to fuel their own investigations, McConnell suggested the political debate has shifted from the real problem of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
"Many Americans were waiting to see how their elected officials would respond," McConnell said. "With an exhaustive investigation complete, would the country finally unify to confront the real challenges before us? Would we finally be able to move on from partisan paralysis and breathless conspiracy theorizing? Or would we remain consumed by unhinged partisanship, and keep dividing ourselves to the point that Putin and his agents need only stand on the sidelines and watch as their job is done for them?"
McConnell said, "Regrettably, I think the answer is obvious."
McConnell chastised his Democratic colleagues for extending the political battle over the Russia case, while suggesting they wanted the Mueller report to reveal illegal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"They seemed to be hoping for a national crisis for the sake of their own politics," he said.
McConnell said that the Obama administration let Russia "get away with almost anything," and that he's glad the Mueller investigation dug into Russian election interference.
Yet, McConnell said, Democrats are unwilling to accept the investigation's conclusion that there was no evidence of an illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Instead, he claimed, they are continuing to go through "the five stages of grief," including denial with regard to Mueller's findings and anger toward Barr for how he's handled the release of Mueller's report. House Democrats currently are weighing whether to formally accuse Barr of contempt of Congress for not cooperating with their subpoena for Mueller report files.
"They seem to be angrier at Bill Barr for doing his job than they are at Vladimir Putin," McConnell said. He accused Democrats of slandering Barr because they don't like how the Russia investigation turned out.
Democrats, though, maintain there's still more to learn from the Russia probe, especially surrounding the question of whether President Trump obstructed justice.
Moments after McConnell spoke, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., cited the obstruction issue -- as well as a fresh statement from hundreds of former prosecutors saying Trump's conduct would be chargeable if he weren't president -- in defending Democrats' efforts.
"Our leader saying let's move on is sort of like Richard Nixon saying let's move on at the height of the investigation into his wrongdoing," he said, calling McConnell's appeal an "astounding bit of whitewash" and "entirely unconvincing."
Democrats have alleged that Barr's initial four-page letter to Congress when Mueller's investigation ended selectively quoted Mueller's report, presenting a technically accurate but incomplete picture of the investigation's findings. In the hours prior to the report's release to the public, Barr held a press conference that also drew backlash, as he explained the reasoning behind the decision from himself and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that there was insufficient evidence to pursue an obstruction charge against Trump.
After the press conference, Barr was accused of acting as Trump's lawyer, not the country's attorney general.
McConnell did not appear to find this to be a valid reason for criticism.
"Russia sought out to sow discord," he pointed out. "But on that front, given the left's total fixation on delegitimizing the president ... I"m afraid the Russians hardly need to lift a finger.
Regardless of what McConnell thinks of his own Godliness, he does not speak for the entire American people, or the world. I am sure that Trump and his rump kissing minions like to thinks so, but, that is not the case.
The 'case' is far from closed, whether or not the Republicans would like it or not. They are simply blowing smoke as usual when it comes to Trump. However, Trumps base will believe anything they are told like the good little sheeple they are. And Trump and his equally conniving cohorts count on their being that easily brainwashed.
Keep it up, Mitch. The Russians depend on it.
The Russians depend on it.
You are doing their work better then they ever could. I hope you at least get paid for it.
The only thing blistered by Mr. McConnell is his frontal lobe. He is the consummate hypocrite.
Why is it ignored that Mueller addressed filing charges against Trump once he leaves office in his report …
Hundreds of former prosecutors might say that the presidents conduct is chargeable, but that does not mean a grand jury will indict or a jury convict...
Why did Mueller not determine that Trump committed obstruction if obstruction was committed .. makes no sense
Mueller could have easily said something to the effect of 'albeit I cannot file charges against a seated president I find his behavior [on said occasions] to be obstruction of justice in an attempt to block the counterintelligence investigation into Russia' …. but Mueller did nothing of the sort, he could not prove intent to obstruct, thus choosing not say Trump was guilty of obstruction? .. the report does not exonerate, but fails to declare obstruction occurred … just as Jussie Smollet was not exonerated, yet all the charges were dropped....
I am also curious how individuals believe Mueller intended for Congress to interpret whether Trump obstructed justice (?) .. when the report is written to the Attorney General, the AG then decides what, if any information is released from said report...
"They seemed to be hoping for a national crisis for the sake of their own politics,"
Always the fall back with liberals:
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel
It's all bull. The Democrats have already been convinced for a long time that Trump obstructed justice and they reached that conclusion - along with the "certainty" that Trump helped Russia interfere with the election - before any evidence had come in. So, they don't need any other evidence. If they believed there was real wrongdoing in the White House, they would proceed with impeachment. But they know it's bull, so they don't. They know deep inside that there is no other, more compelling evidence of obstruction or Mueller would have said so. That's not the kind of thing that gets redacted.
This is just a political game for public consumption. They'll spend the next year and a half pretending that there is some unrevealed proof of a crime out there somewhere and use this phony claim to try to win the election. With a strong economy, they think that the only path to success is trying to convince voters that Trump is the second coming of Nixon.
Trump and McConnel both know that Trump is up to his eyeballs in guilt because if he was innocent he would have no problem releasing the results of an investigation that cleared him. Trump and the GOP would want everyone to know. The fact that he is doing the opposite is proof that he knows that he is guilty and he wants to stop people investigating him because the proof of his guilt and that of McConnell who protected him will invariably come out if the investigation continues.
He did. The Mueller report is a best seller.
The fact that he is doing the opposite is proof that he knows that he is guilty
So he released a report of an investigation that he was under no obligation to release and that makes him guilty?
That's nuts.
Only if it did not match the left's expected specific narrative smoking gun they demanded to see.....
