Some on Mueller’s Team See Their Findings as More Damaging for Trump Than Barr Revealed
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
nytimes.com
Some on Mueller’s Team See Their Findings as More Damaging for Trump Than Barr Revealed
Attorney General William P. Barr has shown hints of frustration with how the rollout of the special counsel’s chief findings has unfolded. Credit Sarah Silbiger/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.
At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.
Mr. Barr has said he would move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report but needed time to scrub out confidential information. The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel’s work in his letter.
However, the special counsel’s office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.
Mr. Barr was also wary of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with Mr. Barr’s thinking. They pointed to the decision by James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, to harshly criticize Hillary Clinton in 2016 while announcing that he was recommending no charges in the inquiry into her email practices.
The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation. It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public. It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel.
At the same time, Mr. Barr and his advisers have expressed their own frustrations about Mr. Mueller and his team. Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials believe the special counsel’s investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry, according to the two government officials. After Mr. Mueller made no judgment on the obstruction matter, Mr. Barr stepped in to declare that he had cleared Mr. Trump of wrongdoing.
Representatives for the Justice Department and the special counsel declined to comment on Wednesday on views inside both Mr. Mueller’s office and the Justice Department. They pointed to departmental regulations requiring Mr. Mueller to file a confidential report to the attorney general detailing prosecution decisions and to Mr. Barr’s separate vow to send a redacted version of that report to Congress. Under the regulations, Mr. Barr can publicly release as much of the document as he deems appropriate.
A debate over how the special counsel’s conclusions are represented has played out in public as well in recent weeks, with Democrats in Congress accusing Mr. Barr of intervening to color the outcome of the investigation in the president’s favor.
In his letter to Congress outlining the report’s chief conclusions, Mr. Barr said that Mr. Mueller found no conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia’s 2016 election interference. While Mr. Mueller made no decision on his other main question, whether the president illegally obstructed the inquiry, he explicitly stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.
Mr. Mueller’s decision to skip a prosecutorial judgment “leaves it to the attorney general to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” Mr. Barr wrote. He and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, decided that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that Mr. Trump had committed an obstruction offense.
The attorney general is preparing the report of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, for Congress. Credit Tom Brenner for The New York Times
Mr. Barr has come under criticism for sharing so little. But according to officials familiar with the attorney general’s thinking, he and his aides limited the details they revealed because they were worried about wading into political territory. Mr. Barr and his advisers expressed concern that if they included derogatory information about Mr. Trump while clearing him, they would face a storm of criticism like what Mr. Comey endured in the Clinton investigation.
Legal experts attacked Mr. Comey at the time for violating Justice Department practice to keep confidential any negative information about anyone uncovered during investigations. The practice exists to keep from unfairly sullying people’s reputations without giving them a chance to respond in court.
Mr. Rosenstein cited the handling of the Clinton case in a memo the White House used to rationalize Mr. Trump’s firing of Mr. Comey.
Though it was not clear what findings the special counsel’s investigators viewed as troubling for Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr has suggested that Mr. Mueller may have found evidence of malfeasance in investigating possible obstruction of justice. “The report sets out evidence on both sides of the question,” Mr. Barr wrote in his March 24 letter.
Mr. Mueller examined Mr. Trump’s attempts to maintain control over the investigation, including his firing of Mr. Comey and his attempt to oust Mr. Mueller and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to install a loyalist to oversee the inquiry.
The fallout from Mr. Barr’s letter outlining the Russia investigation’s main findings overshadowed his intent to make public as much of the entire report as possible, a goal he has stressed since his confirmation hearing in January. He reiterated to lawmakers on Friday that he wanted both Congress and the public to read the report and said that the department would by mid-April furnish a version with sensitive material blacked out. He offered to testify on Capitol Hill soon after turning over the report.
Mr. Barr, who took office in February, has shown flashes of frustration over how the unveiling of the investigation’s findings has unfolded. In his follow-up letter to lawmakers on Friday , he chafed at how the news media and some lawmakers had characterized his March 24 letter.
Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller have been friends for 30 years, and Mr. Barr said during his confirmation hearing in January that he trusted Mr. Mueller to conduct an impartial investigation. He said he told Mr. Trump that Mr. Mueller was a “straight shooter who should be dealt with as such.” Mr. Mueller served as the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division when Mr. Barr was attorney general under George Bush, and their families are friends.
Mr. Barr’s promises of transparency have done little to appease Democrats who control the House. The House Judiciary Committee voted on Wednesday to let its chairman use a subpoena to try to compel Mr. Barr to hand over a full copy of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to Congress. The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has not said when he will use the subpoena, but made clear on Wednesday that he did not trust Mr. Barr’s characterization of what Mr. Mueller’s team found.
“The Constitution charges Congress with holding the president accountable for alleged official misconduct,” Mr. Nadler said. “That job requires us to evaluate the evidence for ourselves — not the attorney general’s summary, not a substantially redacted synopsis, but the full report and the underlying evidence.”
Republicans, who have embraced Mr. Barr’s letter clearing Mr. Trump, have accused the Democrats of trying to prolong the cloud over his presidency and urged them to move on.
Mr. Trump has fully embraced Mr. Barr’s version of events. For days, he has pronounced the outcome of the investigation a “complete and total exoneration” and called for the Justice Department and his allies on Capitol Hill to investigate and hold accountable those responsible for opening the inquiry.
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
NYT? Correct me if I am wrong but didn't they get in trouble for fabricating stories?
But hey as long as its a anti-Trump story it must be true right John?
I heard from a anonymous source that the snowflakes will be crying long into 2024....
Well, if true i guess at least they lasted until now.
Mueller must have threatened them with a Keelhauling down the USS Gerald Ford if they talked earlier.
I guess his sway over them is done now?
We are beginning to see the Mueller investigators speak for themselves. I expect it will be quite revealing.
Don't be surprised if It's not what you want it to be.
The Mueller report is like the long awaited sausage to be lain on the Trump bun. The bun is already covered in condiments ranging from his disgusting Hollywood Access tape comments, the lies about Trump tower Moscow, the lies about paying off porn stars during the campaign, all the indictments, convictions and guilty pleas of his underlings, his unhinged behavior, his random insane tweets, the near two dozen accusers of sexual assault, the misuse of his charity, the violation of the emoluments clause, the vanished millions from the inaugural committee, his praise for authoritarians, his disrespect for allies and NATO and his open desire to control the media and disband them if they don't present him positively. Even without the huge sausage of criminal conspiracy, this is already one giant shit dog America is being expected to swallow. The majority are already retching at the thought of being force fed this colon blockage of a President for a second term. It's what will no doubt energize every sane American to get out and vote this monumental turd out of the oval office.
Don't be surprised if it's exactly what has been reported.
Trump will finish his first term and be rejected, much to the consternation of a lot of poorly educated unhinged bigots.
your ability to turn a phrase will not change the future.
not only will trump be re-elected, but another conservative will follow him.
cheers
I'll put that one away with these other little gems:
Trump won't win the nomination
Trump has no path to 270
Trump will never beat Clinton
Trump will never be able to breach the Blue Wall
Trump won't last 3 months, er, 6 months, er, 1 year, er, two years, er, first term
Trump will have us in a war, most likely a nuclear one
Trump will personally crash the economy
Unemployment will skyrocket
so ya say... but that is not on the schedule.
No, but the vast majority of Americans who disapprove of the job the President is doing can and will. You guys can wallow in the fantasy of another anomalous outcome, but 2016 can only be seen as a single data point outside the norm which doesn't change the overall statistical probabilities. 57% disapprove of this President while only 39% approve. It is an exercise in pure fiction to imagine he's going to easily win in 2020 based on the 2016 results where even then he didn't have the support of most Americans, the majority soundly rejected him by more than 3 million votes. Winning in 2020 will be like hitting and splitting the same arrow that, with illicit help from an enemy foreign government, barely hit the bulls eye in 2016. You better be hoping Putin puts his all into the next Presidential campaign if Trump's to have any chance at even avoiding a landslide loss.
lol...they just make too easy
you keep speaking for a vast majority that simply does not exist. sure, the left has gaslighted some people but they are being treated with reality as we speak and after the next two yrs of exposing the lefts bs? trump will cruise into that second term
would you like a hint?
the vast majority of people do not and will not support the left's abuse of power.
Sure, sure, you keep telling yourself that.
"The Release"...
Yes, we get it, Trump sycophants are creaming their jeans at the fantasy prospect of investigations against Obama, Hillary and other Democrats. Too bad it's never going to happen. It's a GOP nocturnal emission, nothing more.
"the left has gaslighted some people but they are being treated with reality as we speak"
Being treated as second hand citizens by the GOP which means the majority will continue to grow more diverse and less glued to ignorant Republican propaganda filled with nothing but rotting policies and decayed ideology.