The Barr statement was not accurate or truthful according to Robert Mueller.
You are compelled to tell the truth by the 10 Commandments.
Pay very close attention to the 3rd paragraph of the Mueller letter where he said that Bob Barr was not truthful.
This is the crucial passage that I was referring to.
The letter itself is proof Mueller thought Barr misled the public with his pro-Trump protective summaries and limited information. There is also the fact that at a minimum some congressional committees should get an unredacted report, its their job as a full co-equal branch of government, part of the checks and balances IN THE CONSTITUTION.
What do you think that this sentence by Robert Mueller means? Mueller is politely saying that AG Barr pubically lied about the findings of the investigation.
I've been told I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I see it (the part about Barr being misleading about the Mueller report)
I have many days when I feel like I am the knife that someone took a file to the edge of but even I manage not to embarass myself, usually.
MORE COFFEE...................!!!
You do like to move the goalposts.
[delete]
Was the mueller report acccurate and truthful?
the obsession with the Barr letter instead of the actual mueller report is very telling. It proves McConnells point nicely.
It doesn't say that he lied. The words "lie" and "liar" simply are not there. If he thought Barr was lying, he could have easily said, "you lied when you said X." All I see in Mueller's letter is that he is aware of people in the media and politics reach a lot of wrong conclusions because all they have is a 4-page summary, which, being only 4 pages, is inherently going to be incomplete. Then Mueller suggests that prior to the redaction process being completed, some other documents could be released and that would give people a more complete picture. I don't know if you know this, but Mueller's people were working with the AG and his staff to complete the redaction process.
It's all pretty benign. There's nothing scandalous there and Mueller isn't calling Barr a liar. If he is, he sure is going at in a vague way.
You are continually trying to deny what Robert Mueller said in his letter to AG Barr. He said that Barr did not portray the results of the investigation accurately, which is a PC way of calling Barr a liar.
Sounds to me like he was saying his report was misrepresented. What else would you call a misrepresentation...
Sounds like that is exactly what he did.
plenty of fish... in a barrel.
Not true Christians, just the co called Christians. There is a difference and it is easily discerned which is which. I have a lot of Friends who are Christians, and they are nothing like many of those who call themselves, but, they are Christians in name only.
So, yeah....I do feel better. Thank you.
He didn't say that either. He said the letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of Mueller's "work and conclusions." Nowhere does he say anything Barr said was inaccurate.
It's like if I said Avengers: Endgame was about a bunch of heroes who save the world. You get the bottom line, but my little summary does not - and can not - fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the movie.
Sounds exactly like misrepresentation to me.
As far as your analogy, I can get the whole substance, context and nature of a movie just by watching a sixty second promo.
Who has taken shots at Christians and their faith?
Did you ever consider the possibility that the fact of learning about Christianity is what made us atheists? Many American atheists were born Christians, but the more we learned about it the more we realized that is was illogical and plagiarized mythology.
I don't remember being asked before I was baptized Catholic at 90 days of age. I didn't have a choice about religion until I turned 18. I didn't believe a word of the nonsense but I also knew that if I didn't go along with my parents demands that the punishment would be severe.
I asked questions in CCD and suffered for it. That old nun sent so many letters home to my mom I could have been convinced that they were penpals. I didn't realize that when she asked if we had any questions that I wasn't supposed to speak up and point out the logical flaws in her claims.
A friend of mine went George Carlin on the priest one day and I thought that I was going to be killed because I was giggling uncontrollably behind a bible as he did it.
Do you consider your passive-aggressive personal attacks to be polite replies worthy of someone continuing to reply to you in an adult manner toward a positive conclusion?
You managed to be reasonable in my recent atheist thread so I know that you are capable of being polite when you choose to do so.
Do you respond in this same dismissive and rude manner to people in person? [deleted]
Exhibit A.
How was my response off-topic or a personal attack? Are my questions and the fact that I notice his intellectually evasive and dismissive replies personal attacks?
Notice how you're the only one he called out
Was I wrong to say what I did in my previous reply(s)? I am trying to be polite as possible and to even meet certain people more than halfway as a way to have a meaningful discussion of ideas. The fact that I commonly post multiple paragraphs with supporting links is proof that I am not trolling or engaging in personal attacks.
From my perspective, it would seem that there are some people who are not interested in a polite, reasoned and rational debate but only for others to agree with them. If they desire to ban me from their thread or to vote me off the site let them do so, but I want to see their names on a public poll and the reason why I am not welcome to respond to them.
No, you weren't. You haven't been name-calling or just out and out rude.
There are some here who are not interested in debate. They are here merely to poke and prod. I seeded an article in Metafied about it
It would seem that when I notice their impolite behavior it is considered to be a personal attack. I was not aware that the knowledge gained in a 100 level psych course was threatening to reasonable people.
I find your unintentional irony quite amusing.
This is the best that I can do on short notice, so FSM forgive me.
I was able to locate a prayer for progressive Christians, if you want to split the difference between godless secular progressives and Christians.
You seem to be unaware that my comment about progressive Christians was satirical.
reply #8.1.56 was obviously satirical. Badfish asked me for a secular progressive prayer as a joke but us nasty secular progressives obviously don't pray, except to our cats and coffee makers.
Google directed me to a progressive Christian prayer when I tried to search for a "secular progressive prayer", so I went with that as a joke.
You really should try to loosen up and laugh occasionally. You'd probably feel better.
My sweeping generalization?
Who got the ticket?
Sean Hannity is part of the 2nd coming?
Nobody is persecuting you or even threatening to take your secular rights away. Do you have any proof that the constitutionally[protected religious rights of anyone else in the US are being threatened?
You are such an arrogant son of a bitch
Do you believe that someone is persecuting you for your political or religious stances?