Every time a liberal progressive or a Democrat makes a prediction regarding Trump, I am reminded of the Reagan quote about liberals:
I can see some liberal haven like San Francisco creating some new $100k jobs cleaning up the spittle flung by the loons screaming at the sky.
you actually think the vast majority of people in this country will support the left's abuse of power?
the long game is not your thing huh?
four hints:
No, no. Separate departments.
Has to be NEW jobs to make the politicians look like they are creating good-paying jobs!
Laugh anyways--it is what is deserved in this case.
The left didn't abuse their power, the only ones acting like they are above the law are Trump and the bottom feeders collected around him eating all the semi-digested shit dribbling out of his drooping drooling lack of motor control lip.
BTW, when has claiming "sycophants" do crazy shit become a "sweeping generalization"?
I am only referring to those backwards, poorly educated, dumb fuck persons who act obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage. That's not a general statement, it's very specific addressing the suck ups and brown noser's who surround Trump giving him an imaginary sense of self importance. I don't mean anyone here on NT, just those willing to metaphorically lick the sticky sex off Trump after he's finished carnally abusing their mothers.
And just when I thought MAYBE this WASN'T another "I Hate Trump" seed.
Should have known better.
TDS is real.
sure they did, plain as day.
that's not even debatable anymore.
and now its get trump at all costs. that's all they have left.
we control the senate judiciary which means the left has nothing.
and, the lefts failed coup has only made trump 10 times stronger than he was before.
I realize most on the left do not understand that, and I'm OK with that.
good fun
So if you heard it on Fox it's as good as a conviction eh? Not a single indictment, conviction or guilty plea yet you've got them all locked up in your mind already. Dozens of indictments, guilty pleas and conviction of those surrounding Trump but in your mind he's pure as the driven snow. Does rain fall up in the bizzaro world you must be living in or is everything just backwards?
Excuse me, but which group of people are demanding that Barr release the 400 page report without redactions to them immediately? That type of release is actually AGAINST THE LAW regarding Grand Jury actions aka Rule 6(e):
Where is Jerry Nadler or any Congressional personnel or committees listed in the above as being allowed to know what is going on in a Grand Jury? As Attorney General, Barr is considered an attorney for the government, so he must be EXTRA careful not to violate this law.
You are excused, and also WAY off base. First, NO ONE has asked for the report to be released to the public without redaction's. What Nadler has requested is completely legal, he is asking for an un-redacted copy to be sent to congress, not released to the public.
I find it interesting how Trump supporters are now panicking, wanting to hide the full report, coming up with excuses as to why it shouldn't be released to the public. Desperation is a stinky cologne and the GOP smells like they just took a bath in a vat of some Old Spice knock-off.
Always so wrong,
Of course Nadler, who has a law degree, fully understands that so he's just pandering to his base. Hoping something will stick.
And a lot of the dumbasses are buying it. Pretty sad really.
Yep, and who is panicking?
GO SPARTANS!!
Sparty on!
Read the whole link. There is NOTHING in the law AT ALL about Congress being able to access Grand Jury testimony except through the proper processes. Therefore, Congress has NO RIGHT to see the report AT ALL!
EDIT: And to help you out here is the appropriate section of 18 USC:
That is not the same as the full Mueller report. We now know Mueller wrote his own conclusions which were tailored to be able to be released to the public, yet Barr chose to put out his own 4 page obfuscation giving us just one sentence out of the report.
"Always so wrong,"
Yes, it seems you are.
None of the statute you pointlessly cut & paste changes the power of a congressional subpoena.
"The power of Congress to investigate and obtain information is very broad. While there is no express provision in the Constitution that addresses the investigative power, the Supreme Court has firmly established that such power is essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative powers in Congress."
In a 1997 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit about congressional Republicans investigation into Clinton-era Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and their subpoena for documents including grand jury testimony, Judge Patricia Wald’s ruling said investigators would need to prove they were seeking information unavailable elsewhere to overcome a claim of executive privilege. “We are ever mindful of the dangers involved in cloaking governmental operations in secrecy and in placing obstacles in the path of the grand jury in its investigatory mission,” Judge Wald wrote. “There is a powerful counterweight to these concerns, however, namely the public and constitutional interest in preserving the efficacy and quality of presidential decision-making.”
So when Republicans do it, it's in the public and constitutions interest, but when democrats do it Republicans claim it's not allowed.
You seemed to have missed something,
Always so wrong.
Abuse of power? Oh, that's rich.
So a traitor, a sexist, a racist and a guy who wants to fuck his own daughter walks into a bar. The bartender says, "What'll you have, Mr. President?"
Don't quit your day job.
A future in comedy doesn't look like it will pan out.
Oh my. That took some quick wit. Take long to think of that pearl? Tsk, tsk. Perhaps you can check Amazon for some verbal viagra. Your commentary is impotent.
Oooh. That took a long time to think up too, Sunshine. Brilliant commentary.
Hahaha! That was Hillaryous! We never heard that line before /s...
You are awfully easily impressed. Too easily...
Comparing apples to oranges. Has Executive Privilege been invoked in this case? No, it hasn't. Also, your article is not about Congressional subpoenas but about Grand Jury subpoenas, which are quite different things. We are talking about the demand for an unredacted report which contains GRAND JURY testimony, which CANNOT be disseminated to anyone outside of the rules I stated from Rule 6.
As are your poor (and in poor taste) "jokes".
Maybe someone will give you better jokes to post, or A joke.
Well, you were probably also "entertained" by that lame excuse for a joke, too.
Says the person who voted for a lefty loon ranting the world is going to end in 12 years. Too funny.
Again...keep your day job.
This is all I can think when I see a certain poster's rantings
[deleted]
We will eventually know everything there is to know about the Mueller investigation. The people who worked on it will speak up if it is misrepresented by Trump lackeys. This is just the beginning. What should be taken away from this story is that the people who worked on the Mueller team don't think Trump was completely exonerated.
"The people who worked on it will speak up if it is misrepresented by Trump lackey"
Ok...... So then why hasn't Mueller spoken up? And seeing how it's Mueller's team he would be the one to represent them. If my name was on a report and the guy I investigated was distorting it I would sure be saying something.
Exonerated from what?
If anyone leaks any information that was given in Grand Jury testimony, they will be prosecuted. Release of such information is a Federal crime.
I guess it's a good thing that Trump will continue to "get Trump".
"What should be taken away from this story is that"
Is that meant...in like, the Biblical sense, or something ?
.
All of you Trump is innocent of absolutely any and everything NO MATTER WTF the actual results of Mueller's report, WHEN ACTUALLY FULLY RELEASED with some DAMN CONTEXT, actually REALLY DEPICTS, because sum live in fantasy island world adjacent to a #2 Peninsula while land locked on the remaining sides, by various oceans of BULLSHIT, sum just aren't able to put together. It's as if they have ADD, but it doesn't add up, as the critical thinking vacancies for those unable to cies, is just off the FCKN Charts.
How dense can a smashed phender have removed via scratching,
a surface, unscathed to date, as speculation only raisins fruit loops hopeless hopes of DISGRACED POTUS who doesn't deserve to wear the Presidential Physical Fitness patch, unless on both of his eyes, just like his blind following that are to knumb skulled to feel the braille written frail phat asshat sanded smooth truth,
that NONE HAVE PRODUCED TO DATE
.
Didn't Trumppy say he'd be releasing those tax returns as soon as that " audit" was completely
made up by chance, as foretold from a voluptuous Community Chest Deflation bought buy one, at times, Damn Stupid Nation.
.
Trump, the pussy that couldn't be believed,
as he Lies sitting up in bed, if he were even physically able, cause Kane assists Cloaked assistants in laboratories' of exploratory lavatories' reigning down like Russian Prostitutes parlaying a three way
triple Lindy reverse side shifty urination collaboration making Trump, Yellow with jaundice and envious of Green Hefty Trash Bags, he hopes will asphyxiate all that is wrong, as he gets pist upon while breathing vapors from Vick's coal stripped mined he wouldn't share, with the canaries.
The guy doesn't even have the nads to own his shit. The Coward-In-Chief says he didn't say something when it's videotaped and repeatedly shown. Mr. Fake Bone Spurs has the audacity to bad mouth a national hero, John McCain. Even his GOP cronies couldn't stomach that. But all this Trump defense here is indicative of what Trump thinks of his constituents. He's called his base idiots from the get-go ("I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue ...") and they've been too deplorably stupid to get it. Even one his buds, who has kept quiet for two years and someone who knows Trump best, knows what he's about:
Cite .
I mean, Trump liked Howard so much, he allowed him call his daughter Ivanka a "piece of ass." He agreed with Howard. So ... it seems to even the most casual observer that Trumplethinskin is pandering to the base who hasn't quite noticed that he glossed over what he promised them. That Mexico was going to build that wall.
So instead of recognizing what a dismal failure that was, he leaned heavily on the ignorance of his base. He can convince them of anything.
DT is going to going down in history as this country's only castrato president.
Though we agreee on little in the Political realm, we do engage and occasionally respect, each others points,
on this one, your stones are blue out of luck carved of Cobalt in about any element.
The POTUS, just LIED yesterday about where his damn father was born, WTF ?
Is there N E THING you guys won't let slip off his Lead based finger pointing pictured smear of fabricated, collaborated, too stupid to remember what he did just state it , persona ?
Cause,
I don't get it...
How Hillary should spend life in prison for passing gas via the EZ Pass out fume somebody thought they once got a wiff of back in the 90's,
and the Orange Mental midget can tell LIE after LIE and no one bats an eye, except myself and a few,
and that would be with a Louisville Slugger, i'm batting width, cause the height and times of tall tails pulled round focused minds never becomes clear to me
EVER!
the flailing new york times... LOL
here is your first clue
translation?
too funny
With all due respect, there is no reason for anyone to give heed to anything you just said.
This story represents a leak from the Muller team. Someone on the Mueller team is not happy with Barr.
so tell me, why would any trump hater be happy with barr?
with all due respect this article reeks of fabricated bs -
and any narrative otherwise should be disregarded as just more bs
however I do understand your need to grasp that one last thread of bs with all your might.
hint: like every thread before, that thread will break soon enough
cheers
This is a story from the most prestigious newspaper in America, it is not b.s.
Trump likes to say the NYT is failing. Guess what?
People like you just gobble Trump's bs up and regurgitate it on places like this forum. Then you tell yourself that everyone who has a more truthful viewpoint is lying or failing. You are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
I get why you need to think that and strangely enough, I do not care.
bs... but that did make me laugh. thanks for that one.
cheers
Funny, I went to three different media bias sites and all three rated NYT as blatantly leftist liberal biased. Hardly objective or non biased. Most prestigious? Probably only to other progressive liberals.
Then quit listening to Fox which is viewed by all bias sites as far right, duh
What you think means nothing, either -and neither does what I think. Neither of us have actually read the report. It is entirely possible that Barr is making it look better for Trump than it actually is. It is also possible that he isn't. The point is, you're no more of an expert than anyone else, and to imply that you know exactly how this will turn out is dishonest. It's pretty clear that Trump won't be impeached IMO - but that is my opinion only, not a fact. As far as being convicted .. I think he has a better chance of that at the state level due to fraud. Mueller apparently decided to let Congress decide whether or not obstruction occurred and how it should be dealt with if it did. So I don't see that going anywhere, since that would require Congress to actually do something, but again, that's just my opinion.
But since none of us have read the actual report, none of us have enough information to have an informed opinion.
Some of the states are going after Trump for his various frauds, and that's where he could possibly be indicted, depending on what they come up with. But I agree that impeachment will go nowhere.
Most prestigious only to those who believe lies.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/27/list-of-trusted-journalistic-sources-shrinks-in-po/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork&fbclid=IwAR2arBK8Fctnu3jb9t5LuPCVmpC_iFkWqZVkhr_Zji0ckUYwXVRCo3ad4ZM
That would make a really funny WTF "Here's your sign".... SIGN !
And here I thought that you were just another Russian bot spreading discontent in America.
WHEN HAVE YOU READ THIS REPORT ???
After you sniffed and scratched ?
.
When Mueller finally is brought to testify,
ALL OF YOU TRUMPSTERS, will still DENY the already over whelming evidence of Trumps' efforts to kill the investigation that has proven so fruitful to date,
nothing to see hear, cause deaf ones aren't aloud to sign permission slips without permission slips to sign, as their allowance got cut, so as they are aloud even less reality to even contemplate why paper plates made in China come from Taiwan Dairy Farms specializing in the intolerance,
of lactose, that de feat sometime due shed, when circulation isn't done in circles drawn by quartered horses , who won't change,
light bulbs into Lumens, due to the 2 non sense never inserted, as Trump inquires,
"is it in yet"
as he thinks he's talking to his brain surgeon salad scientist, with unscientific methods, who attempts to fill the void cranium better filled with uranium, so he had an excuse for the Orange glow
in the dark lightning crashing, and getting a DUI,
also known as Donald Unbelievably Idiotic,
Trump, our mentally deficient accelerator brake pad
Lily Monster Vacuum that BLOWZ, and can't stop !
I watched it all happen and do not need a report to tell me what I saw.
they thought she would never lose... and now they all lose.
the die is cast, the gears of justice already turning.
your thoughts on that, or any rant you may produce is not going to change anything.
at this point, it is what it is. nothing can stop it.
cheers
With no respect whatsoever, there is no reason for anyone to give heed to anything he ever says.
It's all WHACK.
Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding what the article even says
Just another Russian bot. It's an invasion.
Let me take a wild guess.... The unhappy person in question is Andrew Weissman, the same guy who got his case against Arthur Anderson overturned by the Supreme Court.
"From 2002 to 2005, Weissmann was deputy director and then director of the task force investigating the Enron scandal.[1] His work resulted in the prosecution of more than 30 people for crimes including perjury, fraud, and obstruction including three of Enron's top executives, Andrew Fastow, Kenneth Lay. and Jeffrey Skilling. In a follow-up case in U.S. District Court, Weissmann also was successful at arguing that auditing firm Arthur Andersen LLP had covered up for Enron. In that case, which resulted in the destruction of Andersen, he convinced the district judge to instruct the jury that they could convict the firm regardless of whether its employees knew they were violating the law.[3] That ruling was later unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, in which the court held that "the jury instructions failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing."
This guy's judgement stinks and he never should've been on Mueller's team to begin with. And if it isn't him it's no doubt some other partisan Trump hater.
Just in case my comment didn't update:
Gosh I never would have believed you were a trump lover
Never claimed to be a Trump lover. But I can see when a whole segment of society is in total denial and can't accept the facts. I was no Hillary lover either but even I could see when the GOP would take things like Benghazi too far.
Too true...
Nope, if you are in lock step with far right wingers then you are a far right winger.
not the list of adjectives I would be using
If you take the time to parse the article it is a case of "I heard from a friend of a friend that another friend said..." In other words, this is not a case of the journalist getting the information directly from someone on the Mueller team, but from friends of them. They are publishing third-hand information as if it has the same weight as first-hand information. These are the same tactics that have caused CNN to drop well behind MSNBC in ratings. They haven't made the effort to actually confirm their reporting or that they are reporting the facts.
Who, Trump and his entire administration ?
Did you bother to read the actual article? They did not even mention anyone on the Mueller team only associates of the members of the Mueller team, which is gossip mongering or rumormongering, take your pick. That is not factual reporting.
Coming from a Trump defender....
Ok ?
funny
Did you defend Bill Clinton during his impeachment? We have less evidence of wrongdoing by Trump than we had of Bill Clinton committing perjury to a Grand Jury and that is a factual statement.
No
i offend
did him, for doing her, as for some to be suddenly selectively such a concern, is a concern, cause when attempting to compare lying about a concensual BJ with someone (Only problem i had was she was an in tern under him so to speak) with the Political world champion of LYES, who paid of his little playmates & Porn Stars, while bragging about being able to grab Pussy at will,
The Pussy Grabbin LYING while back stabbin America,
President in Chief of one we mustask 'Where's the beef' in a chief whose feathers don't fly, except, in the face of reason while he was elected via treason
and has become the biggest buffoon in all the world,
but, but, but Bill got a BJ WHAT THE FCK !
Bill sexually harassed an intern while being sued for sexual harassment by another woman then lied about it under oath. Did you forget that part?
But Bill played the sax and said he never inhaled.
Rightest comments will do anything to cover a corrupt and racist president
So, you equate rumormongering to factual reporting, good to know. I pointed out in my comment at #6 that this is a case of "I heard from a friend of a friend that another friend said..." which is what rumormongering is. There are no facts in this article, just a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors. In fact, there is a legal term for this type of evidence: HEARSAY!
New York Times is about as credible as Buzzfeed.
How many times have they had to correct a story?
Alex Jones ?
These leaks aren't even from Mueller's "team." They are from associates of Mueller's team. Which means this is gossip.
But of course gossip is news, if it makes Trump look bad. And the other certainty is that no matter what the Mueller report actually say, the MSM will claim it's "devastating" for Trump. The contents of the report are actually irrelevant. The Times might as well run the "report is devastating" stories now.
Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators ….. The 9 whom donated to Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party …… have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated.
Wierd !